Luke Myer MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 1 Apr 2025 · Royal British Legion · Hansard source

  More

  I just want to inform my hon. Friend of a meeting that I had with my local RBL in Boosbeck last week. As a result of him coming to our constituency for a discussion on veteran mental health, a local developer, who saw the coverage of that visit, is now converting a former disused nursing home into a specialist veterans’ supported-living community in our constituency. Will he take this moment to commend the Castle Court veterans village project? I wonder whether he would like to visit.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Royal British Legion · Hansard source

  More

  As my hon. Friend mentioned standard bearers, I want to take a moment to recognise Fergus Osborne of Guisborough RBL. He has carried the standard in Guisborough and the surrounding areas for over 30 years, so I thank him for his work. Does my hon. Friend agree that those who have served across our region deserve that kind of recognition?

• 27 Mar 2025 · Scunthorpe Steelworks · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the Minister and the Secretary of State for their hard graft to secure a deal in the interests of my steelworkers in Teesside and those in Scunthorpe. It is deeply concerning that Jingye has chosen to reject the generous offer that was on the table. I am sure I stand with Members across the House in urging Jingye to come back to the table and secure that deal. Will the Minister reaffirm that all options remain open, including strong national intervention to protect our steel industry and make sure that British steel is made here in Britain?

• 25 Mar 2025 · Asylum Hotels and Illegal Channel Crossings · Hansard source

  More

  When I speak to my constituents, they accept that the last Government overspent by billions on the asylum system and it fell to this Government to make the difficult decisions to settle the bill. What they cannot accept is that it is fair for taxpayers to continue to be expected to spend £9 million a day on asylum hotels. That was a mark of shame for the last Government, and it may become one for us unless it is resolved. What steps will the Minister take to speed up processing, increase returns and end the use of hotels for good?

• 24 Mar 2025 · Defence of Undersea Infrastructure · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the UK’s leadership on this issue. The proposed AQUIND interconnector raises serious concerns about the security of UK undersea infrastructure, particularly given the significant political donations made by its owners to various Conservative politicians. Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), will the Minister confirm that protecting domestic security will be a central focus of the SDR?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Lady give way?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  Will the shadow Minister give way?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the OBR. I wonder whether he has read the report in which it states: “The Treasury did not share information with the OBR about the large pressures on RDEL” — resource departmental expenditure limits— “about the unusual extent of commitments against the reserve, or about any plans to manage these pressures down”. I wonder whether he will take this opportunity to apologise for that extraordinary fiscal failure.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Council Tax Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) on securing the debate. He is absolutely right that the system is outdated, regressive and in desperate need of change, and our region is disproportionately impacted. My constituency is split between two local authorities: Middlesbrough to the west, and Redcar and Cleveland to the east. They are two distinct areas with their own local challenges, but they face similar issues when it comes to council tax. Loftus in Redcar and Cleveland will have a band D council tax rate of more than £2,500 for the next financial year. That means a multimillion-pound property in East Sussex can attract a lower council tax bill than the average family home in our region. That cannot be fair. In fact, owner-occupiers in our region can expect to pay a percentage of their property value that is 2.5 times higher than the average London resident. That is another example of an unfair system based on three decade-old valuations, hammering local residents in areas of high deprivation. Over 50% of dwellings in Middlesbrough are designated as band A—a much higher percentage than other local authorities—forcing Middlesbrough council to have the 19th highest council tax rate in the country. One way in which that could be helped is if Valuation Office Agency powers were devolved further to local authorities to allow them to more rigorously assess whether a property is incorrectly banded. That measure would just be tinkering around the edges of a system that needs fundamental reform. As my hon. Friend said, one solution would be to replace the current system with a proportional property tax, removing the antiquated 1991 bandings and instead asking residents to pay a percentage of their up-to-date property value every year. That would create a more progressive system, preventing those in lower-value homes from paying disproportionately higher rates, while ensuring that wealthier property owners elsewhere in the country contribute a fairer share. As the Institute for Public Policy Research has set out, another method to address the issue would be further increasing council tax premiums on empty and second homes. As my hon. Friend has noted, reforming the children’s social care market, which has been described as “broken” by the Competition and Markets Authority, would go some way to repairing local government finances and delivering value for taxpayers. The choice is clear: either we keep patching up a system that punishes regions like ours, or we build one that is fair, proportional and fit for the 21st century. Teesside cannot afford to wait another 30 years.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Teesside is seeing thousands of jobs coming on stream in carbon capture and storage, but the Conservatives’ new energy policy would put those jobs at risk. Will the Secretary of State restate his commitment to this industry, and will he work to establish a Europe-wide CO 2 market to bring investment and jobs to our region?

• 13 Mar 2025 · Farming · Hansard source

  More

  On Friday, I found myself more than 1,000 metres under the North sea. I will explain why in just a moment, but before I do so, let me acknowledge the hard work that our farmers do across the country and acknowledge a point that hon. Members across the House have made, which is that, in recent years, farmers across Britain have faced a serious squeeze. I have met local farmers and the NFU in my constituency and they put that squeeze down to a range of reasons, ranging from poor trade deals to poor policy. But one factor that I wish to focus on is the soaring cost of fertiliser, which is driven by global supply chain shocks, price volatility and an over-reliance on imports. These pressures are not just hitting farmers in their pockets, but threatening our food security and the resilience of our agricultural sector. But deep underground in North Yorkshire, there lies a potential solution. Last week, I had the pleasure of visiting the ICL Boulby facility in my constituency, which produces the crop nutrient fertiliser, polyhalite, and exports it around the world. Polyhalite contains four essential nutrients—potassium, calcium, magnesium and sulphur—which are vital for plant growth. Not only that, but it is super low carbon. It requires minimal processing and zero chemical additives, meaning that it leads to healthier, more resilient soils. In fact, studies have shown that it can boost crop yields by 3% to 5% compared with standard fertilisers. If we are serious about supporting British agriculture, we must back British solutions. That means a clear strategy on fertiliser security, investment in research, and support for innovation that reduces costs for farmers while strengthening our food system. The ICL Boulby facility is currently the only operational polyhalite mine in the world, although a second—the landmark Anglo American Woodsmith project, also in North Yorkshire—is on its way and has a strong future ahead. I have been down both facilities and am struck by their ingenuity. Above, the wild, unbroken heather of the North York moors and the beauty of the North sea coastline are untouched by the operations in the depths of the earth below. I pay tribute to those skilled teams working underground in tough conditions to produce these exports, which are boosting our food security. Britain cannot afford to be at the mercy of volatile global markets when we have the resources, the expertise and the ambition to build a more resilient, productive and sustainable farming sector right here at home. It is clear that polyhalite can play a significant role in supporting the Government’s goal to strengthen British food security. I hope the Minister will agree to meet me and representatives of the sector to discuss the challenges they face and the value of this export. I urge the Government to recognise the potential of polyhalite to support farmers in adopting British-made, British-mined solutions. Doing so would unlock further private investment, safeguard jobs and secure the UK’s position as a global leader in sustainable fertiliser production.

• 11 Mar 2025 · North Sea Vessel Collision · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to add my voice to the call made by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) given the very perilous position of the Teesside and North Yorkshire marine ecosystem following the environmental disaster we suffered in 2021. I ask the Minister to ensure that the response is not only around the Humber estuary, but that he reviews the environmental impact for the entire east coast as well.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is giving an excellent speech about the challenges we face on Teesside. Just today, I heard from James in Easterside, who said that in two hours there was not 15 minutes when an illegal off-road bike, quad or e-scooter did not pass. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to seize such bikes, crush them and make our streets safe again?

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for supporting me in my debate last week on Professor Jay’s recommendations for the Church of England. Does he agree with me that, alongside the Government implementing those recommendations, it is critical that faith organisations implement them as well?

• 6 Mar 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted that residents in Park End and Ormesby will soon see the state-of-the-art new Southlands Centre sports facility coming to east Middlesbrough. Its delivery has been a team effort from our Labour council, the Middlesbrough Football Club Foundation and Sky Bet English Football League, and has been signed off by the Labour Government. Does the Leader of the House agree that this is a winning performance from a strong Labour team?

• 5 Mar 2025 · Antisocial Behaviour and Illegal Bikes · Hansard source

  More

  Every single week, I hear about this issue from constituents in Park End, Easterside and across south Middlesbrough. Will the Minister assure my constituents that passing the Crime and Policing Bill will ensure that these bikes are seized and crushed, and that our streets are made safe again?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Church of England: Safeguarding · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The Church has been making various decisions on this, but it has not been moving forward with the required pace. My intention in bringing forward this debate is to shine a light on that and urge it to act with pace. I thank him for making that point. I have listed various individuals and groups within the Church, and my intention in this debate is not to diminish or tarnish any of their contributions but to highlight how processes have not functioned and how survivors have been let down, and what we can do as a House to encourage the Church to implement better structures. The journey of safeguarding reform in the Church is long and complex. It runs from the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 through the past cases reviews in the 2000s, the Chichester visitation in 2012, the establishment of the national safeguarding panel and national safeguarding team in 2014 and 2015, the Stobart review in 2018, the Social Care Institute for Excellence report in 2019, the Chichester/Peter Ball investigation in 2019, the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse—IICSA—by Professor Jay, the Elliott report in 2020, the Wilkinson report in 2023 and the further Alexis Jay report in 2024 to the recent Makin report, among others. We have had plenty of reports, but while some improvements have been made, there remains “systemic underlying vulnerabilities” arising from the Church’s safeguarding structure. Survivors have told me that there are complex, hard-to-navigate structures and slow, institutionally defensive responses. Around 2020, calls for an independent structure to oversee safeguarding practices emerged. The Archbishops’ Council debated what that should look like—whether to create a fully independent body or to establish a board for the oversight of safeguarding, which would develop further independence. That board became the ISB, which was established in 2021. There were problems that affected the ISB, as the Wilkinson review explored, but its work was important. It built trust with victims and survivors. In fact, Mr X told me that he was “initially sceptical of the ISB when it was set up” but said that it went on to “provide a ray of hope for the survivor community”. By 2022, the ISB had started reviewing cases and making recommendations, with the first published in November that year, but, as Wilkinson found, there was a “lack of trust” between the ISB and the Church’s safeguarding structures concerning “how the recommendations should be implemented.” As issues escalated, ultimately, in June 2023 the board members were sacked and the board disbanded. Wilkinson found that “no risk assessment beyond informal conversations was carried out by or on behalf of the Archbishops’ Council members about the effect of” this decision “on victims and survivors who were engaged with them, particularly those involved in case reviews”. She went on to say that it “showed lamentably little trauma-informed regard for the vulnerability of the individuals with whom the ISB were working”. I have heard from some of the 11 survivors, who suffered mental distress after the decision. Three landed in emergency mental services, and two developed serious suicidal thoughts. Mr X called it an “obliteration of hope.” The treatment of survivors here is itself a serious safeguarding failure. It is clear that the secretary-general of the Archbishops’ Council has questions to answer. Around the time of the dissolution of the ISB, Professor Jay was invited to provide recommendations on the way forward. Her report said that “the only way” in which safeguarding can be improved is by making it “truly independent of the Church.” The central problem is that the complexity of the Church means that rather than one approach, there are 42 different dioceses, each with different safeguarding systems. Safeguarding practitioners have said that this limits effective safeguarding. Professor Jay noted in her report: “Church safeguarding service falls below the standards for consistency expected and set in secular organisations.” Lesley-Anne Ryder, the independent co-chair for the response group to Jay, said to Synod that “this level of complexity is incomprehensible. It is counter productive”. She said that it is “One of the ways in which you are losing the trust…of the nation”. The complexity creates a patchwork of different approaches. Some dioceses do implement robust safeguarding practices, and some have independent sexual violence advisers. The diocese of Newcastle has four permanent staff members with key safeguarding roles, including a caseworker and a training lead. I pay tribute to the Bishop of Newcastle, whose leadership on the issue has been commendable. I met her last year to discuss these matters, and she has much support in the country and, I am sure, the House. Other dioceses, however, lack such comprehensive systems, often relying on bringing in external consultants. It is simply not acceptable that the experience of survivors should vary depending on where they live. There must be a unified and consistent system that is evenly resourced with the same quality of support, respecting the independent expertise of safeguarding professionals. Professor Jay recommended the “creation of two separate charities, one for independent operational safeguarding and one for independent scrutiny of safeguarding.” It is that issue that went before the General Synod last month. While Synod voted in favour of setting up an external scrutiny body, it only backed the principle of an independent operations body. That is deeply disappointing—a two-stage approach for an issue of such urgency, when survivors have already waited decades, moving from one system to another with no sign of any meaningful resolution. One survivor told me that he first reported his abuse over 40 years ago. Any further delay in delivering justice for survivors is simply unacceptable. I do not wish to be misunderstood. The agreement of the Synod to “affirm its commitment to greater independence” going forward is an important step, but the decision on operations did not follow the recommendation from Professor Jay and many other specialists and professionals, or the preference of many survivors. I believe that more delay will simply confirm the survivors’ view that the Church is kicking the can down the road. Having spoken to Synod members, I do not think that that is the intention, but the reality is that, as things stand, this patchwork of procedures remains, and the Church effectively continues marking its own homework. That is clearly not acceptable. We will hear from the Minister shortly. It is a welcome step that, earlier this year, the Government agreed to implement Professor Jay’s IICSA recommendations on safeguarding and abuse. That makes it all the more pressing that Professor Jay’s recommendations for the Church be implemented, too. As Mr X said to me: “This is a critical point for the Church.” Scripture teaches us to “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves.” The Church ought to be a place of refuge, of grace, of trust. Yet, for far too many, it has been a place of harm. We have seen apologies, report and reviews, yet survivors still tell us that they are unheard, ignored and left to fight alone for basic justice. That must change. The Church’s safeguarding structures must be independent, transparent and accountable. Its days of marking its own homework must end. Survivors must be not just consulted but placed at the heart of reform. Let us be absolutely clear: protecting the reputation of an institution must never, ever come before protecting the safety of a person. The test of faith is not in the easy moments but in the hard truths, and the hard truth is this: trust in the Church will only be restored when every survivor who steps forward is met with compassion, justice and meaningful action.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Church of England: Safeguarding · Hansard source

  More

  I declare my role as a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee. I am grateful that we have been granted this opportunity to discuss a serious matter of importance to our constituents, to the Church of England, and most importantly to the victims and survivors of abuse. I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who are here on behalf of their constituents. As a Member of Parliament and a Christian who believes in the Church and the positive, powerful role it plays in our communities, I believe that the stories of survivors and their calls for change must be heard, both here today and by the General Synod of the Church of England. For those in the Chamber, in the Gallery and at home, it is important to note that this debate may include difficult matters. I trust that it will be a measured debate. This is a sensitive topic, and I know that Members on both sides will want to advance the interests of those who have suffered abuse within the Church. My constituent Dame Jasvinder Sanghera will be known to Members across the House for her campaigning on abuse of many kinds. She served as the survivor advocate on the Church of England’s independent safeguarding board. In this role, she worked closely with survivors, some of whom join us today. My team and I have worked with her since my election last year. Along with her colleague Steve Reeves, she has advocated for survivors by escalating their cases for review, challenging processes and pushing for justice. I commend her and her work. In preparation for this debate, I met members of the group of survivors involved with the independent safeguarding board sample cases—they call themselves the ISB 11. I have heard stories that I will never forget. What struck me most is that they see themselves as survivors not only of the initial abuse they received but of the Church’s safeguarding process—one that has forced these brave and courageous people, who have stood up to power, to re-live, lengthen and even amplify the abuse they have received.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Church of England: Safeguarding · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 3 Mar 2025 · Church of England: Safeguarding · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. Hearing Mr X’s case and reading the report that was published showed the stark experiences that he went through. He is one of the ISB 11, but there are many others. They all must seek justice.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Church of England: Safeguarding · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more; that is the crux of my speech. It is essential that the victims and survivors are heard. I am grateful to the Minister and the Second Church Estates Commissioner, both of whom are leaders on these matters, for being here to hear the stories and to respond. The stories include that of Mr X, who was the first and only survivor to have an ISB case review published. Throughout his life, Mr X has sought justice after he was abused by three individuals in the Church. He ended up having his business and livelihood destroyed by civil litigation and he is yet to see justice. Another survivor told me of an ongoing, decades-long fight for justice. West Midlands police commented on the case: “it doesn’t normally take 20 years for a complaint to be investigated”. Another survivor, a woman who wishes to remain anonymous, told me that she now has a heart monitor because of her severe panic attacks. She told me: “The priest that abused me still lives in my area. The community has ostracised me and I am now housebound, I want the truth to come out. Jas and Steve have supported me the best they can, at one point we talked every week. If they had not been there I think I would have taken my life.” Another survivor told me that he feels that previous recommendations have fallen on deaf ears, with steps to protect perpetrators rather than to support victims. Perhaps most harrowingly of all, one of the ISB 11, who is just over 18 years old, having initially suffered abuse at the age of eight, is still fighting for justice. At such a young age, he has already been waiting over half his life to see justice. I have no doubt that many Members across this House will have heard similar stories.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Church of England: Safeguarding · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who is a real champion for her constituent and all her constituents. Sadly, the case that she has outlined is all too familiar and like many other cases across the country. We owe it to the survivors and others who have endured physical, emotional and spiritual abuse to highlight the serious shortcomings in the Church’s safeguarding structures. Too often, while instances of abuse may have lasted moments, the Church’s processes for investigating and reviewing these cases have been painfully slow, frustrated and needlessly complex. It cannot be right that the systems intended to support survivors often further traumatised them. I, too, have been told stories of those who tragically have taken their own lives in the view that their perpetrators will never face justice. Survivors tell me of feeling trapped in a seemingly endless cycle of uncertainty and distress. One told me that they will not feel fully comfortable while this issue is “kept within the walls of the Church.”

• 3 Mar 2025 · Church of England: Safeguarding · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), who has had a long career holding powerful people to account in many different ways. As she outlined, this is a case of an institution for which it is difficult to get accountability and transparency. I am glad that we have this forum to discuss these issues, but Parliament itself is quite limited in how it can hold the Church to account. I sit on the Ecclesiastical Committee, which has to wait for Measures to come forward from the Synod to be approved. There is some discussion as to whether that Committee ought to have greater powers to hold the Church to account, but the broader point is the same as the one I made earlier, which is that the Church falls below the standards required of other organisations.