Sarah Russell
MP for Congleton · Labour · United Kingdom
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
The complete record
Every one of 391 lines we hold for Sarah Russell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 8.
“I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this debate. Caring for a relative with dementia is one of the most tremendously difficult things that many people will ever have to do. I pay tribute to the many people in my constituency who are caring for a relative with dementia; it is incredibly challenging. Over time I have spoken to many people on the doorstep whose relatives were suffering from dementia, and who were finding things very difficult. When I read a dementia care plan, I saw that 51% of carers providing unpaid care in my constituency are providing more than 100 hours a week. That is the most phenomenal commitment, and I thank ever so much all those who are doing that.”
“Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. On that point, does my hon. Friend agree with my concerns about new clause 2, which, although genuinely meant and intended, is in danger of being read, together with new clause 1, to indicate that it should not be discussed with children at all, even if they raised it first, because of the difference between the wording of the two clauses?”
“The Conservatives appear to have forgotten quite a number of things, and I think it might be a good time to remind them. Former Justice Secretary Chris Grayling’s disastrous partial privatisation of the Probation Service was overturned in 2019 after the number of serious offences—including rape and murder—committed by those on probation skyrocketed. Does the Minister agree that we are seeing the long tail of Conservative failure, which overshadows everything that we must do now?”
“Does the hon. Lady accept that pilots already seem to manage to fly throughout our nation and many others, despite there being widespread solar panels in, for instance, Spain, where there is more sunshine? It seems unlikely that they will be unable to manage in her constituency.”
“Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the Conservatives’ failure to have proper national strategies for development means that we do not have enough prison places to lock up all of our criminals, and that not having sufficient solar energy will do the same?”
“The standards are expected to encourage the installation of solar panels, and I welcome that. It is critical that we exclude slave labour from the supply chain for solar panels, both on moral grounds and to enable alternative producers to compete on a fair playing field. Much of the global supply of solar-grade polysilicon —a key component of solar panels—is manufactured in Xinjiang, China, where over 1 million Uyghur Muslims are imprisoned in a vast network of forced labour camps. This week, I met people from Open Doors to learn more about its work tackling religious persecution around the world. It said in its 2022 report that “In Xinjiang you are always watched; a computer decides your fate, against which there is no appeal.””
“The climate crisis grows more urgent, and our children’s future is under threat. Solar energy will play a crucial role in the mission to produce secure, affordable energy in this country. Since the general election, the Government have consented to more solar power projects than were consented to over the entirety of the past 14 years. Great British Energy is investing £200 million in new rooftop solar energy panels, including for the roof of the newly built Leighton hospital near my constituency, and in renewable energy schemes for schools, hospitals and communities. That will take hundreds of millions of pounds off public sector energy bills. New building standards will ensure that all new build houses and commercial buildings are fit for a net zero future.”
“The Dane Valley Community Energy company is a not-for-profit mutual society that was set up by a group of volunteers in my constituency. They have constructed and run the Congleton hydroelectricity generation project at Havannah weir, and they supply electricity to Siemens and donate money to local community groups. A sister project, Congleton Solar, has installed rooftop solar on a number of sites in my constituency and beyond. Havannah primary school in my constituency will officially unveil its rooftop solar panels next week. I know that the project will inspire the next generation of green champions. I am very proud to be part of a Government who are meeting communities where they are, and following their lead.”
“I agree with hon. Friend. That is disgraceful, and I am very pleased that the relaunched solar taskforce is focusing on developing resilient and sustainable supply chains, free from forced labour. It is important that we work with our farmers and growers across the country. British farmers own about 70% of our total solar generation capacity, whether it be on the roofs of their agricultural buildings or on solar farms. I am extremely pleased that the NFU is participating in the Government’s relaunched solar taskforce. We must continue to ensure that farms are properly consulted about land use, and that previously developed or lower-quality land is prioritised. I thank the businesses in my community that have supported solar energy, including manufacturers Siemens and Bespak, which both use renewable energy sources.”
“The police can take more than two years to investigate a crime. About 21% of claims under the criminal injuries compensation scheme take more than two years to conclude; in fact, 2.8% of them take more than five years to conclude. We habitually accept, and have done for some time—although we may not like it—that it can take the state more than two years to deal with a crime, but we do not accept that it can take more than two years for a victim to deal with a crime. That seems, to me, a fundamentally irrational and indefensible position. In this country, we let people make a breach of contract claim six years after the breach of contract occurred, but we will not let them take more than two years to process their trauma. That is not, in my opinion, the right position for the state to take.”
“Significant numbers of claims are being refused; in 2023-24, nearly 2,000 were refused because they were not submitted within the time limit, and another 765 were refused because of a failure to report as soon as reasonably practicable. What we do not have statistics on, as far as I am aware, is the number of people who do not apply in the first place because they know that they would not meet the eligibility criteria. I suspect that it is substantial. It seems to me that whether someone hears about the scheme in the first place, or can meet the requirements, is very much an accident of their life chances and various other factors. That is no way to determine whether people should receive compensation. At the moment, we are listing Crown court cases for more than two years hence.”
“Secondly, we should look at the “exceptional circumstances” rules, which allow someone who did not manage to apply as soon as reasonably practicable, or within two years, to apply if “due to exceptional circumstances an application could not have been made earlier; and the evidence provided in support of the application means that it can be determined without further extensive inquiries by a claims officer.” That is a much tighter exception than most legal “exceptional circumstances” exception rules. It basically requires that there be no work to do on the part of the agency that would be required to investigate. I do not understand why whether people get compensation is determined by what inquiries a claims officer would be required to make. I do not think that represents justice.”
“I was sexually harassed as a teenager—nothing that would have met a criminal standard—and it never occurred to me to apply for these sorts of things. That is not something that enters the head of someone aged 18, 19 or 20, let alone the victims of child rape and sexual abuse. First, we should accept and implement the recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. That is a basic moral requirement.”
“It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) for securing this debate. There is an interesting paradox at the heart of this scheme. The fundamental eligibility requirements are that “You must apply as soon as it is reasonably practicable“ and that “this should normally not be later than two years“ after the incident occurred. That is the time limit for adults, which can be extended “due to exceptional circumstances”. If the person was under 18 at the time of the incident, an application must be received by their 20th birthday if the incident was reported to the police before their 18th birthday, or “within two years of the first report to the police, if the incident was reported to the police on or after“ the person’s 18th birthday.”
“Does the hon. Gentleman see that there is some irony in his asking why our current Minister has not responded to a 2020 consultation, when his Government, which was in power for another four years, did not do so?”
“If we create a right to be made aware of the scheme and a claimant can demonstrate that they were not made aware of it, could we amend the rules for exceptional cases reviews so that that automatically counts as an exception?”
“Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) for the adoption of section 42 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, the creation of an equivalent for roads, and the requirement for play areas and public areas to be adopted by local authorities. I am worried that the charges my constituents see are just the beginning and that, as their estates age, those charges are likely to become significantly larger, particularly in unadopted areas. Will the Minister please confirm what we can do about these many issues?”
“Residents challenged that bill, which suddenly became £7,000, with no explanation as to why it had halved or why it had been £14,000 in the first place. They challenged it again, but they still do not have a proper breakdown as to why so few lights cost so much money—they simply cannot get that information. As others have mentioned, when people challenge bills, they get charged again and again. There is an absolute lack of transparency about these organisations and about transactions, including where insurance is being bought from connected parties. There is a real question about whether corporate governance as it stands is fundamentally capable of addressing some of these issues. I absolutely second the calls by my hon.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this important debate. My constituents are being treated as a cash cow. There are managing agents causing a problem across my entire constituency, and I have casework in Alsager, Congleton, Sandbach and Holmes Chapel. I do not have time to go into every one of those items, but the worst—the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) referred to this—relates to insurance charges for terrorism. I am not flippant about terrorism, but retirement properties in Alsager are unlikely to be victims of it. The retirement community in Alsager received a £14,000 bill for electricity in communal areas, where there were approximately three lights.”
“I have the pre-sentence report guidance in front of me. It says: “When considering a community or custodial sentence, the court must request and consider a pre-sentence report (PSR) before forming an opinion of the sentence, unless it considers that it is unnecessary”. It then goes on to describe various circumstances in which a pre-sentence report might be considered necessary and may “normally be considered necessary”. It does not remove judicial stipulations and interventions completely, and to suggest otherwise is not accurate.”
“There are still lots of employers who regard all this stuff as just priced in. I have had clients come to me and say, “He’s absolutely notorious—the chief exec is a complete perv.” Everyone in the organisation knows it, but the board does not care. The board can give the women 20 grand to go away, they sign an NDA and that is the end of that. We have watched the chief exec do that time after time—it is just the cost of doing business. He is regarded as the superstar who brings home the bacon, so no one cares. Those are the fundamentals for many UK employers. At UKFast, for example, the chief exec got done for raping his staff. It had been going on for years: he did not just wake up one morning and do that to one woman. He was notorious in Manchester and lots of people knew what was going on.”
“The person will not be able to afford it and, at best, they end up with some really shoddy solicitor who is not necessarily a specialist employment lawyer and is prepared to sign off pretty much anything and, bluntly, leaves them completely stuck. This payment structure is enriching for non-compliant solicitors at best. There is, in theory, legal aid for people who are on very low wages or in receipt of certain benefits and who have equality claims, but that has been paid at such a low rate for such a long time that there are almost no providers whatsoever. Unless we significantly increase the hourly rate that we pay to providers, they will simply continue to hand back their contracts, which is what has happened in the majority of places. It is extremely difficult to access advice unless someone is a trade union member.”
“Senior execs can often afford the advice, which means they get it fully explained and totally renegotiated, so it is compliant at the end. A solicitor like me working against a solicitor on the other side who has put forward something that does not meet the SRA guidelines will say, “We’re not signing that—you know it’s not compliant. You’re in breach of your professional obligations, now get this off the table.” And they do—swiftly. If a person has £250 and earns £20,000 a year, there is no way that they will pay for that level of top-up legal advice. That is not happening for them at all. Most good solicitors will explain that they cannot do it for the money and tell them how much it will cost to have it done properly.”
“The flipside is that in order for someone to be persuaded to sign a settlement agreement, there is a requirement that the employer pays for them to have some legal advice. The standard legal advice offer is somewhere between £250 and £500, and for low-paid people the standard is still £250. The reality of the legal market is that no specialist employment lawyer will explain a potentially 20-page legal document to the person, send them follow-up written advice and renegotiate the terms for £250. People on low pay can go to a lawyer who for £250 will perhaps take them through the terms of the agreement and explain what they mean, but then they have run out money, so that is the end of it. The terms are not renegotiated and the person just signs what is put in front of them.”
“Your client can take it or leave it.” But the client faces significant legal bills, and although the employment tribunals were hypothetically designed to enable them to represent themselves, the reality is that if it is a complex discrimination claim and they have a mental health problem—either because their claim related to it in the first place or because they developed one after they were treated so badly in their employment—they may not be able to face the prospect of an unrepresented employment tribunal claim. It is all well and good that the Solicitors Regulation Authority has said that people should not put forward NDA clauses, but they are still in extremely widespread circulation.”
“As a solicitor, I would go back and say, “But if my client can’t say anything about the circumstances concerning the termination of their employment, what are they supposed to say to their new employer when they try to get a new job?” Some employers would agree to negotiate some sort of vague wording such as “left by mutual agreement”, so the person could at least say that, but some of them would just say flat out, “There’s money on the table.”
“A lot of businesses have a human resources adviser who is not regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Many of them are good people who do a good job of providing affordable advice to businesses; I do not want to universally condemn HR consultants. The reality is that at some point they will have been given a precedent settlement agreement by a solicitor—we might be talking 20 years ago—and those agreements contain NDAs, so they are still in widespread use.”
“Members who have heard me speak on these issues before—I do so a lot—know that I am a solicitor specialising in employment law. I am not currently practising, but I spent 13 years doing employment and particularly discrimination law work. A small amount of it was for small employers, but predominantly it was for employees. I have seen a lot of settlement agreements—pretty much every client I ever had ended up with one—and it is extremely unusual for them not to contain some form of NDA. The typical wording states that the person cannot discuss the terms of the agreement, nor the circumstances surrounding the termination of their employment. There are too many difficulties to unpack in seven minutes, but one is that some of the people who put forward the agreements are not solicitors.”
“I do not want anyone to think that I think all employers are terrible—I really do not: a lot of people are busting a gut to do the right thing by their employees—but we have to stop the use of NDAs.”
“That culture is totally everywhere—across sectors. There is no specific sector where if we just sorted it out, the others would be all right. There is also the phenomenon of organisations that say publicly that they do not use NDAs, but I have seen their settlement agreements and can tell Members that they absolutely do. That is not at all unusual. In summary, we have a systemic problem that is being used to cover up employment rights abuses across the board. We really do need to legislate and have standard wording that people cannot derogate from, whether they are lawyers, HR consultants or business owners. There are lots of good employers out there.”
“Typically, the agreement’s wording will contain an exemption for whistleblowing—the Solicitors Regulation Authority says it must—so the chances are that the hon. Gentleman’s constituent can actually talk to him about the details, and he can refer to it under parliamentary privilege. However, most people do not fully understand the relationship between the whistleblowing exemptions—they are extremely limited and tightly drafted and say that someone can only speak to very limited people in very limited circumstances to whistleblow in line with the law—and the broader statement that I referred to: “You cannot discuss the circumstances surrounding your employment.” Unless someone has had good legal advice that makes that really clear, and they can retain that quite sophisticated combination, they do not understand.”
“On that point, will the hon. Member join me in encouraging the Government to bring into force clause 24 of the new Employment Rights Bill as soon as is humanly possible? It will enable the Government to make provision in respect of dismissals relating to pregnancy other than those covered by redundancy. That was a huge element of the dismissals that I used to see wrapped up in NDAs.”
“There is a defence to that form of discrimination, which is where an employer has taken all reasonable steps to prevent it—and I speak only of reasonable steps, not every single magical thing that could be thought of. In fact, there was a case just last week in the Employment Appeal Tribunal in which an employer did successfully defend a harassment claim on the basis that it had taken all reasonable steps to prevent harassment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the position is not as extreme as he is presenting by any stretch of the imagination, and that as long as hospitality businesses have taken all reasonable steps to prevent their employees from being harassed, they will be fine?”
“As I understand it, the whistleblowing provisions in the Employment Rights Bill will let people go to the police or a regulator, but they do not automatically mean that they can go to the media, although they might be able to in some circumstances. If the Minister does not mind my saying so, what he has described is possibly not a blanket solution to the problem.”
“The five-case model involves a strategic dimension—what the case for change is, including the rationale for the intervention, the current situation, what is to be done and so forth. There is an economic dimension and a commercial dimension: can a realistic and credible commercial deal be struck, and who will manage which risks? There is a financial dimension and a management dimension—are there realistic and robust delivery demands, and can the proposal be delivered?”
“In my area, I want to see the Middlewich bypass, the A50/A500 north midlands manufacturing corridor, massive investment in improving our electricity grid, and all kinds of other changes and improvements, but I can see very clearly that something is not right. Total capital public spending per person in the north-west in 2022-23 was £13,297 per year; in London, it was £14,842. Something is being done to allocate money in that way. The Green Book is the guidance issued by His Majesty’s Treasury on how to appraise policies, programmes and projects. The five-case model is the required framework for considering the use of public resources. They must be used proportionately to the costs and risks involved, taking account of the context in which a decision is taken.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered the Green Book review. It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank all hon. Members who have come today to talk about the Green Book. Our constituents all know that something is very clearly not right and has not been right for a very, very long time. They pay their taxes but they cannot see things getting any better. In Congleton, I cannot see any evidence of any significant infrastructure spending for many years, except for where it has been facilitated through house growth. Government money does not appear to have been involved in significant ways for a long time. The previous Government talked a good game about levelling up the north, but actual investment never followed, which is why my constituents voted for change.”
“It’s about making places that people want to go and live in, where they feel confident, they can live there, their children can grow up there, there’s opportunities there, and they don’t have to go somewhere else to get on, as it were. None of this is beyond us. Most other countries do it, and I don’t see why we shouldn’t either.” That was quite some time ago, but it applies more than ever now.”
“That cost-benefit analysis needs to be fundamentally changed so that we can shift capital expenditure out to our regions at pace. By that, I do not mean demanding, as the last Government did, that local areas produce a shovel-ready project at the drop of a hat, so that they could rush spending through and make it look as if they were doing something for the north of England. I mean a fully considered set of proposals that enable regions to be fully developed through our devolved mayoral authorities, which I think are going to be a spectacular improvement for many areas of the north, and that will enable us to have proper economic development in the north of England. Alistair Darling said: “it isn’t just about pots of money or building the odd rail or extending a road. It’s about quality of life.”
“They were given a maximum lifespan of 20 years; they were supposed to be a very basic short-term thing to start with, and the level of shoddiness was just astonishing. That is what we are always given in the north-west. We are given the cast-offs, and then we are expected to make do, and then what we are expected to make do with is expected to continue way beyond its intended lifespan. That has been going on now for as long as anyone can remember, and our economy then reflects that very sad point. I know the Labour Government are focused on improving the situation. I would really like us to work extensively together on that. I know that the Green Book review will be carried out at pace, and that the Government have announced these plans.”
“We need to really slim it down and for it to be in a format that our local and devolved mayoral authorities, as we acquire one in Cheshire and Warrington, will be able to actually use in a practical way. We need a stronger focus on place. We need to really look properly at where money has been spent historically and where we therefore need investment. We need to weight that specifically towards areas that have not received investment so that we can redress the imbalance in which transport spending in London vastly outweighs that in the rest of the country. When I moved to the north of England, I was so shocked when I first used the railway network; I was in my 20s and the Pacer trains were still being used. Those trains were fashioned out of bus chassis and carried on being used for 37 years.”
“That very complexity leads to a desire for a metric that cuts through, and that probably explains why the business case thresholds remain so dominant. That is probably how the weighting towards expenditure in London and the south-east continues to predominate. There is a consultancy industry around the Green Book, and that raises the cost of developing a successful business case. It also makes it very difficult for smaller local authorities to successfully put together a business case because the complexity of doing so is absolutely mind boggling. Frankly, the whole thing is just a bunch of piffle—we need to make this very simple and outcomes driven.”
“But once again, those recommendations do not appear to be generally reflected in practice, particularly in the application of Department-level appraisal guidance. It is vital that the current review addresses that. I believe that considering options in the context of place and properly valuing the transformational impacts of interventions is crucial if we are to realise the potential of the north-west and all our regions. We need to simplify and speed up our Green Book processes. The guidance is enormously long and incredibly complex. It has multiple supplementary documents adding up to thousands and thousands of pages. Its changes, subtleties and intent get lost within the complexity, and practice remains unchanged.”
“I certainly agree. We are pleased that the Treasury has initiated a review into the Green Book and we believe it is an opportunity to once and for all address a range of key issues that have undermined successive Governments’ attempts to rebalance our regional economies. We must grasp this opportunity. We believe that the review must be done with ambition and a willingness to challenge underlying customs and practices. In particular, it needs to learn from the successes and failures—largely failures, I would say—of previous Green Book reviews, in particular the 2020 review. The review recommended that the locational effects be understood via place-based analysis, with the benefits of any intervention valued specifically for the area, hence enabling any transformational impacts to be properly recognised.”
“I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. I absolutely accept that, underlyingly, we need a framework for evaluating projects. I am immensely looking forward to the 10-year infrastructure strategy, which is a real opportunity for the Government to grasp and fundamentally change how we are investing in the north of England; that is encapsulated by the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall). We need to stop our communities being seen as low-return risks rather than high-potential communities. I want growth to stop going to where growth already is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) said; I want growth going where people are, in the north-west of England. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the Green Book review.”
“The growth in the takeaway sector in the UK means that large numbers of takeaways are operating from warehouses, where the workers are completely unseen. Many of them are earning incredibly little. If people can order a takeaway for less money than it would cost to cook the same meal at home, the chances are that that has come about through modern slavery.”
“That subject is extremely important, and I will talk about it in the context of modern slavery, but of those who were referred to the national referral mechanism last year, 72% were men. The people most common referred were UK nationals. Children constituted about 31% of referrals. In 48% of those cases, the referral was for criminal exploitation, and about 78% of those referred were boys. It is crucial that we keep up the pressure to reduce and remove violence against women and girls, but it is critical that we are aware of how much violence there still is in society against boys and men. There are lots of different ways in which modern slavery occurs in the UK, and its diversity makes it more difficult to tackle. For men, it often occurs in the agricultural and building sectors, and in takeaways.”
“I thank the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) for securing the debate; I know she is a great champion for these issues. The Global Slavery Index estimates that 122,000 people are living in conditions of slavery in the UK, and over 19,000 victims were referred to the national referral mechanism in the last year alone. My constituency of Congleton is absolutely beautiful, and most of it has a low crime rate by national standards, but this problem is so widespread that it will be occurring in my constituency, because it is occurring everywhere. The figure of 122,000 people is significant; that is roughly one and a half times the number of people in my constituency. We often talk in this Chamber about violence against women and girls.”
“I suggest that when the Fair Work Agency takes over the GLAA’s responsibilities, we ensure that licensing is brought into this sector or otherwise look at how the visa regime can be changed, so that people can transfer between employers, and how we can generally stamp out the level of exploitation in the care sector. I thank everyone who has participated in this debate. I know there is a lot of strong feeling across the House that we can and should do a lot better for vulnerable people in this country.”
“They would be absolutely horrified if they realised the number of people doing that work who had been trafficked here in the first place. Other hon. Members have mentioned the various organisations working in this area, one of which is Unseen, which talks about regularly speaking on its helpline to members of the care profession who have paid somewhere between £11,000 and £30,000 to get here, when they should not be paying anything other than their own travel expenses. Some 4% of victims have been threatened with either direct personal harm or harm to their family members. Actual, physical harm was reported in 2% of the cases that came to that helpline. Nearly half of victims described confinement or restricted movement. The list of things that have gone on is genuinely, absolutely horrendous.”