Matt Western MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Jun 2025 · China Audit · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I am the first to recognise, along with him, the need for pragmatism on this issue. He speaks of our closest allies. In Washington a couple of weeks ago, I heard about the Americans’ real concerns about the super-embassy in London. They are banning Chinese electric vehicles because of their autonomous and connected nature, which is an extraordinary move to consider making. I recognise that there is an economic need, but there is obviously political pressure as well. Can members of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, which I chair, have access to the confidential documents, so that we can be clear-eyed about what we face?

• 24 Jun 2025 · National Security Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I totally agree that defence and security have to begin at home, in the home and in the workplace. This is a very welcome comprehensive national security strategy, given its wide-ranging assessment of all the threats we face, in defence, security, critical national infrastructure and so on. An impressive number of workstreams have fed into it—AUKUS, the SDR, the resilience review and so on—but there was no mention of the National Security Council. Can my right hon. Friend tell me what he is doing to ensure that there is a coherence across the strategy that will herald a cultural change in how this country faces security?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Businesses in Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I am afraid you are out of time.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Businesses in Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I call Llinos Medi.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Businesses in Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  It is good to see so many Members bobbing; I remind Members that they should bob throughout if they wish to be called in the debate. I am going to set a two-minute time limit, but we may have to reduce that at some point, given the amount of interventions that have been taken—I am not criticising that but, when speaking, please bear in mind that should you take an intervention you will prevent others from speaking later.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Businesses in Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  Last, but certainly not least, I call Jim Shannon.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Businesses in Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to see so many Members here. It is a warm afternoon, so if you wish to remove your jackets, you may do so. I do not necessarily expect a hot debate on this subject; however, a great many of you are expecting to speak, so we will start with a time limit of two minutes—and I am already anticipating that it could be reduced—and you may wish to prepare your speeches accordingly. I remind you all to speak through the Chair.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Businesses in Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I remind Members to keep an eye on the clock. The time limit is two minutes.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Businesses in Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  Before I call the Minister, I gently remind him to allow a couple of minutes for the mover of the motion at the end.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Asbestos Removal: Non-domestic Buildings · Hansard source

  More

  I will call Emma Lewell to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention for a 30-minute debate, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Political Prisoners · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I would like to get everyone in with about equal amounts of time. Hopefully, we can do so with four minutes each.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Political Prisoners · Hansard source

  More

  Order. We will now formally make speeches four minutes long.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Political Prisoners · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I am afraid I am going to have to reduce speeches to three minutes.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  At the height of the pandemic, Mr Speaker, you may recall the establishment of the Rosalind Franklin laboratory and national testing facility, which we were promised would be retained after the pandemic for more general testing. Sadly, it was unceremoniously put up for sale on Rightmove a couple of years ago. May we have a debate on, or a review into, the provision of diagnostic testing more generally in this country?

• 12 Jun 2025 · Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent chairship of the Committee. He spoke about the grand challenges we face. We heard in the evidence sessions how we have such structural challenges—we have just heard about energy, and we could say the same about skills particularly —so could he say a bit more about some of the work being done and the need for a whole-of-Government approach?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Strategic Defence Review · Hansard source

  More

  Anyone who heard Carsten Breuer, Germany’s Chief of Defence, speak at the weekend will have found his words deeply sobering, so I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the SDR, which is modernising our defence, from Atlantic Bastion to the transformation of our defence and a tech-driven approach. I particularly welcome the cyber and electromagnetic command. He spoke of a stronger deterrence. Will he confirm that there is a need now for stronger offensive cyber-work by our forces?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Neighbourhood Policing · Hansard source

  More

  7. What recent progress her Department has made on improving neighbourhood policing.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Neighbourhood Policing · Hansard source

  More

  Under the previous Government, the number of PCSOs more than halved in Warwickshire. Indeed, in summer 2023, local teachers were forced to police a park in Warwick and Leamington after a knife gang terrorised pupils, stealing their bikes. More widely, constituents are fed up with crime and antisocial behaviour; 50% say that they have been personally impacted by crime in the past five years. Will the Home Secretary outline how the Government will address these crimes and make our streets safer for everyone?

• 22 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Since the creation of the role of the National Security Adviser in 2010, every incumbent has come before the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy—until this Government. The Leader of the House will understand how accountability to this place is the cornerstone of our democracy, and a failure of the NSA to meet the Committee would set a dangerous precedent for future Governments to avoid parliamentary scrutiny, so will she use her position as a representative of this House in Government to ensure that the NSA is held to account and appears before the Committee?

• 20 May 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Joint Committee on National Security Strategy, which I chair, is responsible for examining cross-cutting issues of national security. You will appreciate that the UK faces a great range of external threats and internal challenges around resilience and the choices it makes about its relationships with allies and partners. The JCNSS is following the Government’s efforts to address these matters very closely, and the work of the National Security Adviser is central to that success. Since the role’s creation in 2010, every NSA has appeared before the Committee for a public accountability session—until now. Of course, some more sensitive conversations need to be held behind closed doors, but the public sessions are an essential way in which the Prime Minister’s primary adviser on issues of national security is held to account by Parliament. Despite their commitment to transparency in numerous exchanges, the Government remain steadfast that the NSA will not be accountable to Parliament. I am concerned that the Government are using a quirk of his appointment—as a special adviser rather than the permanent official—to erode democratic norms, which future, less benevolent Governments could exploit. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you advise me on how my Committee can get the Government to prove that they are committed to increasing transparency, to recognise the dangerous precedent that they are setting and to allow the NSA to appear before us?

• 19 May 2025 · Radford Semele Solar Farm · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the little village of Radford Semele. Locally, a separate petition has been signed by over 440 residents with regard to the proposed development of a 213 acre, 49.99 MW solar farm on their doorstep, just outside the village. The petitioners’ concerns are about the loss of amenities, footpaths and the recreation area, the lack of Government scrutiny for such a large solar farm development, and the use of best and most versatile agricultural land. They are also concerned about the cumulative impact on the local area and the reported suspected use of forced labour in the developer’s supply chain. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to review and refuse the application for a solar farm near Radford Semele, Leamington. Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Warwick and Leamington, Declares that that the proposed construction and associated planning application of a 49.99 MW solar farm and battery storage facility by Staffordshire Solar 1 Ltd., on Land to the west of Fosse Way and to the south-east of Radford Semele (W/24/1404), should not be approved; notes that the measures laid out by GB Energy, to ensure that slavery and human trafficking is not taking place in its business or supply chains, should be the same conditions applied to this application to prevent the use, supply and involvement of forced labour in UK infrastructure projects; acknowledges that the scheme is only 0.01 MW below the acceptable tolerance stipulated by the Government’s 50 MW threshold, which would qualify the project as a nationally significant infrastructure project requiring greater scrutiny; further declares that the proposed site is located close to a substantial village and would impact on the recreational amenity of the residents; further declares that the proposed site comprises of grades 2 and 3a “best” and “most versatile” agricultural land, which should be protected from such industrial developments in accordance with planning regulations; and notes that that government data suggests that 3 additional solar farms, are either operational or being developed within 2 miles of the site. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to review and refuse the application for a solar farm near Leamington, to consider an alternative location within the nearby area or an onshore wind farm within a few miles, and to ensure that the local community is properly included in the proposal and planning of such energy schemes going forwards. And the petitioners remain, etc. ] [P003071]

• 14 May 2025 · Gaza: UK Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  Things should have been clear at the outset when Yoav Gallant, the former Israeli Defence Minister, said that Israel will “eliminate everything”. Some 18 months and 52,000 deaths later, Israel Katz, also a Defence Minister in Israel, stated that blocking aid was being used to “pressure” Hamas, making starvation an openly stated Israeli weapon of war. Elimination, eradication or genocide—as Tom Fletcher said, can this Government now urgently act to prevent it?

• 14 May 2025 · Plastic Recycling in Leamington: Environmental Impact · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member—I will call him my hon. Friend—for his intervention. The council does have a role, and I will come on to that in more depth. It has tried to get involved and understand the nature of the problem, and to exercise certain powers, but this is where national Government, particularly the Environment Agency, have a role to play, as I will discuss. The council really does not have the powers that it needs to tackle local environmental health, which is its responsibility. This is a case of desperately poor planning legislation—approved by the last Conservative Government and locally by a Conservative council—with a new light industrial estate built off a road that is one of the main arteries of south Leamington. The planning issue is not so much in the approval of the building of light industrial sheds—we see them all over the place—but in the failure to realise that a commercial use of the site, such as for recycling food packaging, would have a significant impact on a residential area. No approval was given by the local planning committee for what the actual use of the site would be; it was purely for the building of the sheds. The local geography could not be worse. Hundreds of homes are on this road and thousands are off it. To have allowed a recycling plant that receives plastic covered in food waste on a daily basis to be built across the road from thousands of residents is absurd. The plant receives food and drink cartons, which we all discard daily and put into our recycling bins, where they can often sit for a couple of weeks. Then they are collected and taken to central processing depots such as the one in my constituency. They are perfect environments for flies to breed in. It should not have taken a situation like this to make issues with the planning system so clear, but should anyone be in any doubt about the scale of the problem, let me be categorical: I have had reams of complaints and evidence sent to my office. There is a parallel between this site and the dreadful Walleys Quarry in Newcastle-under-Lyme, which many of us will have heard about over many years. Last Friday evening I informed residents that I had secured this debate, and by Monday morning my office had received over 100 complaints, with over 80% blaming the site that we believe to be the source of the problem: Berry Polymers. When I held a public meeting, over 100 people attended, but hundreds more wanted to be there. That shows the strength of feeling on this issue and hopefully highlights to the Minister how badly it is affecting people’s lives. To further understand the effects on people, I conducted a survey, asking on a scale of one to 10 how badly the flies and smell had impacted people’s lives over the previous two years, with 10 being that it had completely impacted them. The average response was eight out of 10. To exemplify how awful the situation is for residents, I will read some particularly distressing quotes. One resident said: “I have to have fly nets over my foster babies’ cots and bouncers”. Another said: “It is apocalyptic, the flies affect every minute of your day, from waking, to washing, preparing food, working, cleaning, trying to sleep.” Another said: “I’ve had to come away from various activities around town including paying my respects in the local cemetery because of the smell. Twice it’s been so bad I’ve vomited while driving my car along Heathcote Road, which could cause an accident”. I hope that highlights for the Minister and those listening the severity of the problem and the urgent need for action. For clarity, I reiterate that those complaints have come in only in the past three days. My constituents cannot sleep. Their children cannot play outside. They cannot eat without being swarmed by flies and engulfed in disgusting smells. To avoid any doubt over who the culprit is, I will bring to the Minister’s attention some additional evidence. There are tens of households who say that the problem only began after the plant opened. One family had lived there for 30 years before the plant opened, and they never complained about a smell or flies, but now they say that it is unbearable. It is not only residents who are complaining but former employees of the site. My office spoke to one former employee, who will remain anonymous. They said: “Conditions were so poor nobody should have been working there.” They commented that when staff were walking around on site there were flies all over them, on their clothes, and biting them. Staff were expected to spend their breaks in a room covered in flies, and any food they tried to eat in there ended up with flies all over it. I have seen their evidence, and I have shared it with the Environment Agency and the Government. I have been to the site and seen the piles of thousands of flies lying around in the working area. That cannot be right; it is a health and safety issue for the people who have to work there. There are also flies flying around in the washrooms of that business. I cannot understand why it is still allowed to operate. The employees were in no doubt about the cause. They said that “Berry was absolutely at fault and clearly the cause of the issue impacting the community.” Local residents, former employees and I all believe that the Berry Circular Polymers recycling plant is responsible for these issues. Yet here we are, two years on, with no respite other than in the winter months, when the flies abate but the odours persist. We may ask, have the residents followed the correct complaints process and, likewise, have I? Absolutely. First, I have raised it many times with the Environment Agency on behalf of residents. I have repeatedly conveyed the severity of the situation and the horrific impact on people’s lives. After no success with the Environment Agency, I turned to the Minister under the last Government. After months of correspondence, I finally secured a meeting with that Minister in May 2024, but with the general election, it led to nothing. Following the election, I have twice met the new Minister, who I know fully understands the severity of the issue. The Minister swiftly set up a meeting with the Environment Agency to ensure the best available techniques are being used. I appreciate the pace with which the Department worked, but my constituents need answers now. They cannot be kept waiting. I again followed up with the Environment Agency just a few weeks ago in April, to which it replied that it had only received two complaints. Yet we have received over a hundred in three days and hundreds over the course of three years, and we hear from residents on an almost daily basis that the problems persist. The Environment Agency is ignoring the complaints it has received over the past couple of years. The residents are busy people who lead busy lives; they cannot keep repeating the same complaint about the same company. They have been reporting these issues for years and have got nowhere, so they can be forgiven for not wanting to spend time every day reporting into a system that they do not believe works for them. They are fed up, and rightly so. The Environment Agency has written to me to say that it “did substantiate a strong odour on site”, and that it is now “investigating this further and taking appropriate steps to ensure that they (Berry) comply with all requirements to mitigate any potential impact on the local community”. By coincidence, the Environment Agency came back to me just yesterday—perhaps because I had an Adjournment debate tonight. I have been chasing it for action on this issue for 18 months because my community and its residents’ lives are blighted by it. The EA has said it is happy to meet me and is in the process of setting up a shiny new engagement website—but it misses the point. We have already met on several occasions. In previous meetings, we agreed on the need for officers on the ground to determine the origin of the flies and the source of the odour, and experience how awful the situation is. It now believes us on the source of the odour. Where are we now? It should not be up to residents to go around with fly swatters and fly traps, which is one of the suggestions, to prove to the Environment Agency how severe the problem is. We did not agree on the need for a new website, as that represents more time-wasting and more faffing around while constituents go into a third summer, facing horrendous conditions at home, in their gardens and on their streets. The Minister may be new to this topic, but I have heard this all before and yet nothing has changed. Berry Polymers has now declared that it will require advance notice of any unannounced visit by me for “health and safety reasons”. Previously, I visited the site and that visit was unannounced, so I do not understand it. Why should I be prevented from trying to hold businesses like that to account when they cause an environmental hazard to many hundreds, if not thousands, of my constituents? I take their health and safety concerns very seriously, and if I smell foul smells and see swarms of flies blighting my constituents’ lives, I want to see action. I know that the Minister takes the issue incredibly seriously. I must therefore insist that the Government now take action. Under current legislation, the Secretary of State holds the power “to agree the Environment Agency’s overall priorities and objectives” and “to allocate resources” accordingly. The Department has the capability to fix the issue. Now is the time for action. What am I asking for? I am calling for an urgent review of the Environment Agency’s initial decision; an immediate unannounced visit to the site, as well as repeated visits, with a team of Environment Agency officers to test the odours and count the thousands of flies; and a visit to neighbouring homes to see what my residents have to cope with and to take their concerns seriously. When the Environment Agency wrote to me in April, it said that it would take appropriate steps after its previous visit, but what exactly has been done? I would appreciate it if the Minister outlined what the EA has done since the last visit to the site on 1 April. I would like to request an urgent meeting with the chief executive of the EA, because it has now got to that level, and I would like the Minister’s support in securing such a meeting. A directive from the Minister and the Government to the EA is needed to get it to act, and to act with authority. Finally, if the Berry Polymers recycling plant is found to have breached regulations, it should be shut down as a matter of urgency. I am not against recycling—as I say, I am absolutely pro recycling—but I cannot believe this plant was allowed to be sited so close to thousands of homes. I will conclude my speech by making it crystal clear to the Minister, the Environment Agency and Berry Polymers that I will not allow residents to suffer more of this and I will not stop fighting for my constituents until this is resolved.

• 14 May 2025 · Plastic Recycling in Leamington: Environmental Impact · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her comprehensive response. The frustration is that, after two years, there is real fatigue among the community about the district council, the Environment Agency and environmental health not listening and taking this problem seriously, so I do not think that we can just complete online forms and rely on them to respond. If Berry Polymers does not change, this is the last chance for it. We have seen video evidence of its washrooms, with flies flying around. The place needs shutting down if there is one more example of its failing to maintain proper conditions in the workplace or the wider environment.

• 14 May 2025 · Plastic Recycling in Leamington: Environmental Impact · Hansard source

  More

  I will, if I may, start by encouraging you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to imagine being in your own home and unable to eat with your family, unable to leave food for even a minute without your kitchen being swarmed with flies, and unable to sleep in your own bed without flies landing on your face. Imagine flies everywhere, in every room of your house, in business premises, in pubs, in restaurants and in takeaways, and vile odours permeating your life whether at home, walking the streets or driving your car. That is the reality for hundreds of families in one part my constituency. If that is not sufficiently real for those present, let me try to bring alive just how awful this is with the experience of one resident, who wrote to me saying: “The day my son asked when mummy was going to stop the flies so he could eat his dinner without flies crawling into his mouth...was when I realised how terrible it had got.” Imagine children being unable to eat without flies crawling into their mouths. At a time when so many voters feel disillusioned with politics, it is more important than ever that Government—national and local—as well as their agencies address the everyday problems that impact on people’s lives. And the issue of flies and odours blighting families and whole communities is one such a problem. I estimate that as many as 10,000—if not more—of my constituents in south Warwick, South Leamington and Whitnash are impacted by this. They have faced swarms of flies and foul odours for three years running. Their houses are infested with flies. They are unable to open their windows for fear of swarms entering their home. They are unable to prepare food in their kitchen without the constant cleaning of their work surfaces to clean off the fly excrement, which also adheres to their walls. Would any Member of this House be satisfied with their family living like that? This is not just a minor inconvenience; this is ruining people’s lives. People are getting ill, and some residents are actually selling up. Then there is the all-pervasive foul-smelling odour. Constituents describe the smell as being like “raw sewage”. They say it is “sulphuric” and “toxic”. Many have told me that the smell is “utterly unbearable”. I have smelt it myself on many occasions. Again, this is substantially harming people and their lives. Two constituents have told me that their asthma has significantly worsened due to the smell, and, as a result, they have had to increase their medication. This is clearly a public health risk and it should be treated as such. I hope that I have spelled out—albeit briefly—just how awful this is for my constituents, and it should not have been allowed to continue for three months let alone three years. Some may be thinking that this this sounds not too dissimilar to the plague of flies in the Book of Exodus, but, no, God is not to blame for this. The residents are clear: they believe, and I agree with them, that the source of this problem is the Berry Circular Polymers recycling plant, located less than 200 metres from a significant volume of local housing. Let me be very clear: I am by no means against recycling. We know that recycling plants have a crucial role to play in sustainability. The issue here is not recycling but how businesses are held to account—and authorities demanding that they take seriously their commitment to their neighbours and their impacts on the local environment.