Lloyd Hatton
MP for South Dorset · Labour · United Kingdom
“Q14. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for his steadfast leadership in the face of two major conflicts. My right hon. and learned Friend’s efforts to successfully marshal international support for Ukraine and his work to ensure that our armed forces are not sucked into an aimless and dangerous war with Iran could—in fact, I believe they…”
“I thank the Minister for her considered statement. We recently learned that shortly after receiving £5 million from a crypto billionaire halfway across the world, the hon.”
“In South Dorset, the Lantern Trust and the Veterans Hub have recently applied for Valour funding, which would make a huge difference to both organisations as they grow the services they offer to veterans—in particular the hub, which is the first port of call for many local veterans.”
“T6. The Dorset Innovation Park already has a growing ecosystem of defence companies, including BattleLab and a proposed factory, which are developing cutting edge drone technology. The opportunities are truly immense.”
“Following initial conversations with volunteers across South Dorset, I know that they are particularly concerned that the proposed changes will harm the future recruitment of volunteers, undermine morale in existing teams and risk many volunteers leaving the service altogether.”
“I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this timely debate. As many Members have mentioned, the coastguard rescue service is an essential component of our emergency services, and that is certainly the case in South Dorset.”
The complete record
Every one of 266 lines we hold for Lloyd Hatton, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 6.
“I thank the hon. Member for his custom and for investing in Weymouth. As the proud owner of a Newfoundland, I know that dogs get us out, get us spending and get us on the high street. To conclude, towns like Margate, Folkestone and Falmouth have championed art and culture, and it has boosted the high street and drawn visitors into those seaside towns. I now want to see the same happen in Weymouth. Unsurprisingly, I will be banging the drum for a new cultural and visitor centre at the Rectory building in Weymouth. This project is just another way that we can breathe new life into Weymouth’s town centre and attract new businesses and visitors to our town. As I have hopefully made clear today, there are so many exciting projects on the cards.”
“That money went unspent by the previous Conservative administration at Dorset council. It now falls to me and the new administration at Dorset council to spend that money wisely, which we are doing. I remind the hon. Member that this Labour Government have just invested £20 million in Weymouth as part of the pride in place programme.”
“As I have made clear in this Chamber on numerous occasions, in my part of the world there are sadly far too few specialist school places for children with SEND. Headteachers across Weymouth and Portland have made clear to me that only with a new special school will we be able to deal with this problem. Given the urgent need, will the Minister work with me behind the scenes, by hook or by crook, to open a new SEND school at the Osprey Quay site in Portland in my constituency?”
“Q8. For the past year, I have been campaigning for a new special educational needs and disabilities school to open at the Osprey Quay site on Portland. There are far too few specialist school places for children with SEND in my part of the world, so local families urgently need to see that school open its doors. A new school there would provide around 70 new places for local children. Given the urgent need to finally get this school up and running, will the Prime Minister commit to working with the Department for Education and Dorset council to ensure that a SEND school opens on Portland without further delay?”
“Q2. The Eden Project in Cornwall is a proven success story, injecting millions into the local economy. In Lancashire, Eden Project Morecambe will soon be under construction, and is set to create hundreds of jobs. It is about time that we had the third instalment with MEMO Portland—or Eden Portland as many like to call it. That will be a world-class attraction celebrating the Jurassic coast and transforming the economy in South Dorset. Will the Prime Minister back this exciting project and work with me and all relevant Ministers to secure funding to deliver it, and ideally, can we use the new growth mission fund?”
“I look forward to hearing from the Minister on current thinking on whistleblower awards nearly one year into government. It is clear from all the evidence—I expect that we will hear much more today—that we need to do far more to collectively support, protect, reward and, most importantly, listen to whistleblowers.”
“The Royal United Services Institute has found that the United States and Canadian whistleblower award programmes, accompanied by safeguards and protections, as well as well-resourced regulators, have successfully increased the number of whistleblowers coming forward, enhanced law enforcement outcomes and improved the rates of financial recovery. This Government have already indicated that they recognise the potential benefits of introducing such rewards here in the UK. Just over a year ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), the shadow Foreign Secretary at the time, said that he would launch a new whistleblower award scheme to incentivise and encourage sources to step forward. That is a commitment that we all want to see, and it is exactly where we should open today’s debate.”
“The Protect charity found that ignoring whistleblowers in just three scandals—the Post Office Horizon scandal, the Countess of Chester scandal and the Carillion scandal—cost the taxpayer a combined £423 million in the long run, which is a staggering figure. That could have funded the construction of 14 new schools, or even run a prison for some 20 years. As I have said, speaking up can have career-ending and life-altering consequences. Whistleblowers often suffer immense professional, personal and psychological harm. The contribution of whistleblowers is huge, so we should offer fairness in return. That is why I support creating a whistleblower award initiative, as part of a comprehensive set of reforms to better protect and listen to whistleblowers.”
“Over 40% of the whistleblowers that Protect, which is the UK’s leading whistleblowing charity, spoke to in 2024 reported that they had been ignored. To ensure that whistleblowers are better listened to, the Government should consider introducing a legal duty for companies to hold investigations into legitimate whistleblower concerns. This proposal has strong cross-party support, including from Sir Robert Buckland, the former Conservative Justice Secretary; Baroness Hodge of Barking, a former Labour Minister; and a former Liberal Democrat Cabinet Minister, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who joins us today. I expect there will also be support from Members who speak later in the debate. Ignoring or failing to protect whistleblowers carries not just a human cost but a financial one.”
“I firmly believe that those leaks have helped the European Union to improve whistleblower protections and ensure that future whistleblowers do not unjustly face criminal charges. Here in the UK, despite the important contribution of whistleblowers, individuals often lose their job when they come forward, simply because the existing legal framework lacks sufficient protections. As it stands, just 4% of whistleblowers in the UK win their cases if they are unfairly dismissed by their employer. I am quite sure that this deters any would-be whistleblower from ever speaking up and speaking truth to power. Our current framework also fails to adequately respond to whistleblowing. Employers are not duty-bound to have whistleblowing arrangements or to investigate when a whistleblower reports.”
“These shocking revelations captured headlines around the world and quickly grew into a bigger scandal known as the LuxLeaks. The documents that Mr Halet leaked exposed the secret deals used by hundreds of the world’s largest companies—firms like Pepsi, IKEA, Amazon and Disney—to reduce their tax bills to next to nothing. These leaks helped to set the stage for ongoing efforts to impose a minimum global tax on corporations and, eventually, for a ruling last year by the European Court of Justice, which ordered the corporate giant Apple to return about $14 billion of unpaid taxes in Ireland. However, those documents became the subject of criminal charges in Luxembourg against Mr Halet. Thankfully, 10 years later, he was exonerated, alongside the other two LuxLeaks whistleblowers.”
“The Serious Fraud Office frequently cites whistleblowers as a vital source of information for its investigations, and over half of whistleblowing reports received by the Financial Conduct Authority led to regulatory action by the watchdog last year. With all that in mind, to open the debate, I would like to focus on one particular whistleblower: Raphaël Halet. That case shows the real impact that whistleblowers can have, bringing about positive change in society by shining a spotlight on issues of public concern—in this instance, aggressive tax avoidance. Ten years ago, Mr Halet, then a PricewaterhouseCoopers employee, revealed documents to the press that exposed a major global network of tax avoidance schemes based out of the tax haven of Luxembourg.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered the contribution of whistleblowers. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. Last week we marked World Whistleblower Day, so it is only right that we come together in this place to recognise the contribution that whistleblowers make to our society. Time and again, whistleblowers bravely expose wrongdoing, often at great personal and professional risk. Whistleblowers are key to alerting law enforcement agencies about criminal activity, and they play a crucial role in delivering successful prosecutions. We all know that whistleblowers on the inside are often the most valuable sources of information, notably when it concerns illicit financial activities. Indeed, 43% of fraud was detected by tip-offs last year.”
“Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) for making it clear that we are a stronger society because of whistleblowers, and that when they come forward in the public interest, we all benefit. Finally, I thank the Minister for his remarks. He was right to outline that the current framework is in need of modernisation and does not deal with the challenges that we face. I look forward to further action from the Government. I also welcome his looking at the US model and seeing how it works to adequately reward and protect whistleblowers. I hope that we can learn from that example. I welcome what he said about HMRC, and urge him and the whole Government to be bold in properly empowering and equipping HMRC to work more effectively with whistleblowers and to tackle the scandal of aggressive tax avoidance and evasion. Question put and agreed to.”
“I would like to conclude today’s debate by summarising some of the helpful and constructive contributions of hon. Members. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for outlining the bravery of his constituent Brian. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) for describing the high-risk culture around whistleblowers and the fear that it creates for many. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), who has been a tireless champion on this issue, for highlighting, first, the scale of the economic crime epidemic that we face in the UK, and secondly, the critical role of whistleblowers in tackling the problem head on. I thank the hon.”
“In the recent spending review, the Chancellor outlined plans for a multimillion-pound investment in essential building works at Budmouth academy in Weymouth. We welcome that new investment in local schools in our town, and it will enable Budmouth academy finally to upgrade its school buildings. Looking ahead, will the Chancellor work with me to speedily deliver the new investment and ensure that Budmouth academy gets a richly deserved upgrade as soon as possible?”
“New clause 15 and its consequential amendment 54 will ensure that families who are naturally grieving the loss of their loved one are not needlessly subjected to an invasive coroner’s investigation.”
“I rise to speak in support of new clause 15 and amendment 54, and against new clause 5. As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, new clause 15 would not classify a death under the Bill as suspicious or unexpected, so a full coroner’s inquest would not be needed. If the Bill becomes law, assisted dying would be a legal, strictly regulated and well monitored choice made freely by the individual concerned. To be absolutely clear to hon. Members, it is not assisted suicide. The Bill concerns people who want to live but who, faced with an inevitable, irreversible and terminal diagnosis, want choice over the manner of their death. That is an important choice that removes some of the trauma and anxiety for not only the patients but their family and loved ones.”
“In my view, the process is cautious, thorough and robustly safeguarded. A retrospective investigation would be to duplicate the process, and risks suggesting wrongdoing when none has occurred.”
“I share my hon. Friend’s sentiment. I firmly believe that we should protect bereaved families against such a distressing ordeal happening automatically, particularly when the process, as set out in the Bill, will already be legal and transparent. With that in mind, it makes practical sense to support new clause 15. If we pass legislation to permit assisted dying with the full weight of the law behind it, we must also respect that choice in the way that we classify and record such deaths. Those deaths would not be in any way unexpected or suspicious, so to classify them as such would simply be inaccurate. As has already been touched on in great detail today, if the Bill is passed, it would implement the most robust assisted dying framework anywhere in the world. It already includes multiple layers of oversight.”
“I therefore urge Members to reject new clause 5 and accept that no additional reporting in that area is needed. As we rightly scrutinise the Bill today, on top of nearly 97 hours of scrutiny so far, which is more than many Government Bills receive, we must keep dying people at the centre of the debate. I speak today in support of new clause 15 and its consequential amendment 54 and in opposition to new clause 5 for exactly that reason—to keep terminally ill people at the centre of this discussion, and at the centre of this piece of legislation. No matter where we stand on this pressing matter—whether Members support it or have reservations—it is crucial that we collectively ensure that the Bill is workable, compassionate and truly centred on the dying person. As legislators, that must always be our chief concern.”
“In my view, new clause 5 would do just that: requiring the Government to publish such a report would create unnecessary bureaucracy and divert resources without adding any material value. As Members will be aware, the Government have already published an impact assessment on the relevant impacts that they deem the Bill could have. There is nothing in the Bill likely to result in any changes to civil procedure rules, so there is no obvious justification for producing a formal report on that issue. It is important that we remain focused on practical and meaningful safeguards, rather than procedural requirements based on immaterial impacts. Introducing extra reporting requirements based on speculative impacts risks creating unnecessary red tape without delivering any practical benefits.”
“I respectfully disagree with that position. I believe that there are already levels of safeguarding in the legislation. New clause 15 is a compassionate and practical clause that would ensure the law works not only with the individual making the choice, but for the family they leave behind. I move now to speak briefly on new clause 5, which I would strongly encourage Members to vote against. Tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall and Bloxwich (Valerie Vaz), the new clause would require the Government to publish a report on any impact the Bill might have on civil procedure rules and probate proceedings. As has already been pointed out, the chief medical officer has warned that we are at serious risk of creating a “bureaucratic thicket” with this legislation.”
“We have three state-funded special schools locally, Harbour school, Westfield college and Wyvern academy, whose staff do a truly brilliant job delivering specialised and individualised support for every child. However, following conversations with mums and dads at the school gate and teachers in the classroom, I am all too aware that, put simply, there are more SEND pupils across South Dorset, primarily based in mainstream schools, than there are special SEND places in special school settings.”
“As many right hon. and hon. Members have outlined, there is no doubt that there is a crisis in our SEND system in this country—a crisis that we inherited from the previous Government. However, funding is still too low to keep pace with the rate at which children are being diagnosed with SEND, and many families and teachers are struggling to get the help that children desperately need and deserve. Unfortunately, families in my constituency of South Dorset experience the same. According to figures set out earlier this year, 18% of pupils in South Dorset receive SEND support, roughly 5% more than the national average. That is why I want to increase the number of SEND places in special school settings.”
“In 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024, they were promised a solution that did not come, and once again we are waiting. Parents on Portland need that school on the Osprey Quay site opened as soon as possible. Every child, no matter their educational needs, should have the opportunity to do their best, but they can do that only in the right school, with the right support. I know that this Labour Government recognise that reality, which is why I look forward to hearing from the Department for Education on the future of those two schools in my constituency, and to hearing a little more from the Minister at the end of this debate.”
“I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and we really feel that in South Dorset. There are simply not the places needed to support every child with SEND. We urgently need the Government to move further, faster, to ensure that every child with SEND gets the education, and the school setting, that they deserve. I once again ask Ministers at the Department for Education to get the SEND school at the Osprey Quay site on Portland open—we waited for years for that to happen under the previous Government—and to finally rebuild the buildings at Dorset Studio school. If we can get those two projects over the line, we can really start to deal with the crisis in South Dorset. Funding for a new SEND school was promised for so many years; that is what is most frustrating for parents in my constituency, particularly those living on Portland.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for bringing up long covid. The organisation Long Covid Kids, which was founded by my constituent Sammie McFarland, highlights the experience of young people with long covid. Does he agree that we must ensure we give long covid the consideration it needs alongside other illnesses when we develop health policy, even though we are five years on from the pandemic?”
“I will be brief. This is Diabetes Week, and we are rightly looking at the impact that diabetes has on children. Does the right hon. Member agree that a similar approach must be taken for long covid? We must look at the unique impact it has on children and young people, so that we can better understand it.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and for setting out so clearly the work this Labour Government are doing to fix our NHS. Will he take the opportunity to welcome the investment of some £100 million being delivered by this Labour Government that will totally rebuild the emergency department and critical care unit at Dorset county hospital? Does he share my belief that fixing the front door of our national health service is essential for driving down waiting lists in Dorset?”
“We cannot build homes without building the bus infrastructure that is needed to connect those new homes with nearby towns and services. Across the Grove on Portland, there is no longer a bus service at all. The Grove community have repeatedly told me that they feel left behind and cut off from the rest of Portland and nearby Weymouth. That has been hugely isolating and has a huge impact on the ground. Finally, in Southill, cuts to bus services have had a devastating effect, especially on elderly constituents who now face real isolation. For some there, it has become almost impossible to get to Weymouth town centre or to see a GP. In each of those communities, we need a change of direction. The Bill gives us the tools to do that and to end the postcode lottery of Britain’s broken buses.”
“Yet in recent years, we have seen routes cut, services reduced and the reliability of services deteriorate, leaving many people feeling isolated and unable to access essential amenities and services. Far too often, as has been mentioned, private bus operators seem to have put profit before passengers. Constituents in Winfrith Newburgh, Lulworth and the surrounding villages say that they face poorly connected bus services to Wareham and Wool train stations, making it difficult to access the national rail network. Even more troubling, there is no direct bus link to hospitals in Poole or Dorchester, leaving many constituents without transport to essential healthcare. In Crossways in my constituency, although some services exist, there is growing concern that the current bus network will not meet the demands of new housing developments.”
“I welcome the Bill that the Secretary of State introduced this evening. It has the potential to transform public transport for communities across the country, especially in South Dorset. In towns and villages across my constituency, passengers—or indeed, would-be passengers—rely on buses to go about their daily lives. For many, they are the only affordable way to get to work, school, hospital, the train station or the town centre, or to see family and friends. Growing up, I took the bus 10 miles up the road from my home in Wyke to sixth form most days. It was a reliable service, which meant that I could get to class, so I know that reliable buses matter in South Dorset.”
“Fundamentally, the Government’s reforms will support integrated travel, helping to link rural areas with larger towns and essential services such as hospitals and, in particular, our national rail networks.”
“I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s overview. The new bus services that councils look to put in place must link people with services such as GP appointments. With that in mind, I hope that the new powers granted to local authorities such as Dorset council under the Bill will enable them to franchise their bus services, and crack down on antisocial behaviour and fare evasion. I also hope that the council can make buses and bus stops much more accessible, particularly to passengers living with disabilities. From now on, I want the future of bus services in Winfrith, Lulworth, Crossways, the Grove and Southill to be defined by local need and local passengers rather than profit. The Bill will enable Dorset council to work with passengers in each of those communities to deliver bus services that are finally fit for purpose.”
“We cannot keep treating public transport, especially our buses, as an afterthought. For communities across South Dorset, Labour’s bus services Bill provides a chance to finally reconnect and to deliver good-quality bus services to many more passengers. It is time to crack on.”
“I am happy to support my hon. Friend’s campaign, and I will be meeting him shortly to discuss how I can best do so. Given that Bournemouth is the airport nearest to my constituency, my constituents would certainly benefit from that bus connection. I am desperate for the Bill’s reforms to be introduced as rapidly as possible across South Dorset, which is why I plan to write to the leader of Dorset council to encourage the council to take advantage of the new powers as soon as possible. I look forward to sitting down with its officials to finally improve bus services for the communities in Winfrith, Lulworth, Crossways, the Grove and Southill. I know that other bus passengers and communities throughout my constituency will be looking to the council to use its new powers to improve bus services in their neighbourhood.”
“The Health Secretary’s action to clear the backlog, the 10-year plan and the elective reform plan have begun to improve care for those with Parkinson’s disease, but we can and must go so much further. I hope that today’s debate will galvanise support across the House for the vital mission of ensuring timely diagnosis, comprehensive care and dignity for all people living with Parkinson’s. My constituents and their loved ones and families deserve nothing less.”
“More funding could certainly enable the development of innovative, life-changing treatments, or even a cure in the longer term. Progress has already been made on the five points in the Parky charter. This Labour Government have already begun clearing the NHS backlog, with waiting lists down by some 219,000 since July, and I believe that their elective reform plan will mean more neurological appointments every year. By providing extra appointments, scans and operations, in particular at evenings and weekends, the Government can clear the backlog so that everyone is seen within the critical NHS target of 18 weeks. More broadly, I hope that the Government’s 10-year plan for our NHS will radically reform how people with long-term conditions such as Parkinson’s disease are treated through the NHS.”
“Parkinson’s is the fastest growing neurological condition in the world, and we must do more to support those whose lives have been changed by the disease. I join my constituents in South Dorset and charities such as Parkinson’s UK in their support for the Parky charter. It sets out five principles to improve care for everyone with a Parkinson’s diagnosis. The Home Secretary has rightly pledged to support those principles, which include delivering referrals in under 18 weeks; providing comprehensive information; giving automatic access to free prescriptions; comprehensive care; and increasing funding for research into the condition. On that last point, Parkinson’s is deemed incurable, but it does not have to stay that way. Treatment options are very limited in this country.”
“That means that the illnesses of many patients may have gone undiagnosed, with their conditions worsening as they wait to be seen by the necessary specialist doctor. Patients living in coastal communities, including in South Dorset, often encounter specific challenges when accessing healthcare, and they also face higher incidences of long-term conditions such as Parkinson’s. Too often, patients in my community are confronted with a long wait for an appointment with a specialist and a long journey to the nearest major hospital. That problem is compounded by a national shortage of Parkinson’s specialists. More than 20 constituents have written to me to raise this worrying state of affairs.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for securing this important debate. Over the last few years, too many patients living with Parkinson’s disease have sadly been left facing unacceptable waits to be diagnosed and treated; they then face further challenges accessing the medication they need. That has ripple effects across our communities—it certainly does in my communities in South Dorset—as the neurological condition impacts not just the person with the diagnosis but their family and loved ones. Many Members will be very aware from their inboxes that thousands of patients in England—far too many—are on a waiting list for neurological services, and around half are left waiting for more than the NHS target of 18 weeks.”
“Too often, sanctions evasion happens via our British overseas territories, particularly through secretive havens such as the British Virgin Islands, and a lack of public ownership records complicates efforts to find out who is involved in sidestepping our sanctions regime. With that in mind, can the Minister set out how he is working with all of the overseas territories to finally meet their commitments to introduce registers of beneficial ownership, and can he reassure this place that our sanctions are robustly enforced across the entire UK family?”
“Q3. Found in my constituency, Durdle Door is one of the most iconic bathing sites in all the country. Last Friday, I was joined at Durdle Door by my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) and for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan)—and, most importantly, by Ron the local seal—to test the water quality. Currently, water quality at bathing sites is monitored only from mid-May to September, which puts at risk the health of all water users, who could be swimming in pollution or sewage. With that in mind, will the Prime Minister work with me and my hon. Friends to introduce all-year-round testing at popular bathing sites such as Durdle Door?”
“I thank the Solicitor General for her answer. Since their introduction in 2015, deferred prosecution agreements have resulted in the SFO raising some £1.7 billion in fines, yet those DPAs have dried up—the last DPAs that the Serious Fraud Office signed were some four years ago, in 2021. I welcome the SFO’s new strategy to ramp up enforcement, including new guidance to make it simpler to report crimes, but I believe we can and must go further. Can the Solicitor General outline what steps the Government are taking to support the SFO in ensuring that whistleblowers are also incentivised to come forward?”
“I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. The Dorset clean energy super cluster, in my constituency, has proposals for fixed and floating offshore wind, carbon capture and storage, and hydrogen storage. Does my hon. Friend agree that having all that energy generation and storage in one place is a really effective way to boost Britain’s energy resilience, and to quickly boost our energy infrastructure and our ability to create, store and distribute energy here in Britain, rather than being dependent on energy coming in from overseas?”
“Taking all these arguments into account, I urge the Minister to reassess the plans and prevent an incinerator going ahead on Portland. The case against the proposal is strong. Hardly anyone living in Weymouth and Portland wants an incinerator to be built. I find it completely baffling that Portland port and Powerfuel—the firm behind the proposals—are still pushing ahead. I urge them to listen to our community and abandon the proposals. When I look to the future of South Dorset, I see green investment opportunities and well-paid green jobs, not an unwanted and polluting waste incinerator. I believe that we can deliver a cleaner and greener future for South Dorset, but harmful, dirty and outdated waste incinerators are simply not part of it.”
“To be completely blunt, I am opposed to any new incinerators being built locally or anywhere else across the country at the present time. As has been mentioned, incinerators are the dirtiest way in which Britain generates power, as underlined by a recent BBC investigation. Regretfully, incinerators across the country have been found time and again to have breached environmental permits by emitting harmful pollutants. That is why I am once again calling for a nationwide ban. The Government are moving in the right direction, but they must move so much further and faster. They have introduced strict environmental rules for new proposals, but the scope of those rules must be widened significantly. If the crackdown measures were applied to the proposed incinerator on Portland, it would not be built.”
“Elite sailors have made it abundantly clear that building an incinerator next door to the academy would be a disastrous decision. Just recently, the Royal Yachting Association has also taken the unprecedented decision to announce that it will independently investigate the potential health impact of an incinerator if it is built. Finally, there is little need for a waste incinerator to be built on Portland. As the United Kingdom Without Incineration Network—UKWIN—has highlighted in its research, we are at risk of building too many incinerators across the country, which could lead to a problem of overcapacity. I do not want a nightmare scenario in which Britain is importing waste from across the world simply to keep the incinerators running.”
“I remain deeply alarmed by the idea that polluting technology should get the go-ahead on the island. Secondly, alongside my community I am deeply concerned about the negative impact on our precious Jurassic coast. Building an incinerator on the edge of a UNESCO world heritage site would be a deeply damaging world first. Thirdly, I worry about the potential impact that an incinerator would have on our local economy and our status as a hub for sailing and water sports. Countless local business owners have raised objections with me at every stage. They must not be overlooked. You need not take my word for it, Ms Lewell. Portland is the proud home of the National Sailing Academy, where Olympic sailors train, and live nearby.”