Fly-tipping: Residential Areas

Debate between Melanie Onn and Martin Vickers

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Melanie Onn]

The responsibilities of housing associations on their land is a similar issue, as they are facing financial challenges of their own. That is why we end up relying so much on communities to come together and do the clean-up. There needs to be a much more holistic solution, but we cannot always rely on communities to step in to do something that has such a fundamental impact on them and the way people live their lives. I am sure that housing associations have an opportunity to work more closely with local authorities to try to come up with an improved solution.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

The hon. Member—my Member of Parliament—is being very generous in giving way. Her comment about the community is very relevant. To give one example, there was an action day in Immingham only two or three weeks ago, which involved not only local authority councillors but, in our case, Lincolnshire Housing Partnership. The important thing I want to stress is that the funding was made available by Phillips 66, so does she agree that the private sector can make a contribution by supporting community groups?

[Melanie Onn]

I am very grateful for my constituent’s contribution. It is an excellent one, as always. He makes a very valid point; Phillips 66 is a great contributor to community activities across our areas, but I would not like us to rely on that all the time. It is a really welcome contribution and incredibly helpful. We are very grateful and community groups will be very grateful for any funding that they can get, but the fact that we have to rely on it so much speaks to our need to get a grip on this issue.

The hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) will know that recently we had a big fly-tipping issue in Weelsby woods. That is just around the corner from where he lives, so he will know it very well. We saw an unauthorised encampment there, with a huge amount of waste left behind. There was no concern for the fact that it is one of our valued green spaces that families regularly attend. The images of what was left behind shocked local residents. What should have been valued green space was turned into a disgusting dumping ground. That demonstrated something important about our local communities and how they pull together, because when the council sent teams to clear the site, volunteers also stepped up to help. It was an encampment for only three or four days, but there were several tonnes of waste from lots of tree work that had been undertaken; all the waste from that had been dumped in the park. Although that incident highlights the scale of the challenge, it also highlighted the strength of community spirit across Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, and Brigg and Immingham.

Before discussing policy solutions, I want to place on the record my thanks to the many local campaigners, volunteers, community interest companies like Empower and council staff who devote countless hours to improving our environment. I am referring to people like Zac from PickWalks, whose efforts have inspired countless residents, including lots of children, to take greater pride in their local area; and Frank Sparkes, who has become well known locally for his tireless work cleaning up the North Wall. He also taught me how to tie a fisherman’s net at the weekend, so thank you very much, Frank. I am not sure I can remember that or repeat it, but he was excellent.

I am referring to people like Jim Elliott, who has become known as the canoe river cleaner for spending his time removing rubbish from our waterways by canoe. I joined Jim on the water and quickly discovered that clearing litter while in a canoe requires considerably more skill and balance than I possess. Jim made it look effortless, but I think he spent just as much time trying to keep the boat upright as he did collecting the rubbish. I am referring also to our local Wombles litter-picking group, which quietly and consistently makes a difference every week in our local area, and to members of our local Labour group, who have been working alongside these residents and volunteers, have cleared 11 rubbish-filled alleyways across the constituency and continue to organise clean-up operations throughout the area. That is tough work; it is not just turning up for a photo opportunity. They are grafting to clear the alleyways, and their efforts demonstrate something important—people care deeply about the area in which they live. The challenge for us as policymakers is ensuring that those residents are supported, rather than being forced to fight the same battles over and over again—the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) made earlier.

That is why I welcome the action already taken by the Labour Government. For too long, fly-tipping has been treated as a low-level nuisance rather than the serious offence that it is. This Government’s new approach rightly recognises that waste criminals should face meaningful consequences. I particularly welcome proposals for clean-up squads. Under those plans, local authorities will be able to issue conditional cautions requiring offenders to undertake community payback—unpaid work cleaning streets, parks and public spaces, including the areas where they have dumped. That sends an important message about accountability. I welcome the plans that will allow councils to recover money directly from offenders to fund clean-up operations and ensure that taxpayers are not left carrying the cost, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley also mentioned in his intervention.

Councils already have the power to seize vehicles involved in fly-tipping, but Ministers are encouraging local authorities to go further and use the power that they have to crush vehicles used in these offences, increase public awareness of enforcement action and make better use of technology such as CCTV, drones and automatic number plate recognition. Those are practical tools that can help to identify offenders and improve conviction rates. I welcome the fact that repeat fly-tippers now face the prospect of penalty points on their driving licence, with the possibility of disqualification for those who repeatedly offend. For some offenders the threat of losing their licence may prove a far more effective deterrent than a fine alone.

Those important reforms deserve recognition, but we can still go further. First, we need much stronger public awareness about waste carrier licences. Many residents unknowingly and unwittingly hand over waste to individuals who are advertising cheap disposal services online or through cold calling. They assume that the waste will be disposed of legally; instead, it often ends up dumped in alleyways, fields and green spaces. Too many people simply do not know that they have a responsibility to check that waste carriers are properly licenced. Public education must become a central part of our strategy.

Secondly, we need to address the cost and availability of bulky waste collection. If we want people to dispose of waste responsibly, the legal route must be straightforward, affordable and accessible. I would like consideration to be given to a more universal approach across local authorities so that residents can dispose of bulky household items without facing excessive costs or barriers. There could be joint bulky waste disposals between residents as well.

Thirdly, there is a role for landlords. In areas with a high turnover of private rented accommodation, waste accumulation often becomes a recurring problem during tenancy changes. Landlords should work much more closely with local authorities to ensure that proper waste disposal arrangements are in place and to prevent alleyways and communal areas from becoming dumping grounds. It will work in their favour too; it is much easier to rent a property in an area that looks like it is being cared for.

Finally, we need to look carefully at the enforcement processes. Local authorities frequently tell us that gathering evidence, issuing penalties and pursuing court action can be lengthy, expensive and resource intensive. If we want councils to make greater use of enforcement powers, we must ensure that those powers can be exercised efficiently and effectively. Reducing the cost, complexity and evidential burden associated with prosecutions would help authorities to take action more quickly and consistently.

Earlier we touched on the “not on our land” approach from local authorities. If local authorities are not in a position to keep an area clean, what are they for? They are there for local people and to take care of our local areas. If local authorities support devolution and want power to be in the hands of those who know their areas better, then they should also be concerned about those areas and not be so quick to say, “There is nothing that we can do about that.”

I do not know if colleagues have found the same but in my local area, when fly-tipping is on private land, the local authority has often advised local councillors to utilise their ward funding to come up with a solution. In some cases, people are turning to private companies, as my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham said. That is not what ward funding is intended for. It could all get sucked into tidying that up when it should be used for much more productive, proactive and positive actions.

As for the cost benefit, we could have economies of scale. If local authorities, housing associations and other public bodies that have an interest in keeping our areas clean, tidy and safe came together, it would prove a much more effective use of public money. It does not matter whether it is ward funding, local authority money or housing association money; it is all public money, so let us use it as effectively and efficiently as we can.

I will conclude to allow the many colleagues who are interested to contribute to this debate. Fly-tipping is often seen as a hyper-localised issued, but its consequences are national. It affects how people feel about their communities; it affects mental wellbeing, health and environmental health; it affects perceptions of safety and security; it affects tourism, investment and neighbourhood confidence; and most importantly, it affects whether people believe that their community is valued. The people of Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes have a right to expect to live in neighbourhoods that they can be proud of.

The volunteers, campaigners, CICs and council staff who I have mentioned are already doing extraordinary work. The Government have taken welcome and significant steps to strengthen enforcement and hold offenders to account, but by improving awareness, strengthening disposal options and supporting councils in tackling the wider causes of waste crime we can go further still. I look forward to working with the Government to ensure that communities across the country are cleaner, safer and places that people are proud to call home.

Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Debate between Melanie Onn and Martin Vickers

2nd reading
Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

For places like Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, football is more than just a game; it is a source of pride, identity and belonging. Whether it is the roar at Blundell Park or the celebrations at the Linden Club, football unites our communities in a way few other things can. That is why my local clubs and I warmly welcome the steps that this Labour Government have taken to strengthen the Football Governance Bill and ensure the future of our national game.

Football is nothing without its fans. The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) is not in his place, but he has previously been on record saying that this is

“a good Bill to crack on with”.

He said it had been pursued

“crucially, for the future of football fans. They are the ones we have been thinking about through the whole process.”––[Official Report, Football Governance Public Bill Committee, 23 May 2024; c. 244.]

What on earth has happened? The Conservatives say it is another Bill, but it is not. It is their Bill with a few additions. The Bill has not been changed. They have shifted their position and it is a shameful situation. By putting supporters back at the heart of decision making, this Bill honours the passion and loyalty that sustain clubs up and down the country.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

I thank my Member of Parliament for giving way. She talks about strengthening the Bill even further, but does she acknowledge that the fans at Blundell Park would not blame a supposedly independent regulator, like Ofwat, Ofgem or whatever, but would blame the politicians, if the regulator made a decision about potential investment in the club that they did not like?

[Melanie Onn]

The hon. Gentleman will know that politicians are blamed for just about everything anyway, so it will not make much difference. This is a very tightly drafted Bill, and the role of the regulator is detailed in it. That is what the regulator will have to follow, and those are the parameters that have been set.

While the very top of English football enjoys huge success, the financial foundations for many clubs in lower leagues are far too fragile. Bad ownership, financial mismanagement and unfair wealth distribution have pushed too many proud institutions to the brink. This Labour Government are taking action. We are delivering on our manifesto promise—and, in fact, the Conservatives’ manifesto promise—to establish a regulator to protect clubs, ensure sustainability and empower fans, in stark contrast to the Conservatives, who are now anti-regulation, preferring the continuation of the current wobbly, unfair system. They are taking a hands-off approach, reversing their previous policy and backing the elite premiership clubs at the expense of those in lower leagues.

Our local clubs are adored, and with good reason. We have so much to celebrate. Cleethorpes Town FC have made my community proud, having been crowned champions with three games to spare, and securing their well-deserved promotion. Meanwhile, Grimsby Town are pushing hard for the play-off—although I remember that I said the same thing during the Westminster Hall debate, and then we lost, so we are still trying. I hope that Members will give us a cheer on Saturday if we get through. The success of these clubs is not limited to the pitch: initiatives such as Grimsby Town Foundation generate more than £4 million in social value in our area, which shows that clubs are not businesses but engines of hope for communities. We must never again allow them to be treated as disposable assets. They belong to the fans, and to the towns that they represent. The Bill introduces the protections that are needed if local clubs are to thrive and continue to bring enjoyment for generations to come.

Rail Services: Open Access Operators

Debate between Melanie Onn and Martin Vickers

Thursday 6th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered open access operators for rail services.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I am sure you will witness a stimulating debate.

I start by drawing attention to the progress made on the east coast main line, where today three privately owned open access inter-city operators compete with the Government-run LNER. This successful and mature model is now 25 years old and sees open access operators connect towns and cities across the north that were traditionally not served, or that endured poor inter-city connections. Open access is a great success. The statistics reflect that on many fronts, and I will come on to the detail.

One group of towns that open access has not yet reached consists of Grimsby, Cleethorpes and the intermediate stations. I am determined that the Brigg and Immingham constituency and the wider northern Lincolnshire area enjoy more direct and fast trains connecting with London and other key cities. I have been campaigning for such a service since 2011 and remain committed to delivering this key and long overdue connection. I hope Members will indulge me if I focus on this constituency matter for a few minutes before moving on to the wider arguments.

From a Grimsby point of view, it matters not whether the service leaves the main line at Newark and runs via Lincoln, or whether it leaves at Doncaster and takes the route through Scunthorpe. Either route will also serve Grimsby, Cleethorpes, Barnetby and Habrough. Habrough is just two miles from the country’s largest port, Immingham. For that reason alone, it surely deserves a direct service to the capital.

Some years ago, Grand Central submitted an application to run services via Doncaster, which was turned down by the regulator. I have been raising this issue with successive Ministers for many years, and I have been given no end of reasons why it cannot happen. First, there was the question of capacity on the main line. That is not a problem if the existing services to Lincoln are extended to Cleethorpes, however, because they already have a path from King’s Cross through to Newark. LNER ran a trial of their Azuma units through to Cleethorpes and found no serious issues, other than at Market Rasen, which requires a new footbridge and some work on the platform. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) may have something to say on that during the debate.

It now appears that the problems at Market Rasen are being put forward as the reason why services cannot go ahead. If the reported costs of between £15 million and £20 million for the work at Market Rasen are to be believed, Network Rail needs to improve its procurement process and find new contractors. Quite simply, those figures are ridiculous, and it sounds more like a tactic to convince Ministers not to go ahead. I trust that the Minister will address that point in his response.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) on securing this debate, and I am very pleased to support him in it. He has been a long-standing campaigner on this issue. On the point about platform improvements at Market Rasen, is he aware of other areas in the country that are getting modular platform extensions, which are proving to be much cheaper than the price he mentioned?

[Martin Vickers]

My Member of Parliament makes an excellent point. There are indeed other examples, up and down the country, where modest improvements have been made at minimal cost. It needs the Secretary of State to realise the economic benefits to the area, and she will surely see that this is an easy win to deliver on the Government’s growth agenda.

The establishment of Great British Railways represents the biggest change in the way we run the railways since privatisation 30 years ago. We must keep and improve what clearly works, and we must not weaken or undermine key roles, such as that of the rail regulator, so that we can make GBR fit for purpose, alongside open access, and deliver the best services for passengers across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and highlights yet another group of provincial towns that would see benefits for their local economy and for leisure.

I hope that open access rail policy features among the Chancellor’s new tests on how to deliver growth across the country. As a Yorkshire MP, the Minister will know of the clear benefits so far across the county—whether it be in Hull, Bradford, York, Doncaster or Selby—where open access has established and grown large rail markets. The new evidence shows that rail competition delivers not just growth on a significant scale, but a critical competitive discipline whereby all passengers enjoy choice and more routes. In 2016, the Competition and Markets Authority produced a 200-page report on passenger train competition and reached that very conclusion. I would not normally urge the Government to look to Europe for good practice, but Italy and Austria are two countries where the benefits of open access can be clearly seen.

Replicating the east coast model could help to prevent any risk of GBR sliding into financial and sector decline, which should be a huge concern for the Treasury. Crucially, open access is also a key component for British train building. Just before Christmas, the Prime Minister welcomed a significant £500 million investment in new train build at Hitachi’s Newton Aycliffe plant, but it is important to consider that that private sector order was for new trains to serve existing and new open access routes. An option on a follow-up order worth a further £500 million depends, I understand, on more open access routes being awarded by the regulator.

[Melanie Onn]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time, and I am pleased that he has mentioned the Italian rail system. Obviously, Italy is very similar to Grimsby, and we would certainly benefit from the kind of rail system that operates in Italy, which is very smooth and good value for customers. Italy has good stock as well.

If we are to achieve a direct rail service from Cleethorpes to King’s Cross, for which the hon. Gentleman has campaigned for many years, open access operators need quick decision making in order to be able to place their stock orders with manufacturers to make sure that they can get services up and running for passengers quickly. Does he agree that the Minister should look very closely at these things and make decisions as quickly as he can?

[Martin Vickers]

I agree that Italy and Grimsby are very similar. I will come to the hon. Lady’s point about the speed of the regulator’s decision making, which is absolutely crucial.

In addition to my desire and ambition for direct services to my constituency, it is vital that the significance of open access is fully acknowledged, and that nothing is done to weaken or undermine it. Why would the Government not want more unsubsidised, direct and fast rail connections across the country? Why would they not want to secure hundreds of millions of pounds of investment in forward orders for new trains to be built in Britain? Why would they not want GBR to face robust and innovative competition on key routes, which would inevitably see standards rise, and fares and subsidies decline?

Passengers in York, Hull, Wakefield, Bradford, Doncaster, Sunderland, Newcastle and Edinburgh all now enjoy up to three competing high-speed train services to London, where open access services compete with Government-run LNER. A plan to introduce a new and fast open access service to connect Sheffield and Worksop with King’s Cross is awaiting the green light, as is one to connect Rochdale with London Euston, and one to connect Cardiff with Edinburgh. Hopefully, the plans will be swiftly approved so that passengers can enjoy more direct fast trains and real fare competition, and they will all help those cities’ respective leaders to make their case for inward investment. Sheffield has not enjoyed a direct service to King’s Cross since 1968, and a new service would rival the existing East Midlands service between the city and London St Pancras.

In debates and at Transport questions, we frequently hear tales of woe about Avanti and the services that it offers travellers on the west coast main line. That could change if we took the east coast main line as a model, and I urge Ministers to get on with it. New economic analysis from Arup shows what can be achieved. Hull Trains’ open access service, which connects Beverley, Hull, Selby and Doncaster with London, has delivered between £185 million and £380 million in extra local benefits since it was approved by Tony Blair’s Government in 2000, and those figures are expected to grow to between £325 million and £700 million by 2032. Prior to Hull Trains’ operations, there was just one direct daily train in each direction between London and Hull. Similarly, the Blair Government oversaw the approval of new and fast Grand Central services to the north-east and Yorkshire in the mid and late 2000s.

On average, Hull Trains’ fares are 30% cheaper than those for traditional services. As I said when I met representatives of Hull Trains a couple of weeks ago, they could do for the south bank of the Humber what they have done for the north bank. Direct rail links have boosted inward investment and done more for levelling up and regeneration than a host of Whitehall schemes. There are also significant environmental benefits, as more people abandon the car and coach, and instead use the well-priced high-speed trains. The popular and fast Lumo open access service between London, Newcastle and Edinburgh continues to eat into the aviation market and delivers a crucial modal shift from air to rail.

I welcome the fact that many colleagues wish to speak in this debate, and I make the point that the Office of Rail and Road has recently approved new long-distance open access services up to Stirling on the west coast main line, and between London Paddington and south Wales on the Great Western line. The Go-op application to run new open access services between Weston-super-Mare, Taunton and Swindon has also been approved. We need to speed up track access applications for operators, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) said, because they can take up to five years. That is another example of where the Government could boost their growth agenda. The last thing that is needed is more barriers to open access. Let us speed up the process and get Britain moving.

A recent survey conducted by Virgin showed that around two thirds of all passengers welcomed competition between train operators on price and quality. That is encouraging, and it shows how an independent regulator can deliver good decisions in the national interest. A key question for the Minister will be: is more open access to be encouraged and approved, and will an independent regulator retain powers over this critical area after GBR is established? If decisions on open access are subsumed into GBR and taken off the regulator, many of us will be concerned that the hand of civil servants and other rail planners who have been proven wrong in the past in their opposition to open access will stifle and weaken this valuable part of the railway sector. If GBR is to be genuinely at arm’s length of Whitehall, as Ministers pledge, the future of the regulator and open access will be a key test.

I look forward to Ministers’ working with me and colleagues across the House to encourage and deliver new open access inter-city services to northern Lincolnshire and destinations across the country.