Sarah Hall MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 17 Dec 2025 · Neurodiversity in the Workplace · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered neurodiversity in the workplace. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. Neurodiversity is still too often misunderstood, overlooked or treated as a marginal issue, when in reality it affects millions of people across our workforce, across every sector and across every part of the country. This debate is about fairness, dignity at work and whether our workplaces are genuinely designed for the people who work in them. I also requested this debate for a more personal reason. I was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as an adult, and like many people who are diagnosed later in life, that diagnosis did not change who I am, but it clarified things. It helped me understand why some environments drained me, why others energised me, and why I had spent years adapting myself to systems that were never designed with people like me in mind. Since I became a Member of Parliament, many constituents have written to me with experiences that echoed that same story. This included people who have spent years masking, people who have been labelled difficult or unreliable, and people who have quietly left jobs they were good at because the barriers became too much. So when we talk about neurodiversity at work, we are not talking about abstract theory; we are talking about real people, real workplaces and real lost potential. Around one in seven people in the UK are neurodivergent, including autistic people, and people with ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia and other conditions. Many neurodivergent people will qualify as disabled under the Equality Act 2010, which means that they are legally entitled to reasonable adjustments at work.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Neurodiversity in the Workplace · Hansard source

  More

  I agree and feel that the hon. Member is describing me a little bit in that. So yes, I absolutely agree with that characterisation. Just as concerning is the fact that nearly a third of neurodivergent workers have not told their manager or HR department at all, not because they do not need support, but because they fear stigma, stereotypes or the impact that disclosure could have on their career. That tells us something fundamental: the problem is not difference, but the environment that people are expected to work in. Neurodiversity describes the natural differences in how people’s brains behave and process information. We all think, learn and act differently and have different strengths and challenges. That is normal and human, yet the world of work is still too often built around a very narrow idea of what is typical. When workplaces are designed around that narrow norm, barriers are created.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Neurodiversity in the Workplace · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. I will come on to some of the work that GMB, Unison and USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers— are doing in this area. The barriers that I mentioned are what disable people. Too often, neurodiversity is still approached through the medical model of disability, focusing on what is wrong with the individual, what they cannot do or how they fall short of an assumed standard. That approach creates low expectations and leaves people feeling pitied, patronised or quietly excluded. The social model of disability offers a different and more honest lens. It recognises that people are disabled not by their impairment or condition, but by barriers created by society: inflexible systems, poor understanding and rigid attitudes. Let me ground that in a practical example. An autistic retail worker struggled with constant changes to their working hours not because they did not want to work, but because of unpredictability, increased anxiety and sensory overload. What they needed was a stable shift pattern. Predictability gave them control and made work possible. Under the medical model, the problem would have been framed as the worker. Under the social model, the problem was the demand for unlimited flexibility. When the employer agreed to a stable shift pattern, it meant the difference between staying in work or having to give up their job altogether. There was no grand intervention, just a reasonable adjustment.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Neurodiversity in the Workplace · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. Some neurodiverse people would describe it as a superpower; some do not like that term, but there are so many wonderful assets and abilities that we in the neurodiverse community have. If only we were given a chance, we could make a real difference and be fantastic in whatever we choose to do. Recruitment processes often reward confidence over competence, eye contact over ability and social performance over skill. Vague job descriptions, ambiguous questions and high-pressure interviews screen people out before they have had a chance to show what they can actually do. We also need to talk about masking. Many neurodivergent people hide parts of who they are at work to fit in. Sometimes, they do not even realise they are doing it, but masking is exhausting. It contributes to anxiety, isolation, burnout and poor mental health. I recognise that experience myself, and I know from constituents how common it is. People might not need to mask so much if workplaces were designed with difference in mind. Although this debate rightly spans all sectors, I want to be clear that the public sector must lead by example. Unison has been clear that, despite legal protections, many public sector workplaces still lack awareness and fail to implement inclusive practices. Rigid recruitment processes, inflexible performance systems and delays or refusals in reasonable adjustments cause stress, sickness absence and employment disputes that could be avoided. There is also a gendered dimension to this. Neurodivergent women often face compounded discrimination. Unison has called for neurodiversity to be embedded properly within equality and diversity frameworks, backed by training for managers and reps, stronger enforcement of Equality Act duties and better access to support schemes such as Access to Work. Those calls matter, because without enforcement, rights are theoretical, and without adequate funding, inclusion becomes optional. Trade unions have been vital in driving this agenda, and I want to highlight the role of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—the retail trade union. Across the UK, thousands of shop workers, warehouse staff and reps are having conversations about neurodiversity. Many USDAW members are neurodivergent themselves. Many others are parents or carers of neurodivergent children and adults, juggling paid work with caring responsibilities in sectors where flexibility is often in short supply. USDAW talks about neurodiversity in the same way that we talk about physical difference. Some people are taller, some are stronger, some have more stamina. We accept those differences without question, and our brains are no different. I also highlight the work that the GMB has done through its “Thinking Differently at Work” toolkit on neurodiversity, which I value because it is practical and designed for real workplaces, covering understanding neurodivergence, good employment practice, the law, reasonable adjustments and more. Clear, accessible guidance is what too many workplaces are missing. It shows how much progress can be made when knowledge is shared early, rather than after problems escalate. Without neurodivergent minds, the world would be a poorer place. We would miss out on different ways of seeing problems, spotting patterns and challenging assumptions. That is true on a shopfloor, in a hospital, in a classroom and here in Parliament, which is why I have joined other MPs who are neurodivergent or disabled to support work on modernising Parliament, not just to make it more accessible for those of us already here but to encourage more people from different backgrounds to come into politics in the first place. Neurodiversity should never be a barrier to ambition, public service or opportunity. Earlier this year, the TUC passed a motion calling for stronger national action on neurodiversity at work, calling for: clearer rights to reasonable adjustments, including for those waiting for a diagnosis; recruitment reform that assesses ability rather than social performance; investment in inclusive apprenticeships and work experience; better workforce data; and a national neurodiversity strategy co-created with disabled people. Those serious, practical proposals are grounded in lived experience. Supporting neurodiversity early is not a “nice to have”. It is a prevention that benefits everyone. I have six asks of the Minister. First, will she commit to strengthening compliance mechanisms for how the Equality Act duty to make reasonable adjustments is understood and enforced in practice? Secondly, will she set out what the Government will do to make sure that people can access support at work, based on need not paperwork, including those who are waiting for or do not have a formal diagnosis? We cannot build workplace inclusion around a system where people may wait years for an assessment. Thirdly, will the Minister commit to improving Access to Work, with clearer signposting for employers and employees, a simpler process and faster decisions, so that support arrives when it is needed and not months later? Fourthly, will she ensure that the public sector shows leadership by adopting consistent neuroinclusion standards, including manager training, so that reasonable adjustments are not left to chance or the good will of individual teams? Fifthly, will the Minister commit to collecting and publishing workforce data on neurodivergent employees, so that progress can be tracked? At the moment, too much of the conversation relies on anecdote rather than evidence. Transparency matters and what gets measured gets improved. If we are serious about accountability, workforce data must be part of the picture. Finally, will the Minister commit to ensuring that neurodivergent workers’ voices are central to this work, based on the principle of “nothing about us without us”, so that policy is shaped with people and not done to them? Neurodivergent people should not have to work harder than everyone else just to stay afloat. They should not have to mask, explain themselves repeatedly or wait until they are in crisis before support appears. We should design work that works for people, not expect people to endlessly adapt to systems that were not designed with them in mind. If we want our workplaces and our Parliament to reflect society as a whole, neurodivergent people must be able to see a future for themselves. I hope today’s debate helps to push us towards inclusive workplaces, where difference is expected, supported and valued, and not tolerated as an exception.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Neurodiversity in the Workplace · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; I absolutely agree. I echo his comments about the fantastic work that is being done in Northern Ireland on inclusion, and I am sure that the Minister will address the points he made in her closing remarks. It is also important to say this clearly: not all neurodivergent people have a diagnosis, and many are diagnosed far later in life. In some parts of the country, people wait years for assessment. During that time, they are still expected to work, cope and perform, often without any understanding of why things feel harder than they should. We cannot design workplace support around a system that is already overstretched and inconsistent. Support has to be based on need and not on paperwork.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Neurodiversity in the Workplace · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I am passionate about inclusion in the workplace and for children in schools. I would be happy to work with him on driving that forward. The response to my constituent was not inclusion, but exclusion, and it shows how neurodivergent women can be pushed out of work at exactly the moment that they most need understanding and flexibility. Many neurodivergent people are still met with damaging assumptions that they lack empathy, cannot understand humour, struggle socially or are somehow less capable or reliable. None of that is true, but those assumptions shape recruitment processes, performance management and workplace culture in ways that quietly exclude people before their abilities are ever recognised. The National Autistic Society has been clear that the biggest barriers that autistic workers face are a lack of understanding, negative stereotypes and failures by employers to adapt.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Neurodiversity in the Workplace · Hansard source

  More

  I agree, and I will come on to that point in my asks of the Minister. Something that I hear repeatedly from constituents is the lack of consistency around reasonable adjustments. Support agreed with one manager often disappears when roles change, teams move or a restructure happens. People are forced to re-explain themselves, re-justify their needs and start again. That is not dignity at work. Adjustments should travel with the worker and not depend on who happens to be in charge that month. A constituent who contacted me described a stark contrast between workplaces that created barriers and those that removed them. In early roles, including in a warehouse and later in a café, my constituent was keen to work and learn, but support was minimal. Tasks were not adapted, opportunities to build skills were restricted and they were left without support. In more recent roles, they now volunteer as a radio presenter and at the Lowry theatre, and are also employed as a trainer delivering the Oliver McGowan mandatory training programme. My constituent tells me that she loves the reasonable adjustments that they have put in place for her, compared with the very little that was in place in earlier roles. Another constituent, a new mother, contacted me about her attempt to return to work following maternity leave. She is autistic and requested reasonable adjustments to support her return. Instead of support, she was met with suggestions, including from HR, that needing reasonable adjustments meant that she is not fit for work at all. That response is deeply concerning, and it speaks to a wider problem about how disabled workers are too often treated.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Neurodiversity in the Workplace · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has found that one in five neurodivergent workers have experienced harassment or discrimination at work because of their neurodivergence.

• 15 Dec 2025 · NATO: European Security · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday I visited the Ukrainian family hub in Warrington for its Christmas celebrations. Many families who fled Putin’s war of aggression have made Warrington their home, but they are deeply worried about what the future holds, what peace might look like and whether they will ever be able to return safely to Ukraine. Can the Minister reassure them that the UK and our NATO allies remain steadfast in our support for Ukraine both in defending its sovereignty and in shaping a just and lasting peace?

• 15 Dec 2025 · NATO: European Security · Hansard source

  More

  8. What recent discussions he has had with NATO counterparts on European security.

• 25 Nov 2025 · Immigration Reforms: Humanitarian Visa Routes · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. Many families in Warrington South have been in touch with me over recent months, worried about their future. We opened the BNO pathway because it was the right thing to do. We did not do it out of charity but because we recognised a historic responsibility and a bond that runs deep. When the BNO route opened, thousands of Hongkongers uprooted their lives under extraordinary pressure. They arrived self-funded, often highly skilled, and determined to make a contribution. In Warrington, that is exactly what they have done. They work in our public services. They set up their own businesses. They volunteer. They pay taxes. They have bought homes. They are raising their children here with the quiet hope for stability in a country that they now call home. I welcome the Government’s confirmation that the five-year route to ILR will remain intact for BNO families. That was the right decision: it recognises Hongkongers’ unique position and our responsibility to them. But that reassurance is valid only if the mandatory requirements reflect the same spirit of stability and trust. The concerns that I am hearing are simple: people feel that the goalposts are being moved in the final minutes. Raising the English language requirement from B1 to B2 and introducing a mandatory earnings threshold for settlement risk shutting out people who have built their lives here in good faith. I have heard from constituents who met every rule set out when they arrived who now fear that they may not qualify because their partner struggles with the written element of the B2 test, or because a family member earns below a threshold, despite working. I have met constituents who have already taken their B1 test, fully prepared to apply for ILR in 2026, who now fear that the standard might change at the last minute. Additionally, a rigid income requirement risks misunderstanding how many BNO households operate. Many are income-poor but savings-rich; others have one parent working part time to support the family through their transition to a new country. If income is measured at the level of each individual rather than at the level of the household, thousands could be locked out of ILR through no fault of their own. That would be an unintended, deeply unjust outcome, and one that we should avoid. A longer journey to settlement risks leaving people stuck in limbo, which is no foundation for a stable life. These are our new neighbours, friends and colleagues. They fled political repression and trusted our word—that trust matters. Of course the immigration system needs clarity and fairness, but fairness and the rule of law cut both ways. These families followed every rule: they paid the fees, they made the leap, and they contributed to our economy and our civic life from day one. I ask the Minister, before any final decisions are made, to listen to the communities affected, to honour the commitments already given and to ensure that humanitarian routes such as those on which BNO families arrived are treated with the dignity and stability that those families were promised. Let us avoid retroactive changes. Let us make sure that transitional arrangements protect anyone already on the pathway. Let us keep the BNO route grounded in the principles it was built on: sanctuary, clarity and trust.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Funding for Deprived Areas · Hansard source

  More

  19. If he will take steps through the fair funding review 2.0 to ensure that the most deprived lower layer super output areas receive the largest increases in funding.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Funding for Deprived Areas · Hansard source

  More

  In Warrington we see some of the starkest inequalities anywhere in the country. One area is ranked the 899th most deprived, and the highest position is 33,480th, a gap of more than 32,500. Those vast disparities are masked by population-weighted averages, with Warrington ranking 199th overall and only 43rd in range. Will the Minister ensure that fair funding 2.0 truly reflects vast internal inequalities, so that resources reach the communities most in need?

• 19 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 · Hansard source

  More

  6. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents Colin and Wendy Parry, whose 12-year-old son Tim was murdered, along with three-year-old Johnathan Ball, in the 1993 Warrington bombing, have waited over 30 years for justice. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the Government act on the extracts of the Shawcross report and the all-party parliamentary group on Northern Ireland’s 2018 recommendations, and that there will be work across Government to deliver justice for Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism? Will he meet me to discuss these matters?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Flood Risk and Flood Defence Infrastructure: North-west England · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered flood risk and flood defence infrastructure in the North West. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I asked for this debate because people in Warrington South are worn down by the constant risk of flooding. It shapes their day-to-day lives far more than most people realise. We need a frank conversation about what is happening and what needs to change. For my constituents in places such as Dallam, Bewsey, Sankey Bridges and Penketh, this is not about distant risks or statistical forecasts. It is about the reality of waking up to flood alerts, checking river levels whenever the rain starts to fall, and wondering whether the water will stop before it breaches the banks of the brook. I have lost count of the number of people who have told me that they cannot sleep when heavy rain is forecast. Parents have told me that their children get anxious when storms are mentioned on the news. Older residents tell me that they keep a torch by the bed, just in case. It is those small details that show just how deeply flooding affects people long after the water has gone. That is no way to live. No family should have to brace themselves over and over again for another clean-up every time the water rises. In Dallam, we now see a situation where people are effectively marooned. When Longshaw Street floods and the Hawley’s Lane bridge goes under, Dallam becomes an island. People cannot get to work, get their children to school or leave their homes safely. Older residents who rely on adult social care are cut off. Patients at Lea Court are placed at additional risk because the access routes simply disappear under the water. Those are serious safety issues. No community should find itself trapped because the infrastructure around it can no longer cope. From Merseyside to Greater Manchester, and Warrington in between, communities are facing the same issues: extreme rainfall, overwhelmed watercourses and schemes that take too long to materialise. The north-west is carrying a growing share of the national flood burden. Our region contributes significantly to the national economy. We should not be left fighting year after year for the basic infrastructure needed to keep homes and businesses safe. For too long, flood resilience in the north-west has relied on a patchwork of bids, lobbying rounds and one-off pots of money. That is not a strategy. It leaves communities vulnerable, stuck in a cycle of uncertainty. On new year’s day, I was out across Warrington South in communities devastated by flooding, down Higham Avenue, Tavlin Avenue, Longshaw Street and Southworth Avenue. Some families were only just returning to normality following the Storm Christoph floods in 2021. Others were already exhausted by the constant cycle of rain, flood alerts, worry and clean-up, and it has not stopped there.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Flood Risk and Flood Defence Infrastructure: North-west England · Hansard source

  More

  Thanks, everyone. It has been a fantastic debate.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Flood Risk and Flood Defence Infrastructure: North-west England · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree and would be more than happy to do that. Residents across Bewsey, Dallam, Sankey Bridges and Penketh are doing everything asked of them. They sign up for alerts, check river levels, move furniture upstairs and support one another through the worry. But what they cannot do is hold back water that rises faster and more aggressively every year. We finally got the Sankey brook scheme moving. Now we need the reassurance that it will continue at pace with the funding and support required to get it over the line. If schemes like this stall, the ripple effects are felt from family homes to local businesses and transport routes. The storms will not wait for 2032. The water will not wait for the next funding round. We have been lucky more than once this year, but luck is not a flood defence strategy. It is not good enough for communities who have already suffered through repeated floods. Behind every issue I have raised this afternoon is a principle: people deserve to feel safe where they live, supported when things go wrong and listened to when they speak up. My constituents in Bewsey, Dallam, Sankey Bridges and beyond have waited long enough. They deserve the right infrastructure to protect them, and I will keep fighting until they get it.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Flood Risk and Flood Defence Infrastructure: North-west England · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree; my hon. Friend makes an important point. In September, we came within inches of another major event. The emergency services set up a temporary command post, and we were preparing to evacuate homes again. Then, just last Friday, we had another flood alert, with modelling suggesting that we were heading for yet another breach. Residents can see what is happening: these events are coming closer together and they are becoming harder to predict, but none of that should come as a surprise. I want to be clear that the areas most exposed to flooding in Warrington South are some of the most deprived, with some of the highest levels of disadvantage. They are the least able to shoulder the cost of repairs, the rising insurance premiums or months of disruption. Those communities are hit first and hit hardest, and they deserve the very best protection we can give them, not the uncertainty of waiting year after year for the infrastructure that they should already have had. When I looked at an old Ordnance Survey map from the 1880s, I saw that the land around Dallam and Bewsey was clearly marked as liable to flooding, with mud flats shown across an area that is now full of homes. Much of the housing built in the pre-war and post-war decades went up before anyone talked about climate resilience or long-term hydrology. Those decisions were not malicious; they were just made in a different era. With the kind of extreme rainfall that we are now seeing, those early planning decisions are showing their limits. That history matters—it helps to explain why that area is so vulnerable and why modern infrastructure simply must catch up. Nobody back then could have foreseen the level of rainfall now, but we cannot pretend that those planning decisions are not part of why we are here today. We have a responsibility to respond to the risks that are now so clear. This is not bad luck or a one-off winter; it is a pattern. The storms are heavier, the water rises faster and the ground saturates more quickly. Our infrastructure simply was not built for that pace or intensity of change. People often ask me about dredging, clearing the gullies, reopening canals and maintaining the brooks. Yes, those things matter, and I will always push for better maintenance, but we need to be straight with our residents. Dredging, clearing gullies, reopening canals and cutting back vegetation cannot prevent flooding when we get an entire day’s rain in just a couple of hours. That is the scale of the challenge; no amount of clearing alone can keep the water back. Flood events that used to be rare are now frequent. What used to be a slow rise in water levels can happen in the blink of an eye. The weather has changed, but the infrastructure has not. That is why the Sankey brook flood risk management scheme is so important. It is why I fought to secure the funding that finally allowed the outline design stage to begin. The contract has now been awarded and engineers are progressing the plans. Without securing that funding, we would still be talking about possibilities, rather than the engineers beginning their work. But I have to be honest: in the past, promises were made without a plan and people were let down. I will not repeat those mistakes. Sadly, even now, there are some making big claims about this scheme without understanding how complex it is. It is easy to say what people want to hear, but much harder to follow through and deliver. This is not a fast process and I will not pretend it is, but it is real progress after years of false starts. My constituents are desperate, and they ask me the same question time and again: when will this actually be built? The honest answer is not an easy one. At the moment, construction is not due to start until 2029, with an expected completion date in 2032. For communities that have faced repeated flooding, that is a long wait. They understand that the scheme is complex and that it needs to be done properly, so that flooding is not simply pushed on to other neighbourhoods. But they also need reassurance that the project will not stall again because, right now, we still do not have all the funding required. There is an affordability gap that we cannot ignore. In the north-west, we have already seen schemes fall behind when the funding picture is unclear. We cannot afford for that to happen here. Sadly, we all know that the Sankey brook scheme will not entirely remove the risk of flooding. With more extreme weather and a change in climate, that risk will always be there in some form. What we can do is take every practical step to protect the communities most at risk. We can identify the gaps, strengthen the early-warning systems and put better support in place while the scheme is being designed and built.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Flood Risk and Flood Defence Infrastructure: North-west England · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. We have also experienced that. At the time of the last flooding event, certain levels were predicted that did not come to pass. The accuracy is not there at the moment. I want to take a moment to thank the EA, Warrington borough council and our emergency services, because they have done everything they can with the limited resources available. Partners I have worked with have been open and honest about the challenges, and they care deeply about getting this right, but they cannot carry the burden without stability and adequate support from central Government on the ground. I hope that the Minister will consider the following asks. First, schemes such as Sankey brook need funding certainty. Families who have lived with repeated floods should not be waiting each year to see if the next phase can go ahead. Short-term funding creates long-term uncertainty. It slows down planning, delays construction and leaves communities exposed. Local choice cannot become a replacement for proper, national investment. It was never designed to plug repeated funding shortfalls. We need a mechanism that can close affordability gaps quickly for schemes that are already progressing. It is not good enough for a project to be technically sound, publicly supported and urgently needed, only to sit half-funded for years. Secondly, we need faster approval and progress for schemes where the risk is clearly rising. Sankey brook is routinely flagged during heavy rainfall. The recent September near miss, new-year floods, Storm Christoph and this past Friday show how urgent that is. Thirdly, we need better support for interim measures while the long-term scheme is built. That includes making flood alerts more reliable, especially at night and for nearby communities. It means property flood resilience grants, measures to protect people’s homes, and enhanced practical help that is routinely available for councils and landlords dealing with the aftermath of flooding. Our experience in Warrington shows that the current flood recovery framework and Bellwin scheme are not fit for purpose and do not go far enough to support communities or local authorities. Fourthly, I ask the Minister to look seriously at the growing issue of insurance affordability. Local residents are finding that they either cannot get flood insurance or that the premiums are so high that they cannot afford insurance. I urge her to look for solutions to ensure that families are not left uninsured or financially exposed while they wait for long-term schemes like Sankey brook to be completed. Fifthly, I ask the Minister to recognise the importance of the Sankey brook flood risk management scheme, give it the priority the project deserves and do everything in her power to ensure that the scheme progresses at pace. My constituents and I are desperate for this scheme. We have lived through years of flooding, near misses, evacuations and constant anxiety. This is not a “nice to have” for my constituents. It is essential infrastructure. We need additional funding, more resources, spades in the ground and defences built. We need certainty and a commitment that only the Minister can provide. Across the north-west, we are seeing a pattern: more extreme rainfall, more frequent events, and infrastructure that simply was not built for that. Communities cannot tackle this alone. Warrington South is an incredibly strong and resilient place. People look out for one another—they always have—but they should not have to rely on luck every time the rain comes. Good will alone will not keep homes dry. People need proper infrastructure behind them.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Rogue Builders · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furness. I am grateful to colleagues for securing a debate on this issue, because it is something that I am hearing more and more about in Warrington South. When people come to see me about it, they are usually exhausted and upset. Their home is supposed to be the safest place in their life, but instead they are living in chaos. Indeed, this is such a widespread problem that there are now entire TV programmes about cowboy builders, and newspapers and broadcasters regularly produce guides about how to spot and avoid them. One constituent came to me after doing everything that a sensible person would do. They found a firm on Checkatrade, read the reviews, checked the company’s details and were confident they had found a reputable business. They were not naive; they were careful and did their due diligence. However, once the work started, their home was devastated. The whole roof came off. Rooms that they relied on day to day, including the shower, were in a horrendous state for months. They ended up spending around £60,000 to put things right. Trading standards officers were helpful and saw the case through the legal process. Eventually, the rogue builders received a suspended sentence for what they had done to three different families. But even then, the system did not come close to putting things right. The company had claimed to have insurance, but it did not. Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the judge had to set a limit of £50,000 to be split between all three victims. My constituent will only get back a fraction of what they lost, and frustratingly they still have not received the compensation they are owed. When we talk about consumer protection, we must be honest—it simply did not work for my constituent. Members from across the House have described similar patterns of behaviour in their own constituencies. When the same individuals take thousands of pounds, leave homes unsafe and move straight on to the next victim, it looks and feels like fraud, yet too many people are still being told that it is a civil matter. If we are serious about protecting consumers, we need clearer lines, so that the police understand when this issue becomes criminal and not just contractual. We need enforcement agencies with the resources to intervene earlier, and we should take a proper look at whether an affordable and proportionate licensing or accreditation scheme for builders would help to stop repeat offenders from slipping through the net. Most of all, we need a system that recognises what is at stake. Rogue builders are ruining homes across the country, yet victims are still being left to fend for themselves. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will look closely at the gaps that this case has exposed in enforcement, compensation and basic protection, so that what happened in Warrington South does not keep happening to families across the country.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Houses in Multiple Occupation: Planning Consent · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. On roads where people have raised families for decades, homes are being bought up, divided and converted into HMOs, often in what feels like a matter of days, and often by scalpers from out of town who are looking to turn a quick profit. My constituents tell me that they wake up one morning to find a skip outside, walls being knocked down and new tenants moving in next door—with no consultation and no conversation. That is what happens when planning rules overlook communities. It should be about balance, respect and the right of communities to have a voice in the places they call home. People are worried about noise, parking, waste and antisocial behaviour, but they are also worried about something deeper: the fabric of their streets and communities. A new mum told me that she can no longer open her baby’s window at night because of the constant comings and goings next door. Another resident said they felt powerless, like they were watching their community disappear before their eyes. At the same time, young families are being priced out of the very homes that once offered their parents a start in life. These are not isolated frustrations; they are warning signs that planning rules have not kept pace with reality. Right now, a family home can be turned into a small HMO without the need for planning permission, and that loophole has left councils and residents powerless to manage overconcentration without entering a laborious process. I welcome the steps that Warrington borough council is taking, with an article 4 direction for the central six wards, but that still leaves the rest of my constituency without the additional layer of protection. Local councils need the power to plan with purpose, not just to react after damage is done. A national framework and a change to the rules that respects local communities would give residents faith that development is something done with them and not to them. Yes, we need affordable rooms, but not at the cost of affordable homes. Fair rules, good homes and tidy streets— that is the foundation of trust that local communities deserve. Until planning rules catch up with the reality on our streets, communities like mine will keep paying the price. It is time the system worked for the people who call these streets home.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Investment in Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  In Warrington, Platform is transforming the former Unilever site where Surf and Persil were once produced into a next-generation modular data centre that will provide the capacity, resilience and connectivity needed to power the UK’s AI revolution. From Persil to pixels, Platform is taking a brownfield industrial site with more than a century of manufacturing heritage and bringing it into the 21st-century economy. Will the Secretary of State set out what more the Department can do to support home-grown, local companies such as Platform to deliver projects of this kind, which combine cutting-edge AI infrastructure, data sovereignty, regional growth and high-value skills for the future workforce?

• 30 Oct 2025 · Investment in Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  5. What steps he is taking to encourage investment in businesses.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  According to NHS data, while the number of people waiting for an autism assessment is levelling out, the time they are waiting is rocketing; the average wait time is 200 days more than it was a year ago. In order to reduce waiting times, integrated care boards should follow the NHS England national framework and operational guidance, and provide a standardised autism assessment process, but in many cases that clearly is not happening. Will the Leader of the House ask the relevant Health Minister to arrange a meeting with me to discuss which ICBs are struggling to implement the framework, and the action being taken to support them to ensure that they have the resources needed to follow the framework?