Westminster Hall

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 15 July 2026

[Sir Roger Gale in the Chair]

Regional Accents and Social Mobility

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Westminster Hall

10:45

[Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered regional accents and social mobility.

Thank you for chairing this debate, Sir Roger. The way we speak reveals so much about us. Long before we explain our politics, our profession or our background—the moment we open our mouths—our accents instantly signal a core part of who we are. Accents carry traces of our communities, our upbringing and our lived experience. They are part of our story. I grew up as a working-class woman from Salford, so my accent has always been woven into my identity, just as much as my values or my politics. After more than 20 years of living in Leigh, it has naturally taken on a Lancashire lilt. I say “beltin’” when something is brilliant, “int’ it” when I agree, and “love-leh” instead of “lovely”.

However, what is harder to confront is the pressure that many people feel to change the way they speak in order to progress. Accents can be a barrier, and it is a barrier that not many people speak about. There is a hierarchy of accent prestige deeply rooted in British society, yet we should remind ourselves of a simple truth: everybody has an accent—there is no such thing as speaking without one. What we often describe as a neutral accent is simply an accent that has historically been associated with power and prestige. There is no linguistic basis for ranking accents. No accent is inherently more intelligent, professional, articulate or correct than another. These are social judgments, not linguistic facts.

Our life chances are too often defined by our backgrounds. Those from poorer backgrounds are almost twice as likely to end up in low-paid jobs than those from more privileged backgrounds. Accent bias can then become another barrier to social mobility. Our accent produces a judgment instantly. Often, it happens unconsciously. Research shows that people form impressions from someone’s voice within seconds. People make assumptions about our background, our capability and our education. We often think we are judging competence or professionalism, when in reality we may be responding to deeply ingrained social stereotypes associated with a particular way of speaking. For someone like me, from a northern city, the assumption has sometimes been that I am less intelligent or that I am “rough” or uncultured.

The issue is not how people speak; it is how we respond to how they speak. A Sutton Trust report in 2022 highlighted that less than 10% of the population speak with what is often called the BBC accent, or the Queen’s English, yet it remains the dominant accent in positions of authority. As a result, many young people with different accents worry about the impact of their accent on their career prospects. They think twice before they dream big. Research by Co-op similarly found that many people have been mocked, criticised or singled out because of the way they speak. Together, those studies show how accent is often used as a proxy for social class, leading to unfair assumptions and discrimination.

It is sad to think about the number of young people who have missed out on opportunities because of their accent. Self-consciousness and anxiety about accent bias are highest during university and early professional life, which should be the very moment when ambition grows, rather than shrinks. They see their peers at university succeed, but they themselves may feel held back. I challenge anyone to watch the UK Youth Parliament in action and not feel energised by hearing young people from every corner of the UK speaking confidently in their own voices. The answer is not to talk their accents out of them; it is to talk our biases out of ourselves.

Accent diversity is part of Britain’s cultural richness; it is not a problem to be solved. In a country with such a remarkable variety of accents in a relatively small geographical space, our linguistic diversity should be celebrated as part of our national heritage. I admit that there was a time when I wondered whether softening my accent might make me sound more credible, more professional, more Westminster and less Salford. Even in my first marketing job as an apprentice in central Manchester, I worried that the way I spoke could limit my prospects so I toned my accent down. My friends used to say, “Why have you changed your voice? Why are you speaking like that?” That experience reflects research showing that many people change the way they speak when applying for jobs.

Of course, all of us naturally adapt aspects of how we speak depending on who we are talking to or the setting we are in: our telephone voice or when we speak here in the Chamber—we all do it. That is entirely normal. The problem comes when people feel pressure to change the way they speak not out of choice but because they fear prejudice, exclusion or lost opportunities. Before I arrived in Westminster, I worried about whether I would fit in. After all, many of the politicians occupying the highest offices of state have rarely sounded like me—with notable exceptions, of course, such as our Secretary of State for Education and our great Speaker, whose Lancashire voice is heard loud and proud in this place every day. The more time I have spent in Parliament, the more I realise that beneath the public image lies an increasingly diverse collection of accents, backgrounds and life experiences.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

I am sure I’ll be using a slightly different accent this evening when watching the football—a few expletives might come out as I shout at the TV. Does my hon. Friend agree that a part of public life is being authentic? One way to build trust and authenticity is to just be ourselves. That is important for diversity and, as she says, for our national culture.

[Jo Platt]

I cannot agree more with that statement; I think we are grasping that more and more. We do not have to come from the places we represent—I do not—but representing our communities does matter and it is about being ourselves. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

Colleagues across both Houses are proud of where they come from and of the voices that reflect that, and we should celebrate that diversity. But let us not pretend that the battle has been won. The way my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) has been mocked and criticised for how she speaks demonstrates that accent prejudice remains alive and well in our politics. If somebody can reach one of the highest offices in the land and still face those attitudes, there is clearly lots more work to do.

My experience has shaped my interest in how regional accents influence people’s opportunities and representation. That is why I was delighted to host a parliamentary drop-in session for the Westminster Voices project and to support the important research being led by Professor Rob Drummond of Manchester Metropolitan University and Dr Amanda Cole of the University of Cambridge. I pay tribute to them both for leading the conversation on this. The turnout was exceptional. Every MP, peer and member of staff who attended had their own story about their accent, background and journey into Westminster. All that is why I felt it important to hold a debate on this issue today, because we all have a story to tell.

We should be clear: communication skills and accent are not the same thing. We should judge people on what they say and how effectively they communicate, not how closely they sound like an outdated idea of professionalism. That applies in Westminster and in the rest of the country. Action to tackle accent bias should be recognised as an important diversity issue. That means tackling bias through training, research and a greater appreciation of accent diversity in workplaces and education. The recent Commission on the Future of Oracy Education in England made an important point: communication is not about sounding a particular way. Every child should develop the confidence to communicate effectively in their own authentic voice.

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an important and interesting speech. Confidence is incredibly important, especially for young people. We have a huge youth unemployment crisis in this country, and part of that is down to young people not having confidence. Does she agree, first, that we must ensure that there is not accent bias so that people do not lose confidence and, secondly, that we must build young people’s confidence, partly through work experience and other schemes?

[Jo Platt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about confidence. Politicians have a lot of work to do in supporting our constituents, including children and young people in schools and the workplace. I hope we can continue having this conversation with the Department to ensure that that happens.

The Co-op has done a lot of research on this issue and is calling for socioeconomic background to become a legally protected characteristic. That would ensure that accent bias and related forms of discrimination are confronted head on.

Our accents carry who we are—our identities, our communities and our lived experiences—and that diversity enriches our country. Criticism of the way someone speaks is rarely just about language; more often, it reflects assumptions about class, region and identity. We cannot solve every form of social inequality by addressing accent bias alone, but we can ensure that the way people speak is one less barrier to opportunity. We should stop asking people to change the way they speak, and instead change the way we as a society listen. From Parliament to every workplace, university and institution across the country, every voice deserves to be heard, respected and represented. When every voice can rise, our nation rises with it—louder, prouder and stronger than ever.

09:41

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you very much, Sir Roger, for giving me the chance to participate. I thank the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), my cousin from across the sea—or across the shuck, as we would say back in Northern Ireland—for highlighting this issue. It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate.

When I first came here, there was a time in our friendship, Sir Roger—I have learned to value your advice on many things—when you would have said, “What’s that boy saying?” You never said it to offend, of course, but you might have asked yourself that question.

When we talk about diversity, inclusion and breaking down barriers to social mobility in the country, we rightly talk about race, gender, background and socioeconomic status. But, as the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton said, there is a silent, pervasive form of prejudice that remains entirely socially acceptable in corporate boardrooms, academic institutions and possibly the very corridors of power in this place. I am talking about accentism. I have a very clear accent. I think it is normal, but when I came over here I realised that I might be the only one with it. People’s intelligence, competence and worth can be judged entirely on how they sound.

I will give an example. I was saying to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) that when I asked a question in the Adjournment debate one night, the Minister said, “That’s a great question. I’ll come back to you with the answer.” I just thought that was what she meant; I never had any reason to think otherwise. She happened to meet one of my colleagues, David Simpson, who used to be an MP, and she said, “Jim asked me a question in the Chamber the other night. I have no idea what he said, so I just told him that I would come back to him with a written response.” That illustrates that, in the early days, it took a wee bit longer for people to understand.

I stand here today as a proud son of County Down, and I speak with the voice of my constituency. All my constituents can understand it—I suppose that is the important thing. It is a voice heavily shaped by our rich Ulster Scots linguistic heritage. To me and the people of Strangford and Northern Ireland, it is the language of our hearts, our history and our homes. It is a dialect full of warmth, character and deep-rooted culture. But if we step outside Northern Ireland, that same voice is too often treated as a barrier. I speak not for me but for some of my constituents who have come here for university or to seek employment.

Studies into accent bias, such as the landmark “Speaking Up” report by the Sutton Trust, have shown that regional working-class accents, including those from Northern Ireland, are consistently ranked lower for prestige and perceived professional capability than received pronunciation or standard BBC English. I remember, at school as a young boy, my earliest words were in Ulster Scots. Education was different at that time. Whenever a child said something wrong, the teacher, Mr Whisker, would say, “That’s not proper English.” I would say, “Those are the words my granny and mum use.” In those days, a child would get a clip round the ear for that. That is not a criticism; it did not do me any harm. Teaching was done in a different way.

Young people from my constituency, who travel across the water and study at top universities or apply for corporate roles in London, are routinely told—sometimes subtly, sometimes brutally—that they need to soften their accents if they want to be taken seriously. That it is a damning indictment of our social mobility framework. Why should a young person have to trade away their identity just to get a foot on the career ladder?

We speak pretty fast in Northern Ireland, and the speed of words may be part of the problem. Kate Hoey, the former Member for Vauxhall, said, “Jim Shannon gets more words to the minute than any other MP.” In all honesty, she told me that and I took it as a compliment, which I am sure it was. The fact is we do talk a wee bit fast. The House will know I am not a man who is shy about speaking up for his constituents. I mention Strangford almost as many times as the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) mentions Harlow.

I make it a point of principle to participate in as many debates, urgent questions and statements as I humanly can. I have lost count of the number of times the brilliant and hard-working staff from Hansard have had to chase me—down the corridor sometimes—saying, “Mr Shannon, have you got a wee minute, please? Could you send me your notes? Who was that person you mentioned? Where was that place? Will you spell it, please?” They do it for urgent clarification of names, towns or specific phrases I have used in a debate. I say that with the utmost fondness and kindness to the Hansard staff, who are incredibly understanding. I respect all of them for doing a heroic job. I know they go the extra mile for me to ensure that everything is correct.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

This is a serious issue—we must ensure that people are not disadvantaged for any type of accent—but does my hon. Friend agree there is sometimes a humorous side, as we saw this week in the European Parliament? A Sinn Féin MEP complained that they were not allowed to speak in Irish. When the chair reminded him that they could, the MEP replied that he was not prepared, so he would speak in English instead. It can be humorous—even if slightly embarrassing at times.

[Jim Shannon]

It certainly is. I appreciate that intervention from my hon. Friend and colleague.

The Hansard staff do a heroic job. They are always happy to write down the names of my local farmers, community groups and townlands such as Ballywalter—which we know as Whitkirk—or Kircubbin. Last week, I got a wee message, “Could you spell your sons’ names, please?” That perfectly illustrates the point of this debate, and the centre and core of what the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton had to say. If a Member of Parliament, with more than two decades of public service, still faces hurdles to be understood because of his or her regional tongue, what hope does a 21-year-old graduate from a working-class Ulster-Scots background have when trying to navigate an interview panel of elites? How challenging and hard could that be?

One of my favourite stories dates back to when my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and I served on the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is again about the accent being hard to understand. I had an American guest for a meal in the dining room there. The lady, an English professor at a prestigious American university, was really interested in Ulster Scots words and accent. We were served by a young boy I knew and had probably grown up with in Ballywalter—or Whitkirk. I chatted with him and asked after his mum and dad, as you do in small talk. That lovely, intelligent lady from Philadelphia leaned over to Naomi, my private secretary, and said, “That’s wonderful. Jim is speaking in Ulster Scots.” Naomi replied, “No, he always speaks like that.” Again, that is an illustration of this. It was not really Ulster Scots; it was the way I talked. That is how we speak, and although that story may be humorous in a way, it highlights the issues that an accent can bring.

I will come back to the seriousness of this issue and why it is important. When someone constantly has to repeat themselves, is met with blank stares—nobody is ignoring them; sometimes they just do not follow—or is asked, “Could you maybe say that again?” or “Speak more clearly, if possible,” it chips away at their confidence. The hon. Members for Leigh and Atherton and for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee) both referred to that; it is a key issue. That breeds a form of imposter syndrome that tells our young people that they do not belong in high-flying professions, and it pushes them out of the rooms where decisions are made, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South said. Linguistic diversity is the ultimate sign of a rich and vibrant democracy. We should be celebrating the fact that the United Kingdom is a tapestry of different voices, dialects and accents. That enriches us all, and there are some people in this room—I am thinking of one in particular, and he knows who he is—whose accents I love listening to. I just love it when some other MPs, such as the Plaid Cymru Members, speak. Their voices and their words are almost like singing in the way they come over. There are also the Scotsmen. Angus MacNeil—I can use his name, because he is no longer a Member—was speaking one day in the Chamber, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry said to me, “Do you understand him?” I said, “I understand every word he said,” and he said, “I suppose you probably would.” Angus speaks fast; his words were at a rate similar to my own. That example underlines the issue.

What do we need? We need employers, universities and civil services to actively train interviewers to look past the phonetic wrapper and focus purely on the substance of what has been said. I will conclude with an Ulster Scots phrase for Members to work out—it will be a challenge, of course. Keep ‘er lit!

09:52

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) on securing today’s debate. I have spent a fair bit of time near her patch over the past couple of months, and though we bang on about the Yorkshire-Lancashire rivalry, we are united by a few things: some of the best food in the country—including the finest pies—and of course, the warmth and friendliness that we are all proud of, and of which she is one of the finest examples in this House.

I want to be crystal clear: judging someone by their accent is an attitude that belongs firmly in the history books. I must admit that, when I first arrived in Parliament, I often felt out of place and like I did not belong—all because of my accent. Like many colleagues here today, I was not elected because I sounded polished; I was elected through hard graft and to represent the people who sent me here. I have done my best, though, to get a few Yorkshire phrases into Hansard, because that is how my constituents speak. I will kick off by giving a few more, having turned to Facebook for some inspiration.

There is some disagreement, and I am risking controversy here, but I stand firmly with saying “ginnel” over “gennel”—some things you have to get right. What came through clearly is that the Yorkshire dialect is not just colourful, it is precise. When someone is “mithering”, you know exactly what they are doing. If they have a “mardy”, you know what that means, and if they have “a monk on”, you know to stay well clear. When someone says, “It’s gone reyt,” you know it has gone properly well. Many of these words carry real history: “laiking”, “beck” and “fells” are all rooted in Old Norse. Long before Westminster caught up with the north, we were already shaping a language of our own. Yet too often, these words can draw blank looks—even within our own region. Mention a “snicket”, “ten foot” or “fuddle”, and you will quickly find out who understands proper Yorkshire.

It was not just in Parliament where I felt out of place; it was also at Oxford. I am incredibly proud to be a state-school kid who worked hard to get there, but when I did, some of the older tutors actually mocked the way I spoke. They were not correcting my grammar or debating my ideas; they were judging whether somebody who said “nowt” really belonged in their so-called hallowed halls. Research shows that nearly a third of university students have been mocked because of their accent, and almost half of workers say that they face jokes or jibes about the way that they speak in workplace settings—including me, in my experience at the Bank of England.

I felt it when I started doing national media as an MP, too. I turned up, ready to talk about serious issues, such as getting funding for a station in my constituency, or tackling antisocial behaviour—standing up for my constituents—but too often I felt as if only clipped southern voices sounded suitably authoritative. I was not always invited on to programmes—although, strangely enough, there was never any shortage of invitations to those where the producers would tell me how much they love a proper, thick Yorkshire accent. I really appreciate that, and those producers know who they are. I am especially grateful to broadcasters such as Matt Chorley, who is helping to challenge some of the assumptions in national broadcasting and to get regional accents on air. The real success, of course, will be hearing someone from Yorkshire or Lancashire on national radio or TV without it being worth commenting on at all.

I am immensely proud to be from God’s own county. I have always tried to stay authentic to my roots—a West Yorkshire family, a North Yorkshire upbringing, and always proud to represent York—but I would be lying if I said I had not softened my accent at times, including when working in the City, because I thought that was what I had to do if I wanted people to take me seriously. I do not want my two boys, Robin and Louis, to grow up believing that if they want to pass an interview or land a graduate job, the first thing that they have to do is to change how they speak. When a young person starts believing that they have to hide or change their accent, it chips away at their confidence. I believe also that we are wasting talent. Businesses across Britain are facing a productivity hit if they overlook good, honest graft for absolutely no reason.

A young person from Haxby or Bishopthorpe should not be marked down because they do not sound like they grew up in Belgravia. By the way, I should also give a special mention to “Bratford”—or, as some may say, “Bradford”—where the same applies, of course. If the best jobs in finance, law or politics still mean moving to London—and that has to change, by the way—and sounding like you have always lived there, we have not solved the problem; have we?

I want children watching Parliament on television to hear someone who sounds like them, not someone who they feel they have to become. Otherwise, too many young people will carry on believing that making it means leaving part of themselves behind. Whether someone grew up saying “ey up”, “nowt” or “summat”; whether they call an alleyway a snicket; whether they tell their mates “It’ll be reyt”; or whether they are simply “chuffed to bits”, their voice is never something to be ironed out; it is part of who they are.

09:57

[Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

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.

10:02

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

I say a big thank you to my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for bringing this important debate to the House. I am keen to discuss this issue, as someone who was forged in the coalfield community of Ashington, which was the biggest coalmining community in the world. After more than 16 years in this place, some people might say that I have lost my own accent, but I am really proud of it. An accent represents who you are, where you are from and who you represent. It is your identity.

There are two sides to this issue, which I think have already been mentioned: a humorous side and an important, serious side.

[Jim Shannon]

I love the hon. Gentleman’s accent. It portrays the person he is: the history, the culture, and the locality he comes from. Every word that the hon. Gentleman speaks is a word from his constituency and from his people. I like him as a person, by the way, but I just wanted to say that I love his accent as well.

[Ian Lavery]

That is very kind of the hon. Gentleman. My youngest son Liam speaks with a much harsher dialect than me, but he speaks five times faster than the hon. Gentleman. Imagine the problems that causes us when we travel abroad, or even to Yorkshire, for example. People do not have a clue what he is saying, but he is university educated and is absolutely fantastic at the work he does.

My accent is pitmatic: it is from the pits, from the coalmines. Every little village and town had their own pit—some had more than one—and we all spoke different. In one town, we had our own language and dialect—our own speak. I am proud of that. I am really proud of the fact that, when I left school with very few qualifications, I went to work seven miles under the North sea with some of the finest and brightest people I will ever meet: the miners. Not many of them ever got the opportunity to go to university, but you should hear the way they speak. When I look at some of the videos and recordings of the miners in my patch from days gone by, I can hardly understand what they are saying, but it is so rich in heritage, it is absolutely wondrous, to be honest.

I have an anecdote before I get on to the serious part. Two or three years ago, in my patch in Ashington, a group of asylum seekers met a shadow Minister to discuss the situations they faced in towns like mine, and one of the big barriers was the dialect. They said that it was okay and that they could understand what we were saying; the big problem was that their children were going to school and picking up the dialect. When the children were coming in from school and speaking to their mams in their best Ashington dialect, their parents did not have a clue what they were talking about. That is how serious it is, and that is the situation in areas like mine up and down the country.

This place easily intimidates people. Fortunately, I am not the type of person to be intimidated, but I have faced my fair share of hostility in this place. It is as if someone with an accent like mine should not be in here. If anything underlines the lack of correlation between competence and dialect, we only need to look at the dialect of our Eton-educated former Prime Ministers. They did not do much good for my community.

My constituents are proud of where they come from. There are subtle, and often not so subtle, patterns of speech that mark communities that are only miles apart. Many people are forced to choose between maintaining an accent they are proud of or ditching it to try to move on in life. That is just not right. It is the last form of acceptable discrimination, and it is absolutely ridiculous in this country. Where you speak, how you speak and where you are from affects how people identify you, and people discriminate against you because of what you say.

Despite some recent setbacks, this country has done fantastically well to rid itself of many prejudices, but the one that remains is the one we suffer from the most: the prejudice around social markers and local dialects, and the ideas about who we are and where we should be in life because of how we speak. Before saying anything more than a sentence, people from Ashington, Blyth, Bedlington, Newbiggin-by-the-Sea, Choppington and Stakeford are judged. The people in my patch refuse to compromise their dialects, but they are judged every single day for them, and we have to tackle that.

The north-east accent often acts as a proxy for social class and colours the opportunities for far too many people—mainly younger people. In some areas a local accent can be positively viewed, but they are too few in number. Trade unions, community organising, social work, youth work, skilled trades, emergency services, sport and local journalism stand apart, but even in those fields the class prejudices that follow a person’s accent can limit their opportunities.

Nobody should be forced to ditch their accent for a job or to reach their potential. As I said, when I worked as a pitman I met some of the finest thinkers in the world, and I listened to their political analysis while sitting in the pitch black seven miles under the North sea. They are the people who built our nation, but they continue to be looked down on by those who see themselves as their betters. Accents are a proud part of the heritage and legacy of those who went before us—the giants of our movement we stand with, who should never be forgotten. That well-known red Clydesider John Maclean said:

“Rise with your class, not out of it.”

That should include maintaining your accent.

A whole number of issues have been raised in some of the briefings that have been sent out. It is worth mentioning some statistics at this point: 69% of people change their accent to fit in; 27% change the way they speak for a job interview; 24% change the way they speak at work; 26% have been teased in the workplace for their accent; 11% believe they missed out on a job because of their class and social status; 10% felt discriminated against when applying for a job because of their background and social class; and 61% of people would support making discrimination on the basis of socioeconomic background illegal.

Professor Rob Drummond says that people across England have expressed positive views about regional accents, but still rated northern-accented speakers as less intelligent and less “correct” when hearing identical speech. Earlier research found that lower-working-class speakers were judged to be 14% less intelligent, 4% less friendly and 5% less trustworthy than upper-middle-class speakers. There is huge prejudice about people with accents like mine.

I have often been asked if I am Dutch, Ukrainian or Russian. I am asked what part of Europe I am from. Am I German? Am I Irish? Although that is quite humorous, there is a serious point to it. I will never, ever change my accent, and when I say that I will never change it, I am speaking me best Queen’s English. I have really slowed down my speech for this contribution today, because I am not far behind the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in terms of how fast I speak. When a group of people from where I live get together and we have had a few pints, believe me: there’s nobody can understand what is being said. Nobody has a clue.

I think my friend, the hon. Member for Strangford, said before that in this place you can be speaking to people about very serious issues, issues that your constituents face, and you can tell that the person who you are talking to is not taking it in. They just say, “Yes. Yep. That’s right.” Indeed, you can say some of the most extraordinary things and they will just say, “Yes, yes, yes, yes,” because they are not taking it in, and that is because of your accent. That is a serious issue.

I am a proud member of the Northumbrian Language Society, which since 1983 has championed the diverse dialects of Northumberland, north-west Durham and Tyneside. The man who did most to mark this organisation was the Ashington-dialect poet, Fred Reed. He has written some fantastic poetry, which I urge people to read. They will not understand it, but it is worth reading and it highlights and accentuates a point. He was very proud of the mining community that he came from, and he knew that working people created the wealth of the nation. In his own words, “Dividends were won by the pitmen’s blood.” I think that is a fantastic saying from a fantastic individual. The legacy of the miners and workers who left us our rich dialects should be the eradication of that final, acceptable prejudice. That way, we can break down the barriers for brilliant working-class kids who, given the opportunity, can change the world.

10:15

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this morning, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing this debate, and for hosting the excellent recent event on regional accents.

Yesterday, we celebrated Black Country Day—a moment to recognise the history, the heritage and everything wonderful about the Black Country, including our distinctive accent and dialect. However, in various polls over the years, the Black Country and Birmingham accents have frequently been cited as the least favoured in the UK, and they face unfair stigma, classism and stereotyping. I take this opportunity to clarify that Black Country and Brummie are not the same thing—as any Black Country person will say: “Ar bay a Brummie—arm from the Black Country!”

As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge) said, we are often mocked and judged for our accent. When I tell people that I am from Stourbridge, I am often met with a blank look, but when I say that it is near Dudley, I can hear what their brain is thinking before they say, “Dud-laay”. One time, it is funny—but when it happens repeatedly, it can become demeaning.

However, ours is one of the oldest and most historically preserved dialects in the UK, retaining roots from Old English and early Middle English—surely something to be proud of. The Black Country accent has been associated with laziness, lower intelligence and a lack of sophistication, but that is far from the truth. Our accent is history that we can hear in every single word, shaped by hundreds of years of grit and graft. It is the sound of proud, hard-working folk who led the industrial revolution, helping to develop the modern world. In fact, Shakespeare himself would have probably understood Black Country people better than Londoners, as our dialect is so closely linked to Old English, with phrases like “Ow bist yow?” and “bostin fittle”.

I remember my parents and teachers discouraging my accent due to biases and stigma, leading to beliefs that I could face discrimination or be seen as inferior in the working world. Other Members have alluded to similar prejudices with their accents. I was criticised for saying “buz” instead of “bus”, or “doower” instead of “door”, and I was told that my accent could impact my chances of getting on in life. The Sutton Trust report on accents highlighted a case in 2013 of a primary school in the Black Country that banned students from talking in Black Country dialect. No wonder some feel the need to tone down their accents.

When I came to this place, my accent got a mixed reception from constituents, with comments such as, “No one will listen to you with that stupid accent.” However, I also had many people saying how great it was to see someone in Parliament who sounds like them, and my view is definitely more of the latter. As I have got older, I have become prouder of my accent and what it represents, but I still find myself slipping into that telephone voice—or “spakin’ proper”. It is a hangover from years of being told that my accent would hold me back or cause me to be judged.

No one should be judged for how they speak, nor should it affect their life chances. It is heartening that, in recent years, we hear a broader representation in the media of the wonderful range of accents up and down our country. However, we would be naive to think that prejudice is not still harboured in some quarters. In this place, there are a variety of accents, as we have heard this morning, to represent the towns, villages and regions up and down the country. I think that helps elected Members to be more relatable to their constituents and to encourage aspiration. We are not inferior for how we speak, nor should we hide it, and I will continue to champion the bostin Black Country for as long as I am here.

10:19

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for introducing this really interesting debate. I have not been in a debate that has brought such a lovely smile to my face in a long time. We are celebrating diversity, which is what regional accents are really about. We should be celebrating diversity much more, rather than trying to tell people to do things differently, and it is a real opportunity to do that, so I have genuinely enjoyed listening to this debate.

I probably have a fairly neutral accent, but that does not mean that I have been immune in my life to people telling me to change it. I represent Chelmsford in Essex. Essex has a fairly well-known accent, thanks to programmes such as “The Only Way Is Essex” and “Gavin and Stacey”, which obviously celebrates other parts of the country as well. I really like the Essex accent, because it is really interesting—not just the tone of voice that people use, but the way that they say certain words, just as Members from across the country have highlighted with the phrases that they use.

I am originally from Devon and grew up in the west country, which has quite a strong accent as well. The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) talked about teachers encouraging students to tone down their accent, and I was also told that as a child. I was privileged to take part in readings that we celebrated in the cathedral every year at my school when I was 12 or 13 years old. I remember doing a practice run and there was a line in the reading I had to do that said, “The old man’s past it,” but I said “past” the way that we would in Devon. I was told by a teacher, “That was very good, but you need to tone that down a little bit,” and I did. I remember another word: my parents have always said “tuth”; I remember being mocked about that once, so I now say “tooth”— I am slightly ashamed to say that I corrected my accent. I have not been immune to that.

I am a linguist, and although I might have a fairly neutral accent in this country, I know that when I have lived abroad and tried to speak another language, my accent has stood out. As much as I like to think that I have a good French or German accent, compared with native speakers I stand out a mile. I know how difficult and uncomfortable that can be for people. We need to make sure that people feel comfortable in whatever job they are doing.

We are privileged to be able to do this job. As other hon. Members have said, it is important that we represent the people who have elected us to this place, and that we give people the opportunity to see people who look and sound like them. Many hon. Members have spoken very passionately about how important it is to them and to their constituents that people are here, standing up, being heard, speaking and sounding exactly like the constituents who elected them. That is incredibly important.

The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) mentioned how important it is that more broadcasters are encouraging regional accents. I commend those broadcasters. It is hard to be inspired if we only see people who look and sound like something completely different from us. If we are seeing something that is familiar to us, it is more inspirational and gives us more courage to take part, so I commend those broadcasters for giving that a platform.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about blank stares when we hear an accent that we do not completely understand. He is right to point that out. When we have those blank stares, it is hard to make a connection; but the more we hear different accents, the more we get used to them, and familiarity breeds friendship. That is why it is so important that we expose ourselves to many different accents, regions, customs and traditions.

Various hon. Members have mentioned the Sutton Trust’s 2022 report. I want to highlight a particular statistic mentioned in that about university students. The report found that, across all stages of life, individuals are concerned about how their accent affects their ability to succeed. That is worrying enough, but it went on to say that 33% of university students, 19% of employees and 18% of university applicants felt that. I want to draw out that difference between 18% of university applicants and 33% of university students. Something goes wrong between applying for university and being at university: that concern gets worse. We must tackle that, and I encourage all universities to reflect deeply on what they can do, because that is not the right way around. People should be going to university and thinking, “Hey, isn’t this great? I fit in, and I am accepted—in fact, I do not just fit in; I stand out in a good way.” We should definitely be looking more at that.

Hon. Members mentioned other studies, including a University of Edinburgh study that suggests that individuals with regional accents find themselves code switching to be taken seriously. Other hon. Members mentioned the fact that students alter their pronunciation to avoid negative judgment.

Returning to question of linguistics. I like reading; I can see words in front of me even when I am just speaking. I can see the way that the word is written, so I think about how I am going to pronounce it. But pronunciation changes over time. As a linguist, as much as I find that a little bit frustrating sometimes, I have to understand that language is constantly evolving. I think we should embrace that. If we think back 200 years, there are many words from 200 years ago that we do not even use now or that have changed over time, and we should embrace that and be joyful about how things change over time.

[Cat Eccles]

That point made me think about the fact that a lot of regional dialects and accents have been lost over the years simply because people have moved away or been forced to tone them down. That is another reason why it is important to embrace our regional differences, so that we do not lose any more of these precious dialects and accents.

[Marie Goldman]

The hon. Member reminds me that my aunt sadly lost her partner a few months ago. He was three days off his 90th birthday, and he was a true Cornishman. He had lived in Cornwall his entire life—in a very small area of Cornwall, in fact. He was incredibly well known, and I had the privilege of being able to love spending time with him. Listening to the way that he spoke and the stories that he used to tell was just beautiful, but the phrases that he used to use are unfortunately dying out. They will be lost over time, so we have to take advantage of modern technology to record some of these things, so that they are not lost and we should also continue to encourage them in our schools through spoken histories. I thank the hon. Member for raising that.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady referred to her aunt’s father, who was almost 90 years old, and that reminds me of my own dad, who is dead and gone. He was a very proud Donegal man, and one of the wee poems or verses that he taught me when I was small was this:

“Where ye fa?

Donegal.

How’s your purties?

Great or small.

How do you eat them?

Skins an a.”

Those wee verses will be lost forever if they are not retained and written down. It is important to retain some of those wee stories from days past, as well as the fact that potatoes was what it was all about. Potatoes in Donegal—that is what they lived on, for their dinner and their tea. That is just a wee step back in time.

[Marie Goldman]

There are so many lovely stories to tell about this subject, and that is why this has been such a lovely debate. We genuinely should be continuing to encourage the retention of regional phrases, stories and poems, and I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for bringing us that poem.

In conclusion, my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I believe very strongly in a society with strong social mobility. Our regional accents, backgrounds and experiences should never hold us back from social mobility; people’s opportunities should definitely never ever be limited by their accent. I thank the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton for bringing us this debate.

10:28

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

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.

10:40

[The Minister for Equalities (Seema Malhotra)]

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.

10:56

[Jo Platt]

Thank you for chairing this debate, Sir Roger. It has been enlightening and humorous but serious in its cause. I thank the Minister for her response, and for acknowledging the importance of ensuring that accents are not a barrier and of tackling the unconscious bias in society today.

I thank all hon. Members who contributed. As I say, it was humorous but serious. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He coined, I think, a new term: I am going to use “phonetic wrapper” again. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for York Outer (Mr Charters) and for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge), who spoke so passionately about the barriers in education, and in particular at university. We need to continue the conversation on that. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) and for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles); they both spoke about how the giants of our industrial past have shaped our accents and dialects, from the factories, the mills and the mines in communities such as ours. I close by saying to the Minister that I will enjoy continuing the conversation, with an accent, about how we close the barriers.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I am sure that the whole House will have appreciated the contribution by Strangford’s own answer to Professor Henry Higgins.

Question put and agreed to. 

Resolved,

That this House has considered regional accents and social mobility.

Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Before I call Esther McVey to move the motion, and then the Minister to respond, I remind Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate. No such notice has been given. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up the debate, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

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.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I fully support the right hon. Lady’s efforts on behalf of her constituents. I have an understanding of the issues. Does she agree that any final approval for the Peak Cluster project must include cast-iron, legally binding guarantees to protect landowners’ rights, and that local environmental objections and community safety fears must be genuinely addressed rather than bypassed by central Government?

[Esther McVey]

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.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

The North Sea Transition Authority deals with many private sector companies around oil and gas drilling. I agree that it is a public quango, but surely the right hon. Member agrees that it does not have responsibility for what Shell or BP do in the North sea any more than it has responsibility for what Peak Cluster may or may not do through Cheshire and underneath the Liverpool bay?

[Esther McVey]

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.

11:12

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger, although the debate has probably not been conducted in the best way to discuss this topic. I draw the attention of the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) to the recent Adjournment debate secured by her colleague the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), which I think she was unable to attend.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. I assume that the Minister is not suggesting that the debate has been in any way out of order.

[Michael Shanks]

That is not what I said at all, Sir Roger. The debate has been perfectly in order, but I do not think the public watching will have got much from it. That is my assessment and, I am sure, the assessment of many others watching. As I was saying, I encourage the right hon. Lady, if she did not see the recent debate on this topic, to look at the remarks by her hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, who rightly raised concerns about local communities, but in a way that was, I think, based slightly more in fact than in rhetoric. I will come to the right hon. Lady’s questions.

[Esther McVey]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Shanks]

No, I will not just now, because the right hon. Lady has just given a speech. I will respond to some of her points.

[Esther McVey]

Then don’t be so dismissive!

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Michael Shanks]

Let me respond to the right hon. Lady’s points. She has now accused me twice in this House of being “elusive” and of “obfuscation”. I have answered every single one of her written parliamentary questions. I am not responsible for the fact that she may or may not like the answers I give, but I have answered every single one of her questions, and I responded to her point of order in the main Chamber. I resent the implication that I have not done that, because I take my responsibilities to Parliament very seriously.

First, I will come back a little from the Peak Cluster itself to make some points about why carbon capture is important. I say that partly because carbon capture technology has been around a long time. The previous Government, in which the right hon. Lady served in various ministerial roles, drove forward investment in carbon capture, which we have continued. This is not something that just appeared in July last year; it is a technology that Governments have recognised will play an important part in decarbonising our energy system.

This technology is also important for particular parts of our industry, which are now competing against imports from other parts of Europe that utilise carbon capture, usage and storage. Cement is one example that the Peak Cluster project is looking at, but we are taking forward other important clusters, such as the Viking and Acorn clusters, that the previous Conservative Government supported.

Decarbonising cement might not seem like a particularly important topic to a lot of people, but it is actually critical. Around 40% of UK cement and lime production takes place in Derbyshire and Staffordshire. Cement is one of the foundational heavy industries, and one of our most important substances, to underpin growth in our economy. As a result, the industry was recognised in the industrial strategy as a foundational input for growth. It is also an economically important sector, contributing around £350 million in gross value added and supporting thousands of jobs.

The challenge we have is future-proofing the industry. A number of businesses now want to buy low-carbon cement to construct their projects, but low-carbon cement is produced elsewhere in the world, so it is important to find ways to be competitive in that market. As I said in the Adjournment debate, other technologies for creating low-carbon cement exist, but they are not yet at a stage where they can be deployed at scale. Carbon capture is important, and there is no route to net zero that does not involve this technology.

I want to remind the right hon. Member for Tatton why net zero is important, although I know that not everyone will agree. Given that we are living through climate change on such a scale, we as a country should be taking our responsibility seriously to do everything we can, and this is an important part of how we tackle it. This is also an economic opportunity that not only creates thousands of jobs in carbon capture but protects thousands of jobs in the heavy industry that we do not want to see leaving this country to go elsewhere. It plays a strategically important part, along with our economic growth and industrial strategy, in how we will broadly deliver net zero.

Before I address some of the right hon. Lady’s points on the Peak Cluster, I want to repeat a point I made in the Adjournment debate about the voice of local communities, which is one that she also rightly made. She made a point about the nationally significant infrastructure project regime, which I want to clarify. Perhaps I misunderstood, but I think she was trying to suggest that the Government have somehow contrived for the Secretary of State to make a decision on a particular project. The NSIP regime exists—indeed, it existed under the previous Conservative Government—to recognise that there are some projects of such a scale that local councils cannot individually decide on them, so they should be decided on at a national level.

That is a process that has been undertaken for many years. I want to be really clear, however, that that recognition does not suggest, in any way, that there will be a particular outcome from the process. Not only has there been no decision from Government on this project, but it has not even been submitted for a decision at this stage. It is a long way from that process.

[Esther McVey]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Shanks]

I will give way in just a second. The right hon. Lady’s point about the NSIP regime was quite wrong. Decisions are made based on applications that are submitted, but no application has been submitted. They are based on all the facts, including the community engagement that takes place—I will come back to that after I have given way. Applications must demonstrate genuine community engagement and learning from the views of communities; it is not just a listening exercise but a shaping exercise, and that has not yet concluded.

[Esther McVey]

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?

[Michael Shanks]

I think I just said that the nationally significant infrastructure project regime exists so that decisions can be made at a national level by different Secretaries of State. In this case, it is an energy project, so yes, the decision will be made by the Secretary of State for Energy. The right hon. Lady seems to be implying that there is somehow a predetermined outcome, but the application has not even been submitted for consideration, so I do not think that is a sensible position to take.

The right hon. Lady also cast aspersions on the North Sea Transition Authority, which is an independent regulator. It was the Oil and Gas Authority for many years; it is now the North Sea Transition Authority. It has operated under Governments of all political persuasions to make decisions about how we steward the North sea licensing regime not only for oil and gas but, increasingly, for carbon capture. It makes those decisions independently of Government; Ministers do not interfere in the decision making of the NSTA. Again, she seems to be drawing conclusions about an independent regulator that are neither fair on the regulator nor accurate in fact.

[Esther McVey]

Will the Minister give way on another inaccurate piece of information?

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Shanks]

I will give way to my hon. Friend.

[Sarah Russell]

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?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that was the point I was going to come on to. Community engagement is absolutely critical. It is an absolutely firm expectation from Ministers that any of these large-scale infrastructure projects should have meaningful engagement with communities. However, it is also absolutely critical for any project that wants to succeed in the NSIP process to demonstrate not only that it has carried out consultation but that that consultation has had a meaningful impact on the shaping of the project. That is one of the key factors in decision making in NSIP applications.

I want to echo a point that was made in the Adjournment debate on this subject and that many Members have raised with me outside of debates in Parliament, which is about the need for extensive consultation on this particular project. Criticisms have been levelled at the Peak Cluster project that its consultation with communities has not yet been good enough. I understand that it is planning to do more, but it is not for me to direct it to do that. It must engage meaningfully with communities because, once a proposal has been submitted, if community engagement has not been meaningful, that will count against the project.

There is a wider argument here about principle. The Government have said from day one of coming into office that it is important that we build things as a country again and that we do not become a country that just spends decades talking about important infrastructure but never builds it. However, that building should never be done without proper engagement with communities, which means communities feeling that they have had their say and that their say has been listened to. This project is one example of where much more consultation has to happen.

[Andrew Cooper]

The important thing for my residents is this: does this project work and is it safe? Those are the two key points. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) is in his place today. He has been challenging these plans on behalf of his community, as have I and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell). This is not a done deal, and Peak Cluster needs to listen to the community’s concerns and act on them. Does the Minister agree with all those points?

[Michael Shanks]

First, on the point about this somehow being a Government project, it is absolutely not. That is why my answers to the right hon. Member for Tatton reflected the fact that, right now, private developers across the country in a whole range of sectors are developing private propositions for all sorts of things.

Until those proposals come to Government, either with a request for funding or as part of the NSIP regime, the Government do not have a view on whether they are Government projects or not. They are not delivered by Government; they are private investments and therefore it is for those companies to put forward their proposition. The Government will then take a view on it, as we do with all nationally significant infrastructure projects. That is the first point about this being a Government project, which it is absolutely not. Peak Cluster is also not one of the clusters that the Government have initially taken forward. We are taking forward two clusters initially to drive carbon capture and storage; the Peak Cluster is not one of them. I make that point again on the record.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) made a second point about safety. It is really important to say that carbon capture and storage is not a new technology; it has been tried and tested, across industry and across power generation at scale, for a long time. Geological carbon dioxide storage has been in operation for decades. Norway has stored CO₂ since 1996—it has stored over 20 million tonnes of it so far—and a safe and robust regulatory regime exists precisely to ensure that safety standards are as high as they possibly can be.

Safety will be at the forefront of any decision about how we take this project forward. It is absolutely critical but, as I have said, CCS is not some novel technology whose safety considerations we do not understand. It is managed, understood and regulated effectively at the moment.

[Esther McVey]

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?

[Michael Shanks]

I am aware of that. Councils can take a view on a whole range of things; I do not think there is anything controversial about a council making its views known on a particular project. It is very welcome to do that, and that is why we have democratically elected councillors in this country.

On a final point by the right hon. Lady and others about Government funding for this project, she draws a connection between the investment of the National Wealth Fund and the fact that it is wholly owned by the Government. I understand the connection, but equally, it is not correct to say that that represents financial support from my Department or the Government for a project.

The National Wealth Fund was set up to provide investment for important infrastructure projects, and it makes its decisions independently from Government. I have not seen or signed off any funding applications for the Peak Cluster pipeline and nor have any Ministers. The NWF makes those decisions on its own framework, as set out by the Treasury and Parliament. It should not be taken as any indication of my Department’s support or otherwise for a particular project.

[Sarah Russell]

What sort of people work at the National Wealth Fund and make these decisions? Who is evaluating this?

[Michael Shanks]

I can write to my hon. Friend with the specifics of the investment committee, but the National Wealth Fund is set up independently from Government to take stakes in projects on behalf of the British public, so that we would own a stake in some of these projects—instead of just handing out grants for things, we would actually own part of them. There is an investment committee that sets up these decisions, and the Treasury is the body responsible for the National Wealth Fund. I can write to her with specifics.

[Esther McVey]

Did the Minister just say, “so that the Government can part-own some of this”? Were those the words he used?

[Michael Shanks]

The principle of the National Wealth Fund is that we can make financial investments in projects. In some of those cases, that means taking an equity stake. Sometimes it does not, but sometimes it does. The National Wealth Fund has been around for long enough now; I am sure Members are aware of it.

I will close with something that, in part, reflects what Members said in the Adjournment debate secured by the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury. Any large-scale infrastructure project comes with concerns from local communities, and it is right and proper that such communities voice those concerns in any way they can. That has to be a respectful exchange of views, which has not always been the case thus far, but I understand the strength of feeling on this—it is absolutely understandable.

The exchange of views is important, and everyone, whether or not they are listening to this debate, should know that the Government take community engagement very seriously. We expect to see meaningful engagement with communities, but at the same time the Government have set out an ambitious plan to decarbonise our economy. That is important for a whole range of reasons, but it is also a hugely important economic opportunity for us as a country.

Decarbonising hard-to-abate sectors such as cement and lime, which are critical to our economy, is difficult. CCUS is a route to doing that. It is essential not only for meeting our climate commitments, but for the economic opportunities that it offers. Future project proposals are subject to scrutiny, high standards and a tough regulatory regime. The Government will look at all of this in the round in terms of individual projects.

I repeat the point that I made at the beginning: this is not a project that the Government are driving forward, and it is not a project that we are saying we do or do not support, because at this point in time no proposal has come before us to do that. In due course, we will do that. In the meantime, I encourage everyone in the local community, Members of Parliament, the Peak Cluster itself and others to engage with the process.

[Esther McVey]

Will the Minister give way in the final 30 seconds?

[Michael Shanks]

I am just rounding up. In the end, I hope that we will come to a view where communities feel they have been heard and where projects can move forward on their individual merits. That will be part of the process when we come to it.

Question put and agreed to.

11:29

Sitting suspended.

Waste Management Sites

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Andrew Murrison in the Chair]

14:30

[Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of waste management sites on local communities.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison.

For nearly three years, the people of Fleetwood have been forced to live with an intolerable smell from the Jameson Road landfill site. They have complained, protested and reported the effects on their health to the council, the Environment Agency, the Government and to me, their Member of Parliament. Over the past two and a half years, the Environment Agency has taken increasingly severe action against the operator of the site. Each time, the operator has breached its permit and acted unlawfully in the process, and still the smell remains. At times recently, it has been worse than ever. In March of this year alone, more than 4,000 complaints were made.

The central point that I wish to make is that this is proof of a broken regulatory system. Residents can make thousands of complaints, and people and businesses can be forced to leave an area because of an operator acting unlawfully, and still they are left breathing the same foul air. If our system cannot prevent that from happening, it is broken. If the regulatory system’s purpose is to record suffering, issue notices and hold meetings, but not to prevent suffering for the local community, its purpose and objectives are the wrong way around. In Fleetwood, it is as simple as this: a private company is making money from stinking out the entire town and damaging livelihoods, breaking the law in the process, while the British state appears too weak, too slow and too broken to stop it.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend knows—we have discussed this many times—we in Newcastle-under-Lyme know all about the impact that the idea of profit over people can have on the health and wellbeing of communities such as hers and mine, and about the consequences of landfill sites. She is right to say that this is a case of the state going missing in action. I look forward to working with her to ensure that we get the policies needed to keep our communities safe, our air clean and our people living in the situations we want them to live in.

[Lorraine Beavers]

I agree. I hope that we will get that done—or start the battle to do so—today.

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

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

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

[Lorraine Beavers]

My hon. Friend is correct, and I agree with him. I will address that point in my remarks.

Communities across the country have found themselves trapped in the same nightmare that we have experienced: living beside waste sites, making complaint after complaint and discovering that the system is better at documenting their suffering than ending it. People have reported headaches, nausea, nosebleeds, vomiting and breathing difficulties, with some requiring hospital treatment. The prolonged stress is also harming my residents’ mental health. Children do not want to play outside, parents have had to keep the windows shut—even during the recent hot weather—and businesses are losing customers. Some residents are considering leaving the town they have lived in all their lives, while others have already left.

I take this opportunity to raise the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns), who, unfortunately, cannot join us today as she is attending a Select Committee. Her constituents have also had to keep their windows shut and stay indoors because of the awful smell coming from a landfill site. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) has constituents who can smell the landfill site in my constituency, as the odour blows across the Wyre estuary to Knott End and Preesall. Nobody should have to live like that, in Fleetwood or anywhere else.

Let me share some of the experiences that residents have reported to me. One wrote to say that the landfill has affected her already severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. She feels like a prisoner in her own home; when the smell is at its worst, she cannot leave her house for days on end. Like many in Fleetwood, she moved to the area for the fresh sea air. Instead, she says, it has ruined her life.

Another wrote to say that their family had to leave Fleetwood because of the smell. One member of the family, who suffers from multiple sclerosis, found the additional strain impossible to cope with, and their adult disabled daughter experienced throat irritation and disrupted sleep. They could not put up with it any longer and had to move away. That meant leaving behind their daughter’s established social and support network, registering with a completely new medical team and changing her care package.

Another of my constituents has emphysema. He too moved to Fleetwood for better air, but because of the landfill, he suffers with sore and itchy eyes, has difficulty breathing and feels worse than ever. He asked one simple question: why is this allowed? I ask the Minister the same question. I do not want to hear that it is not allowed, because the fact that the problem continues proves that it is. If a national Government cannot put a stop to it, will the Minister suggest who can? These are not isolated complaints.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

The issue of enforcement is a serious one. An incinerator in south London has breached its air pollution limits almost 1,000 times in 18 months, but nothing has been done by the EA—no court proceedings, no licence suspension, nothing. A similar plant is planned for my constituency. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government must act now to ensure that all operators—be they water companies or waste management companies—are held to account when they break the rules? How am I meant to assure my constituents that they will be safe from health risks?

[Lorraine Beavers]

I agree.

The problems began following the transfer of ownership from SUEZ to Transwaste Recycling and Aggregates, and the resumption of tipping in January 2024. SUEZ proved that sites like Jameson Road can be operated properly without a detrimental impact on the local community, but across the country more operators are cutting corners and operating outside of the law.

Meanwhile, our enforcement framework has not kept up. It is designed around the assumption that operators will do the right thing, often with local authorities in mind. As we have learned in Fleetwood, we cannot afford to make that assumption any longer. The nature of waste management has changed. Small waste management firms are now operating sites that were previously considered economically unviable. As the Jameson Road debacle suggests, to make such sites profitable, companies are now operating them poorly, breaching the terms to their permits and ignoring planning conditions. Local people are left to bear the brunt of their corner cutting.

The issuing and transferring of environmental permits needs to be more robust. Perhaps a new environmental permit should be issued with each change of ownership. If an economically unviable site has been closed, any prospective operator should surely be asked how they will overcome the financial issues. The way in which operators plan to make a site profitable without cutting corners should be scrutinised, and permits should not be carried over if operators cannot produce credible plans. Instead of the company bearing the burden to run a site properly, the burden has fallen on residents to prove that the operator has no such ability. That demonstrates that the weight of scrutiny in the system is in the wrong place. How does the Minister plan to address that? At present, the regulation is self-evidently ineffective.

As the local Member of Parliament, I meet representatives of the Environment Agency every Friday morning. My team and the wider community have pursued every possible avenue to stop the smell and get the site closed. Over the course of those meetings, I have concluded that one of two things must be true: either the Environment Agency does not have sufficient powers to intervene quickly enough, or it is not using the powers it has with the necessary urgency. Which does the Minister think it is? Either explanation demands Government action.

If the Environment Agency lacks the powers to suspend activity before further harm is caused, Parliament must provide such powers. If existing powers are unusable because of legal tests, internal processes or fears of legal challenge, those barriers must be removed. The agency must also have the resources to enforce the law. The issues at Jameson Road have resulted in the Environment Agency needing to pull experts in from all over the country.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this timely and important debate, and for her tireless work on these matters over such a long time. Fourteen years of austerity have meant cuts to important resources in our public services, including the Environment Agency, and those services do not have the funding or resources to undertake the work that is so essential right here, right now. Does she agree?

[Lorraine Beavers]

I agree. I thank the Environment Agency, which has worked tirelessly despite massive staff shortages and everything else. It has worked with me and my community to resolve this problem.

The passing on of responsibility while communities suffer cannot continue. The regulators point to the limits of their powers; the operators point to the weather; Departments point to the regulators. Meanwhile, residents are told to make another complaint and keep filling in their diary sheets. That is how faith in Government is destroyed, especially when that pattern is so recognisable in other aspects of the way the country is run. A private company is making money from stinking out an entire town, damaging people’s health and livelihoods, and the British state has so far been incapable of stopping it. I have dedicated much of my time as an MP to working out why.

The children of Flakefleet primary school understand the injustice. A year ago, they wrote to the Prime Minister and handed a petition into 10 Downing Street. The smell from Jameson Road dominates their life at school, and those pupils believe that when something is clearly wrong, those in power will listen and act. That is why I invited this Prime Minister to come to Fleetwood, and I will be inviting the next one to do so as well.

My constituents are tired. They feel ignored and forgotten. Many believe this situation would never have been allowed to continue for so long in a wealthy commuter town in Surrey, and I agree with them. Working-class communities should not be expected to tolerate lower standards because they have less political and economic power. Fleetwood’s health, dignity and future cannot be treated as less important than the financial interest of the private waste companies. No community should be treated in this way.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I will be talking about a waste site in Surrey, where unfortunately we have some very similar issues. I hope the hon. Lady understands that this is a national issue, not one that is confined to certain locations of the United Kingdom.

[Lorraine Beavers]

I apologise for naming Surrey.

The wider enforcement framework must change. Regulators need clear powers to suspend operators quickly, stronger tests of operators’ competence and the ability to consider the cumulative impact of sites on communities. Penalties must change behaviour, rather than become a cost of doing business. The financial consequences must fall on the polluters, and we must make sure that companies cannot take the profits while leaving residents and taxpayers to carry the costs when things go wrong.

We need a system that learns from the crisis in Fleetwood rather than one that waits for the same crisis to unfold elsewhere. A Labour Government should not stand by while private operators profit from the suffering of working-class towns. We were elected to show that government can work and that the state can protect people and stand up to private interests when they cause harm. Jameson Road is a test of that promise. It is also a test of whether we are prepared to fix a national regulatory failure. Reforming the system would show communities across the country that they will not be abandoned when the same failures occur on their doorstep. The next community to face this problem should not have to start from the beginning—keeping diaries, gathering medical evidence and begging regulators to act, while the operators continue to profit. The British state must prove that it is not too broken to stop this.

With that in mind, I have several questions for the Minister. Does she acknowledge that the reality of the situation in Fleetwood is that a private company has made profit through unlawful activity at the expense of the health and wellbeing of an entire town, and that that is unacceptable? Will she commission a full review of the current waste management framework, taking into consideration the following questions. Does the Environment Agency have sufficient powers to take decisive action quickly enough? Is it not fully using the powers it already has? Does the Minister believe that the Environment Agency is adequately resourced, and if not, how will the Government increase its funding to deal with the scale of these challenges? Will she legislate to ensure that new environmental permits must be sought when the ownership of a site changes? How does she plan to address the scrutiny gap, whereby companies do not have to prove their ability to run a site properly before operating it? Fleetwood needs action, communities across Britain need protection and this country needs a regulatory system that puts people before polluters.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Order. We are under time pressure, so I will place an indicative limit of four minutes on speeches.

14:49

[Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)]

It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, as I know that much of what I am going to say will be familiar to you. I thank the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for securing this debate.

Waste facilities provide an essential public service, but communities living alongside them must not be expected to bear the consequences of weak regulation or poor waste handling. Two problems are affecting residents in my constituency: the persistent landfill gas odour around Lower Compton, and the growing fire risk over the last few years caused by lithium-ion batteries entering the household waste system.

The Environment Agency has received almost 4,000 odour reports over the last three months. As the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood mentioned, the system is not working. Residents have described an overpowering sulphurous smell entering their homes, disrupting their sleep and preventing them from opening their windows or using their gardens. Many have reported headaches, nausea, coughing and feeling unwell. When I visited the landfill site, I was left with a headache and felt unwell for several hours. Although that is only my experience, it gives me some understanding of what the residents have been repeatedly describing.

I have pressed the Environment Agency and the operator for action, raised the issue at Prime Minister’s questions and written to the Environment Secretary. The sustained pressure has secured action for my constituents, but we now need evidence that it has actually produced results. The Environment Agency has managed to trace the principal source to an open landfill cell, requiring permanent capping, improved gas extraction and changes to the type of waste being handled. I welcome the completion of the capping works, but for residents it will be a question of whether they can breathe clean air and live normally, not whether the project is said to have been completed.

The UK Health Security Agency found no evidence of actual toxic risk, but its monitoring site is not downwind of the site—it is to the west. Although its finding is welcome, it also found strong evidence of odour annoyance and acknowledged that people may experience headaches, throat irritation, stress and sleep disruption. That exposure, although perhaps not as toxic as we expected, is not acceptable, especially for people with respiratory conditions.

The issue seems to be that responsibility is completely fragmented. The Environment Agency monitors permit compliance and the UKHSA assesses the health risk, but the local authority considers statutory nuisance. Residents are having to navigate an institutional maze while the smell continues. Will the Minister introduce a clearer joint response framework, with one lead body responsible for co-ordinating monitoring and health advice?

We also need to understand why it is happening. The Environment Agency identified an issue with the trommel fines, which can contain sulphate-bearing materials and contribute to the production of hydrogen sulphide when mixed with organic waste. Although the operators are changing the way they handle those materials, it was extremely worrying that when I asked the Environment Agency, it did not seem to be aware of where the responsibility lies for testing how much of the wrong types of material go into the trommel fines as they go into the landfill site. Will the Minister consider who is responsible for independent sampling and whether compositional controls can be better implemented?

The second issue affecting the same constituents is lithium-ion battery fires. Recent fires have, in theory, been caused by the crushing of lithium-ion batteries, which sparks a fire that is very difficult to put out. That is putting waste workers, firefighters and nearby residents at risk. The Government must start to properly enforce the existing retailer take-back duties, make return schemes more convenient and more visible, and ensure that producers meet the full cost of collection and treatment.

Finally, drawing on my 20-odd years as an architect and my experience in local government, I believe the planning system must properly assess the risk of building our homes, schools and care facilities near to waste infrastructure, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). Waste sites are necessary, but communities should not be expected to tolerate unacceptable odour and risk of pollution and fire. My constituents have shown extraordinary patience, but they should not have to fight to be heard any more than those of the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Order. Members will have to be brief. I am sure that Adam Jogee will be an exemplar.

14:54

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

You have never said that before, Dr Murrison. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for securing the debate. As I said in my intervention, I know she is committed to working on the same issues that I have spent much of my first few years in this House working on.

In my first Westminster Hall speech as the MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme, I said I would not stop going on about Walleys Quarry landfill site until it is closed, capped and restored. It is now closed; capping is, broadly speaking, in operation; and soon, all being well, we will be able to get it restored so that local people in my community can use it. I am proud that after almost a year and a half since the closure notice was issued, we finally chased the cowboy operators of that landfill site out of our town and shut Walleys for good

As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood described, and as the Minister knows, because I have told her many times, for far too long, my community was blighted by respiratory irritation, headaches, disrupted sleep, mental health strain and a constant foul odour in the air from high levels of hydrogen sulphide. We were blighted by pollution and constant worry. Children could not play outside, schools could not open their windows and, disgracefully, it reached the corridors of the Royal Stoke hospital. Furthermore, many older people were left housebound.

My hon. Friend talked about putting people before polluters. I would say we must also put people over profits. These operators—I am afraid to say this, but I will be as polite as I can—took the proverbial out of my constituents. The sooner we hold those who did so to account, the better it is for all of us. They had no interest in operating safely, no regard for the community and no idea how to be a good neighbour to those who suffered the worst excesses of their criminality.

My relationship with the Environment Agency has changed in recent years. With our zero-tolerance approach to waste crime, we finally got Walleys closed—just 147 days after my party won the election. This transformed life for my community. It is a shame to say this, but for years we had a Conservative Government, a Conservative MP, a Conservative county council in Staffordshire and a Conservative Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council, and to quote a Prime Minister, “nothing changed”.

It should not have taken a change in Government for action to be taken, for the criminals to be held to account and for the damned site to be closed. I acknowledge the campaigning work of my predecessor; I am just sorry that his colleagues were missing in action. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), is a friend of mine, and I am not directing this at him personally, but my community was let down by the Conservative Government, and we will not let his colleagues forget it.

It is unforgiveable that local people in Blackpool, Newcastle-under-Lyme and other parts of the country are left living in unliveable situations such as this, so I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister touched on the benefits of a fit-and-proper-person test for those seeking a permit to operate a landfill site. I also urge the Minister to engage with her colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government regarding planning permissions, as noted by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson), for homes being built in the shadows—or should I say fumes—of landfill sites. Until we get a grip of the waste sector and the crime we find in it, we should not be building homes around those sites.

As I have done many times, I thank all those who helped to get the job done and close Walleys Quarry, including my colleagues in Government and in the Environment Agency, who worked with us to ensure we could clean our air and give the good people of Newcastle-under-Lyme the quality of life that they deserve. There is more to do, and I look forward to working with colleagues in Blackpool and around the country to ensure that we do it.

14:58

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) on securing this debate. I have several waste management sites in my constituency. At most of them, we just get the odd problem now and again, and we can deal with it by talking to them, but one causes particular problems.

Grunty Fen sits in the heart of the countryside and is accessed from narrow fen roads. In normal operation, the residents of the nearest village, Witchford, suffer large volumes of heavy lorries and litter blowing from those lorries. The fen roads used by the lorries sit on peat soils, which expand when it is wet and contract when it is dry. The combination of the changing subsoil and the regular heavy lorries corrugates those roads vertically and horizontally, breaks the road edges away, and creates ever-growing potholes. The roads are virtually unusable by ordinary cars, let alone cyclists. The residents feel that they have no say in the timing and volume of the traffic, nor do they see extra funding for road maintenance.

That would all be bad enough, but there have recently been several fires at the site. One such fire in April burned for about 17 hours, generated significant black smoke that spread over Witchford, and required an extensive fire and rescue response. The Environment Agency recently published the findings of its inspection. It found that the emissions from the fire breached one of the permit conditions. It also found that the fire risk assessment, emergency management plan and cell 11 environmental action plan failed to adequately identify and control the risks associated with fires. The operator, East Waste Ltd, has to rectify those issues, or the Environment Agency says it will take enforcement action. Meanwhile, the residents who have suffered from the fires—especially those with pre-existing respiratory illnesses such as asthma—fear further fires. They would like to see the site closed, at least temporarily, until all the changes are in place.

As part of the plans for the new unitary authorities, the Government must ensure that councils have adequate powers and funding to monitor waste sites, and the Environment Agency needs the powers and the funding to enforce their proper management. Will the Minister confirm that there are plans to make sure that the Environment Agency does indeed have those powers and the capacity, and that it will use them?

15:01

[Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for securing the debate.

As parliamentarians, each of us recognises the necessity of waste facilities and the function that they perform, but local communities should not have to tolerate the conditions that residents of mine in Heywood have been forced to put up with in recent years. Due to the prevailing wind direction in my part of the world, my constituents continue to endure appalling odours emitted from the Valencia Waste Management site on Pilsworth Road. The landfill there opened over 50 years ago. As it has gradually filled, it has become increasingly unbearable for local residents, which has led to the creation of the Heywood Against Landfill group. I take this opportunity to commend them for their enduring activism. The site also hosts a recycling centre, which I understand is also contributing significantly to the current issues.

Heywood Against Landfill has made it clear to Valencia, as have I, that the operation of the site has driven so many nearby to the point of utter dismay, with stark implications for their quality of life. Windows had to remain shut, people could not put washing out to dry, and many even began to question the elevated number of respiratory illnesses in the town. Heywood Against Landfill rightly urged members of the public to raise their concerns with the Environment Agency and lobbied for action to be taken. We eventually ensured that the site was closed while remedial action was taken. That lasted about 18 months, demonstrating the scale of what local people had been forced to deal with.

In my view, it would be legitimate to say—as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood—that working-class communities such as mine are disproportionately bearing the brunt of these impacts. Despite the supposed remedial action that has been taken and the supposed monitoring of the site by the Environment Agency, this is something that my constituents are having to contend with yet again—truly, it is groundhog day for people in Heywood.

Following the site’s reopening, the odour from it continued to affect the wellbeing of local people. The tireless campaign group met with Valencia on 1 June, but the company continues to say that no breaches are taking place.

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an important speech and representing her constituents very well. I want, perhaps unusually, to put on record an example of good practice by a waste management company. In my constituency, the community engagement team at Viridor, led by Karen Peer, do excellent work with local schools and the community to make sure that they are aware of what is happening. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should see that kind of practice across the country?

[Mrs Blundell]

I absolutely agree, and I would like to see more of that, not least in my constituency.

The Environment Agency countenanced the site’s reopening, and it was adamant that it had the means to monitor the air quality and odour levels, yet less than a year down the line, we are back where we started, and my constituents, like many represented here today, are suffering the consequences of the agency’s inability to address the core problems. That is because we do not have the means to handle nuisance concerns around recycling in the same way that we do for landfill. In such situations, lived experience matters. The executives of Valencia would not live anywhere near one of these sites themselves, but our constituents are expected to suck it up and put up with entirely unacceptable conditions.

Heywood Against Landfill has now designed an online odour complaint reporting log, which sends each instance directly to the Environment Agency. That is great, but the group would rather not spend its valuable time doing that. The group’s efforts will highlight once again the scale of the issue in Heywood, but it remains clear that there needs to be enforcement action to match the level of ongoing outrage.

I understand that the waste strategy is due for review in this Parliament. From speaking with local residents, it is clear that they are desperate for the strategy to give greater consideration to the impact of poorly managed sites that also take recycling. They want legislation to safeguard local people. In many cases, there seems to be no way of scrutinising the operations of these sites, as other hon. Members have said, with much of the so-called enforcement action being toothless and ineffective.

What consideration has been given to delivering a bold and transformative waste strategy that protects people in Heywood from living in such conditions—specifically one that factors in poorly performing sites that handle recycling waste? What assessment has been made of the effectiveness of the Environment Agency? I appreciate the point made about successive Conservative Governments cutting its funding and staff, but what consideration has been given to strengthening penalties for the executives of waste operators that pay no mind to the communities in which they function? What consideration has been given to making community engagement mandatory for operators such as Valencia, and the implementation of robust standards in this respect?

The people of Heywood should not have to put up with this any longer, and they should not have had to put up with it in the first place. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood is right: working-class communities shoulder the burden of regulators lacking the will or the means to engage with the lived experience of those affected by this sort of behaviour by operators. I hope that the Minister can offer some clarity on these points, and will make it clear to residents in Heywood that they are not without a voice, that the Government are listening, and that living in these conditions should not be a collateral consequence that those in power seem all too willing to accept.

15:09

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for securing this debate.

Residents of the part of Calne that is in my constituency have long reported strong and unpleasant sulphurous odours from the Lower Compton landfill. The odours have at times been severe enough for people stuck in their homes to keep the windows shut—not a pleasant situation given the current heatwave—and have been reported by the local BBC as causing illness. This has been a periodic problem in Calne and other towns.

I am pleased to report that, with the help of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson), we have got the Environment Agency on the case. The offending landfill vaults are being closed and additional landfill gas wells will be installed to increase gas capture and reduce emissions from the site.

Additionally, there has recently been a spate of fires at Lower Compton landfill, caused by batteries in vapes, endangering residents and staff. Every week in the UK more than 6 million vapes are thrown away instead of being recycled. When crushed, lithium batteries can spark, smoke or catch fire, creating a danger to waste facilities, those who work on them and those who live near them. I urge the Government to increase public awareness of how to safely dispose of vapes.

Single-use plastic waste is another long-standing issue that needs to be addressed. None of us likes seeing waste plastic in the environment, where it can become a serious hazard to wildlife. It is bad enough seeing plastic waste on our streets and in our countryside, but with the UK exporting around 600,000 tonnes a year, much of it ends up in the developing world, where it can become an environmental hazard of massive proportions.

A few years ago, a company in Swindon attempted to address the use of single-use plastic recycling using a pyrolysis process that chemically reduced the waste plastic into its polymer constituents, which could be used again and again to create fresh plastics. Although that company went bust due to the difficult economics, another company, Mura Technology, is investing in a similar process in Newcastle. However, it seems that the holy grail of a cyclical plastic economy will be reached only when the economics are right, so it would be timely for the Government to look at a single-use plastic tax to generate sufficient funds to invest in this process. We need local chemical recycling plants in every county in the UK. In the spirit of “polluter pays”, a tax on the production and use of single-use plastics is a must if we are to make the economics work for plastic recycling and thus stop this scourge on the environment.

15:10

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)]

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.

15:13

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) on securing the debate.

It is so important that I speak on this issue, as in my constituency we have an incinerator operated by a company called Viridor, which has been in operation for the last 12 years. Like the example in Fleetwood, it processes waste from all around the country, very little of which is produced by the actual residents of Runcorn. Local residents have to live with the problems that hon. Members have talked about this afternoon, including dreadful smells at times and rubbish strewn around the approaching roads from the heavy goods vehicles that deliver the waste. There is noise 24 hours a day—the HGVs have an operational licence for 24 hours a day, and there is the mechanical noise from the plant itself. Every day, 275 HGVs are allowed to go in and out of the plant. I have stood there, endlessly watching one after another. The noise and smell are horrific, with 3,000 tonnes of waste processed in the plant every day. The air pollution at times is a disgrace. As we have heard, people cannot hang out their washing. There are even layers of dust on cars. There is a physical and mental effect on health. Local residents cannot sleep or open their windows. Light pollution from the headlights of HGVs coming down the road is constant through the night, which is worse in winter, of course.

As a consequence, local house prices are severely devalued. Why should residents have to move, when some have lived there all their lives? Now, even if they wanted to move, they cannot sell their homes because of the incinerator and they feel trapped. On that note, I ask the Minister to consider offering financial support to those families who are unable to move because they cannot sell their homes due to the proximity of incinerators such as the one in Runcorn.

To return to the operator, in December 2023, Viridor paid out £1 million across 180 local households to keep them quiet. They signed a non-disclosure agreement so they could never talk to the press about the conditions they live in. That £4,500 per household is a lot of money for some of my residents, and would have been especially welcome at Christmas. It was meant to keep them quiet and it is a disgrace.

I would like to echo the points made about the Environment Agency. It should be timely in its response; it is no good residents ringing and the Environment Agency coming out a week later, when the smog or smell has gone. There are now also issues with vermin such as rats and flies, and concerns about diseases spread by birds flying in and out of operating doors left open. Those doors are meant to shut between each delivery but are left open for birds to fly in and out, potentially spreading disease.

The burden of proof is always on the residents to clock and document all this. Why should it be that way? I again ask the Minister to shift the burden of proof from the residents and give the Environment Agency the power to shut down the operation until the complaint or issue is sorted. It is often not just one major incident, such as a fire—it is a continual build-up, wearing down residents until they are desperate. They feel forgotten and unheard.

Deprived towns such as Runcorn have been used as a dumping ground for the nation’s rubbish. The least the Government can do is listen to residents, let their voices be heard and compensate them for what is happening to their day-to-day lives.

15:18

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for securing this timely debate.

Two separate areas in my constituency are suffering difficulties. The first is West Heath in Congleton, where there is an awful fly problem. Residents report they are unable to have barbecues, and do not wish to open their windows or doors. It appears that the problem may be associated with a local metal recycling plant. The plant has issued a statement that it is co-operating with the council and the Environment Agency and does not believe the problem emanates from it.

Although the long-standing feeling among local people is that it may very well be an issue with the recycling plant, they would also like the Environment Agency to investigate nearby standing water and other possible sources. I do not want to pin the blame too specifically on any one factor at the moment, but it is important that the Environment Agency has the resources, the powers and inclination to investigate thoroughly as soon as possible.

My residents report similar experiences to those described by many people in the Chamber, talking about how it is making their houses difficult to enjoy, particularly in the summer months. They are worried about disease and about opening their children’s bedroom windows at night, which in the current environment is straightforwardly dangerous. I absolutely call on the Minister to encourage the Environment Agency to take steps rapidly, because this is a significant, ongoing problem.

The other area of concern in my constituency is a former landfill site, which is now a golf course. It was set up as a golf course by Cheshire East council. Again, I want to be circumspect in what I say here, because Cheshire East council says absolutely, adamantly, that the site is safe for its current use and that there is no reason to doubt that the operators are operating appropriately. I do not want to do or say anything that might damage their business, but The Guardian has reported significant dumping, not only conventional landfill dumping during the 1950s and 1960s, but chemical dumping by ICI and Shell in the 1970s with forever-type chemicals.

Again, there has been extensive testing, and the set of facts is clearly disputed. What I am really concerned about, however, is that Cheshire East, when asked, apparently stated—I have not seen the documents myself—that remediating the whole site fully would cost more than £1 billion. Although Cheshire East is trying to manage the problem, properly it seems to belong with the Environment Agency and, potentially, central Government. That scale of a problem—if the scale of the problem is as alleged by some parties—is absolutely massive, and beyond the capacity of a local authority properly to investigate and manage.

We need to be very sure about what exact chemicals enter the water system. It is believed that they are retained within the site and do not enter the wider water system—I do not want to create alarm—but I want to ensure that this is being properly investigated for my local residents, so that either their minds can be put at rest or appropriate steps can be taken to remediate if necessary. I want to emphasise, however, that there is nothing to suggest that the golf course is not safe for use as it is at the moment. None the less, the lack of proper landfill capping is noted and this does not feel like it has been investigated in the way that I would hope it to be.

The Minister is passionate about the environment, water courses and all such topics, but I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood said: it is so important that we put people before polluters.

15:22

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. We owe a big thank you to the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for setting the scene and addressing a matter that has been an overwhelming source of anxiety and frustration for my constituents—the physical, environmental and social effects of waste management sites on our local communities. I welcome the Minister to her place. We are very fortunate to have her here, and I am sure that she will have all the answers that we seek. I hope she will give us some encouragement.

I wish to give a Northern Ireland perspective. Northern Ireland is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I would like her help, and my request to her would be to enter discussions with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland, Andrew Muir at the Northern Ireland Assembly, to ensure that we can work together on such things. In this House, in debates on waste management strategy, we often get bogged down in talking about percentages, targets and EU-aligned frameworks. I will bring something from ground level to this Chamber, however, from the Ards and North Down borough council, in my beautiful constituency of Strangford.

Let it be known that the people of Ards and North Down are not against recycling. For example, recycling rates of nearly 56% have been reached through the commitment of nearly every house—indeed, of every house—in Ards and North Down. Households separate their glass, they compost and they wash their plastics, but there is a tipping point, and that is what we are talking about today. The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood has brought forward the question of what happens when, literally and metaphorically, the burden placed on local communities by waste management sites becomes entirely unsustainable.

The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has submitted clearly that Northern Ireland simply does not have enough waste infrastructure to handle what we throw away. I know that the Minister is always amenable to my requests, and everyone’s, but will she have some discussion with the relevant Minister to see how the actions, methods, experience and knowledge gained here can be used for us back home?

Whether this is a waste transfer station, a commercial heavy-recycling depot or a landfill site boundary straight up against residential lines, the community pays the price. My concern is that areas such as ours, Comber and parts of the Ards peninsula are dealing with the harsh reality of those limits every day: excessive heavy goods, with vehicle traffic pounding down narrow rural roads that were never built to handle 30-tonne waste trucks; persistent issues with odour; airborne litter; and the psychological strain of living next to the expanding footprint of regional refuse.

The Arc21 waste management plan has faced years of delay in delivering modern infrastructure. Local sites have been pushed to their absolute limits to manage the waste. Many of our local facilities are hydrologically linked to the uniquely sensitive ecosystem of Strangford lough; I live on the edge of that, so I understand what it means: an immediate ecological threat to a globally recognised marine conservation zone.

In an effort to curb waste tourism and management costs, the council has had to introduce rigid online booking systems. It has taken many steps to try to address the issue, including residency identity checks at our nine household recycling centres. When councils make local centres too complicated to use and restrict their hours, it becomes a knock-on crisis, resulting in fly-tipping in the rural countryside and agricultural fields with farmers left holding the bill.

Environmental protection and planning policy is devolved to the Northern Ireland Executive, so we need a planning framework that respects the proximity principle—the very thing that the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood mentioned. What discussions will the Minister have with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland to help local councils like Ards and North Down when it comes to moving towards hyper-local, lower-carbon circular economies that do not require massive, sprawling, intrusive regional depots. If we can work hand in hand, we can find a solution that perhaps helps us all.

15:26

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for securing this very important debate. I must emphasise that this is a nationwide issue: it affects not just working-class constituencies but leafy Surrey, including Epsom and Ewell.

I will set the scene. It is a peaceful early morning in the residential community on the edge of Epsom Downs, a picturesque, 600-acre area of unspoiled chalk downland with panoramic views of London. We are right next to the Chalk Pit, a waste-processing site in Epsom in Surrey. Crash! Bang! Boom! Residents are suddenly awoken. It is 6 o’clock on 20 July. They hear the scraping, clanking and banging of metal, the humming of industrial machinery and the roaring of the trommel. Workmen shout loudly. Car horns honk. Dust chokes the air. Lorries speed up and down the road. It does not end until late in the evening, and this goes on and on all day, every single working day.

Could the Minister, and all those in the Chamber today, live with that constant noise, dust and disruption? Would the Minister be willing to accept this lack of action and change? My residents have no choice. Their homes are here. Their lives are here. This site was never meant to become what it is now when it went to planning 10 years ago, moving from a waste transfer site to a waste processing site. The management of this site is unacceptable, and my constituents—the residents—have long deserved better. Action must be taken, and it must be taken now.

There are four systemic failures: planning by Surrey county council; enforcement by Epsom and Ewell borough council; the environment, whether dust, noise or the potential contamination of water, which is the responsibility of the Environment Agency; and accountability, because there is no single lead on this and one agency passes the buck to another. This has disrupted my residents’ lives for more than 10 years.

On excessive dust, the atmosphere average is 10 micrograms per cubic metre; the Chalk Pit has an average concentration of 40 micrograms. On multiple occasions, it has exceeded the quality standard of 50, but let us remember that 10 is normal. There has been persistent noise, as well as breaches of permitted operating hours, with lorries leaving the site as early as 5.40 am when the operational hours should be 7 am until 6 pm. Then there is the impact of heavy vehicles: lorries regularly exceed the speed limit of 30 mph on roads that are simply not designed for them.

Tests cannot fully capture the human impact and the unintended disruption to daily lives, for years. A constituent said to me:

“Hoped for a peaceful afternoon in the garden—no chance with the Chalk Pit at full throttle”.

Another wrote:

“So much for a quiet relaxing Saturday morning. My day off ruined.”

One constituent said that it feels

“like the trommel is at work in my living room”,

And another said:

“Our garden table, covered in dust—no chance of going outside.”

When there has been monitoring, I have been told that operators are informed in advance when it will occur, so we can guess what happens: there is suddenly no noise or dust and the site does not operate. How is that effective monitoring or true accountability?

There have been planning conditions, environmental permits, monitoring equipment for noise and dust, thousands of complaints, multiple inspection reports, and statutory guidance, yet the same problems continue. The issue is not a lack of legislation; it is the repeated failure of enforcement, of leadership—there is none—and of accountability. Why are my residents forced to continually fight this? Why are the authorities not taking action? There are three agencies responsible for the issue: Surrey county council, Epsom and Ewell borough council and the Environment Agency. The unending buck-passing must stop; someone must take the lead and act now.

The governance is completely divided, with Surrey county council responsible as the waste planning authority, the Environment Agency responsible for dust and noise and for making sure water is safe to drink, and Epsom and Ewell borough council responsible for enforcement. The result? We have no single authority taking the lead, no organisation accountable for resolving the overall problem, separate investigations instead of co-ordinated action, and residents forced to navigate multiple regulators. It is a planning system that rewards non-compliance. Lack of enforcement leads to retrospective planning applications, which encourages operators to build first and apply later. That leaves planners mitigating impacts rather than deciding whether a development should occur in the first place, and creates the perception that compliance is optional. How can compliance be optional when it impacts my residents daily?

In the case of planning, economic growth is often given greater weight than things such as residential amenity, environmental impact, long-term public costs and community wellbeing. Local views and the experience of my residents have been overridden since the site changed its use over 10 years ago. Residents and local councils have objected. Planning officers have raised concerns. Elected representatives have opposed proposals. And the Environment Agency described the site as

“wildly out of character in a residential area”.

Despite that, permissions continue to be granted, undermining confidence that local views and feedback carry any meaningful weight at all.

Let us talk about enforcement. There are many planning conditions that could have been regulated, such as the operating hours. However, as we have heard, my residents are continually woken up at 6.06 am or even earlier, even though the operator is not meant to start before 7 am. There is continual noise nuisance, with the operator flouting the abatement notice. There is dust on a regular basis, which residents see on their tables and chairs outside or on their washing out hanging on the washing line. There are regular vehicle movements before 7 o’clock, and the number of lorries going in and out sometimes exceeds the permitted amount.

However, enforcements work only if they are actually enforced. To help with that, residents have provided complaints, photographs, videos and witness evidence. Authorities have gathered noise monitoring data, CCTV, site inspections and monitoring reports, yet residents continue to report the same again and again. Breaches happen again and again, over and over, but the repeated breaches do not lead to action. Understandably, residents believe that breaches do not lead to consequences. All their efforts are just in vain. They feel like giving up. Why should they continue if there is no action?

There are repeated findings without resolution. Those who are meant to regulate have repeatedly identified concerns—dust, noise, operating hours, site management and residential impacts. Instead of action, the response has included more inspections, more monitoring, more meetings, revised management plans, additional planning conditions and permit reviews—and still nothing changes. The same complaints continue. How many complaints are needed to trigger change? How many reports need to be conducted? How many dust tests and noise tests do we need? The lives of my residents are affected every single day, and all the authorities keep showing them is their unwillingness to improve their lives.

A regulatory system should not simply document non-compliance; it should enforce compliance. Success must be measured by improvements in people’s quality of life. Effective performance is not the number of meetings held, reports produced or warnings issued. A high number of ongoing complaints highlights the need for urgent action. The true measure of successful site management is whether conditions and outcomes are actually improved for the people affected.

Residents rightly expect and deserve that their elected representatives will help resolve persistent problems. In practice, councillors have limited to no influence. MPs cannot direct regulators, and residents cannot demand action; that creates a democratic gap. Those making enforcement decisions are not directly accountable to the communities affected by them, so there is understandably a loss of public confidence. Over time, residents question whether planning conditions have real value, whether environmental permits provide meaningful protection, whether complaints make any difference at all and whether regulators are measuring activity rather than results. Residents become exhausted and stop reporting incidents, yet the reduced number of complaints is sometimes treated as evidence that the problem has been sorted; it has not—residents are just exhausted and fed up of dealing with this issue day in, day out.

The Liberal Democrats believe that community engagement in waste management is an essential part of the journey towards a more sustainable and circular economy. That means ensuring that local councils can operate waste management sites effectively, without unnecessarily impacting the lives of nearby residents. Residents should not experience excessive environmental effects, health impacts or disruption. We also believe that local communities must have a genuine stake in planning decisions that affect them. Proper consultation and community engagement must be at the heart of proposals for new waste management sites. Full consideration must be given to the environmental health impacts of waste management sites on local residents.

We must go further, as the best waste management system is one that generates less waste in the first place. That is why we support embedding circular economy principles across the UK’s industrial strategy and product design, reducing the amount of waste that communities and councils need to manage.

Effective regulation of waste management sites also requires a properly resourced oversight body, ensuring that our environment is protected and health risks are mitigated. That is why we support increased funding to the EA to ensure that it can enforce environmental standards and hold operators to account where sites cause harm to local communities, as in Epsom. The Government must also commit to an independent review into the entire waste crime system.

In conclusion, the Chalk Pit in Epsom exposes wider weaknesses within the planning and environmental regulatory system: fragmented governance, no single accountable authority, poor co-ordination between regulators, retrospective planning reducing the consequences of unauthorised development, appeals that weaken local decision making, enforcement powers that are not consistently exercised, and residents whose concerns are not listened to.

This is not just an issue of the absence of legislation; it is an issue of leadership, accountability and enforcement. Without effective enforcement, planning conditions and environmental permits become protections that exist only on paper, not in practice. The EA, Surrey county council and Epsom and Ewell borough council can conduct their site visits and tests and go home, and the contractors can clock in, do a day’s work and then clock out and go home, but my residents do not have that privilege. Their lives and their homes are there. They are entitled to a higher quality of life in their community. I urge the Minister to listen to the contributions made by myself and others today and to take action to end the suffering of my constituents in Epsom.

15:37

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

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.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Countryside Alliance. The Countryside Alliance is, of course, a country sports organisation, but it is a very credible and influential organisation that highlights things such as rural crime and waste sites as well. Does he recognise that it has an important role to play in the countryside and that should be commended for doing so?

[Dr Hudson]

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.

15:47

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I begin by apologising to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) and to the rest of the House for my late arrival to the debate. I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. She may have noticed that I am not the Minister for Nature, my hon. Friend for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), but I hope to do her justice in responding to this debate because I know how hard she has worked on this issue and how seriously she takes it. I thank hon. Members from across the House, who have made valuable points today. This debate reminds me why it is so important to deal properly with rubbish and why all Members of the House support bins, whether they are Counts or not—sorry for my throwaway comment.

People rightly expect their community to be a safe, clean and pleasant place to live. They expect clean air, thriving natural spaces and confidence that waste is being managed responsibly. Most importantly, they expect environmental regulation and waste management to be working in the interests of local people. I absolutely agree, and so do the Government.

I will quickly summarise some of the actions that the Government have taken, led by my hon. Friend the Minister for Nature, and the achievements of the waste crime action plan commitments. My hon. Friend has already reformed the carriers, brokers and dealers regime, which was debated in the House of Commons just last week. She introduced digital waste tracking, the legislation for which was debated on 16 June. In March, she published updated statutory guidance and a code of practice for local authorities on litter enforcement powers and how to use them. She has also published best practice guidance for local authorities on using their powers to seize vehicles related to fly-tipping.

As well as that, the Minister has overseen the doubling of the Environment Agency’s waste crime enforcement budget, with an additional £45 million over the next three years. As my hon. Friends have rightly pointed out, it has been difficult for the Environment Agency to do its job given that it has faced 14 years of austerity and cuts, but it is now getting additional money to carry out its duties. The Environment Agency is building a new waste intelligence and analysis unit and has already started interviewing new staff for it. It has also secured access to key land registry data sets, allowing for quicker identification of the landowner when new illegal waste sites appear.

Courts can use their powers in the Crime and Policing Act 2026 to put points on the driving licences of those guilty of fly-tipping. We will make fly-tippers clear up their own mess, and we will consult on how to make that commitment a reality. We have also started clearing up some of the worst illegal waste sites that blight communities up and down the country. We are moving quickly for the clear-up of the site at Bolton House Road in Wigan and installing fire and security mitigations.

This is not time for reviews of waste; it is time for more action, and that is exactly what this Government are doing. In that context, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood for her tireless efforts in drawing attention to the Jameson Road landfill in her constituency. Her constituents made a fantastic choice at the last election in voting for a tireless champion for their community and someone who —I know this from experience—does not let an issue go once she gets on to it. When it comes to my hon. Friend, we know that we have to do exactly what we are told.

As my hon. Friend set out, too many of her constituents have struggled with persistent odour complaints for far too long. Nobody should feel trapped in their homes, workplaces or schools because bad smells mean that they cannot go outside or even open their windows. We are obviously keeping a very close eye on sites such as Jameson Road, and we are using our regulatory powers through the Environment Agency to ensure that operators are held accountable for poor compliance.

The Environment Agency has already served enforcement notices to mitigate the worst effects of the odour at Jameson Road. My hon. Friend knows that because, as she mentioned, she meets with the Environment Agency every week; she is doing a brilliant job of holding them to account. In May earlier this year, the Environment Agency varied the permit to restrict the site to accepting only low-risk waste such as soil, concrete and bricks. A regulatory notice is also in force, which requires the operator to remediate the site, including temporary covering and subsequent permanent capping works. Those measures, alongside enhanced inspections and expanded monitoring arrangements, are expected to lead to a reduction in the incident reports associated with the site.

The Environment Agency will continue to maintain close regulatory oversight of the site and hold the operator to account—I know that my hon. Friend will, too—for delivering improvements that local communities rightly expect. The operator must continue to deliver the required improvements, and local communities should be confident that regulatory intervention will follow if standards are not met. Let me be clear: where compliance falls short at any waste site, the regulator is prepared to take further action as necessary, and it will work closely with the Government to ensure that communities are protected from serious harm.

I recognise that many other hon. Members in attendance today have poorly performing waste sites in their constituencies, and I will do my absolute best to answer as many questions as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) raised concerns about what is happening at the landfill in her area. As she will know, we already have the extra £45 million, which should help in her area.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) and I have had a meeting about the flies; flies were also mentioned by a couple other people. It is awful when we see a huge swarm of them, and they can enter people’s homes. We have had a number of meetings about the issue and we are staying in close contact. To answer another of my hon. Friend’s questions, I should say that our analysis is that the Environment Agency needs better enforcement powers, which is why we have committed in the waste crime action plan to give more powers to the EA as a priority for the teams. It is also why we are giving an extra £45 million, as has already been mentioned.

I have to pay tribute to the campaigning of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee). He has not missed an opportunity in the voting Lobby or when seeing me around Parliament to raise what is happening in Walleys Quarry. The latest information I have for him is that, following the operator’s liquidation, the Environment Agency is managing the site to prevent pollution risks. Work is focused on site stability, maintaining capping, managing leachate and developing longer-term engineering solutions. Although the odour reports remain very low, the Environment Agency is continuing to monitor the site to see if there is any increase in the odour. I know that my hon. Friend is on the case and will mention it to me if anything changes there.

The hon. Members for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) and for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) mentioned the Lower Compton landfill site. The latest I can tell them about that site is that permanent capping of the operational area has been completed, and new gas infrastructure is due to be installed. The monitoring identified occasional exceedances of odour annoyance guidelines, but no exceedance of the World Health Organisation’s human health guidelines. The waste permits specify acceptance controls, and those can include sampling and testing.

Let me see who else I have on my list: to respond to the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane), I should say that the site she mentioned has had 30 fires since reopening in February 2025. I believe most of those to be due to arson, and most to be outside the site. The Environment Agency is working closely with the operator and other partners on investigating the fires on the site.

I turn to what my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) said. The Government committed in our manifesto to moving the UK towards a circular economy. We will be publishing our circular economy growth plan soon. On the Pilsworth site in my hon. Friend’s constituency, the Environment Agency continues to closely monitor odour issues, which remain below World Health Organisation levels of concern, although that is not sufficient to reassure my hon. Friend’s constituents. That is why we are investing in the EA, with new enforcement powers and new funding.

I absolutely champion the local constituents whom my hon. Friend mentioned, who have come together to campaign on this issue. I reassure them and her that they absolutely have a voice with this Government. We are listening to them and taking them seriously.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi). We know each other from previous campaigns together, so I know what a brilliant campaigner she is. I am pleased that some mitigations have been made and that things are starting to show improvements. I support her call for more joined-up work across the different agencies. If I can support her in helping to get that joined-up work, I absolutely will.

[Brian Mathew]

Could the Minister say a few words about a plastics tax, or a tax on single-use plastics, to make the recycling of plastics economic?

[Emma Hardy]

I am conscious that I am speaking outside my brief in responding to this debate, but I will ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Nature hears the hon. Member’s comment and gets back to him with her thoughts on that one.

I do not want to miss anyone out. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) raised the work that the Environment Agency is doing and—again—the problems that people have with flies. I totally agree with her point about putting people before profit—it should never be the other way round. A land remediation pathfinder scheme is launching this autumn, and support is available for local authorities’ work if needed. That will fund additional local authority resources, so additional money is coming in for some local authorities.

I want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood time to respond, so I will speed up.

I say to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that although waste policy is devolved and the Northern Irish circumstances are unique, we enjoy a strong relationship with our colleagues in Northern Ireland. We are soon to commission new research on the drivers and regulatory factors underpinning waste crime, and are actively working with Northern Ireland colleagues on the design of that research.

I hope I have responded to most of the comments made by hon. Members. I know that they will continue to speak to my hon. Friend the Minister for Nature where necessary and make sure that the issue continues to be a priority for her and the rest of the Government.

Just in case this is my last time addressing everyone in this role, Dr Murrison, can I say thank you to my wonderful officials? Thank you to all the team I have worked with; it has been an absolute pleasure. Hopefully I will be back in the new term, but we never know. For the moment, over and out.

15:58

[Lorraine Beavers]

Thank you for your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I also thank all hon. Members who have spoken and intervened, and the Minister for her response.

I again pay tribute to the tireless campaigners who have never given up in their struggle against Transwaste’s disdain for our community. Over the coming months, I will keep pushing in Parliament for the closure of that site once and for all, and for the enforcement needed to tackle the epidemic of waste crime across this country.

I will work with the new Prime Minister to ensure that working-class communities such as mine and his are no longer an afterthought for those in Westminster. Delivering on issues as fundamental as this is a mission of the Labour Government; it is a test of our ability to change things for the better. I came into politics to fight for justice at every level. Social and environmental justice are part of the same struggle, and I will not stop fighting until we deliver both for the British people.

Question put and agreed to. 

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of waste management sites on local communities.

Northern Ireland Hospitality Sector

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Westminster Hall

14:30

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a VAT reduction pilot for hospitality businesses in Northern Ireland.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of a pilot scheme to reduce VAT for the hospitality and food sectors in Northern Ireland. This proposal enjoys support from across the political spectrum and the commercial sector. It has the backing of businesses, Hospitality Ulster, the Northern Ireland Food To Go Association, Ministers of the Northern Ireland Executive, Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the Assembly’s all-party group on food to go, of which my party colleagues John Stewart and Diana Armstrong are both officers.

This is a request not for special treatment but for fairness, economic common sense and the opportunity to test a policy that could strengthen businesses, protect jobs and support communities across every part of Northern Ireland while providing valuable evidence for policymakers across the United Kingdom. Hospitality is one of our most important industries in Northern Ireland. It contributes approximately £1.4 billion to our economy in gross value added, accounts for 2.5% of our economic activity and supports roughly 50,000 jobs.

Those are not simply statistics; they represent family businesses, local employers, tourism operators, cafés, restaurants, hotels, pubs and food-to-go outlets. They are the very lifeblood of our towns, villages and cities, yet the sector is under immense pressure. Businesses have faced a perfect storm of rising energy costs, inflation, increased national insurance contributions, increases in the minimum wage and a continuing cost of living crisis that is reducing the disposable income of their customers.

Many businesses that I have met in my South Antrim constituency, from the Stone Hound in Antrim town to Brown’s Coffee in Ballyclare, the McKeever group of seven hotels and many more businesses that I do not have time to mention are being forced to make difficult decisions.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—he knows he is my friend—for giving way. I am enjoying his introductory remarks. Although I will not comment on the specifics of the pilot, I was married at the Dunadry hotel in his constituency, so I will take any opportunity to celebrate the hospitality sector in Northern Ireland. It is world-renowned, and it is loved by all those who get to enjoy it. It is second only to Staffordshire.

[Robin Swann]

I agreed with the hon. Member until his last point. The McKeever group owns the hotel in which he was married. I had my wedding reception at the group’s Dunsilly hotel, and it is just celebrating the 40th anniversary—[Interruption.] Of the hotel, not my marriage, just to be clear to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The group is being forced to make difficult decisions, looking at staff numbers, reducing opening hours and stalling or even cancelling investment plans. It is simply fighting to survive.

The Northern Ireland Food To Go Association has told me that over 200 of its businesses have closed in 2026 to date, but Northern Ireland faces an additional challenge that does not exist elsewhere in the United Kingdom, as we share a land border with another jurisdiction.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman, who is a friend and colleague, for securing this vital debate. I rise to support the UK-wide #VATsTheProblem campaign, alongside our local champions at Hospitality Ulster. The hospitality sector in Northern Ireland is an industry trapped in an impossible competitive vice. This month, the Republic of Ireland dropped its VAT on food and café catering to 9%, meaning that our border communities face a 120% tax disparity compared with neighbours just a short drive away. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are asking only for a fair fighting chance for our hospitality sector?

[Robin Swann]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that point, because we do share a land border with another jurisdiction. In the Republic of Ireland, hospitality businesses already benefit from a significantly lower VAT rate of 13.5%, but the Irish Government have gone further by moving towards a 9% rate for food-led hospitality, as he said. That creates a clear competitive imbalance.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate on an important issue. Does he agree that in my constituency and right across Northern Ireland, many pubs, cafés, hotels, B&Bs and local attractions are operating on extremely narrow margins? Targeted VAT relief would improve cash flows and strengthen their resilience, particularly amid rising wage, energy, food and insurance costs.

[Robin Swann]

I agree with the hon. Member. That is why many representative organisations think that VAT reduction would be a key enabler. It would not solve all those problems, but it would definitely help.

With regard to the cross-border imbalance, a family deciding where to spend their money, a couple booking a wedding reception, an organisation booking an event or a visitor choosing accommodation is increasingly influenced by price. Businesses on the other side of the border enjoy a tax advantage that can amount to tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds each year, depending on their size. The result is obvious. Northern Ireland businesses are competing with one hand tied behind their back, and the problem is about to get worse unless action is taken.

It is especially striking that the United Kingdom’s 20% VAT rate for hospitality is increasingly an outlier across Europe. France applies 10%, Italy 10%, Croatia 13% and Germany is moving towards a reduced hospitality rate. Across Europe, Governments recognise hospitality as a strategically important sector deserving of support because of its role in employment, tourism and local economic development.

The question we are asking the Government is simple: if other countries are using VAT policy to support growth, jobs and investment, why are they unwilling to even test whether such an approach could work in Northern Ireland? That is why the proposal for a Northern Ireland VAT pilot is so compelling. A pilot is not a permanent commitment or a leap in the dark; it is evidence-driven policymaking. It would allow the Treasury to assess whether a reduced rate increases economic activity, protects employment, boosts tourism and stimulates wider tax revenues through income tax, national insurance contributions and corporation tax.

The advantages could be substantial. First, it would help businesses remain viable. For many hospitality operators, a VAT reduction would improve margins at a time when costs are rising dramatically. Some businesses would pass savings directly to customers through lower prices, while others may reinvest those savings into staffing, wages, training or expansion. Either way, the money would remain within the real economy. Secondly, it would support jobs. Hospitality is one of the largest employers of our young people, and it provides opportunities for people entering the workforce, developing skills or returning to employment. Protecting hospitality means protecting livelihoods in every constituency across our country.

Thirdly, it would strengthen tourism. Visitors do not separate hotels, restaurants, cafés and attractions from their overall experience of Northern Ireland, so a more competitive hospitality sector would help to create a stronger visitor economy. Recent successes in attracting major international events have demonstrated Northern Ireland’s potential to attract visitors and generate significant economic returns, and a more competitive VAT regime would build on that success. Fourthly, it would support our high streets and local communities. Hospitality businesses create footfall, bring people into town centres and occupy premises that might otherwise stand vacant. Every restaurant, café or takeaway that survives and prospers contributes to the wider vitality of our communities.

However, there is another important question: can this be done legally? The answer is yes. Too often, discussions about Northern Ireland are dominated by what cannot be done because of the protocol or Windsor framework. On this occasion, the legal advice is clear that neither the VAT provisions that apply to Northern Ireland nor state aid considerations would prevent the UK Government from introducing a reduced VAT pilot for the hospitality sector in Northern Ireland. Indeed, article 8 of the Northern Ireland protocol specifically envisages a situation where VAT arrangements may diverge to address competitive imbalances with the Republic of Ireland, which is the case here. The legal route, the economic case and the practical mechanism exist. What is required now is the political will to act.

Of course, we have to be honest about the challenges. A reduction of VAT would have an up-front fiscal cost. The purpose of such a pilot is to measure whether increased economic activity could offset some or all of that additional revenue loss over time through growth, investment and employment. The question before us is not whether there is a cost, but whether the cost of doing nothing is greater. What is the cost of businesses closing? What is the cost of jobs being lost? What is the cost of investment leaving Northern Ireland? What is the cost of allowing a widening competitive gap between businesses north and south of the border? Those questions deserve answers, and a Northern Ireland pilot would provide them.

Northern Ireland has often been described as unique. In this case, our unique circumstances provide a unique opportunity. We have a clearly defined geographical market, face a distinct cross-border competitive challenge and have an obvious comparator in the Republic of Ireland. That makes Northern Ireland the ideal test bed for a hospitality VAT pilot. If successful, the lessons learned could inform policy across the wider United Kingdom. This proposal is pro-business, pro-worker, pro-tourism and pro-growth. More importantly, it is practical and evidence-based and deserves to be tested rather than dismissed.

The incoming Prime Minister talks of more devolution. Here is an opportunity for the Minister to put such a case in front of him. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has opened an evidence call for an inquiry on this subject, so it will not go away at the close of this debate. I therefore urge the Government and the Treasury to work with the Northern Ireland Executive, industry representatives and local businesses to establish a reduced VAT pilot for hospitality businesses in Northern Ireland. Let us give this vital sector a fair chance to compete, protect jobs and investment, strengthen our tourism offering and demonstrate that creative economic policy can help to unlock Northern Ireland’s full economic potential.

16:13

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) for securing this debate on an important issue facing hospitality businesses in Northern Ireland and for his recent question to me in Treasury orals on the same topic. I look forward to meeting him to discuss it further, as I committed to on the Floor of the House.

I thank hon. Members for their interventions, too. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) on his festivities over in Northern Ireland.

[Adam Jogee]

I am grateful for the Minister’s belated congratulations. My wife probably feels like she has been married to me for a lifetime, although it has been three and something years.

[Dan Tomlinson]

rose—

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I will.

[Jim Shannon]

It is no wonder that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) had to go all the way to Northern Ireland to get an Ulster girl to marry. That tells you what Ulster women are like. They are the best.

[Dan Tomlinson]

rose—

[Adam Jogee]

Will the Minister give way? This is important.

[Dan Tomlinson]

I will.

[Adam Jogee]

I just want to put on record that I did not go to get anyone; she found me.

[Dan Tomlinson]

It is important that we return to the topic at hand, but I am very glad that my hon. Friend is happily married to, I am sure, a fantastic partner.

The Government recognise the important contribution that hospitality businesses make to jobs, growth and local communities across Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole. Cafés, pubs, restaurants and hotels support local economies and, as the hon. Member for South Antrim set out, are important for employment, particularly of young people who are trying to find their way in the jobs market, get experience, get a foot in the door and ready themselves for a career of productive work. They also play a vital role in our high streets and town centres.

I hear the concerns that have been raised about pressures facing the sector in Northern Ireland and across the wider country in terms of operating costs. I also understand the particular challenge in Northern Ireland from the comparisons with the hospitality VAT rate in the Republic of Ireland and cross-border competition. I recognise that the fact that consumers have that much more readily available choice is, as the hon. Gentleman said, a unique challenge facing businesses in Northern Ireland. I fully understand why he is raising the issue and campaigning on it on behalf of his constituents, and I commend him for his sterling work as a constituency MP.

[Alex Easton]

Will the Minister also acknowledge and comment on the added pressures of the Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor framework, which add extra burdens to businesses in Northern Ireland?

[Dan Tomlinson]

There are a whole range of challenges and also benefits from the protocol and the Windsor framework. I agree with the hon. Member that they do not provide constraints on the policy choice on VAT. I always find it frustrating when Ministers hide behind legal constraints that perhaps are not always there, and I want to be up front with him: if a Government chose to do this, the protocol would not be a barrier.

Members have focused on the potential merits of a Northern Ireland VAT reduction pilot for hospitality, but VAT is a broad-based tax on consumption that applies to a range of sectors, and it also applies on a UK-wide basis. The Government’s view is that different VAT rates would create divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and impact the competitiveness of businesses between the two regions. I understand that Members are specifically talking about Northern Ireland, but across the country as a whole—some hon. Members did mention the broader campaign around reductions in VAT across the UK—a reduction to 10% in VAT for hospitality would cost around £11 billion a year, which is equivalent to the total expenditure on the Royal Navy or the annual child benefit bill.

There would be significant practical challenges associated with introducing a pilot for a different VAT treatment for hospitality in Northern Ireland only. Businesses, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and consumers would then need to operate in a system that created different treatments for otherwise similar transactions. There would be boundary issues and administrative complexity to work through.

The fact that I am not announcing this change today does not mean that the Government do not take this issue seriously and understand the representations being made. We are also not standing aside. The Chancellor has introduced the Great British summer savings scheme, which is a temporary reduction in VAT on eligible family attractions and children’s meals over this summer, helping families with costs and encouraging footfall during the summer holidays. In England, the Government have also introduced new business rates multipliers for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, a package of transitional reliefs, and the supporting small business scheme, which together amount to £4.3 billion of additional spending. The Barnett formula is applied in the normal way to those changes, so the Northern Ireland Executive received £185 million in consequentials as a result of those decisions.

The Government—and I personally, if I have the honour of staying in this role—will continue to listen carefully to representations from the hospitality sector, from the Northern Ireland Executive and, of course, from hon. Members. We will meet after the summer recess; I am as good as my word. However, we do not believe that a Northern Ireland-specific hospitality pilot is the right approach. As tempting as it is to burnish my devolution credentials ahead of an impending reshuffle, I will not make that commitment today.

I thank the hon. Member for South Antrim for securing this debate and for strongly representing his community. This is an important issue, and I am happy to continue discussing it.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister is making a very good and clear speech. He referred to parts of Europe whose Governments are considering a VAT reduction because they recognise the importance of the hospitality sector. Are the Government considering that? If there is an evidential base for it, perhaps they and the Minister will at least consider it at some stage to see what can be used to our advantage.

[Dan Tomlinson]

Right now, we are engaging in what could be seen as a similar proposal to the one put forward today. We are doing a time-limited reduction in VAT, not for one sector and one part of the country, but for particular leisure and hospitality activities and consumption across the country as a whole. I am sure that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and others will conduct thorough evaluations of that, so that we can see the impact that it had.

We expect businesses to pass the reduction in VAT on to consumers. Some big organisations, such as Merlin Entertainments, have already done that by setting new ticketing prices for families this summer, and many small businesses have been changing the prices on their menus for children’s meals. I hope that once this Great British summer savings period ends on 1 September, we will review that and look at the impact.

Of course, the challenge with any VAT reduction is whether it will be passed on to consumers. To be clear, I do not begrudge businesses having more margin, but the objective of the hon. Member for South Antrim is to see prices fall. When VAT changes have been made in times gone by, the gains have not always flowed entirely to consumers. The Government have been working really hard to ensure that businesses pass on the reduction in the Great British summer savings scheme. As I say, we are really glad that many have done so. I look forward to continuing to discuss this important topic, and to seeing the impact of the temporary and targeted changes that we have made to VAT this summer.

Question put and agreed to.

16:23

Sitting suspended.

Estate Regeneration

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered estate regeneration.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I want to use this debate to talk about the principles of estate regeneration, its real-life impacts and the process through which it should be handled. I will speak specifically about the current regeneration in Buckskin and South Ham in my constituency.

First, I want to cover what good regeneration looks like. When done right, good estate regeneration has the power to breathe new life into communities, restore civic pride and improve quality of life through better infrastructure such as schools, GP surgeries and green spaces. In all cases, there is a community that lives there, often close-knit and deeply rooted across generations. Those communities deserve not just respect but full and genuine engagement, shaping and driving the future of their own areas. That is at the heart of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s 2016 guidance on estate regeneration, although I will go on to say that that guidance needs to be refreshed and strengthened.

Buckskin and South Ham are proud, strongly knit communities where many have lived for decades and neighbours look out for each other. They were transformed when Basingstoke became a London overspill town post-war. By 1973, more than 3,250 homes had been built in South Ham alone. With new housing came new schools and the associations and religious groups that bind an area into a community, each with its own congregation, and that now run projects such as the community pantry in Buckskin or the street pastors.

The Westside Community Association, following the much-mourned closure of its premises, now runs the Ridgeway centre and the Russell Howard pavilion, hubs known across Basingstoke. They have hosted countless birthday parties, christenings and events, including my coffee afternoons, but they are so much more than a space for hire. They house nurseries and run clubs for the over-55s at risk of isolation. I have seen at first hand the work they do, such as the food bank at the Ridgeway centre, which supports people in Buckskin and South Ham when they struggle to make ends meet.

Today, both areas contain more than 4,600 households and 10,000 residents. A regeneration proposal was first identified for development in the 2016 local plan. In 2023, Basingstoke and Deane borough council and Sovereign Network Group signed a memorandum of understanding to take forward, in their words, “transformation plans, covering community engagement, master planning, working with Hampshire county council on transport and infrastructure, land assembly, partnerships and funding.” The housing association, Sovereign Network Group, then partnered with the Hill Group to form the Sovereign Hill Partnership to deliver the scheme.

There is no doubt that change is needed for parts of Buckskin and South Ham, and the flats in Pinkerton Road have been identified as a particular priority. I and many residents recognise that there are clearly homes and areas in need of investment; that is not in doubt. The Sovereign Hill Partnership says it has held 33 events, knocked on 1,200 doors and received 1,800 survey responses as part of the regeneration process. I know that staff at SNG and the SHP, many based locally, have tried hard to engage with residents; this is not about them. In my surgeries, at the SHP’s own drop-ins and on the doorstep, too many residents remain frustrated, uncertain and anxious about the future.

Issues raised with me focus on three key areas: accountability and transparency over finances; uncertainty; and trust linked to performance on repairs and maintenance. First, on accountability and transparency over finances, residents are frustrated with what they see as a lack of accountability in this project. The memorandum of understanding was updated in 2025, in the council’s own words, to “reflect updated ambitions, aims, objectives and working arrangements of the partners.” That means the council and Sovereign Network Group. I am not aware that any version has ever been made widely available, which itself raises questions over transparency.

That speaks to a broader issue that residents raise with me time and again. If the council agreed the memorandum of understanding with the Sovereign Network Group, and they are working in partnership together, but the Sovereign Hill Partnership, which is a partnership between the Sovereign Network Group and a private house builder, is delivering the regeneration, who exactly should residents hold to account? Many tell me that they feel left in the dark. Does the Minister agree that accountability for such schemes should be crystal clear? There needs to be clarity on which body is accountable, alongside greater democratic accountability.

In London, regeneration projects involving more than 150 dwellings or the demolition of any social homes that seek Greater London Authority funding require a resident ballot demonstrating support. In Basingstoke, even though direct funding is not involved, a partnership with the local authority still exists. The parties should look at measures to introduce greater democratic accountability, including the use of resident ballots, as increasingly is normal practice. I ask the Minister whether the Government would consider including resident ballots or similar mechanisms as standard in updated guidance for schemes with or without Government funding.

We must also consider the financial model for the regeneration. SNG is a not-for-profit with a social purpose, but it has formed a joint venture with private house builder the Hill Group to help deliver this regeneration. Many residents want greater clarity on how any surplus will be reinvested, and on the details of the financial model underpinning the regeneration. Given the scale of the proposals, it is essential that residents can understand whether the benefits will be retained locally, particularly for housing, affordable housing, infrastructure and community provision. Does the Minister agree that transparency over the financial model is crucial for resident confidence, and will the Department consider updating the national guidance to that effect for all regeneration schemes?

My next point is about the significant uncertainty caused to both social and private tenants, as well as to homeowners, by the regeneration proposals. Following nearly two and a half years of consultation, the Sovereign Hill Partnership confirmed in February what it calls the priority areas for redevelopment and refurbishment, as well as areas of limited change, the latter covering around a third of homes—roughly 1,500—in Buckskin and South Ham.

That clarity is welcome for those residents, but it leaves nearly 3,000 households in areas of further study with no certainty at all. Residents have told me that they are unclear as to why and how these boundaries were determined—another example of a lack of clarity and transparency over decision making. Does the Minister agree that it is good practice to explain such decisions in an accessible way?

On the point about uncertainty, the Sovereign Hill Partnership has acknowledged that wide-scale regeneration would take multiple decades. In the meantime, thousands of my constituents have no idea whether they will be asked to move next year, the year after, in 10 years or not at all. I have spoken to residents unsure whether to redecorate, lay patios, redo gardens and kitchens, or make other home improvements. They do not know whether they will see any return on improvements already made, including significant accessibility works for disabled residents. Those considering selling have also raised concerns about their ability to get a fair price.

In short, too many people are having to put big life decisions on hold. Three years on, do residents not deserve clarity and a clear timeline as soon as possible? I urge the SHP to give that clarity quickly. Updated national guidance should set out what a realistic timeline for such schemes looks like, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s view. Perhaps most prominently, many residents are deeply fearful about the potential use of compulsory purchase orders. I do not believe that the widespread use of CPOs is justified, and their potential use only strengthens the case for resident ballots.

The third area of concern revolves around a lack of trust, driven in large part by Sovereign Network Group’s performance on housing repairs. Put simply, that is the largest single source of casework in my office. I am afraid that we hear the story all too regularly: complaints ignored, wait times running into months or years, missed appointments, and wrong jobs or poor repairs that mean starting the whole process all over again.

Recently, an elderly constituent had scaffolding on their SNG property from November 2025 until this month for a roof repair that never took place. They were unable to open their windows for eight months, including during the recent heatwave. The work has now been cancelled, the scaffolding has been removed, and the problem has been left unsolved.

Likewise, a constituent whose depression and anxiety leaves them almost entirely housebound reported a roof leak last November. It remained unresolved until March, despite multiple SNG visits confirming the property was extremely damp and infested with mould and woodlice. These are just samples, but the pattern is borne out in both tenant survey data and the judgment of the Regulator of Social Housing.

In the tenant satisfaction measures headline report, published last November, SNG performed worse than the national average across a range of measures, including overall satisfaction, repairs service, time taken to complete repairs, home maintenance, listening to residents and complaints handling. The regulator has found weaknesses in SNG’s delivery of an effective, efficient and timely repairs service, and a related failure to meet complaints handling timescales. I am aware that improvement plans are said to be in place, but the record points to a real issue of trust. Residents tell me repeatedly that they struggle to believe SNG can deliver a regeneration of this scale when it is struggling to deliver day-to-day repairs. Let us remind ourselves that this is one of the largest regenerations in the country.

Does the Minister agree that improvement is needed on repairs and maintenance? Does she recognise that the record erodes residents’ trust in SNG’s ability to handle a scheme of this size? Might there be scope to update national guidance on estate regeneration so that minimum standards on repairs must be met?

In conclusion, how does the Department monitor adherence to its 2016 guidance, and what plans are there to update it and make it statutory for both local authorities and housing associations? I recognise the role that estate regeneration can play in restoring civic pride, breathing new life into communities and improving quality of life, but it must be done with communities—with them shaping and directing the change, with clear accountability, with trust between all parties, and with the provision of as much certainty as possible. I will continue to fight for the residents of Buckskin and South Ham for as long as is needed. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

16:40

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) on securing this debate. I want to speak about the importance of housing-led regeneration. Done well, it transforms lives, rebuilds communities, unlocks economic growth and creates places where people want to live, work and raise families. Yet for many communities across the north, that aspiration remains out of reach.

Too many families live in ageing homes that are expensive to maintain, difficult to modernise and increasingly unfit for today’s needs. In many neighbourhoods, outdated layouts and ageing infrastructure no longer meet the needs of the communities they serve. Without significant intervention, 100,000 social homes could be lost over the coming decade, further reducing the supply of affordable housing. It is against that backdrop that the interim findings of the Renew inquiry are so important—I declare my interest as chair of the Westminster group for the inquiry.

Led by the Northern Housing Consortium, the inquiry highlights the vital role that regeneration can play in addressing housing needs, supporting economic development and strengthening communities across the north of England. The Renew report found that more than half a million good-quality homes could be unlocked through regeneration and renewal programmes, demonstrating the scale of the opportunity before us. The report highlights the transformative impact that regeneration can have on people and places. Beyond increasing housing supply, it offers an opportunity to create healthier, more sustainable communities, to reduce energy costs for residents, and to improve the overall quality of life in neighbourhoods that have experienced years of under-investment.

Importantly, regeneration delivers benefits that extend far beyond housing alone. Investment in homes can help attract investment in infrastructure, town centres and local services. It creates jobs, supports skills development and gives communities greater confidence in their future. The impact therefore reaches well beyond the development site itself, generating wider social value and helping to create vibrant, sustainable places. However, successful regeneration cannot simply be done to communities; it must be delivered with communities. Residents should be at the heart of regeneration plans, helping to shape the future of the places they call home.

A good example can be found in the Gleadless Valley regeneration project in Sheffield. Residents’ involvement has shaped the vision for the valley to include commercial and community space, improved parks, paths, and jobs and training for local residents. Lara Joyce, from the Gleadless Valley tenants and residents association, described the process as

“making hope feel safe again”.

That clearly demonstrates the importance of building trust with residents and ensuring local voices are heard throughout the process.

What is particularly encouraging is the growing recognition that the success of regeneration should not be measured solely by the number of homes delivered. Its value can also be seen in a stronger local economy, improved wellbeing and a more resilient community. The challenge now is to turn that ambition into delivery. If we get regeneration right, we will not simply build more homes. We will rebuild neighbourhoods, revitalise businesses and restore pride in communities. That is why housing-led regeneration matters, and why it deserves our continued support.

16:44

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for highlighting this issue.

Many of us can be guilty of forgetting that a house is not just a unit on a spreadsheet, but the anchor of a family’s life. I see it that way, as do others, including the hon. Gentleman. Our historical, post-war social housing estates across Northern Ireland possess an incredible and undeniable community spirit, but are too often choked by generational underinvestment, outdated design and structural neglect. As always, I will give the Northern Ireland perspective on this topic to support the hon. Gentleman in his challenge and focus, and in what he wants to achieve, as it is what I want as well. It is nice to see the Minister in her place again—she is becoming a regular in Westminster Hall. I look forward to hearing her contribution.

I stand here to speak up for the thousands of families living in social housing across my constituency. Those estates were built decades ago, and although they were built with the best of intentions, time, by its very nature, has taken its toll. We are dealing with ageing housing stock that suffers from chronic dampness, poor insulation and completely outdated heating systems. In an era where energy prices remain painfully high, it is a tragedy that our lowest-income families are living in the hardest-to-heat homes and are forced to choose between heating their homes—or even just their front rooms—and feeding their children.

Considered estate regeneration is about so much more than putting a new lick of paint on a building, replacing a roof or putting in insulation; it is about having a holistic blueprint for community renewal. I thank the hon. Member for Basingstoke for highlighting the community aspect, because I want to focus on the community drive as well. It means looking at the layout of our estates to eradicate the poorly lit alleys that breed antisocial behaviour. It also means investing in community infrastructure: the playgrounds where our children can play safely; the community hubs where our elderly residents can find a reprieve from chronic loneliness; and the green spaces that support mental wellbeing and social interaction.

True regeneration must be considered, meaning that it must be done with the community, not to the community. As the hon. Gentleman outlined incredibly well, our local communities must be the co-architects of their own future. We must empower local tenant associations and community groups to lead the design process. If they are drawn into that project and focus, it will make a community and a family atmosphere, and it will bring people together. That is what I would love to see.

To know how to fix a troubled estate—I say this respectfully—just ask the grandmother who has lived on that street for 40 years. She knows exactly where the problems are and exactly what the neighbourhood needs to thrive. Her love for that estate—the place she stayed in for 40 years of her life—should focus us all in the future.

Although housing policy and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive are devolved matters managed by the Minister for Communities in Stormont, the fiscal reality is that our devolved Administration cannot deliver the scale of transformation needed on their own. That is why the Barnett consequential and what the Government give the Northern Ireland Assembly to dish out are so important. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive faces a multi-billion-pound maintenance and investment deficit over the next decade, just to bring its current stock up to a decent standard. That is why we need a joined-up, UK-wide approach to funding capital infrastructure. The UK levelling-up and building frameworks must ensure that Northern Ireland receives a fair, proportionate share of macro investment specifically earmarked for social housing regeneration.

This subject means a lot to me. Back in 1985, when I was first elected to a council, the social, bread-and-butter issues were about housing; it is still one of the biggest issues that my constituency office receives in the mailbag every week. Today’s debate means a lot to me. I congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke on securing it and look forward to hearing what the Minister can do to encourage him and us.

16:49

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for securing this debate and giving me a chance to talk about the Alton estate in Roehampton in my constituency. It is also a pleasure to follow on from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who always brings wisdom and a flavour of Northern Ireland to every debate, which I fully appreciate.

The Alton estate in Roehampton in my constituency is home to over 13,000 people. It is one of the largest housing estates in the country, and it was built in 1954. It is a beautiful area; it is right next to Richmond Park, and it has some listed stilt blocks designed by Le Corbusier. It is a beautiful estate and a fantastic community. I am so proud to be the MP for Roehampton.

However, the estate has been run down for too long. It is an area of high deprivation and high health inequalities. From one side of my Putney constituency to the other, in the Alton, there is a 10-year life expectancy difference. It also suffers from poor transport links. The failure of the estate was recognised in 2010 by the then Conservative council of Wandsworth, which said, “Yes, we need to do some regeneration. We will look into this.” Since 2010, regeneration of the Alton estate has been discussed, but as yet it has not yet been delivered to the people of the Alton.

A plan was developed by the Conservative council, but it was unpopular and widely not liked. People very much wanted regeneration, but not that plan. The developer pulled out of the plan during covid—it pulled out from all the regenerations that it was doing in London—so in 2022, when the Labour council came in, it looked at it again. That Labour council became the developer, and that has been key to the success of the plan so far. It employed the HTA Design architecture company, which did a community co-design, stripped things back and talked to people, and has a good plan that the community really like.

The plan has a new library, a new dedicated youth centre —I was a bit obsessed with that part, because the stripping back of our youth clubs in the previous regeneration plan and the estate as a whole has been dreadful—and a new community centre. It will have a shopping parade, with shops—I spoke to Lidl only this week—that will have affordable fruit and vegetables, and two GP surgeries with the space to do preventative healthcare, which will build healthy living into the regeneration. It will have a new police hub, a new family hub and a nursery. It will demolish 177 substandard houses, which have been left to become run down, and build 615 new homes. In total, 473 new homes will be created, with priority given to Alton residents, who will watch them being built.

The largest regeneration ballot ever in this country was held last October, and the people on the Alton estate voted by 82% for the plan—that is an overwhelming majority, a real yes vote. That yes vote has unlocked an additional £60 million of funding from the Mayor of London. I am disappointed that then Conservative opposition campaigned against the Alton renewal plan.

A couple of months ago, we had local elections, and the Conservatives now run Wandsworth council by a vote of 29 councillors to 28—a small margin. I hope that the new council will understand how important the regeneration is to the people of the Alton and will go ahead with the plan, without doing a whole new round of consolation or lots of cutbacks that reduce it. I also hope that they will keep the amount of social housing in the plan. The GLA funding for social housing is £220,000 per unit, but it is £70,000 per unit for shared ownership, so it makes sense for the new Conservative administration to keep the high levels of social housing in the regeneration plan.

I recently met the new cabinet member for housing at Wandsworth council, and I made clear the residents’ strong view that the full plan is needed. He has not said that he will cut it back, but I am worried that he might. I hope that the Minister will lend full support to the Alton renewal project. To do anything less than the full plan will be to let down the residents on the Alton estate —they have waited for so long.

I would like to end by paying tribute to the Our Roehampton organisation, which provides amazing support and brings together brilliant people across the estate to create community social cohesion. To do anything other than fully go ahead with the plan would stop significant growth and opportunity for residents. The plan will provide a safer, healthier and revitalised Alton that everyone can be really proud of, and I hope the Minister will give it her full support.

16:59

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison.

Estate regeneration must be about more than replacing bricks and mortar. It must restore confidence, strengthen communities and give residents pride in place in what they call their home. In Dunscroft, in my constituency, local people want to see sustained investment in their estates and neighbourhoods, not just one-off quick fixes that rapidly degrade. They want better-quality housing, safer streets, improved green spaces, well-maintained public areas, and community facilities that bring people together. Residents have told me at local positive action groups—resident-led groups that action local improvement that they believe will make a change—that living in a place where they see reminders of neglect has a real impact on their mental health, their sense of pride, their local identity and the day-to-day lived experience of everyone who calls the place home. To be clear, local people are still doing amazing things in those areas. I recently met the Dunscroft and Friends communities group at the Dunscroft Warriors junior football team’s annual gala. They are doing great work in difficult circumstances, but they need more support. They have the ideas and the know-how, and they know their area, but they just need a little more help from Government. Residents know where investment is most urgently needed, so regeneration must be shaped by them, not imposed on them.

Pride in Place funding gives councils and communities the resources to tackle long-standing problems and deliver improvements that people can see in their everyday lives. That means repairing neglected spaces, supporting local shops and services, improving routes through the community, and creating places where children and families feel safe and welcome. However, short-term or piecemeal funding will not be enough. Communities such as Dunscroft need a long-term commitment and a fair opportunity to benefit from national regeneration programmes. These places are not looking for continuous hand-outs; they are just looking for a hand-up to get back on their feet. Moreover, they want to do that together, as a team. For me, that is what pride in place is all about.

I urge the Government and ask the Minister to consider providing a bit more Pride in Place funding in future, to work directly with the residents and to ensure that Dunscroft receives the investment it deserves. Regeneration should leave people not only with better homes and public spaces, but with renewed confidence in the future of their community and with hope, which we all very much need in our lives.

16:57

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) on securing the debate. His call for minimum repair standards seems very reasonable, and I am happy to echo it. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) identifying the regular attendees in this Chamber—I am tempted to say that it takes one to know one. I am sure we will see him again; it is always a pleasure to have him with us in a debate.

It is a shame that the constituents of the hon. Member for Basingstoke do not feel they have been fully consulted, as they should have been, on the regeneration project he mentioned. Regeneration, when done with genuine community involvement, can change lives in some of the best ways possible. Community involvement, consent and consultation are fundamental necessities if that kind of positive and transformative outcome is to be achieved.

Regeneration is one of the best tools we have to help solve the housing crisis. It allows us to build the new homes we desperately need—including, crucially, new social homes—on brownfield sites, saving precious greenfield from development. It allows residents to exchange some of the coldest, leakiest housing stock in Europe for better homes that are affordable to run, while adding the kind of infrastructure that the hon. Gentleman referred to, such as GP surgeries, school places and playparks, which some estates built 60 years ago never had.

Many Liberal Democrat councils are showing the way to do this. My Somerset councillor colleagues, including Federica Smith-Roberts, Tom Deakin and Lee Baker, have led the way on the regeneration of the North Taunton estate. There are 162 defective prefabricated concrete Woolaway homes, unfit for the 21st century, being demolished and replaced with 229 council homes for affordable rent—67 more than we had before. The scheme was built around a resident design group from the outset, not token consultations or consultation after the drawings were finished. Local community champions like Lesley Councill, who has done amazing work at the Priorswood community centre, helped to lead that involvement and deserve to be credited for a lot of the work. Existing tenants were rehoused during the works, with a guaranteed right to return.

Another example is the Cambridge road estate in Kingston upon Thames, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey). The Liberal Democrat council there insisted on subjecting the proposed regeneration scheme to the kind of ballot that the hon. Member for Basingstoke referred to. Those involved worked hard with local residents and the proposal received overwhelming support, resulting in 2,100 new homes and 871 new council houses—218 more than were on the site before.

Those are not marginal examples; they are proof that the choice is not between going ahead with regeneration or getting community consent. With leadership and real involvement, communities can and do vote for more housing, not less. The Liberal Democrats want to see that ambition matched nationally, and we would go further. We want infrastructure to come first in these developments, so that regeneration comes with the GP surgeries, transport and drainage capacity that the extra density demands, rather than as an afterthought. As we have said: no doctors, no development.

We would also get serious about the housing that already exists, but sits empty. There are more than 359 homes across the country that have been empty for six months or longer. Addressing that would ease the pressure to drive up to unsustainable densities in other parts of towns and communities, and would relieve pressure on greenfield sites.

The same principle applies to our high streets. The Liberal Democrats want to see a properly funded high streets strategy that genuinely brings empty units back into use as accommodation and housing above shops, strengthens the town centre-first principle and supports property owners who want to do those conversions. We would deliver on our 10-year emergency home upgrade programme, starting with free insulation and heat pumps for low-income households, so that regeneration is not the only route to warm homes.

We welcome the fact that the Government have made housing a priority. We have read that the new Prime Minister will want to increase the number of council and social rent homes being built. Does the Minister believe that the new Prime Minister will match the Liberal Democrat ambition to reach 150,000 new social rent homes per year? I am sure we would all be interested to hear that.

We ask the Minister for an infrastructure-first requirement, so that regeneration schemes are properly funded to deliver the GP surgeries, schools and transport links that increased density requires; a national target for 150,000 social rent homes per year, rather than the market-led approach that we have at the moment; the delivery of a 10-year emergency home upgrade programme, starting with free insulation and heat pumps for low-income households, and a recognition that regeneration should never be done to a community, but done with and by the community.

17:02

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

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.

[Fleur Anderson]

Does the shadow Minister know that since Wandsworth council became Conservative, the only decisions it has made have been to cancel all of the housing development on one estate and partially cancel it on another? We are now wondering what will happen with the Alton estate. Does he support building more houses and keeping them as social housing, especially on the Alton estate?

[Gareth Bacon]

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.

17:10

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Nesil Caliskan)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. May I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for his generous words? I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); he and I are competing for appearances in this Chamber this week—

[Jim Shannon]

You’re playing catch-up!

[Nesil Caliskan]

Yes, and I have a long way to go.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for securing this important debate and thank all Members for their contributions. Each one has provided an important perspective on the challenges of estate renewal and the need generally to build homes in a way that works for communities. My hon. Friend spoke powerfully about the difference between good regeneration and poor examples in his constituency. The Government recognise that good estate regen is critical to delivering our housing target and to providing decent homes for everybody to live in.

There are many reasons why estate regeneration might be the best thing for existing tenants or for a local area. In some cases, years of neglect from a Conservative Government that failed to invest in existing estates and mandated council rent reductions, which meant even less for housing revenue accounts, has left many estates in dire need of regeneration. I know that only too well, having led a local authority that felt the burden of pressures on the HRA account. Social housing was the tenure most affected by damp and mould issues—my hon. Friend correctly highlighted the impact that that has on many of his constituents, and I know that many other Members have cases involving the same problem.

An ageing housing stock not only impacts life chances, but costs the taxpayer more in the long term, because disrepair has a bigger impact on communities and also on the stock itself. In that context, it might make more sense for an entire estate to be regenerated than to take a sticking-plaster approach, particularly when some buildings reach the end of their life. In other cases, estates are the best places to build more affordable homes, particularly in our towns and cities, where there may be fewer development sites available, but more social infrastructure in local areas.

The people often forgotten in housing debates are the 1 million families on council housing waiting lists and the thousands of people trapped in temporary accommodation. I know that there are something like 4,000 on the housing register in my hon. Friend’s local authority area, and the figure is similar in my borough of Barking and Dagenham. Everyone deserves a decent home—a safe home, in a clean neighbourhood, with decent social infrastructure. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who spoke so passionately and accurately about the importance of the facilities that make a community, whether that is a youth centre or much needed GPs. I pay tribute to her long-standing campaign, which reflects the need to build neighbourhoods with homes that are more than just the buildings that house people.

In my view, the simplest, most powerful thing we can do to lift people out of poverty and improve life chances in this country is to provide more decent homes. First and foremost, we must recognise that the supply of homes is the foundation for everything. Indeed, we will only address the housing crisis by building more homes, period. I listened with great interest to the shadow Minister, who made important points about house building and getting on with it. I have to say, though, having been a council leader in and now a Labour Member of Parliament in London, that it is a great shame that Conservative and Lib Dem councils, councillors and MPs frequently object to house building.

Of course, brownfield sites are a really important part of the solution; but the idea that we can meet housing need in London or the rest of the country only by using brownfield sites or doing infill on existing estates is, I am afraid, misleading. That does not mean that we look at only one aspect of house building. I recognise that the picture is complicated, and it will take a multitude of approaches to make sure that regeneration delivers the number of homes to the decent homes standard that we need, but I also know that regeneration must be delivered in partnership with communities. Good regeneration puts communities in the driving seat. That does not just mean being transparent with decision making; it also means allowing those who live in the community to have a real say in shaping proposals. Decisions on property size, building height, materials, amenities and timelines for delivery are important for getting community buy-in. That approach is not new. Good developers, of which there are many, do that anyway, and the regulatory standards are clear: registered providers must communicate with tenants, provide information to them and take their views into account in decision making. That extends to providers undertaking estate regeneration.

It is difficult to set out realistic timelines, because each estate regeneration is different and unique due to their different sizes and ambitions, and good engagement with existing residents may further change those ambitions. Timelines for estate renewal are also highly dependent on viability, phasing, planning permission conditions, and ground and infrastructure prep, but I accept that families who live on an estate face huge anxiety when they do not know when their home is going to be knocked down. Indeed, there are examples in my constituency of families who have been told their estate has been earmarked for renewal; they can see their community being hollowed out, yet they do not know when they will need to move on. Timelines for estate renewal are complicated, but it is important that engagement takes into account the instability caused by estate renewal.

My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke asked a valid question about whether the process for decision making should be through a ballot. I led a local authority that had a ballot for an area. It is hard work to say the least, but it is perhaps one of the most important things a local authority can do to secure community buy-in. However, to say that ballots in themselves are what secured that engagement would be to do a disservice to the engagement that the ballot provided.

Ballots in and of themselves do not solve trust issues among residents. They can force developers to do the meaningful engagement that they should be doing anyway, but they do not mean that we will get the outcome that we want. Where providers fall short, there is usually a complaints process and an ombudsman. In addition, the Government have also committed to introducing social tenant access to information requirements from this October, which will make it mandatory for providers to give information about property management in response to information requests.

[Luke Murphy]

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

[Nesil Caliskan]

Of course I will. The Department welcomes any engagement about that. I have to emphasise that the engagement process requires more than just a “yes or no” tick box, and the best regeneration and estate renewal programme demonstrate a long-term commitment to engagement with residents and to giving residents the opportunity to shape the outcomes of the programmes. In the best programmes, local leadership also demonstrates political bravery in saying, “We have to have some homes built, so let us go on this journey together.” Too often, we see examples where it has become too easy to say no to everything, and that is how we have ended up with a housing crisis.

A good question was asked about the governance of regeneration schemes. I agree with Members who stated that it is vital that estate regeneration schemes demonstrate transparency, particularly when they involve public land or public money. Estate renewal can actually be quite easy, if all the land is sold off. Particularly in places like London, an estate will not be short of interest from developers. Estate regeneration is much harder if we are committed to delivering affordable homes and ensuring the amenities that make an estate a community. The estate regeneration national strategy guidance helps to set out a framework from Government to achieve what is needed. The Regulator of Social Housing works to improve standards and the ombudsman provides routes for readiness. On more effective statutory routes for better estate regeneration, some important steps have been taken by the Government, but I recognise that we need a longer-term commitment and a culture change, supporting local authorities to develop estate regeneration in a way that works for communities.

Let me address the point about lack of trust on repair issues. Too often, people talk as though estate repairs are a task separate from long-term estate renewal. The truth is that estate regeneration for an existing area is a project that may last decades. Five years is a relatively short period of time in terms of estate renewal, but that is how long a young person spends in secondary school. If, throughout that time, they have a leak in the roof or damp, or if there is antisocial behaviour or basic things just need to be fixed on their estate, that will have an impact not only on their life chances, but on their trust and confidence in the ability of those who are responsible for fixing the basics in their home now to also deliver homes for the future, where they may live for the rest of their lives. I take the point very seriously, and I would welcome any further discussions that Members might want to have with Ministers in MCHLG, so that we can strengthen existing the guidance and build, not erode, trust and confidence to ensure an endorsement for further house building in this country.

Estate renewal programmes are possibly the most difficult thing that local authorities can do. I recognise the important points made about place making. I welcome local authorities being place makers. Where a local authority has decided to be the master developer, it is a tough task. I would welcome more local authorities acting as the master developer, with support from MCHLG. A local authority could perhaps be a developer, but in my view, the master developer bit is what helps to build trusted relationships between communities, ensuring buy-in for long-term housing delivery. More than any housing delivery, estate renewal requires brave local political leadership and a long-term commitment to engaging and shaping. It also requires money. I am proud that the Government have already allocated almost £40 billion for affordable homes, but none of that matters if we do not have buy-in from the local community.

I welcome the debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke. I pay tribute to his passionate campaigning and advocacy on behalf of his constituents. I recognise the huge amount of casework that he gets on repairs and maintenance, as well as his commitment to see more homes built for his area. He knows, like I do, that home building will change people’s life chances in this country.

17:24

[Luke Murphy]

I thank the Minister for her response. I particularly want to recognise the points she made about repairs and maintenance. I would welcome her passing on my request to the Housing Minister, and I acknowledge what she said about residential ballots. I fully agree that it is just one part of the process, but it would be a useful mechanism to drive some of the engagement she was referring to.

I also thank other Members for their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) made a point about the value of estate regeneration to both the economy and pride in place. I fully recognise that community needs to be at the heart of any proposals. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made the point that communities are not just a number on a spreadsheet and spoke about the need for a holistic blueprint for renewal. I think that we all agree that there should be a UK-wide approach on that.

I heard the pride of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) in the Alton estate, and I share that pride in representing Buckskin and South Ham. She mentioned a number of things that are also really important locally in Buckskin and South Ham, including the need for a permanent community centre as part of the regeneration and the role of co-design. She also mentioned the way that the residential ballot worked—I was very interested to hear that. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) made a powerful argument about pride in place and resident action groups, which I would like to speak to him more about.

I appreciated the response of the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), and his agreement with the point about minimum standards and what community consent can help to deliver. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for what he said about my speech. However, I am old enough to remember when the Conservative Government cut the budget for affordable housing by two thirds, introduced the unaffordable rent model and decimated the building of social housing, so I might gently disagree with some of the points he made about the Conservatives’ record on housing.

I put on record my thanks to the Minister for her response and to all Members for contributing. I am having conversations with the SNG, the Sovereign Hill Partnership and the local council, and I want to work constructively with them. I recognise the need for investment and more homes, and many residents do too, but it has to be done in the right way, with the accountability needed to build trust. I will always be a strong voice for my constituents and the residents in Buckskin and South Ham. Thank you, Dr Murrison, for presiding over the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered estate regeneration.

17:27

Sitting adjourned.