Sarah Russell MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Student Loans · Hansard source

  More

  One of my constituents has been in touch. He is a neonatal nutritionist and is paying a marginal tax rate on his loan of 57%. Does the Chair of the Treasury Committee agree that that is not an acceptable outcome socially and that we must have change?

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for leading this debate, and the gentleman who started the petition in the first place. I am sure that, like me, my constituents are absolutely staggered that we are having a conversation about children getting ill from paddling in our streams and drinking our water. The Victorians built a load of sewers because they recognised that this was completely and utterly unacceptable, yet we do not seem to have managed to maintain them to the point that we can actually drink our water. That is crackers. The fact that we have to have a conversation about whether our water is fit to drink should raise alarm bells. In the 30-odd years since privatisation, £85 billion has been paid out in dividends. I am genuinely astonished that so much money has been taken from the good people of this country and given to private interests without more outcry. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary gardening and horticulture group. It is really important to note that the current arrangement does not just have implications for individuals —although they are horrific and I do not wish to understate them. It also has implications for horticulture businesses. Our general access to water is appalling and is decimating businesses, which are paying very high utility costs across the board without being able to regularly access what they need. It is damaging our economy, and it is damaging our experience of the great outdoors. The amount that we are paying in bills is ridiculous, and 20% of treated drinking water in the UK is lost to leakage. I know that the Government have already taken some steps to improve the regulation of the water industry, but frankly we need to go further and faster. I am so proud to represent a very beautiful area of the world. Many of my constituents have grown up playing in local rivers and streams, and people still allow their pets to go into the water, but most parents will not let their kids paddle in the same places where they used to paddle, because they know it is not safe. How have we got here? It is completely unacceptable. I know there are arguments about how much nationalisation would cost, and of course we have to consider that, but if the law prevents us from renationalising things that clearly should be renationalised, then—I speak as a lawyer—perhaps we should revisit the law. It is clear to our constituents that we need to move forward.

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

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

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

  More

  Might I suggest that producing social housing that includes flooring as standard is a fourth area in which the Minister could go further? That is delivered by the private market, but it is not a requirement for social housing providers at the moment.

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

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

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

  More

  Does my hon. Friend find, as I do in my patch, that those who are on the social housing waiting list for the longest are often those with a disability who need a fully adaptable home? Does he agree that it is vital, when we spend public money on building new homes, that they should be built to an accessible and adaptable standard from the off?

• 3 Sept 2026 · Vaccination Rates: England · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) and the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this debate on such an important issue. I will attempt to talk about three different vaccinations in less than three minutes, but before I do that, I would like to say a huge thank you to Congleton Rotary, which recently raised over £1,000 towards polio vaccination. That is such an important topic. First, it is completely unacceptable that the UK lost its measles-free status this year. We know that it can be a devastating disease for anyone who is unvaccinated, but it is especially dangerous for babies, young people, pregnant women and anyone with a weakened immune system. We have relied on herd immunity for a very long time, and we no longer have the percentage required to have that. During the last major outbreak in central and eastern Cheshire, nearly a quarter of the cases were in the under-ones. Our babies depend on the rest of us having vaccinations, because otherwise they are profoundly vulnerable. We must work to get that rate back up again. Only 90% of children in Cheshire East had received both doses of the MMR vaccine by their fifth birthday. We must work harder on that, and I would welcome any progress that the Government can bring, including by addressing the legacy of missed appointments during the covid pandemic. The second vaccination that I want to talk about is cervical cancer. Every year, 3,300 women are still being diagnosed despite the take-up of the HPV vaccine among younger women, and around 685 women a year are losing their lives to the disease. The recent study mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) shows that the risk of cervical cancer death before the age of 30 has effectively reduced to zero—the HPV vaccine is amazing. Our goal as a Government is to eliminate cervical cancer by 2040, which would be fantastic, and we have a 90% target vaccination rate for girls. In Cheshire East, the vaccination rate at the moment is 77.4% of girls but only 72% of boys. For some reason, we do not have a target for boys, but boys are also vulnerable to the equivalent cancers, and they absolutely need and deserve the same protection as girls. Why are we not making sure that they also have these targets? Lady Garden Foundation research found that over 45% of eligible girls who missed their school HPV vaccination did so because a consent form was not returned. Active parental refusal apparently accounts for just 12% of the failure rate. As a parent, I do not want vaccination to be forced on anybody, of course, but lifetime consent would make life so much easier. Why am I being asked every single time? Unless a child’s health status has changed, there is really no reason to withdraw vaccination consent. I believe we could make that much easier. Lastly, Cheshire has so many people in hospital with flu each year, so I remind everybody of the importance of vaccinating children against flu, to protect both them and their elderly relatives over Christmas. I thank the Minister and the Health and Social Care Committee, and I hope we can move this forward.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Children in the Social Care System: England · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that introduction to the Select Committee’s work. I have a particular concern, having met with the National Association of Child Contact Centres this week, about the ability of children in social care to continue to have supervised and appropriate contact with wider family members, particularly in the context of wanting children to see more of their siblings, which everyone would absolutely welcome. My concern is that contact centres have been closing at a huge rate. Is that something that we have tracking information on? Could we look at perhaps using family hubs as locations to resolve that issue?

• 1 Sept 2026 · Science Facilities and Laboratories · Hansard source

  More

  The Jodrell Bank observatory has been doing fantastic, cutting-edge physics in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) for a very long time, but it is regularly updated and retains its reputation for cutting-edge science. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be an absolute travesty if its funding were withdrawn?

• 1 Sept 2026 · Criminal Justice Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The Lord Chancellor has inherited an absolute mess in the prison system, and I feel heart sorry for him trying to balance the needs of victims with the need for justice and the need to manage the prison estate in a meaningful way. Exclusion zones could be absolutely transformative in enabling victims to live their lives going forward, but it is contingent on the tagging service being effective. At the moment, people and particularly victims would assume that if someone breaches their tag restriction zone, at the very least their probation officer would be automatically informed, but the IT does not function in that way. When will that be in place?

• 1 Sept 2026 · Direction of Government · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for his words on cross-party working, which I know my constituents believe in very strongly. On that basis, I would like to endorse comments made by Opposition colleagues around farming, drought and bluetongue, all of which are very important to my constituents. To move on to the matter most immediately at hand for my constituents, Jodrell Bank in my constituency faces a significant problem in the medium term because of funding cuts. Would it be possible for the Prime Minister and No. 10 North to work with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) to address this issue?

• 16 Jul 2026 · Road Repairs: New Technology · Hansard source

  More

  In my area, the improvement on potholes is noticeable, and I thank the Government for the additional funding, which is being used for large patching work; no longer is there just shovelling into endless holes. I am concerned, however, about road safety in my constituency. Understandably, the money has been prioritised for addressing the enormous backlog of roadworks that developed under the last Government. What more can we do to ensure safety, as well as good road conditions?

• 15 Jul 2026 · Waste Management Sites · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for securing this timely debate. Two separate areas in my constituency are suffering difficulties. The first is West Heath in Congleton, where there is an awful fly problem. Residents report they are unable to have barbecues, and do not wish to open their windows or doors. It appears that the problem may be associated with a local metal recycling plant. The plant has issued a statement that it is co-operating with the council and the Environment Agency and does not believe the problem emanates from it. Although the long-standing feeling among local people is that it may very well be an issue with the recycling plant, they would also like the Environment Agency to investigate nearby standing water and other possible sources. I do not want to pin the blame too specifically on any one factor at the moment, but it is important that the Environment Agency has the resources, the powers and inclination to investigate thoroughly as soon as possible. My residents report similar experiences to those described by many people in the Chamber, talking about how it is making their houses difficult to enjoy, particularly in the summer months. They are worried about disease and about opening their children’s bedroom windows at night, which in the current environment is straightforwardly dangerous. I absolutely call on the Minister to encourage the Environment Agency to take steps rapidly, because this is a significant, ongoing problem. The other area of concern in my constituency is a former landfill site, which is now a golf course. It was set up as a golf course by Cheshire East council. Again, I want to be circumspect in what I say here, because Cheshire East council says absolutely, adamantly, that the site is safe for its current use and that there is no reason to doubt that the operators are operating appropriately. I do not want to do or say anything that might damage their business, but The Guardian has reported significant dumping, not only conventional landfill dumping during the 1950s and 1960s, but chemical dumping by ICI and Shell in the 1970s with forever-type chemicals. Again, there has been extensive testing, and the set of facts is clearly disputed. What I am really concerned about, however, is that Cheshire East, when asked, apparently stated—I have not seen the documents myself—that remediating the whole site fully would cost more than £1 billion. Although Cheshire East is trying to manage the problem, properly it seems to belong with the Environment Agency and, potentially, central Government. That scale of a problem—if the scale of the problem is as alleged by some parties—is absolutely massive, and beyond the capacity of a local authority properly to investigate and manage. We need to be very sure about what exact chemicals enter the water system. It is believed that they are retained within the site and do not enter the wider water system—I do not want to create alarm—but I want to ensure that this is being properly investigated for my local residents, so that either their minds can be put at rest or appropriate steps can be taken to remediate if necessary. I want to emphasise, however, that there is nothing to suggest that the golf course is not safe for use as it is at the moment. None the less, the lack of proper landfill capping is noted and this does not feel like it has been investigated in the way that I would hope it to be. The Minister is passionate about the environment, water courses and all such topics, but I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood said: it is so important that we put people before polluters.

• 15 Jul 2026 · Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has referred to the fact that, as yet, there has been no application and therefore no ministerial decision, but he has also said that community engagement is an important part of the decision-making process. My concern on behalf of my constituents is that they do not feel engaged with; they do not feel that they have a voice in this process and they do not feel that they are getting information at all. I appreciate that it is not the Minister’s job to provide that information, but can he be extremely clear about the level of engagement that is required?

• 15 Jul 2026 · Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project · Hansard source

  More

  What sort of people work at the National Wealth Fund and make these decisions? Who is evaluating this?

• 15 Jul 2026 · Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 14 Jul 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I join my many colleagues in paying tribute to the Hillsborough families—those in the Gallery today, and those who, for very understandable reasons, felt that they could not be here. Your quest for justice is truly inspirational to all of us, and I thank you so very much for your perseverance and everything you have done. I do not doubt that it will make the country a better place. Many people have raised concerns about the duty of candour in this legislation, and its application to the security services. I am sure that when the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) raised this issue in the Chamber, he did so in good faith, but no one who has raised those concerns has been able to point to any case in which the existing law protecting the security services and the secret information that they hold has actually failed, or to any problems resulting from the existing arrangements. Those concerns seem to be entirely hypothetical. Giving the security services a huge carve-out from the duty of candour when there were known problems with, for example, the evidence given to the inquiry on the Manchester Arena bombing seems completely unsustainable and unreasonable. There is literally no evidence to suggest that this Bill presents any risk to national security. I join my colleagues in saying that if there were evidence to suggest that the existing arrangements had ever failed us, many of us would think again about the drafting of this Bill, as it has been presented by the Government. We would all put the country first, but I cannot see anything that should prevent this law from going ahead as drafted. It is so important to get to the truth, and I hope that the duty of candour will help to move things forward significantly. We owe it to the Hillsborough families, and the many families affected by the many other disasters that we sadly hear about too often in this place, to ask the other question: what comes next? That is why I rise to speak in support of new clauses 5 and 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), through which he calls for a national oversight mechanism that follows up on the actions taken by public authorities in response to the conclusions and recommendations of inquests and inquiries. We must get to the truth, and we must have recommendations on how to avoid future catastrophes, disasters and unnecessary risk, but we then have to do something to stop those things happening again. At the moment, prevention of future death reports and inquiry reports are all too often not followed up—or not followed up consistently across the board. All too often, including after the Ockenden report and the maternity scandals, systemic change has not followed from inquiry recommendations, despite the considerable resources and effort put in by individuals to improve systems. We think about justice for the Hillsborough families, the Grenfell families and many other families who have sadly lost loved ones in terrible circumstances, but we must make sure that we bring into play the mechanisms that ensure proper follow-up after all these disasters. We must follow through on inquiry outcomes, and ensure that the right mechanisms are in place. I thank very much everyone who has worked to get us to where we are today—the many families, but also the Members of Parliament who have worked across party and for a great deal of time on bringing this legislation forward. Let us keep this work going.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 14 Jul 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The people who lead these inquiries are leading public figures and have usually held significant judicial office. Is the hon. Member honestly suggesting that they are going to be successfully pressured by people who want to destroy the British state?

• 14 Jul 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is most welcome. I am grateful for all the amendments that the Government have tabled, but I remain concerned that the current civil legal aid rate is £40 an hour. She has referred to security-vetted counsel. Is it likely that security-vetted counsel will be prepared to work for £40 an hour, when those of us who have done legal aid work know that, frankly, half the work that we do is unremunerated?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My local community energy company, which is run by volunteers, is incredibly keen to get solar panels on the roofs of local public buildings, but we are really struggling to get the permissions we need from the local authority to proceed with two schools. They missed the easter installation window, and have now missed the window for this summer. Does the Minister agree that we need this to hurry up?

• 2 Jul 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for securing this debate, and for all the work that she has done on this issue. I see that Lord Best is in the Gallery; he, among many others, has been campaigning on these issues for years. I rise to draw attention to the experiences of some leaseholders in my constituency. I have previously spoken at length in the Chamber about unadopted estates. I am not going to dwell on that subject today, because it is not discussed in the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s report, but I want to draw it to the Minister’s attention, as it is a major issue in my constituency. To turn to the specific problems we have, the draft legislation, as it stands, is fantastic. The proposal to cap ground rents will be absolutely life changing for people in my constituency who have contacted me and talked about how ground rents are going up to double what they were and about the difficulties they are consistently having with the fact that there appears to be no real ability to hold a managing agent to account. The specifics I want to talk about are from a case I have been working on with the homeowners—well, the leaseholders—for some time, in which FirstPort, yet again, is the managing agent. Having finally managed to dislodge FirstPort as the managing agent, the residents have been told by the new managing agent that of the £40,000 reserve they believed was available to them, there is none—nothing. FirstPort has not explained where that money has gone or what it has been spent on, and this has been the outstanding position for well over six months. A sum of £40,000 is a lot of money to just vanish, and we would think that an organisation would be able to point to what it had been spent on pretty readily, if it was keeping accounts in any normal fashion. That is one of a succession of difficulties that these leaseholders have had with FirstPort, and this has been going on for years and years. I understand that the Government have concerns that the draft legislation is already exceptionally long, and as a lawyer, I have a huge amount of sympathy for that, but I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green and the members of her Select Committee that we must do something, in line with Lord Best’s previous recommendations, about the regulation of managing agents. We have been talking about this topic in this House for as long as I have been an MP, and clearly significantly longer than that. If these organisations were capable of self-regulation and if educating people who worked in them was sufficient to solve this problem, it would have been solved a long time ago. No one wants regulation for the sake of it, but the only way there will be accountability for vast amounts of individuals’ money that appears to simply vanish into the ether is if we put regulation in place. I thank the Minister.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q8. Dr Carly Mellor, an NHS dentist in my constituency, recently said the following to me:“Ministers had pledged to fix the failed contract we work to within this Parliament. The Government has begun discussions on a new contract, and promised a public consultation on it this summer. With a typical dentist now delivering NHS care at a loss, with every passing month more practices are reconsidering their futures in the NHS, while millions of patients continue to struggle to access care.”Reforming the contract is the route to better treatment for my constituents. Can we please start the consultation without delay?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Home Office and Ministry of Justice · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Government for the considerable progress that has been made on criminal legal aid and other matters within the estimates since we have taken office. The courts system, as we have heard, was in the most dilapidated and decrepit state, and we had a dearth of judge recruitment between 2010 and 2018. The net result was that the entire justice system was on its knees. In that context, the 10% uplift in legal aid expenditure over two years was long overdue. I will ask the Minister a couple of questions. There have been significant problems with the Legal Aid Agency’s IT systems. Those problems are increasingly in hand, but it appears from House of Commons Library papers that there is a 75% reduction in capital spend at the Legal Aid Agency over the coming period. It is not clear to me whether that reporting is accurate or perhaps not right, because there is a proposal to spend significant money on the Legal Aid Agency’s IT systems, and I do not see how that would not fit within the capital estimates. It would be helpful if the Minister could report back, either today or to the Justice Committee subsequently, on how that has come about. The disparity seems extremely large. The entire system is still creaking heavily. In an environment in which we know that there may have to be further cuts to other Departments to fund the defence investment that is required, we must remember that the Ministry of Justice has experienced cuts not just since 2010, but since 1997. Legal aid rates have gone up by £1 an hour since 1997, with the exception of the areas that the Government have put up—it is only some of them—since we took office. The result is that legal aid in general is in hugely difficult circumstances, and we see the net effect of that in the number of people representing themselves in the courts. I have asked in Justice Committee sittings whether there has been an evaluation of the impact on court backlogs of unrepresented litigants in person. I have asked what assessment has been made of the difference they make to trial times in the criminal and civil courts, and therefore the potential implications for the backlogs in those courts. At the moment, the backlog stands at 350,000 in the magistrates court, and the figure is commonly reported to be 80,000 for the Crown court. The MOJ has not been able to give us those figures, and it cannot say that that assessment has been done. It is speculative to suggest that people not having a lawyer—and large numbers of them do not—is increasing the courts backlog, because we just do not have the figures. In an environment in which every penny counts, and in which spending that money extremely efficiently is vital, it seems a significant omission not to have at least reviewed whether moving up the criteria for entitlement to legal aid significantly might change the dimensions of the court backlog, as all of us want to see. The nature of the current entitlement is that someone with a total household income of £37,000 or more in the Crown court—they could be facing trial for rape or all kinds of serious offences—would not be entitled to legal aid. I think most members of the public would be shocked that if they were accused of a crime of that gravity, they would get no legal aid if their household income—potentially from two adults—came to more than that. In 1970, about 28 million people in this country were eligible for legal aid. The figure today would be infinitely smaller. I completely accept that we cannot simply flood money into a system when we do not have that money and when it would not be responsible. There is also the risk that we create waste if we suddenly flush money into a system not set up to accommodate it. I understand why the Government are taking a staged approach, but I should like us to ensure that we are exploring all the potential ways of reducing the Crown court backlog. At present there are some contentious proposals on the table, some of which I do not support. It is pleasing to note that Andy Burnham—

• 29 Jun 2026 · Home Office and Ministry of Justice · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member have any figures disaggregating prison officers from the remainder of MOJ staff? Obviously, their working lives are very different.