Jon Trickett MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Sept 2026 · Social Housing Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

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

• 3 Sept 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

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

• 6 Jul 2026 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

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