British Industry Supercharger: Ceramics

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Snell]

The sector is also important to my hon. Friends’ constituencies in other parts of Staffordshire.

I will rehearse some of the figures, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course, given that I am a proud MP who represents a brickworks, you will be aware that ceramics offer a multitude of benefits to our economy. The sector employs 20,000 people, generates around £2 billion for our economy, and is responsible for £600 million-worth of exports. One can walk around pretty much any part of the country and come across a ceramic product that is made in the UK, be it bricks, tiles, tableware, or steel that is made using refractory-grade ceramics. I say this often, but I will say it again: we cannot make steel in this country without ceramics, so everything that the sector does contributes towards the greater good of UK plc.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

What strikes me about the support we give to the ceramics sector as a Government is that, while we are making a big commitment—and the right commitment—to give British people homes by delivering 1.5 million houses, we could simultaneously support our bricks industry, and the building sector more widely. Does my hon. Friend agree that while we are backing British, building British and buying British, it is important that we ensure that that sector support comes through from Government?

[Gareth Snell]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who has been pursuing that for a long time. The ceramics industry is a great example of where procurement rules could be geared more towards supporting domestic manufacturing, not least in bricks. If we are going to use Homes England money to subsidise, at cost to the British taxpayer, the building of the homes we need in this country, we should insist that the companies that build them are buying their bricks from British manufacturers. It is a circular economy, it is good for our environment, and bricks have a long-term life of over 150 years—much better than timber and cladding.

Oral Answers to Questions

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

This Government are investing record amounts in the transition to renewable energy. We need to break the dependence on fossil fuels that our country has been forced into by the Conservative party. We will do so by creating wealth, jobs and businesses in the meantime.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

T4. In Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, 12.6% of the workforce, which is nearly 5,000 people, work in logistics and contribute about £400 million to our national economy. However, with over 85% of UK fulfilment warehouses expected to be automated by 2030, many of these jobs will face significant changes. Please can the Secretary of State tell me what assessment the Government have made of the impact of automation on working communities, and what support will be available to help communities such as mine?

[Peter Kyle]

I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend’s really important question. As I have said throughout this session, we are investing in young people and people in work, so they can adapt to the changes happening in the economy because of the transition to digital technology, particularly with AI. We are providing flexible support through bursaries for younger learners and learner support funding for adults. Do not forget the work that Business and Trade Ministers are doing jointly with the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to ensure that people in the workplace are trained and have all the skills they need to thrive in the digital age.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) on securing this incredibly important debate.

This issue is the reason I got into politics in the first place. My first community activism was with my fellow neighbours against an unscrupulous developer up in Newcastle. What I learnt from that is that when people are trapped in their own homes by systems which have been designed to extract money from them rather than serve them, they need a Government who are on their side. For too long leaseholders have not had that at all. I am so glad that this Government have taken strong steps already on commonhold and leasehold. There is so much that does need to change.

In the past, as many hon. Members have spoken about today, leasehold has been used as a system that has allowed developers to treat homeowners as a revenue stream: escalating service charges with no breakdown; poor maintenance resulting in unsafe parks; problems with footpaths and dying trees; and to make matters even worse and more insulting, really poor communication from managing agents, which makes it difficult to get your voice heard or your complaint addressed.

On local estates such as Marston Grange, Sancerre Grange and Sheridan Grange, I have worked to help residents register and build residents’ associations, and to raise their cases with managing agents so that they get better maintenance. Working together, we have had some genuinely great results, but for residents on new build estates it should not depend on how active or vocal their local MP is; it should be written into law. I urge the Government to ensure that property managing agents are sufficiently regulated.

I will give the House a couple of examples from my constituency. At my coffee morning last week, a case from Gateway Avenue in Baldwin’s Gate was raised. At their AGM, the residents wanted to form a management company, but they were blocked, and one is being imposed on them against their wishes. On St George’s Estate in Stafford, residents have reported that

“it genuinely feels like the managing agent is stealing money from us”

to the tune of £600 to £1,000 per leaseholder. Their charges have trebled. They now have to pay £2,500 to change the rent review period on their lease to be able to remortgage or sell. As a system, that is deeply unfair. At Deanspark Court, a retirement complex—other hon. Members have spoken about this—residents who own their own flats describe management charges as “extortionate”. The company refuses to engage meaningfully. At Adlington Brooklands House in Stafford, a constituent’s ground rent has risen year on year and now stands at almost £2,000, which is nearly six times the national average. I could go on—and on, and on, Madam Deputy Speaker—but I think I have made my point clear.

The Government have taken bold and decisive steps already in capping ground rents, abolishing forfeiture and making commonhold the default for new flats. Those are really significant reforms, but the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has called the absence of independent regulation of property managing agents a “significant shortcoming”. Every one of my constituents would agree with that.

As far back as 2019, Lord Best recommended an independent regulator with the powers to fine agents and revoke licences. It is now 2026. The case for that has been made consistently, and delivering it would be a tremendous contribution by this Labour Government.

[Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would also give some comfort to my poor residents on both Ribblesdale Avenue in Accrington and Lyndon Park estate in Great Harwood, who are currently faced with the impending truth that FirstPort will shortly be their managing agent? They are rightly terrified about what that might mean for them and what expense it might add, as well as the failure of such organisations to manage local parks and so on. Taking the steps that she mentions will help give my residents confidence that they will have the protections they deserve.

[Leigh Ingham]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Given FirstPort’s record and the number of times that FirstPort has been called to Parliament—it has been called to speak before the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and the “Labour for Leaseholders” group, which has worked really hard—it is an abomination that it is still getting contracts, to be honest. As someone who used to award contracts in my previous career, I think it is mad when previous behaviour is not taken into account when giving out contracts, and FirstPort is a case in point—absolutely atrocious behaviour.

Learning from my own experiences, I am helping constituents on estates across the constituency, as I am sure many hon. Members are, to form residents associations to fight back, but I think we are beyond that. We should not need to be fighting back any more; we should have the regulation in place to protect us.

Steel Tariffs

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

If it was simple, we would do it. Of course, it is not that simple, because, as I have described, the category groupings for steels are much broader than individual grids. There are 20-odd categories, covering a whole range of grids, and that is why the quota size is particularly important. If there are issues with the quotas, we must deal with them. The hon. Gentleman says that he has not had a reply to his letter, for which I apologise on behalf of the Secretary of State. I can assure him that I will get my officials to look into that immediately.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

In my constituency, Xtreme Stainless builds exhaust systems and would always want to buy British steel. The company believes it is better made, and wants to back British jobs and manufacturing, but the owner is watching firms get around the tariffs by sending finished products to the UK, which undermines British manufacturers. Could the Minister please tell me what the Government are doing to close the gap so that the tariffs protect the whole supply chain, not just the first step of it?

[Chris McDonald]

The issue there is category 14, because we want to protect the stainless production that we have in the UK. I am not particularly familiar with exhaust systems manufacturing, but it largely uses flat stainless steel, which we do not make in the UK. As I mentioned, it is about making sure that we have a sufficient quota for that business, so that it does not need to pay the tariff. If my hon. Friend could share the information with me, I would be very grateful.

Private Sector Investment: Lancashire

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to debate Government support for private investment in Lancashire this evening. Lancashire is my home. It is also the home of some of the most powerful innovators that we have in this country. Often, they fly under the radar of both Government and private investors. In many ways, that is because they do not need us. They already have exceptional trade links and supply chains within their own sectors—decades-old business models in multi-generational companies that just work—so they crack on, quietly making money for this country and prosperity for themselves. In some ways, they do not need our help when they have figured it out for themselves for so long, but we need them. We need companies that have drive and that, with Government support and further investment in enabling infrastructure, could do 10 times what they are currently doing for our economy.

As a Labour Government, we are great at helping people who are struggling and who do not have the opportunities they deserve. I am grateful for the millions this Government are investing into Lancashire through Pride in Place projects, which will absolutely improve health and wellbeing—something we have particular need for in our county, where poor health accounts for a significant portion of the productivity gap. But, as a Labour Government, I think we could be more honest with ourselves that while overcoming deprivation is a top priority, growth is a top priority too. We could also be better at recognising where those growth opportunities are.

I think it is fair to say that this Government are pretty convinced by agglomeration economics and by the idea that if we invest in city regions, the wealth will trickle out. But what happens somewhere like Lancashire, where there is already wealth but it has been supported consistently for decades by EU funding and then by the crisis and resilience fund and the shared prosperity fund, all of which have now been removed? It feels shortsighted to pull the rug from under Lancashire’s thriving economy in the hope that some wealth might trickle out from surrounding city regions in 20 years or so.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, particularly around growth in cities and towns, which I am particularly interested in. Over the last 10 years, we have seen growth of around 10% in our cities whereas growth has been around 5% in our towns. Does she agree that if we do not invest in our towns, particularly where they are outside of city regions, we will miss a crucial opportunity to uplift everyone?

[Maya Ellis]

I absolutely agree. As I will come on to, it is about ensuring that we make the most of all areas of our country. Some of those areas already have growth, and we need to ensure that we are expanding the growth that is already there.

Without a proper holistic look at how the Government can support businesses in Lancashire, not only will businesses struggle, but our UK economy will struggle more when we miss out on the huge potential for growth.

I could stand here all night waxing lyrical about how wonderful Lancashire is—our hills, our grand town halls, our coastline, our grit—but I know none of those things speak the language of the Treasury, Government and growth, so I will focus on the numbers and the examples of how the Government have a growth opportunity in Lancashire that they need to not miss.

Lancashire is a £40 billion GVA powerhouse. That makes us the 5th largest economy in the north. As the Minister knows, the current growth narrative for the north is often dominated by our major metropolitan neighbours. While we celebrate their success, any true growth narrative for the north must take non-metropolitan areas into account. At this point, let me be clear: “non-metropolitan” does not mean rural. There is a serious risk of people in Westminster making that mistake.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising Leyland Trucks. He will be aware of some of the procurement advice changes this Government have made, because we are keen to support British industry particularly in areas relating to national security. Thanks to Government support, Leyland Trucks has invested in its assembly lines and is now capable of producing 30 electric trucks per shift for sale both here in the UK and on international markets. It is also building a fully integrated zero-emission battery electric road sweeper. That is funded in part by our DRIVE35 programme, which represents the biggest investment in our car industry since the second world war. Leyland Trucks is vital to our automative sector and the Government’s industrial strategy.

I could highlight some other great investments in Lancashire, including in aerospace, which we heard about from my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley in opening the debate. There are 6,000 jobs being supported at BAE Warton and Samlesbury, thanks to the Typhoon deal that the Government secured with Turkey last year and our wider Typhoon programme. Production and final assembly of each Turkish Typhoon fighter jet will take place at either Warton or Samlesbury as part of that deal. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is in Turkey as we speak, securing more trade opportunities for British industry.

In energy, Lancashire is also playing a critical role in making the UK a clean energy superpower, thanks in no small part to the strength of the nuclear sector in the county. Lancashire is already home to world-leading expertise located at the Springfields and Heysham power stations and we are building on these strengths. This Government are investing in nuclear power, working with the private sector with partners such as LS Electric, to progress an energy storage project at Widow hill. This is helping to balance the grid and keep energy supply stable as more renewable power comes online. I know that there is appetite to do even more in Lancashire, especially with the RedCAT low carbon technology commercialisation accelerator. It has been raised with me by Members previously and I know it is doing good work in bringing cutting-edge low carbon products to market. I am meeting members of the East Lancashire chamber of commerce and my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) soon to discuss this initiative further.

Defence has of course been mentioned strongly, and we are all eagerly anticipating the publication of the defence investment plan, but in addition to the BAE sites I have mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley will be aware that Lancashire is part of the north-west cyber cluster. She mentioned that specifically in her requests for further information and I undertake to write back to her in relation to the six or seven points she raised in detail at the start of the debate.

The Ministry of Defence has made Blackpool and the Fylde College one of just five new defence technical colleges to bring employers across the defence sector together with young people from the area to ensure they can secure roles in engineering, in nuclear and in cyber-security. I know my hon. Friend shares my enthusiasm for creating opportunities for young people in defence, in energy and of course in advanced manufacturing.

In addition to this support, the Department is working with the Office for Investment and local partners to deliver the “Lancashire Growth Plan”, which I would certainly recommend Members from the area become familiar with and carry around Parliament and push under the noses of Ministers, because, as we have heard, growth does not just happen in cities, and not all the places that are classed as not urban are also not rural. That is a strong feature not only of Lancashire but many places in the north-east, including the place that I call home.

These are industrial areas centred around towns and it is good to see a strong pipeline of private sector investment coming forward across Lancashire. We have GVS Filter Technology’s recent £14 million low carbon manufacturing headquarters in Lancaster; a £100-million Eden Project in Morecambe, where Vinci has been appointed as the main contractor; and the Department for Business and Trade has thrown its support behind the recent investment announced by Budweiser, the official sponsor of the FIFA world cup 2026. I do not know whether I am allowed to point that out, but there we are. I believe my hon. Friend joined my ministerial colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), who is responsible for employment rights and consumer protection, in celebrating Budweiser’s £7.8 million investment.

There is another investment that I must mention. Mr Speaker is not here and is of course not able to speak on behalf of his own constituency, but Chorley is also benefiting from TVS Supply Chain Solutions, part of India’s TVS Group and a major UK employer. The group is planning to invest hundreds of millions of pounds in the UK, creating thousands more jobs, including in Chorley. I am aware that senior leaders met my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister during his recent India visit, which will help us secure nearly 7,000 new jobs from Indian investment in the UK.

[Leigh Ingham]

It was interesting to hear the Minister name a number of towns in relation to manufacturing roles. In our towns, we have on average 9% employment in manufacturing, whereas in cities, that figure is 4%. Does the Minister agree that in towns, if we really push our manufacturing sector, we can massively increase the number of good, unionised jobs available to people in those areas?

[Chris McDonald]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. More than that, in the towns I have described and, in fact, in the places across the country where there is manufacturing, it is usually the most productive employment—the most productive economic activity. Of course that is good for the economy, but it is also good for jobs, because the most productive employers offer the higher wages, certainly higher than would be available if those factories were not there. My hon. Friend is quite right; aspects of industrial policy that can centre more manufacturing in towns will provide better employment and improve the standard of living of people who live in those areas.

Boosting economies in those areas also needs to be linked to investment in infrastructure, which is why the northern growth strategy is important—it will ensure that the right transport and infrastructure is in place to attract that business investment. We are making upgrades to the west coast main line, equipping Lancashire combined county authority with £215 million of investment via the local transport grant to help councils deliver transport improvements, including bus lanes, cycleways and congestion-reducing measures for motorists. The Pride in Place programme, which has been mentioned, is providing £5.8 billion over 10 years to rejuvenate many places around the country, including six in Lancashire. We are targeting that investment in the places where it is most needed, breathing new life into high streets, parks and the public realm. Pride in Place funding is also supporting youth clubs, libraries, community grocers, cultural venues, health and wellbeing services, and other local initiatives that make a big difference to local areas, making them both better places to live and more attractive for private investment and the creation of jobs.

Significant work is under way to attract greater private sector investment in Lancashire. After years of Governments under-investing in and, frankly, overlooking industrial communities such as those in the north-west, we have acted decisively to drive growth and regeneration across the county. The reforms we have set out in our industrial strategy are making it easier for Lancashire’s key industries to invest, grow, and succeed in what is a fiercely competitive global market. Our Office for Investment is working hard to bring in more private domestic and international investors to support our high-export, high-productivity firms and back the places where people live.

We are ensuring that Lancashire is placed at the forefront of the Government’s growth mission, while ensuring that growth is seen and felt by local people in local communities. We are an active, interventionist Government, working to drive growth and investment in Lancashire, in the north-west and throughout the country. I am grateful for my hon Friend’s support in that effort, and I am committed to working with her and other Lancashire MPs to ensure we build on that momentum in the weeks and months to come. She said that she could wax lyrical about how wonderful Lancashire is, and indeed it is wonderful. She also said that she wanted to coax more people to Lancashire, and I am sure that with this debate, she has done just that.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

What businesses in Didcot and right across the country need is a fast-growing economy, and that is what we are delivering.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

In my constituency we are seeing good growth in our large employers and a great skills pipeline coming through from our advanced technical college, but we need a little support for our SMEs. Will the Minister say what targeted support is available for SMEs in towns like Stafford?

[Chris McDonald]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about support for small businesses. It is important that their cash flow is protected and that they are paid on time—hopefully my hon. Friend will have noticed the announcement of the Commercial Payments Bill in the King’s Speech, which will give us the strongest legal framework in the G7.

British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I have done more in six months than his Government did in 14 years. If I am not bold, what the heck was his Government?

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for coming to the House to give the statement. I also welcome the expansion of the scheme; I know it is desperately needed across our manufacturing sectors. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) has already highlighted, there is a missing sector, in that ceramics does not feature heavily. It is not just pottery—not that potteries are not very important in Staffordshire—but our brick-making factories need support because as a Government we are committed to building homes. We are also committed to buying British, backing British and building British. How does the Secretary of State intend to support a sector that is a linchpin for our wider economy?

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s thoughtful words. I can assure her that the ceramics sector and the subsectors she mentions are in my mind. I said in my statement that the Chancellor will set out in the near future the approach that we will take for industries that have been put into distress as a result of the action in the middle east—a war that we did not start, but a war that we are having to respond to. I am happy to stay closely in touch with her and the industries for which she is being a magnificent voice to ensure that we get any response right.

Royal Mail: Performance

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) on securing this vital debate. I want to make three points about Royal Mail performance that are of particular concern to my constituents in Glenrothes and Mid Fife, and particularly in the town of Glenrothes.

Despite the fantastic efforts of our local postal workers, there have been significant delays in my constituents receiving mail, particularly over the Christmas period. A major factor in this is the understaffing of our delivery offices. Royal Mail is recruiting additional staff to address local pressures, but it is vital that there is action on recruitment and retention in the service for the longer term. Royal Mail must work with CWU to address the issue of its contracts creating a two-tier workforce.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

Two-tier contracts have been raised in my constituency, with new employees being brought in on poorer terms and conditions. Moreover, the backlog has increased because, when people come back from sick leave, their overtime is cut, which causes real issues in building the backlog and causing staff members to come back to increased workloads. Does my hon. Friend agree that we cannot fix Royal Mail’s problems without fixing these two-tier contracts?

[Richard Baker]

My hon. Friend is completely correct, and as always makes the point eloquently. It is vital that Royal Mail management listen to her and CWU.

The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) was absolutely right about hospital appointments. Appointments letters arriving on the day of the appointment or after the appointment has taken place causes huge distress, as well as inefficiency for our local health services. Unfortunately, in Scotland, we do not have the NHS app enjoyed by colleagues in England, so these deliveries are all the more important, particularly for older people. They are not being prioritised—they are not being sent first or second class, but via an economy method. Royal Mail provides a barcode to prioritise deliveries, but it is not clear that has always been used; I am pursuing that with NHS Fife.

Finally, tougher targets are being set for Royal Mail in the years ahead, and I want to seek reassurance from the Minister that he will work with the Royal Mail and, crucially, the CWU to improve the vital service that the Royal Mail provides—not least with the forthcoming elections in Scotland, in which we will look to Royal Mail to deliver postal votes and electoral communications on time—so that our constituents can have confidence in this vital public service in the coming years.

Social Enterprises and Community Ownership

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh—a different Leigh—and Atherton (Jo Platt) for introducing this important debate. Like her, I am low-key obsessed with towns, so it is a genuine pleasure to speak on the subject.

When we talk about ownership, what we are really talking about is power: the power that communities have over the places they live, the services they rely on and the futures that they want to build. Nowhere in my constituency is that clearer than in the story of a pub called the Oxleathers. In 2023, thanks to the efforts of Highfields and Western Downs community group, the Oxleathers was registered as an asset of community value. That is not an obscure, technical planning designation. In reality, it is an incredibly powerful tool. It means that the community stood up and said, “This place matters to us.”

[Patrick Hurley]

I neglected to declare an interest in my capacity as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the social, co-operative and community economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that all Members at this debate should attend the annual general meeting of the all-party group on Wednesday 25 March at 5.30 pm? Sadly, it will not be in a community pub, but in Room N in Portcullis House.

[Leigh Ingham]

I encourage everyone to attend that meeting.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I am discouraging interventions generally, but that was delightful. Carry on.

[Leigh Ingham]

The Oxleathers is not just a pub; it is a social hub in one of the most deprived areas of Stafford, hosting community events and bringing neighbours together. We do a great local quiz there, and it provides a space where people who might otherwise feel isolated can connect with others. That really matters, because when we talk about regeneration, growth or economic development, we can overlook the simple truth that communities are built around places where people come together. It is those assets that have disappeared over 14 years of austerity. Community enterprises are social infrastructure. They create pride in place, belonging and resilience.

Across Europe, energy security is becoming one of the defining challenges of our time. The events unfolding in the middle east show us how exposed households and businesses are to fossil fuel markets. I want to share an international example that I find interesting. Over the past decade, Spain has invested heavily in renewable energy and community-driven regeneration. That shift has helped to reduce the influence of gas prices on electricity bills and has made the country far less exposed to the volatility of international energy markets. That makes a massive difference, because when communities generate their own energy, they not only reduce emissions but gain control.

That exciting opportunity is now emerging in Highfields and Western Downs, because the Oxleathers—the same community asset that has been saved by local residents—is now likely to play a key role in a community solar energy plan for the area. That community has some of the highest levels of fuel poverty in Stafford. For us, community energy offers a different path. Imagine a local pub, already the heart of a neighbourhood, becoming part of a local energy network where solar generation helps to power community facilities and local ownership means that the benefits stay local. That is what social ownership can do.

We are talking about giving communities the tools to shape their own economic future. If we want towns and villages across the country to thrive, empowering communities through social ownership must be at the heart of our approach.

Commemoration of Matchgirls’ Strike

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) for securing this important debate on a topic that needs a greater light shining on it. I find the debate similarly emotional, having worked with women and girls throughout my career to help them find their voice. The matchgirls used their voice to uplift so much more than just their own fight; they inspired a movement behind them. I do not think that the dockers would have gone on strike the following year without the inspiration of those young women and girls, so I thank my hon. Friend deeply for bringing forward this issue today. I will be incredibly brief, because she has covered everything that needs to be said in great detail.

Without the matchstick girls, we would not have the labour movement and the Labour party that we have today, so their legacy lives on strongly. I am really proud that young people from my summer school have been in the Gallery today. I am doing my first summer school, because one thing that really mattered to me when I got elected was making sure that the door behind me was open for working-class girls and boys. What really matters is that they saw the best of this place today. They were able to witness proceedings in the Chamber, and they were able to speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and hear what someone who had a modest upbringing was able to achieve in life. That inspiration comes directly from the matchgirls, some of whom were as young as 13, who went on strike in a really brave move. They risked so much—their jobs, their pay and their safety—but they were not just fighting for better pay. It was about dignity, and it was about justice for their future and for us, so I thank them deeply for keeping their resistance alive.

Every time any of us speak in here, cast a vote or try to challenge an injustice, we do so not just for today, but for those who will come after us. I think particularly of the members of my summer school, some of whom are just learning about politics and what their voice can achieve. They are spending a week devising a campaign that can change their community, which is my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages.

In closing, I would like to say that if we keep fighting for fairness, we can change the world for today, but also for those who come after us. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow for securing this debate.