Oliver Ryan
MP for Burnley · Labour (Co-op) · United Kingdom
“Unitary authorities have big benefits, but I am angry about the proposals. According to our own statistics, the new East Lancs authority—with Blackburn, and without the Ribble Valley—will create the most deprived unitary authority in the country, with an awful lot of debt already on its books.”
“I thank the Minister for her listening ear throughout this process. I know that she will make a bigger statement on Thursday, but while she is giving these matters consideration, may I make a last-ditch attempt to convince her to keep Burnley and Blackburn very separate?”
“Summer jobs are really important, as are summer schools. Will the Minister join me in welcoming students from the Burnley summer school, who join us in the Gallery today, and will he perhaps include in his speech the fact that over the Tories’ time in power from 2010 to 2024, 7,500 pubs closed across Britain—many of them in Burnley, Padih…”
“The hon. Gentleman talks about the types of assessment and the way in which the assessment is done, and he is right to talk about capacity. Just before the election, the previous Government signed new contracts that said 80% of new assessments would be done virtually.”
“As the Minister is reading out his list of achievements, may I add to it? Does he think it is a good thing that we have put nearly £1 billion into support for the sick and disabled? That will partly come from savings from this and other measures, which we hope will save £1.9 billion by the end of the Parliament.”
“The reassessment changes that we are introducing through this statutory instrument and other measures will save something like £2 billion by the end of the Parliament. I am sure we all agree that would be welcome, given the increasing size of the welfare bill. Why is the hon.”
The complete record
Every one of 228 lines we hold for Oliver Ryan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 5.
“Q4. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on multiple sclerosis and as the proud son of a lifelong multiple sclerosis patient—she joins us in the Gallery today. Neurological conditions such as MS and Parkinson’s affect one in six, but wait times for first and follow-up neurology appointments have increased by a huge 65% since 2020, risking delayed treatment and diagnosis at a critical time. I am proud that this Government are bringing down NHS waiting lists, cutting admissions and investing in care and equipment. Will my right hon. and learned Friend formalise these efforts, support an NHS modern service framework for neurology and get these wait times down?”
“We are maintaining the highest levels of public investment in 40 years, because our constituencies cannot rebuild on the foundations left behind after austerity and the chaos of 14 years of Tory Britain. Better transport connections, stronger and better-funded local services, investment in skills and young people, and higher-paid, quality jobs—these remain the building blocks of renewal in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield.”
“Families in my area have felt the squeeze more than most. I hear weekly about parents monitoring the thermostat hour by hour, commuters worried about every fare rise and households whose disposable income has simply evaporated with the cost of living. I welcome our plan, which gives people real relief right now: £150 off energy bills next year, rising to £300 for those who need it most; more support; more homes insulated and more homes built in towns in our constituencies; a freeze on rail fares, petrol duty and prescription charges; and, for our NHS, the largest reduction in waiting lists in almost 20 years, in addition to 250 new neighbourhood health centres, 5.2 million more NHS appointments and care brought closer to home, with more doctors and nurses. However, it is not just short-term support that matters; it is long-term renewal.”
“This Budget sets out a serious and responsible direction for our country’s future and speaks directly to the needs of people in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield. It supports families and workers, puts the public finances back on stable ground and backs the businesses that are the backbone of towns like ours. Crucially, we are already seeing real, measurable progress for Britain after 14 years of incompetence, failure, stagnation and rampant inflation. Growth has been upgraded to 1.5% this year and wages have risen faster in our first year than during the last decade the Conservatives were in power. For people in towns like ours, those are not abstract statistics; they are the difference between treading water—constant struggle—and finally feeling as though we are moving forward again as a community and as a country.”
“I am also interested in the call for evidence on firms with scale-up potential, which will end next year. All these steps will create growth for the economy and help my constituents, and I greatly welcome this Budget.”
“We are doing this to create a stable and long-term approach for businesses. We are taking important steps such as relieving stamp duty on the first three years of new UK-listed companies for larger entities, which is our invitation to the world to do business here. That will have a direct effect on our competitiveness. We are putting in place more support for manufacturers in places such as my constituency, where energy bills have swelled over the last 10 years. We are extending capital allowances for business assets and leasing, and we are extending tariff suspension and support likewise. This will help some of my area’s largest employers to grow. In addition, we are extending NICs relief for those who hire veterans. Our measures include ISA reform to encourage investment into quite sizeable businesses.”
“The welfare bill doubled during the Conservatives’ time in office, which is bad for our budget, our communities and the people they wrote off. We are finally putting that right. We are addressing poverty at the same time by scrapping the two-child limit, which is lifting 450,000 children out of poverty nationally, including a huge 5,170 children in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield. We are guaranteeing jobs for people under the age of 25, ending long-term youth unemployment and ensuring that no young person is abandoned. I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just want to make a point about support for businesses. We have not only maintained Government capital investment plans, but made sure that we will lower permanently business rates for local employers and multipliers for our high street.”
“I will not, because of time. We are doing all that while paying down the national debt and getting into surplus—something promised several times by the Tories but, as far as I am aware, never done. We are doubling the fiscal headroom, which is a momentous achievement—something we are probably not shouting about enough—and taking responsibility for the public finances after the rank mismanagement of the previous Government. For too long, the welfare system that we inherited left working families too poor to eat and wrote off hundreds of thousands of people as too sick to work without offering them proper support. Indeed, when the shadow Chancellor was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the welfare bill soared by £33 billion, and he put an extra 229,000 people into the welfare system.”
“For residents, the scheme is about not just engineering, but peace of mind. It is about being able to put children to bed on a stormy night without worrying that the streets, shops and homes will be flooded in the morning. On Christmas day last year, I was contacted by businesses on Padiham high street; people were texting me as they watched the water levels in the Calder while enjoying their Christmas day turkey. This is about keeping the heart of Padiham strong, vibrant and protected for years to come. Padiham is a reminder that investment in flood resilience is ultimately an investment in people, their wellbeing, and the secure future that they deserve.”
“The investment gives the town something very valuable: the ability to look to the future with greater confidence. I put on record my recognition of the team effort that the scheme has been—it has spanned three Members of Parliament and 10 years of lobbying—and of the work of all involved, involving the Environment Agency, Burnley council, Councillor John Harbour, Councillor Barbara Dole, Councillor Alun Lewis and, indeed, the Minister, who I believe signed off the proposals last week, in her first week in office. I am proud that the Government have seen fit to fund the proposals, after the floods in 2015, and that residents and businesses can now have assurance that the scheme will be completed. I ask that the Environment Agency, which I thank for the work so far, does its best to keep the scheme on track and get it delivered.”
“That is why the Padiham flood risk management scheme is so important and such a momentous project for Padiham. It is more than a construction project; it represents security, care and commitment to the people who live and work in our town. Once completed, the scheme will protect around 160 homes, businesses and public buildings in the centre of Padiham, and defend our community from the River Calder, the Green brook and the surface water that has caused so much destruction in the past. We are now seeing clear progress: the new flood wall and gate at Bendwood Close is already finished, detailed design work for the wider scheme is nearly complete and full construction is planned to begin in spring 2026, with completion expected by winter 2028.”
“It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) for securing this critical debate, and praise her language, campaigning approach and resilience —that is really the buzzword for this topic. When we talk about flood risk in the north-west—not just in Burnley but, more obviously, in Padiham and Brierfield—we are not talking about abstract theories or far-off scenarios. We are talking about real people with water in their homes and shops, and about destruction. In Padiham, many families still recall the shock of waking to rising water, the distress of damaged homes and businesses, and the long clean-up that followed the Boxing day floods of 2015. Those experiences stay with our community.”
“It is great to hear about the record funding to tackle flooding. I wonder whether I can copy the words of another Member and invite the Minister to my constituency to see some of the great benefits of that funding increase in Padiham.”
“On savings and leaving the next generation with a bill, can the hon. Lady remind the House just how much the now shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), increased Department for Work and Pensions spending on welfare during his time in the Department? The figure I have on the tip of my tongue is somewhere north of £30 billion. Could she comment on that?”
“To quote the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend thinks he is “so clever”, arguing with facts! Those facts are not particularly appreciated by those on the Conservative Benches. Does he agree that what is important in this debate is the people who were left destitute by the policies of 14 years of Conservative government?”
“I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on whether more reform in this area would be welcome and will come. The arguments made for reform, which were explored in the papers earlier this year, still stand. Too many people are rolling on to PIP, too many are failing and falling out of work ill, and too many, having done so, are not re-entering the jobs market. So I am glad that we are stimulating more people into work through measures such as our £1 billion Pathways to Work guarantee. Because of the sheer number of applicants and particularly of successful applicants since the pandemic, we have to consider the appropriateness of some of the thresholds for people currently applying for PIP to ensure that the support is still there for those who really need it.”
“The current system—the Conservatives’ system—does not enjoy public support system because of the Tories’ failure, and risks undermining the whole welfare state and social contract as we know it; hence our reforms earlier this year. If we believe in helping those who really need it—the disabled, the sick and those unable to work, whom the welfare state is designed for—we must make the tough choices that the Conservatives did not make over 14 years. The current front door for the work capability assessment is not fit for purpose, and I am glad that we are doing away with it, but neither is the assessment for personal independence payments, as it is considered by many to be out of date and unfit for the modern wave of claimants living with mental health conditions and likewise.”
“It is a disastrous legacy, which they ought to be utterly ashamed of. They left people in this country languishing on benefits and left out of work, and left us to pick up the bill for years to come. I have touched on their plan, so I will not say any more on that, but it feels a bit like standing next to an arsonist who is watching a house on fire and complaining, “Someone should really put that out,” having started the fire. I am short of time, but I want to say something about reform—real reform, not the turquoise Tories of Reform UK, who I notice are not here for the debate and who I believe would destroy the welfare system as we understand it. We all know that welfare spending must come down, and we all want to get people into work—young people, disabled people and those who can, want and should work.”
“Their hope is that we forget what they left us only last year, and forget what they were like in government: employment is lower than before the pandemic; 10 million households are now net recipients of Government support; 4.5 million children are growing up in poverty; 2.8 million people have been left languishing on waiting lists and out of work; and 1 million young people are out of work and have been left jobless in the first straits of their lives—all while we have record welfare spending, with billions of pounds spent every year on failure. Indeed, when the shadow Chancellor was at DWP—I made this point earlier—we saw the biggest rise in welfare spending since records began in 1996, including £33 billion in one year alone. The Conservatives have zero credibility on this issue and a record of expensive failure.”
“Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to contribute briefly on this huge topic. While I am glad to discuss welfare reform, I am perplexed as to why the Conservatives would want to do so, given their completely disastrous record. In response to the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), I wonder whether he has read the plans for their £23 billion-worth of welfare cuts, on the back of the fag packet on which it is displayed, because there are no details to speak of on things such as housing benefit, which was raised by the Minister beforehand. I do not even think it is brass neck any more from the Conservatives; it is just desperate.”
“I thank the Minister for that answer, for his work thus far, and for his extensive correspondence with me and the industry during this crisis. Local suppliers, such as the brilliant BCW in Burnley, have told me that the finance just is not getting to suppliers and that some of them are going to the wall or cutting jobs. JLR is not doing enough to avoid widespread supply chain job losses. This is affecting the entire British car industry through contagion effects, and suppliers are telling me that they are not out of the woods yet. What more can he do to get more support for our suppliers, such as BCW?”
“and learned Friend the Minister has ambitions to address concerns in this area, perhaps in legislation. I look forward to hearing her response and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to contribute.”
“Gentleman has ably explained some of the practical recommendations in the Civil Justice Council report—in which Seema Kennedy, previously of this parish, although on the Conservative Benches, was also involved—so I will not go into them now. However, I hope that this Government take on board recommendations for greater transparency and oversight, clearer limits on funding controls, the strengthening of the ombudsman and alternative dispute resolutions, as has been mentioned, and court scrutiny of the profits and sources of funding of those taking these legal cases through. Those steps would restore fairness and integrity to collective actions and make sure that outcomes serve the people involved in these cases and not the profit motive. I know that my hon.”
“In my constituency of Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield, many households were drawn into cavity wall insulation claims by legal vultures only to be left thousands of pounds in debt when the funder and law firm behind them, SSB, collapsed. Ordinary families were left exposed, with no resource and no protection. That failure should shame us all. We can do better by having effective regulation of the market. The Solicitors Regulation Authority and others still have questions to answer about SSB. More than 70 litigation funders are active in the UK, managing billions of pounds but operating with very little formal oversight. That gap leaves consumers exposed and confidence in our legal system weakened. The right hon.”
“It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I thank the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) for securing the debate and allowing me briefly to contribute. When people go to court, they deserve justice, not a financial system that puts investors before victims, yet that is what litigation has too often become. We all remember the Post Office case, which the right hon. Gentleman eloquently discussed. It was one of the darkest chapters in recent legal memory. The postmasters fought for years to clear their names, yet when the settlement came in, around 80% of the damages—£46 million—went not to them, but to funders and lawyers. That is not right. This is not some distant issue that affects courts in London.”
“The Padiham Greenway bridge has been closed since 2021. In December last year, this Government gave £280,000 to Sustrans to get the work finished, but there is a shortfall. The Government have given £19 million to Lancashire county council through the active travel fund and the capability fund to get this project online. Does the Minister agree that Lancashire county council should prioritise this and get it done? I thank him for his extensive correspondence with me on this topic.”
“I am glad to hear the Minister’s resolve and, indeed, the whole House’s united condemnation and shock at these outrageous attacks. The UK must stand firm with NATO, with Poland and with Europe, and we must increase our support for Ukraine and its neighbours including Estonia, Latvia, Finland, Lithuania and elsewhere. Following on from the previous question, what steps has the Minister taken to review our defences in the light of recent events?”
“Does the Minister agree that the £3 fare cap is an essential lifeline for people taking the bus from Burnley to Blackburn hospital, which was a service that I managed to secure through work with local transit companies and Lancashire county council?”
“I also welcome my hon. Friend to her new role. Small businesses in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield are the lifeblood of our community, providing jobs and livelihoods to our people. Growing manufacturers and exporters such as the brilliant Barnes Aerospace in Burnley are doing an excellent job at taking Britain across the world. Will the Economic Secretary set out what the Government are doing to support small and medium-sized business, particularly our manufacturers, with access to finance?”
“Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the surge in borrowing costs actually started with Liz Truss’s mini-Budget and has not really stopped since the trajectory started?”
“The shadow Home Secretary, the former Immigration Minister, has some brass neck, do we not think? He opened so many hotels that at one stage I thought he might take over from Lenny Henry in fronting Premier Inn. My constituents are so fed up with this, and I am glad that the Home Secretary is taking it so seriously, getting the numbers down. While we do everything we can to get the numbers down, does she agree that everyone involved in the debate, particularly politicians, should not incite or encourage the sort of aggression and, actually, sheer racism that we have seen over the summer, some of which was directed towards our brave police officers?”
“I welcome the Home Secretary’s action today. She is taking this problem seriously and is producing serious solutions and a serious strategy. It is now 80 days since the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) told the world on social media that, “The Reform UK policy unit has drafted a comprehensive strategy for the deportation of illegal migrants.” Has the Home Secretary seen that strategy yet, or indeed any detail of Reform’s plans? The Frenchman Jules Verne wrote that Phileas Fogg travelled the world in 80 days. Does she think that the leader of Reform has perhaps been too busy travelling the world, flogging gold and selling Cameos to produce any such strategy at all?”
“I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. We covered the Bill extensively in Committee, and there been a fairly wholesome debate about amendment 1 on Report. This is a sensible and proportionate Bill. It is slim and sophisticated, and I ask the House to approve its Third Reading.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his considered contribution to the debate. I will be brief. He is making some reasonable points, but he is answering his own question. We currently have a bottleneck in the court system, and by being against the measures in the Bill, he is, probably inadvertently, making it easier for these people not to be seen by the court system. The Bill is reasonable and small, as I have said. If we can release some pressure in that bottleneck—the points he made about council tax debtors and others are quite right—more debt will be recovered and more miscreants will be seen in the criminal justice system, and that is always a good thing. He is making reasonable points, but he is answering his own question through the explanatory notes.”
“The hon. Gentleman has made some reasonable points throughout the debate. When I did my graduate diploma in law, we did a similar exercise and went to court to see big trials, but that is not what the Bill would cover. It is for small, mass cases that, as has been mentioned, deal with things like council tax arrears. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we are short on time, so I will quietly throw myself on his mercy and ask him whether we can get to the end of this before half-past 2. The Bill would be of great benefit to the legal system. He will know from his days as a lawyer in the system that some modernisation is required. It is not always a good thing, but I believe that this is a measured approach. If we can please get through to the end of the debate by half-past 2, we can make some progress.”
“We owe our veterans and service personnel a great debt, and we eternally thank them for their service to and sacrifice for this country—particularly in proud regiment towns like Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Healthier Heroes, Andy, Rio and the powerful community of support they have built for veterans and their families across the constituency for hosting their Armed Forces Day festival and celebration recently at Towneley Park? With the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment parading their freedom of the borough through Burnley for the first time in 12 years on Tuesday, will she also join me in welcoming them home?”
“Subsections (1), (2) and (3) of clause 2 provide that the Bill extends to England and Wales; that it will come into force at the end of the period of two months following Royal Assent; and that it may be cited as the Courts (Remote Hearings) Act 2025 once in force. There is nothing controversial about these arrangements. I commend both clauses to the Committee.”
“At its core, the Bill enhances public safety, ensuring that dangerous individuals, in the case of breaches of injunctions, such as gang injunctions, are not released for want of finding a court or judiciary out of court hours. The use of remote links in court proceedings is relatively common and has delivered significant benefits already. This provision will provide greater flexibility, at judicial discretion, where it is appropriate. As I said, it does not mandate that remote links must be used. Access to justice is not curtailed by this Bill. The defendant or debtor will be able to make representations to the judge, and the existing safeguards of access to legal representatives remain.”
“Clause 1(4) amends paragraph 8(1A) of schedule 4 to the Local Government Finance Act 1992 in relation to enforcement in England and Wales. It inserts new sub-paragraph (b), which provides that the debtor, subject to an application under paragraph 8(1A), may appear before the court either by way of live audio or video link. Clause 1 sets out the necessary changes to legislation so that a defendant or a debtor in certain circumstances can appear before a court via live link. These changes ensure that individuals who are arrested for breach of certain family or county court injunctions and orders, as well as persistent failures to pay council tax, can appear before the court in a timely and efficient manner using remote links.”
“Clause 1(1) sets out the required legislative changes for an amendment to section 47 of the Family Law Act 1996 in relation to arrest for breach of order. It inserts proposed new subsection (13), which provides that the defendant may appear before the court either by way of live audio or video link. Clause 1(2) amends section 9 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 in relation to arrest without warrant. It inserts proposed new subsection (7), which provides that the defendant may appear before the court either by way of live audio or live video link. Clause 1(3) amends section 43 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 in relation to arrest without warrant. It inserts proposed new subsection (8), which provides that the defendant may appear before the court either by way of live audio or video link.”
“The courts recognise that a remote hearing is no less capable, in principle, of being fair than a hearing at which all parties are physically present. That has been affirmed by His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service’s evaluation of remote hearings during the covid-19 pandemic. Importantly, the Bill does not mandate remote hearings. It enables a defendant or debtor to attend a court in person or by live video or audio link at judicial discretion. Once a person is before the court, the ultimate determination of whether to have a remote hearing will be by the judge, who will make their own ruling, having heard from all the parties and taking into consideration the circumstances of the case. With that background in mind, I turn to the clauses.”
“That means that those in breach of some injunctions and orders in the county and family courts, as well as persistent defaulters on orders to pay council tax, will now be able to appear remotely. That ability to appear remotely is especially important, because in many cases, defendants must be physically brought before the courts within 24 hours of their arrest for breach of these civil injunctions. Sometimes, that is not possible. Defendants may be arrested out of hours and court facilities may be some distance away, all while the clock, as set out in the current legislation, is running down. The Bill addresses those points. People who are arrested for those breaches will now be able to appear remotely, as will those who are defaulters of orders to pay their council tax. But remote does not mean less access to justice.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I propose to deal with clauses 1 and 2 together, as you set out. This modest but important Bill amends current legislation to enable defendants and debtors in specific types of cases heard in the magistrates court or county or family courts to be able to appear before the court remotely via live audio or video link. The use of remote video and audio links is common and already used in civil, family and criminal jurisdictions, delivering significant benefits through swifter access to justice and by utilising the court estate efficiently, particularly at a time of backlogs. As a result of the Bill, two categories of case will be able to be heard remotely.”
“I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is an important partner for trade and peace in the middle east and for the combating of terrorism around the world. With reference to recent events in Iran, how is the Foreign Secretary utilising our relationship to involve the Saudi Government in our de-escalation efforts in the region?”
“Even here in the UK, both the Conservative candidate for my constituency and I had our sexuality paraded around, commented on and weaponised by other candidates at last year’s election, as if it were a slight on our character. I said to my now constituents at the election, “I am who I am. Dislike me for my politics and my opinions, but do not disengage because of who I love. By the way, as much as I am going door to door, I’m not trying to convert anyone, although we are a very broad church.” I am proud that in all the communities in my constituency, respect and tolerance found more of a home than hate. I say to my constituents in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, from all creeds and castes, I am here to represent you as much as anyone else.”
“It is a reminder of those who were killed or not cared for during the AIDS epidemic—those who were left to die, considered diseased or crazed. It is on those brave shoulders that openly gay LGB and T people like me stand in 2025. I will say now that transgender people deserve our respect and support, and that I believe in LGB with the T. Sure, we have come a long way. Some places let people marry who they love, and lots more folks understand the beautiful umbrella that exists within our community. However, the truth is that it is not the same everywhere, and it can change fast, as the Minister said. There are still many countries where someone being who they are can land them in jail or condemn them to death.”
“We need it because too many LGBT people are homeless and too many LGBT adults are experiencing mental health conditions or suffering from drug or alcohol abuse or poverty as a result of their sexuality. It looks like a parade and a party on the street, but Pride is about acknowledging that struggle—the struggle for respect and equality, and to breathe as freely as everyone else. The history of Pride is always a reminder that so many have come before us, and that they endured not just the harassment, but, in this country, the criminalisation, the chemical castration, the shaming, the ostracisation, the bullying and names and the punching and spitting—as I was spat at once, on Manchester’s Canal Street.”
“I will start by answering the question that is so often asked, first under the breath, and then in the dark corners of the internet, and now, in some places, in the unfortunate mainstream: why do we have Pride? Why do we need Pride? The answer is that for far too many people, even in the Britain of 2025—one of the greatest places in the world to be LGBT, I believe—being yourself and being who you are feels like a trial and a struggle, and it is just not good enough. We need it because too many LGBT people are attacked, abused or dismissed because of their sexuality, and because even in our free country, too many LGBT people have to constantly check that they are not behaving in too gay a fashion in order to avoid inciting anyone or giving too much away for their own safety, or even due to fears of being othered.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I absolutely will. One of the first experiences I had as an MP was being approached by a constituent, Steven, whom I had not met during the election campaign, and who has now received compensation for his disgraceful treatment when he was a member of the armed forces. I met Lord Etherton during that time and we had an Adjournment debate. It was a much longer story, and I came in right at the end of it, as so many MPs do, but I was proud to have met him and experienced the work he had put into representing those men and women who had served our country so valiantly and had been so harshly let down. This month is the chance for us to be with our people—the people who accept us, who welcome us and who care. Wearing a lanyard is not a political statement; it is a statement of respect.”
“Life is more than black and white; it is filled with wonderful colours. Above all, there is something quite powerful in saying, “This is me and I am proud of it.” That joy pushes back against all the shame and silence that we have faced over the years, and that we still face now. As long as anyone feels the need to hide who they are, this month will be needed. Happy Pride month to people in the Chamber and people in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield.”