Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.