Lee Barron MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Civil Service Pension Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  For Capita, our constituents are now paying the price. We are talking about workers like my constituent Simon, who lives in Stanwick. He put in 37 years of public service at HM Courts and Tribunals Service. He gave six months’ notice that he wanted to retire, but Capita simply never processed his application, and his retirement date has now passed. Simon now plans to retire in March 2027, but has no confidence at all that that date will be met. After 37 years of service, he is unable to receive the money that he has earned. This just shows the absolute madness of outsourcing. This Government promised to deliver the greatest wave of insourcing in a generation, and I agree with the 20,000 PCS members who signed a petition urging them to demonstrate it here. Members of the civil service pension scheme deserve a cleared backlog with every case resolved, deserve without delay the money they are owed, deserve those responsible for failures to be held to account, and deserve a pension scheme back in house, under Government accountability.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces; Draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. I must say, I wish people would put as much energy into condemning those sorts of actions as they do into having a pop at trade unions—I really do. It is about time that we levelled that playing field, and that is what this legislation does. My hon. Friend is right in what she says about giants like Amazon. I stood with GMB workers in Coventry when I was regional secretary of the TUC, trying to access that workplace, and it was basically forbidden. It was not allowed. Organisations like that will absolutely swallow half a million quid-worth of fine after fine; they will make that investment to keep trade unions out. That is why I think the cap is so wrong here. We need to reconsider it; unless these people see that the repercussions of what they are doing will cost them, they will just carry on doing what they are doing. We have already raised P&O; P&O representatives sat there in front of a Committee in this place and said that they knew that what they were doing was illegal, and the reason they carried on doing it was because they could take the fines—P&O could swallow the fines and make sure that that kept unions out. That is how it derecognised trade unions in its workforce: by sacking its workforce. When you have things like that, there has to be some kind of fine that relates to turnover. It cannot be a cap, because those global giants will basically swallow it up. The last point I would like to make to the Minister is about this exemption for workplaces with fewer than 21 employees. I have asked and asked, but no one has come up with any logic for that number. All it will do, in our opinion, is create incentives to restructure. This code has to be applied universally. Justice does not hide within numbers; it either exists or it does not. If it does, and people want a trade union to access their workplace, they should be allowed that regardless of the number of people working there. As I said earlier, workers’ rights are crucial—but if the workers themselves are too scared to enforce them, those rights are not worth the paper they are written on. We must change the narrative as far as trade unions are concerned; we must accept them as part of our economy, accept them as part of what is good for working people, and accept them by making sure that they cannot be kept out on the cheap by global giants and that workers within any workplace can access them.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces; Draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud trade union member. That makes me the only legitimate trade union Barron in this place— [ Interruption. ] We are all up for a bit of that. First and foremost, I think everyone welcomes the Employment Rights Act. It introduces new rights for unions to meet and have access to workers. I believe that as part of the consultation, we have to get this right. Opposition parties have already said that they will not support this legislation and, if they ever get in, they will probably reverse it, so we have to get it right in order to make sure that it sticks. That is crucial. The Act modernises industrial relations, as far as we are concerned. It is obscene that trade unions are not allowed through the gates, but have to stand outside workplaces giving out leaflets, with scared workers walking past—probably too scared to take the leaflets, because they know about the hostility. It is time to end those hostilities, and it is time for people to know that they have the legal right and freedom to join a trade union.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces Draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. I must say, I wish people would put as much energy into condemning those sorts of actions as they do into having a pop at trade unions—I really do. It is about time that we levelled that playing field, and that is what this legislation does. My hon. Friend is right in what she says about giants like Amazon. I stood with GMB workers in Coventry when I was regional secretary of the TUC, trying to access that workplace, and it was basically forbidden. It was not allowed. Organisations like that will absolutely swallow half a million quid-worth of fine after fine; they will make that investment to keep trade unions out. That is why I think the cap is so wrong here. We need to reconsider it; unless these people see that the repercussions of what they are doing will cost them, they will just carry on doing what they are doing. We have already raised P&O; P&O representatives sat there in front of a Committee in this place and said that they knew that what they were doing was illegal, and the reason they carried on doing it was because they could take the fines—P&O could swallow the fines and make sure that that kept unions out. That is how it derecognised trade unions in its workforce: by sacking its workforce. When you have things like that, there has to be some kind of fine that relates to turnover. It cannot be a cap, because those global giants will basically swallow it up. The last point I would like to make to the Minister is about this exemption for workplaces with fewer than 21 employees. I have asked and asked, but no one has come up with any logic for that number. All it will do, in our opinion, is create incentives to restructure. This code has to be applied universally. Justice does not hide within numbers; it either exists or it does not. If it does, and people want a trade union to access their workplace, they should be allowed that regardless of the number of people working there. As I said earlier, workers’ rights are crucial—but if the workers themselves are too scared to enforce them, those rights are not worth the paper they are written on. We must change the narrative as far as trade unions are concerned; we must accept them as part of our economy, accept them as part of what is good for working people, and accept them by making sure that they cannot be kept out on the cheap by global giants and that workers within any workplace can access them.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces Draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud trade union member. That makes me the only legitimate trade union Barron in this place— [ Interruption. ] We are all up for a bit of that. First and foremost, I think everyone welcomes the Employment Rights Act. It introduces new rights for unions to meet and have access to workers. I believe that as part of the consultation, we have to get this right. Opposition parties have already said that they will not support this legislation and, if they ever get in, they will probably reverse it, so we have to get it right in order to make sure that it sticks. That is crucial. The Act modernises industrial relations, as far as we are concerned. It is obscene that trade unions are not allowed through the gates, but have to stand outside workplaces giving out leaflets, with scared workers walking past—probably too scared to take the leaflets, because they know about the hostility. It is time to end those hostilities, and it is time for people to know that they have the legal right and freedom to join a trade union.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Direction of Government · Hansard source

  More

  September is Childhood Cancer Awareness Month. I raised with the last Prime Minister the case of Max Hall. During our summer recess, Max passed away. He will forever be 14. Will the Prime Minister commit in his direction of Government to prioritise brain cancer—the biggest cancer killer of those under 40—and get his Ministers to meet with Max’s family and the organisations that support families, such as Brain Tumour Research and Brain Cancer Justice?

• 2 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Just over 18 months ago, Harshita Brella was murdered in Corby and her body was found in the boot of a car. We are aware that there is an ongoing police investigation, and none of us wants to do anything to prejudice that, but her family feel isolated; recently, they flew over from India to get an update. When they hear nothing, they feel as though nothing is happening, so will the Leader of the House work with Home Office and Foreign Office colleagues to ensure that the family receive monthly updates on what progress is being made in securing justice for Harshita?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q2. Max Hall is 14 years old. He should be worrying about school, football, friends and what he wants to be when he grows up. Instead, he is living with a high-grade brain tumour and there is no cure available to him. His parents, Jackie and Steven, want to know why children being diagnosed with brain tumours are still being told that there are no treatment options available. Why does brain tumour research remain so underfunded, when brain tumours kill more children than adults under 40 than any other cancer? Why are families like them left to search for hope themselves? This Prime Minister has done so much to strengthen our NHS, so does he agree that we need to move at pace and do much more to offer hope to Max and his family, and families like his who are facing this unequally devastating disease?

• 22 Jun 2026 · East Midlands Railway Collision · Hansard source

  More

  As the Member of Parliament for Corby and East Northamptonshire, I agree with everybody about the emergency services, the NHS, the community who came together, the guards, the staff and the passengers as well, who did not go through the panic that can sometimes happen in situations like this. The 16.40 London train from Corby to was involved in this fatal collision. No worker should ever go to work never to return home, and I am sure all our thoughts are with the dedicated Shaun Burton, who lost his life, as well as with his family and his friends, and the family and friends of all those impacted and affected—a lot from my constituency —including those with injuries. I spoke to Ministers over the weekend, and I thank them for that. I have also spoken to the ASLEF and RMT unions, and I know that they are offering support. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that train drivers, who connect our communities and deliver the goods we need, work in a safety-critical environment and deserve to feel safe? Does she also agree that the passengers and staff affected by the trauma of such an accident really do need our support and that of the rail operators?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Brain Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  I will use my time today to share the words of Jackie Hall, mum of 14-year-old Max Hall. She says: “Dear Members of Parliament, Max should be worrying about school, football, friends, and what he wants to be when he grows up. Instead, our family is living with the reality that he has a high-grade brain tumour and that there is no cure available to him. We have discovered that many of the treatments currently offered to children with aggressive brain tumours have changed very little over decades. What makes this even harder is knowing that before Max’s diagnosis, he suffered headaches for around a year. Max is funny. He is kind. He is intelligent. He is brave beyond words. He is a child who deserves the same urgency, investment, innovation, and hope that would be demanded for any child standing in front of you today. Children with aggressive brain tumours cannot wait years for discussions, consultations, reports, and strategies. We need meaningful investment in brain tumour research. We need greater access to clinical trials. We need better awareness and earlier diagnosis. If this were your child, would you be satisfied with the options available? Please do not let another generation of children face the same future. Yours sincerely, Jackie Hall Mum to Max”. I will not stop until I get Jackie answers and get policies changed for young people like Max. Mandatory MRIs for long-term sufferers of headaches would be a good start, but after 12 years of warm words and broken promises, the motto of my constituency is deeds, not words. In the name of Max, Jackie and their family, and for the sake of all the people who are suffering, now is the time for this Government to be the one who finally deliver.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I want to start off by saying that I find it absolutely incredible when people turn around and say that our Government should not be intervening and running services, when they are happy to allow other countries’ Governments to run our services and utilities. To be honest, I get a bit tired of it, because it is essential that we do this if we are going to save industries, save sectors and save jobs. That is why we are right in doing this. I want to speak on amendment 21, new clause 8 and new clause 5. It was a privilege to be recalled here on a Saturday last year to pass the emergency Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 to save the Scunthorpe works, and I am just as happy to be here today to see this Bill go through its first day of Committee. Since last year, it has become clear that public ownership is in the national interest. Corby is a town built on steel—steel that built this country. At one time, the Corby steelworks was the largest combined steelworks in Europe. I recognise that the Bill does not nationalise the steelworks in Corby, but it will make sure that the sector does well, and where that happens, that will ensure that the other aspects of steel do well. In 1967, it was the Labour party that nationalised the steelworks and put British Steel in charge. It did so because it knew that home-made steel was essential for our national security, for our economy and for thousands of jobs. In 1980, a Government who failed to see those opportunities closed the steelworks, and with that, tens of thousands of jobs went and almost a third of people in my constituency became unemployed. That is why it is so important that British Steel should be allowed to continue. This Bill marks a reversal in direction. It shows what can happen when we have a vision for our economy and the dedication to see that vision through. How could the last Government shape our economy and create jobs when they failed to even create an industrial strategy? This Government have a strategy. Their decade-long industrial strategy, and the steel strategy announced in March, show that. The steel strategy provides £2.5 billion through the National Wealth Fund to help rebuild our steel sector so that we can move towards 50% of all British demand for steel being made in this country, ensuring our security in an unstable world with the capacity for our own virgin steel supply. That is what this Bill leads to, and that is what is going to happen as a result of it. British steelworking powered the first industrial revolution, and it can do so again, building the renewables and technology for the future. We still have a steelworks in Corby, and we want to make sure that Corby and the towns like it across our country have a new and secure future. I believe that the passing of this Bill will ensure that that happens.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Water Companies · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the Minister for coming to the House today to outline the various measures that have been taken, but what this says to me is that the model is fundamentally broken. We need a new model, one that puts people before profits, because people should no longer accept that the public always pay the bills and the shareholder always takes the profit. The issue with water is that we have privatised the profit and nationalised the debt. Bearing that in mind, does the Minister agree that the change people want is a Government who take the right and radical approach and bring our water back into public ownership so that it serves the people, and to stop shareholders being paid a dividend for failure on what is a natural monopoly and a basic human right?

• 21 May 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Nobody should go to work, never to return home. On Tuesday 13 January 2026, Kenny Campbell Smart went to work at Corby steelworks and never returned home. Now that I have said his name, it will be written down and recorded in Hansard , and his name will live on forever. Today we are joined in the Gallery by Kenny’s wife Sally and his son Kian, who are determined that no other family should go through what they have been through. In the light of this, does the Leader of the House agree with them that we should do all we can to keep people safe at work, and that health and safety is not red tape, bureaucracy or a barrier to growth, but what keeps people safe at work? In the name of Kenny, his community, his workplace and his family, we should strengthen our laws so that this never happens again.

• 12 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Reform-led North Northamptonshire council has just announced that it is increasing school transport costs from £795 to £965 a year. That £170 increase—an increase of over 20%—is unaffordable for families. It comes from a council that promised lower costs for families, that failed to have its books signed off and that has received a groundbreaking real-terms increase in its settlement from this Government. Does the Leader of the House agree that North Northamptonshire council should reverse this unacceptable, uninformed and unaffordable decision?

• 12 Mar 2026 · Postal Delivery Services · Hansard source

  More

  15. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of postal delivery services.

• 12 Mar 2026 · Postal Delivery Services · Hansard source

  More

  Quality of service in the Royal Mail has been at shocking levels over recent years. Considering that Royal Mail is legally obliged to deliver a universal service and keep our communities connected, will the Minister join me in calling on Royal Mail’s owners to honour their agreement, end the two-tier workforce, and bring new entrants’ terms and conditions up to the same standard as those of substantive Royal Mail employees? Fifty per cent of new entrants are leaving the service within a year, which is leading to a decimation in the quality of service.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation · Hansard source

  More

  I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is not just the customers who are rightly angry; it is postal workers as well, because they take pride in their job and the service they give. The last time I was in Corby delivery office, six deliveries never went out that day. The time before that, a postal worker volunteered to cover his own delivery on his day off. He was told that he could not, and when he went back in the day after, the work was still there; the delivery had not gone out. We now have a two-tier workforce, which is leading to a recruitment and retention crisis, and it is a standing joke in the job that the quickest way to get a letter delivered is to put it inside a parcel. Does the Minister agree that instead of Royal Mail imposing top-down changes by people who have never done the job before, it should listen to its workforce, sit down with the union and sort this mess out?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This has been an incredible debate. I pay tribute to those who have felt able and courageous enough to share their personal circumstances with the House, and to the campaigners in the Public Gallery who have come along to hear a debate that will help make a success of their campaigns. I go back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) said: no Second Reading, no Bill. If we want to keep the good bits, we have to keep the Bill. If we want to change the bits that my hon. Friend mentioned, we have to give the Bill its Second Reading and get it into Committee. That is probably what we should do. I was a magistrate for 20 years. I stood down in 2023, when I was selected as the candidate for Corby and East Northamptonshire. The case for reforming our justice system has been made. Every time a victim waits months for justice, they are being failed, and trust is lost. Justice delayed is justice diminished. I thank the Minister for spending some time with me, to discuss this issue. I welcome many of the things that we spoke about, including bringing the number of magistrates back up to previous levels. To bring down the backlog, we might have to look at the number of court buildings that the last Government closed, because once a magistrates court is full, it is full. The courthouse in my constituency was closed, along with our police station. Kettering lost its courthouse, as did Daventry and Towcester. The reality is that justice no longer feels close to our people. I have some concerns, which I spoke to the Minister about, but let me come back on a couple of points. First, the amendment of the official Opposition talks about people’s right to elect which court they go to; if they are in a magistrates court, they can elect to go to Crown court. I was magistrate for 20 years and I never saw one person do that, because there are consequences: a judge in a Crown court has greater sentencing powers than a magistrates court. To those howling about this ability being taken away, I say this: in Scotland, defendants cannot elect what court they go to; the court decides that, so I do not see much wrong with that proposal. Concerns have been raised, both today and previously, about defendants causing delays. I did not really see much evidence of that, but I do not see a need to stand in the way of the changes being proposed. The constitutional right to trial exists for offences with a sentence of more than three years, but we need to look at that, because that was not what Leveson recommended. There are various other concerns that I have expressed, but let me say this to those who do not want any change at all: that position is not acceptable for victims, workers in the sector, or our constituents. Our system must deliver justice that is fair, timely and trusted. There are those who think that today is the end of the process. I have seen people saying, “This is D-day”, or “Today, MPs are going to scrap this, that and the other.” That is not the case. This is Second Reading. Once the Bill passes its Second Reading, as I think it will, we can start to look into the detail, and make the changes that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East mentioned. I believe that there should be some changes, and I believe that is the view of Members from across the House. I hope that the Government will work with colleagues across the House to produce a Bill that Members can feel comfortable supporting, that strengthens trust in our justice system, and that delivers justice for victims.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Postal Services: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to be part of this debate, Mr Stringer. I will begin by declaring my interest. I started at Royal Mail in 1986 on an apprenticeship. I have walked the rounds, sorted the frames and stood up for postal workers, prior to coming to Parliament, but I have never seen postal services in such a crisis as today. Some of that is structural, but apart from that, it is to do with the workforce. I have been to see them on many occasions and morale is down. They want to deliver the service that the customer demands, but they are being prevented due to cost-cutting exercises throughout Royal Mail. That is what needs to stop. Last week, nationally, Royal Mail delivered just 76% of first-class quality and 86% of second-class quality. Those are not abstract numbers, as has been said. They are missed hospital appointments, missed legal deadlines and missed chances to pay bills on time. Workers are telling me that they will have a scheduled day off during the week, say a Wednesday, but when they walk back into work on Thursday, all their Wednesday work is still there and they now have to deliver it with their Thursday work. They are then told, “You’re not getting any extra time to do it.” That leads to delay after delay, which is impacting our communities. I have had representations from Oundle, Thrapston, Raunds, Stanwick and Corby telling me about the problems that people are having. I have to say: the quickest way to get a letter delivered is to put it inside a parcel. That is the fact of the matter, because Royal Mail is prioritising parcels for delivery, which also has to stop. People deserve a service. This is a service—a unique service. It keeps our communities connected, and it has a legal obligation, under the universal service obligation, to make sure that is done. Another problem is cherry-picking from the competition. Final-mile delivery is the most expensive part. Competitors will go in, pick up the bulk mail, spread it and sort it, and then give it back to Royal Mail and say, “You deliver it, because we can’t afford to do that—there ain’t no money in it.” In addition, they take parcels, give them to Royal Mail and say, “You deliver the final mile,” because they cannot afford to do that in rural areas. Either that has to stop, or those private companies can start paying towards the universal service obligation, so that we can protect services for people and make sure that all those accessing that service do so on the basis that they are paying towards it. Postal workers want to deliver the service that customers want. They want to serve their neighbours and their communities. But they can do that only with fair and honest discussion and with harmonised conditions, working together as one organisation, and with workers treated with dignity. That is how we are going to deliver and take Royal Mail into the future.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  First, I want to take us back, because this debate is being pitched as if those who are not in work are getting something that is being paid for by those in work—that ain’t the case, and it is wrong to suggest it. I will tell the House what the problem is: the scar of in-work poverty that was left on our economy. I came into politics to reduce child poverty. Children do not choose their circumstances. They are not to blame for low wages. They are not to blame for insecure work. They are not to blame for their parents’ pay packets, yet they are the ones who feel the consequences the most. A child’s chances should not depend on their parents’ wages. A child’s future should not depend on whether mum or dad has a bad boss or a bad year. That is why I was proud when the Government announced this policy, which will lift 450,000 children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament. That includes over 3,000 children in Corby and East Northamptonshire. That is not just a statistic. It is 3,000 children; it is 3,000 lives; it is 3,000 futures and 3,000 chances. Members should not let anyone tell them that this is not about values, because it is. When we announced that we would put a tax on mansions, the Tories on the Opposition Benches were growling at us and telling us we could not do that, and now they are sitting there today telling us we should not be lifting 450,000 children out of poverty. This is all about values and where we stand. This issue tells us everything we need to know about the priorities of the Opposition parties: they will fight for their cheaper mansions but not for children who go to bed hungry. And then there is Reform. Reform Members try to present themselves as the voice of working people, but when it comes to it, they vote against working families, they vote against employment rights, and they are voting against this Bill. Their amendment to the Bill says that they disagree with removing the two-child limit because it “fails to incentivise work” for low-paid families, but that is not people cheating the system or people taking advantage. That is working people kept in low pay by a system that the Conservatives built—a system that Reform now defends. Work should be the route out of poverty, not into a lifetime trapped in it for children or their families. That is why this Government have chosen to back working families. That is why this Government have chosen to back children. That is why this Government are choosing fairness, and that is why Parliament should back this Bill.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Magistrate Recruitment · Hansard source

  More

  5. What steps his Department is taking to recruit magistrates.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Magistrate Recruitment · Hansard source

  More

  Back in 2004, I became a magistrate—a position that I held for 20 years. When I first walked into the magistrates’ retiring room, I thought everybody in there had retired, because I brought the average age down by about 30 years. That shows that the position is a commitment—people serve for years—and how hard it can be to get younger people involved. First, what is the Department doing to properly recognise and reward long-serving magistrates who keep the system going? Secondly, what is being done to bring in more young justices of the peace, so that magistrates better reflect the communities that they serve?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q12. For too long, many of my constituents have not had access to good, secure, well-paid jobs. We made a commitment in our manifesto that we would change that. We cannot grow an economy based on insecure work where, from one week to the next, somebody does not know how many hours they will work or how much money they will be paid. Does the Prime Minister agree that all workers should have the hours that they actually work reflected in their contract so that we can give all working people the security to plan their finances and their lives and to build a future for themselves and their family?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am proud to have secured a £20 million investment in the “pride of Corby” project—that is £2 million a year every year for the next 10 years—but it is crucial that local communities determine how and where the investment is spent. Does my hon. Friend agree that the money must be spent on exactly what the community actually wants, with residents properly consulted and local people as the decision makers?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Quarries: Planning Policy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve, Dr Murrison. Back in October, I went to Laxton and met with the parish council, a fine bunch of people. One of the main issues was the impact of the nearby Wakerley quarry. People turned up because it is affecting their homes and their lives. Residents told me about blasting, the noise, and cracks appearing in their houses. In older homes especially, people said their houses actually shake. I have met residents since that meeting; they have complained to Mick George, which runs the quarry, and to Burghley, which owns the site, but they feel ignored. Their complaints have not been dealt with. I am trying to get a meeting with Mick George and when I raised the issue with North Northamptonshire council, I was told that everything is being reported properly and no action is needed. Here is the problem: when planning permission was granted, people were given all sorts of promises about monitoring and limits. When what is on paper and what residents experience are so far removed from each other, we have to rethink what we are doing. We may need quarries to build the homes of the future, but companies have a duty to be good neighbours. Being a good neighbour is not about reports and assurances; it is about listening and doing the right thing. I will continue to seek those meetings to ensure that the residents of Laxton are heard. In the meantime, I suggest that those companies and those that run the site do the right thing by their people and their neighbours.