Melanie Onn MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Serhat Erdogan and his team on the successful opening of Cafe Victoria? He has taken on a long-empty shop in Grimsby town centre, which shows great confidence in the local economy of Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes. The Government launched community auctions for empty shops; will the Leader of the House help me to get a Government statement on progress on community auctions?

• 2 Jul 2026 · Well-paid Jobs: Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes · Hansard source

  More

  News of apprenticeship incentives, the youth jobs grant and the jobs guarantee will provide a welcome boost for my brilliant young people in Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, but they and other jobseekers will want to know what permanent jobs they can move into. We have huge opportunities and experience in new clean energy and the supply chain. What action is the Secretary of State taking to expand existing businesses and attract new investment in this sector to deliver jobs for my hard-working constituents?

• 2 Jul 2026 · Well-paid Jobs: Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes · Hansard source

  More

  8. What steps his Department is taking to support the creation of well-paid jobs in Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes constituency.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Fly-tipping: Residential Areas · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Why on earth should everybody else pay for the mess that others create, particularly hard-pressed communities that are already struggling? Adding to their council tax burden or imposing additional costs is not fair.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Fly-tipping: Residential Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of fly-tipping in residential areas and associated impacts. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to see so many colleagues here to participate in this important debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate and colleagues who supported my application. Fly-tipping is often discussed as an environmental or waste management issue and a question of local authority enforcement. It is, of course, all those things, but in communities such as mine and across the country, it is more fundamental. It is about pride, belonging and whether people feel good about the place they call home. Residents often tell me they are tired of seeing mattresses dumped in alleyways, household waste abandoned on street corners and green spaces treated as rubbish tips. Those are not isolated incidents; they become part of the everyday experience of a neighbourhood. The impact goes far beyond the physical waste itself. Surveys on environmental decay reveal that 86% of people living in heavily littered or fly-tipped neighbourhoods feel embarrassed by their area. It is terrible that people should feel that. That statistic ought to concern us all. Environmental degradation damages mental wellbeing, erodes civic pride and fuels a cycle of hopelessness that can leave residents feeling disconnected from the communities around them. People deserve to feel proud when they walk down their street, and to feel that their neighbourhood matters. When fly-tipping becomes commonplace it sends exactly the opposite message. It tells residents that standards are slipping, that nobody cares and that decline is somehow acceptable. Once that perception takes hold it can be incredibly difficult to reverse. We must also be honest about some of the pressures that have contributed to the problem. Across the country, councils have faced difficult decisions about waste services. Public waste disposal facilities have been reduced in some areas, opening hours have changed and restrictions have become more complicated. Residents frequently tell me that local tips can be difficult to use, with limitations on what can be taken, who can take it and how often visits can be made. None of that excuses criminal behaviour; those who dump waste illegally are responsible for their actions. But if we are serious about solving the problem, we need to understand all the factors that contribute to it.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Fly-tipping: Residential Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for that response. I welcome the news about the tax checks and greater intervention of HMRC and the Organised Crime Task Force. Perhaps it would help to bring Louisa Rolfe into Parliament for a roundtable to discuss how police forces are co-ordinating on this matter across the country; there would be widespread interest, judging by the number of people who have contributed today. I am very grateful to colleagues for turning up and supporting this debate. I am keen to explore what the point about councils having the funds but not the will or the skills means in practice. Fundamentally, the issue is about an agreement between the people and the state. We pay our taxes with an expectation that services will be provided. The social contract is quite fragile at the moment and easily undermined. It is disappointing that so many of our fellow citizens are undermining it for the majority in the country. It is worth remembering that the social contract remains and continues; perhaps we should focus on the positives, given that so many people believe in it, reinforce it and give their time. I thank Members for their time and contributions. It was all incredibly thoughtful. I look forward to continuing discussions with the Minister. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the matter of fly-tipping in residential areas and associated impacts.

• 4 Jun 2026 · High Street Businesses: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on securing the debate. For some time now, there have been unrelenting efforts from colleagues across the House, many of whom are here today, to keep the future of our high streets firmly on the desks of Ministers. That reflects how important our town centres are not only to local economies but to the social fabric and cohesion of communities right across the country. High streets are where people come together. They are places of commerce, but also places of connection, identity and pride. When they thrive, communities thrive. When they decline, the effects are felt far beyond empty shop fronts and reduced footfall. One issue that has become impossible to ignore is the growing criminality taking root on some of our high streets. Alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), I have been leading a campaign to shut down dodgy shops, which has now secured the backing of more than 50 Members from across the House. We were really pleased to meet the Chancellor recently to discuss the steps to tackle the organised criminal enterprises operating behind many premises. I am pleased that significant action has been taken across Government Departments to address the issues, some of which I will outline today. Progressive announcements in the Budget included increased resources for trading standards officers— I feel I am repeating things that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) mentioned, but it is worth reinforcing. Budget announcements also included the creation of a dedicated cross-Government taskforce to develop an intelligence-led understanding of organised crime on our high streets; the deployment of 350 newly recruited criminal investigators in HMRC’s fraud investigation service; and the recruitment of 50 additional Insolvency Service staff through a new abusive phoenixism taskforce. These are important and welcome interventions, and they would not have happened if not for my hon. Friend and the APPG he so ably leads. Under the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, the Government are introducing a licensing scheme for retailers selling tobacco and vape products, helping to strengthen enforcement and improve accountability across the sector. Most recently the Home Office announced a £30 million enforcement blitz to target organised crime gangs that exploit UK high streets, sending a clear signal that the Government understand both the scale of the challenge and the need for co-ordinated action. All that will come as very welcome news to residents in communities such as mine in Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, because local people are absolutely fed up with seeing their high streets abused. They are frustrated when they see businesses apparently operating outside the law, while honest traders who pay their taxes, employ local people and contribute to their communities in many different ways are expected to compete on an uneven playing field. However, if we are to achieve the tangible change that communities want to see, the Government must go further and faster. Speed matters because, while we discuss these issues in Westminster and in rooms like this, more of these businesses continue to appear on our high streets. They pop up every single day. Every month that passes without visible enforcement undermines confidence in the rule of law and leaves legitimate businesses feeling completely abandoned. If this is a Government priority, as I believe it is, we must consider how to encourage more local authorities to move the issue higher up their agendas. Many councils face severe pressures on resources and capacity, but tackling high street criminality cannot be viewed as an optional extra. It must be recognised as central to economic regeneration and community safety. We must continue to reinforce the message that these enterprises are not simply untidy retail operations or minor breaches of regulations: organised criminality, tax evasion, exploitation and fraud lie behind many of them. Frankly, their presence drags down shopping areas, deters investment and damages public confidence. The prize for getting this issue right is enormous. Economically thriving high streets support local jobs, encourage investment and help small businesses to succeed. Socially, they provide communities with places that they can be proud of, and morally, they help to restore faith that the rules apply equally to everyone. In too many towns across the country people feel left behind, ignored and increasingly sceptical that the law is being enforced fairly. Pulling high streets away from criminal exploitation offers an opportunity not only to revitalise local economies but to rebuild trust. That is why I welcome the progress the Government have already made, but urge Ministers to maintain the pace, strengthen enforcement and ensure that communities finally see the change they have been waiting for.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Last week I was pleased to meet with a number of hospitality businesses from across Lincolnshire, including some in my constituency: Riverhead Coffee, Cleethorpes Lettings and the famous Steels fish and chip restaurant. They raised with me the challenging conditions they are facing, including a very burdensome tax regime. Will the Leader of the House indicate the next opportunities for us to discuss the impacts on hospitality businesses and the current overburden of tax?

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to my northern Lincolnshire neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), who is a long-time champion and campaigner for protecting and securing the future of Scunthorpe steelworks, which is essential to the fabric of the town and a critical part of its identity. The Government are right to take the steps needed to bring British Steel back into public ownership. Having our own sovereign steelmaking capacity is crucial to ensuring the UK’s defence and infrastructure security. Jingye has failed as custodians of British Steel in Scunthorpe. It has the opportunity to do the decent thing and come to an agreement before the Government are forced to use the powers in this Bill, and we will wait to see whether it does that. I know that the Minister for Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), has a deep understanding of iron and steelmaking. I am sure he will agree that resolving the ownership issue for British Steel will allow an ambitious future for the business to be realised and a plan to be brought forward that will attract investment. The UK management and workforce at British Steel have been working in an impossible situation while the Government have been negotiating with the current owners. I hope the current leadership will be empowered by the Government to make the necessary decisions to deliver the positive future for the business that the town deserves. The trade unions Community, Unite and GMB have worked consistently hard to keep steelmaking in the UK. Could the Minister confirm that the action the Government are taking will enable both management and trade unions to deliver the positive future that everybody wants to see for steelmaking in the UK? Scunthorpe is home to one of the last very large pieces of industrial land in the UK. The proper development of that land could benefit not just Scunthorpe and my constituency, but the whole of the UK. Can the Minister set out what plans he has to work with North Lincolnshire local authority and other partners to make the most of these opportunities? We do not want to see a first come, first served situation where the best users and custodians of that land are not given the opportunity to take it on. It has to be the right company, which will ensure that the proud history of manufacturing in northern Lincolnshire continues long into the future. Will the Minister confirm that that will be his approach?

• 21 May 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Sunflowers Children’s Action Group, a children’s charity in Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, on winning by popular poll on my Facebook page a £2,000 donation from Bacta, the amusement and arcades representative body? Sunflowers provides activities, respite and trips for children with life-limiting illnesses and does amazing work to support families in my local area, and this donation will help it to continue to do just that.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Middle East: Economic Update · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Chancellor on her statement. The setting of electricity prices to international gas prices has long been blamed for the erratic nature of our electricity bills—indeed, that was previously accepted by the Conservative party. While the Conservatives complained about it and did nothing, this Government are seeking to take action to disconnect those two issues. Will the Chancellor advise when she thinks that families will start to see a benefit from the decoupling of electricity prices from international gas prices?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Road Surfaces (Maximum Noise Levels) · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate that—thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Maybe we all need ear defenders in this place once in a while. We have clear rules and protections for prolonged noise exposure in many workplaces because we understand that repeated exposure can damage hearing and affect health, yet when it comes to people who drive for a living—delivery, heavy goods vehicle and logistics drivers—as well as road workers and those who use this route day in and day out, we still do not properly factor road surface noise into the basic fitness of the road itself. The outcomes of repeated and prolonged exposure to loud noise include tinnitus—a continuous tonal ringing in the ears—ranges of hearing loss or increased sensitivity to noise known as hyperacusis. The damage is almost always irreversible and cumulative. The HSE recommends that employers seek to mitigate noise exposure where possible—and if it is not possible, to provide ear protection. Of course, that is not possible inside a vehicle when all senses are required to be fully functioning to drive safely. With no mitigations that individuals or employers can take, the solution lies in the appropriate surfacing of the road. Clearly, the Government and National Highways recognise that these outdated concrete surfaces are not fit for purpose and have a range of other problems. Addressing the remaining concrete surface roads must not be allowed to slip down the priority list. Additionally, the experiences of hundreds of thousands of drivers using the A180 over the years should serve as a case study in all future road planning, to ensure that noise levels—not just for the surrounding area, but for the journey maker—are part of the assessment of suitability. The basic principle behind my Bill is very simple: road surfaces should be judged not only on whether they remain structurally passable, but on whether they are fit for modern use, which means safer, smoother and, yes, quieter. The Bill would create a framework for setting a maximum acceptable noise level for road surfaces. It would prevent the continued use of surfacing materials that breach that standard, and it would require existing roads that exceed it to be resurfaced. In doing so, it would finally put road noise where it belongs: at the heart of how we define a road that is fit for purpose. Communities that contribute so much to our economy through our ports, our energy sector and our industry should not have to put up with a road famous not for being a gateway for growth, but for the deafening racket it creates every time people drive on it. I say to all relevant stakeholders that I welcome the direction of travel and the investment already being made, but on the A180 and roads like it, there is still a long road ahead. I hope that the Government will work with National Highways, me and the affected communities to address the issues that this Bill aims to resolve, and to ensure that the roads that people depend on are not only open, but safe, modern and quiet enough to meet the standards that motorists deserve. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Melanie Onn, Sarah Russell, Lee Pitcher, Martin Vickers and Jo Platt present the Bill. Melanie Onn accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 May , and to be printed (Bill 426 ).

• 21 Apr 2026 · Road Surfaces (Maximum Noise Levels) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the use of road surfacing materials which generate in-vehicle noise levels above a specified maximum; to require the resurfacing of existing roads which generate in-vehicle noise above that maximum; and for connected purposes. In Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, everybody knows the A180. It is the road that carries people to work, to school, to hospital appointments, to our courts and back home again. It is the road that all visitors, loved ones and hopeful away fans have to take on their way into our towns. It is a road of huge economic importance. It supports industry, freight and trade, and it connects our communities to the rest of the country. Sadly, this main artery that supports life in our town is known locally for an entirely different reason, and that is noise. It is not a minor irritation or a bit of background hum that drivers should simply learn to live with; it is a serious quality of life issue, a road safety issue, a public health concern and, increasingly, a question of whether we are prepared to accept outdated standards on roads that thousands of people rely on. The A180 opened in 1983 as an extension to the M180. At the time, it was described as the noisiest road in the United Kingdom; more than 40 years on, the same continues to be true—the problem has not gone away. Large sections of England’s strategic road network were built with concrete in the 1960s and 1970s, and according to National Highways there are about 400 miles of concrete roads on the network, which is about 4% of England’s motorways and major A roads. Those roads are now nearing the end of their working lives. National Highways has itself accepted that replacing them with modern road surfaces improves ride quality and reduces noise, and I welcome its concrete roads programme as a long-term plan to replace existing concrete roads with modern roads built to current standards. The A180 is exactly the kind of road that demonstrates why this programme must be delivered at top speed, and why noise must be treated as a core design standard, not an afterthought. For well over a decade, the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and I have presented the A180’s issues to a variety of Transport Ministers. I believe they only truly understand those issues following a trip on the road itself. Indeed, through conversation, it often becomes apparent that those Ministers have been on the road—to go to the football at Blundell Park or to visit family—and they remember that road and recall the conversations they had, or at least tried to have, at the time about just how noisy it was. I am pleased that we are now beginning to see the fruits of our labours. I welcome the steps that Ministers have taken since the general election to address some of the issues. Last month, we saw the announcement of a £27 billion investment to fix England’s ageing roads, including full reconstruction of parts of the A180 and the M180. The works, funded through the road investment strategy 3 allocation round, will entail a full reconstruction of the A180 from Brocklesby interchange to Barnetby interchange. While that is long overdue and welcome as an intervention, the case of the A180 shows that investment alone is not enough unless noise is explicitly part of the standards we expect our roads to meet. In July 2025, following conversations I had had with National Highways to push this issue, a close proximity road surface noise survey was carried out on the A180 between Stallingborough and Grimsby. The survey found that tyre and road noise levels on the concrete sections were generally in the range of 106 to 108 dB. While this is an external road surface measurement rather than a measurement taken inside the vehicle—and I would encourage National Highways to carry out a comparable in-vehicle study—it gives us a very clear sense of what motorists are up against. To make that tangible, 106 to 108 dB is in the same broad range as very loud machinery, a nightclub or a chainsaw. In the United Kingdom, the Health and Safety Executive says that employers must assess risk at 80 dB and provide hearing protection at 85 dB, and that exposure above 87 dB must not be exceeded after hearing protection is taken into account. Drivers on the A180 are sitting for up to an hour a day in an enclosed environment with the equivalent of a pneumatic drill. It is so loud that people can no longer hear anything in the vehicle, causing them to unwittingly add to it by turning up their radio, or drivers and passengers having to shout to be heard despite sitting right next to each other. [ Interruption. ]

• 14 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to recognise the work the Government have already undertaken to improve our high streets, including measures announced in the Budget last year: the taskforce to tackle organised crime groups; additional funding made available to trading standards, customs and excise, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; and support for community policing, ensuring that there is a community police officer in every neighbourhood across the country. Those are all welcome and important, and it is right that we acknowledge that context in which this debate sits. I would also like to congratulate the Minister for Policing and Crime. She works incredibly hard. Today, she is working a double shift and we appreciate it. I rise to speak to Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 333, which sought to extend closure orders to 12 months. That has been the subject of some discussion today. I appreciate that the Government understand and recognise the importance and necessity of closure orders, to the point that they have tabled this amendment in lieu. I have to say to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) that I do not see that as the Government opposing, but rather nudging gently towards the right direction. They are acknowledging the need for closure orders, while recognising the sensitivity that comes with them: the impact they can have in residential areas—this is not just about commercial premises—and on our high streets. In particular, I think about the potential addition of boarded-up, empty homes for 12-month periods and the same for commercial properties on our high streets. That will be a concern and I therefore recognise the need for the Government to consult, but the Minister will know that this draws concern from me and other colleagues who are keen to tackle the scourge of dodgy shops in their communities—and to do so quickly.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The extension to closure notices relates to much shorter time periods, and the periods for notices provided do not therefore necessarily need to fall into the scope of having a consultation—in fact, I would rather avoid having things in consultation unnecessarily over including things in consultation. We want to drive the changes that communities expect to see, but this consultation has the potential to undermine the seriousness with which the Government take this issue. I wonder whether there is therefore an opportunity for the Government to say that they are aiming for the consultation and the response to coincide with the high streets strategy that we are expecting later this year, hopefully in the summer—whenever summer, in a parliamentary term, actually comes to fruition. The campaign to stop dodgy shops is not just about not liking the appearance or the proliferation of these businesses, but covers much wider consequences, from money laundering to the sale of illegal goods; there were even suggestions in a recent BBC investigation of these shops harbouring child sexual exploitation activities. Indeed, a gentleman in my constituency called Shaun Tinmurth was sold an illegal vape that exploded in his home, causing thousands of pounds-worth of damage and putting his life and the lives of his family in significant peril. Just last month, we saw national rail infrastructure damaged as a result of a vape shop fire in Glasgow, with a beautiful grade II building seriously damaged. These businesses endanger lives, bring criminal activity to the heart of our towns and fracture community cohesion. This is happening now. We are seeing damage, threats to life and costs to the public purse because the measures that currently exist are too slow to intervene, because of a lack of the right resources or because these matters are not considered to be a priority by some local authorities or police authorities. We have to ensure that police and local authorities have sufficient resources within their arsenal to provide a deterrent in the very strongest terms to these fake businesses and to make it absolutely clear to any OCG that is behind these commercial outfits that their model will not be tolerated, that they are not wanted and that the strongest available action will be used in such cases. That is why the Government should not use the consultation as an opportunity not to continue to press ahead. I know that the Secretary of State is being given powers to easily implement this, should the consultation outcome take us in that direction—I really do not want the Government to miss the opportunity to give serious weight to the consequences. I want to ensure the success of the high streets strategy when it comes in the summer, and I really do not think there is any point in investing in our town centres if legitimate businesses are undercut by those operating outside the law or if residents feel unsafe in the very spaces that we are trying to regenerate. I urge the Government to publish the consultation as soon as possible and to aim to conclude it in support of and around the timeframe of the high streets strategy, in addition to publishing the terms of reference and membership of the OCG high streets cross-departmental group for the purposes of transparency and contribution, and to ensure that every intervention—whether on policing, regeneration or business support—is aligned with the goal of allowing our high streets to breathe again.

• 12 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T6. I wish my constituents a happy Great Grimsby Day, to commemorate the signing of our charter in 1201. UK titanium dioxide production like that at Tronox is under threat from aggressive Chinese practices, funnelling cheap product through companies that they buy, run down and hollow out, circumventing protective levies. What is the Minister doing to ensure a level playing field, so that we do not see industry, skills and jobs draining out of the UK?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to support the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill and the Lords amendments. The Bill is about backing a world-class aviation sector and supporting its growth in a way that meets our decarbonisation responsibilities. The fact that SAF could contribute to the 65% reduction in emissions needed by aviation to meet net zero by 2050 is a useful reminder that technological development can ensure a future for higher carbon emitters while improving our environment. That is policy in action, and it will reduce disruption to consumers—something that we also have to bear in mind. SAF matters not just for its decarbonisation credentials, but for its clear potential to support job creation and economic growth. As my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) said, it will bring into existence a circular economy, including flooding alleviation and the development of feedstocks. That would perhaps alleviate some of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) about the source of feedstocks. Increasing home-grown SAF production can position the UK as a leading destination in this new market. Low-carbon fuels can support up to 15,000 jobs and contribute up to £5 billion to the economy by 2050. That is not an abstract prospect for those of us who represent communities built on industry and energy. In northern Lincolnshire, we already see what that can mean. Phillips 66’s Humber refinery in Immingham—in my neighbouring constituency—is the UK’s first and largest commercial scale producer of SAF. I was pleased to discuss the potential for the expansion of SAF operations with P66, especially given its recent acquisition of the Lindsey oil refinery site, which has a uniquely placed direct pipeline to London Heathrow. It is of the utmost importance that UK refineries such as P66’s Humber refinery play a crucial role in the transition to and upscaling of cleaner fuel sources. That would retain the domestic skills base and supply chains that communities such as mine depend on. That is why I particularly welcome Lords amendments 1 to 3, which will ensure that the Secretary of State can enter revenue certainty contracts only where the supported SAF is produced in the UK. That is a crucial step in protecting domestic industrial growth. Given recent global events that other colleagues have referred to, the amendments present straightforward, sensible safeguards that help the UK to build fuel capability and resilience in an ever volatile global fuel supply chain. For SAF to be a success, and as we build the market, we must get the wider policy framework right, including carbon pricing and the UK emissions trading scheme. The ETS can support sustainable aviation fuel investment, but it needs to be negotiated with care so that British industry has the clarity and confidence it needs to invest for the long term. It must not face uncertainty or any unintended disadvantages. I support the Bill and welcome the Lords amendments. I look forward to working with the Government to strengthen the link between ambition and real industrial opportunity here at home, creating jobs and career opportunities in communities such as Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Police Services: In-person Access · Hansard source

  More

  Humberside police, and the trade unions representing them, have raised concerns about the potential closure of counters under Operation Balance. Further to the Minister’s remarks, can she offer any reassurance to my local community that they will be able to contact local police as and when they need to?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Leader of the House please advise me on the best way to get the concerns of Grimsby businesses on Cleethorpe Road considered in detail and perhaps reflected in the Government’s planned high streets strategy? They are facing a severe economic impact from the council’s plans to remove parking for a bus lane that will save only 15 seconds on a journey. Is there an opportunity for a debate on council responsibilities to local businesses?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Fish and Chip Sector · Hansard source

  More

  The supply of fish is an international business, and it is really complicated. One issue that has been problematic is that, post Brexit, some of our supertrawlers, such as the Kirkella, are no longer able to supply to the UK, which has elevated the cost of this food.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. The proposed changes to ILR and the consultation on earned settlement have far-reaching consequences, so it is essential that they are delivered with fairness and compassion. I support the Government’s mission to restore control of and confidence in the immigration system, including the clear objective of reducing net migration and ensuring that the rules are properly enforced. Public trust depends on a system that is coherent, that is consistent, and that works, but it is worth remembering that the people who have come to the UK have come through legitimate means, and they have come to fill the Brexit work gap, to support our public services, and to contribute well to our society. I must reflect the real anxiety that I am hearing in Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes from people who are already here, already working and already paying tax, and who entered the system in good faith under the existing framework. They have built their lives around these rules—our rules—and it would be wrong if the goalposts were moved halfway through the match. I want to add to this debate the voice of one of my constituents, Victor Olubumoye, a care worker who has described living under what he called “visa fear”. He told me that every day he went to work fearful that a single mistake could cost him not just his job but his immigration status, and that managers repeatedly reminded him that his visa depended upon them; we have already heard about that situation from other Members. In Victor’s own words: “You cannot give what you do not have. People who are treated without dignity struggle to give dignity.” That testimony matters, because it goes to the heart of what fairness looks like in practice. If we want a system that commands confidence, we must not create incentives for silence, exploitation and instability in our essential services. Making changes for future arrivals can probably just about be explained, but making retrospective changes for those who are already here, and who often work in our essential public services, risks undermining workforce stability and basic fairness. In my constituency, the issue of immigration is a topic of interest, to say the least, and there is no point in pretending it is not, but that interest is not about those who came on a proper visa, through a proper scheme from the Government. Concerns about the over-reliance of employers on overseas labour are not the fault of those individuals; they are here because we asked them to come and help. As the consultation progresses, I ask for the careful consideration of transitional protections or differentiated arrangements for existing workers, so that their contribution is properly recognised, their integration is supported and their concerns are reflected in the final policy.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Fishing Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making time for this debate and for restoring it to the main Chamber, as we have been asking for many years. I congratulate the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee—the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who co-chairs with me the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries—on securing the debate. The Government have taken steps to bring greater stability and long-term thinking to the sector, but it has not been without controversy. They are continuing to allow EU vessels into UK waters for another decade-plus, with no protection for non-quota stocks. The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) made a good point about the speed of the negotiations, which arrived upon us with next to no engagement, either with the sector or with this House. In future negotiations it would be preferable, to say the least, if efforts were made to keep this House informed and if those who have an interest on behalf of their constituents were able to engage directly with those who are negotiating. The agreement reached with the EU last year has provided at least some parameters of operation. There is an understanding of where the industry will stand until 2038. The new SPS agreement also has the potential to significantly reduce red tape for seafood exporters. Given that more than 60% of UK seafood by value is exported to the EU, that matters enormously to processors and exporters in places like Grimsby. The UK seafood processing sector supports more than 17,000 full-time jobs, including over 5,500 in the Grimsby cluster alone. It is a modern, innovative industry that enables British-landed fish to reach domestic and international markets. We produce about 10 million fish fingers per week. We were on “Inside the Factory” on the BBC, and were very proud to see that. I will say a little more about the importance of fish fingers when I talk about the subject of British procurement, which was raised at Cabinet Office questions this morning. Continued investment in modernisation, innovation, marketing and workforce skills will be essential. I welcome the leadership shown by the UK Seafood Federation, which is headquartered in my constituency, and particularly its focus on skills and careers as a priority for the coming years. In the circumstances, given all that has happened for the sector in recent years, I welcome the £360 million fishing and coastal growth fund. It has to focus, as I think it does, on fishing communities to boost skills, support business security and business expansion, and promote fishing as a career. That is exactly what is needed to strengthen local economies, and I will of course be doing all that I can to ensure that Great Grimsby sees some benefit from that funding. I would welcome any update from the Minister on the details of that fund, such as who can apply, how they apply, what the criteria are and when we can expect to see all that detail. There is still work to do in ensuring that fishing and seafood are fully recognised in wider Government thinking. Too often the sector is treated narrowly as a regulatory challenge rather than as part of the solution on food security, which I know is an important factor for the Government, and on regional growth and resilience. This week, the Government’s assessment of global biodiversity loss and national security rightly highlighted risks to food systems, but it did not reference fish or seafood at all. As an island nation, we should be more confident in recognising the necessity of properly managed fisheries to a resilient food system. As a believer in the importance that offshore wind plays as a critical part of our energy system, and as well as being a representative of a historic fishing town, I am at the heart of the challenge when it comes to considering spatial squeeze. Steps have been taken to address conflicting industry interests. As I mentioned in my intervention earlier, the marine spatial prioritisation programme, introduced last summer, set out clear location-specific priorities for fisheries, nature and other uses of our seas, but fishers are still worried. They must be engaged with and listened to. They do not have the same power as those big wind development companies or those big communications companies that are laying cables. They often feel, and these feelings have been compounded over the years, that their needs are last on the list. The Minister has to focus her support on the needs of fishermen and on ensuring that their voices are heard against some of those other organisations, so they feel confident in the representation they have from this Government. I said I would come back to fishfingers. We are gradually becoming a much more health-conscious nation, judging by the number of Members—not those in the Chamber today—who are on various weight-loss jabs. Health is much more at the front of people’s minds. Eating fish could help with the nation’s health. It is high in omega-3 and an excellent source of protein. How can we bring this into the UK economy through our public institutions? There is a good opportunity to build a healthier nation by integrating increased amounts of fish into our schools, the NHS and the Prison Service. That would help not only boost UK industry, but improve the brainpower and concentration of our young people and those who are unwell and need to heal quickly. We need to ensure that fish and fish products from around this country are included in the national food strategy. I want to underline the importance of the work being led by the fisheries APPG on a national fisheries action plan, which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned. Since leaving the EU, action has been taken to look at stock management, but there is no single and coherent strategy for the fishing and seafood sector as a whole. Responsibility seems to be spread across lots of Departments, making the system complex and fragmented. A clear, forward-looking plan could bring together issues of space, labour, skills and sustainability, providing the long-term direction that the industry needs, and I certainly look forward to engaging with the Minister on this as a cross-party group. Fishing has a strong and important legacy and will always have a future in the UK. The foundations are being put in place, but increased ambition and enthusiastic partnership with coastal communities will be crucial in ensuring that these future opportunities do not slip through the net.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Fishing Industry · Hansard source

  More

  Does my co-chair on the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries not think that the marine spatial prioritisation programme, which was introduced last summer, will do exactly the job he is hoping to see delivered?

• 14 Jan 2026 · Oil Refining Sector · Hansard source

  More

  We have also had trusted privilege, as a House, in the past; we were able to see secure information and secure documents. All of us were able to go to a room and sign in to read documents on exiting the European Union, for example. There are ways and means of doing these things, and of placing trust in elected representatives. Much of the information from companies was made available to local representatives anyway, because they emailed the details to us. It would be interesting to learn why the official receivers deemed bids not to be credible. I will move forward, because decisions have already been made, and it would be challenging, to say the least, if we went backwards on this. The written statement of 22 July delivered by the Minister for Energy confirmed important commitments for those directly employed at Lindsey: a package guaranteeing jobs, a redundancy scheme that will end in March—another 240 people will be made redundant then—and a training guarantee. There have been concerns about that training guarantee, and I would ask the Ministers to look more closely at that as we move forward.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Offshore Wind · Hansard source

  More

  I am old enough to remember when a Conservative Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, said that he wanted Grimsby to be the Riyadh of offshore wind. I also remember the shadow Energy Secretary, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), attending offshore wind conferences and championing the sector, so where she stands now is in direct opposition to where she was just a few years ago. I, for one, am pleased to see the east coast offshore wind industry strengthened through today’s announcement. It will help to deliver energy independence for the UK and secure existing jobs in the sector—there are 12,000 jobs related to clean energy in Lincolnshire. How does the Secretary of State see today’s announcement benefiting growth in the supply chain and delivering new industrial investment in places such as Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes?