Adrian Ramsay MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 6 May 2025 · Middle East Update · Hansard source

  More

  As we have heard, the Netanyahu Cabinet has approved an illegal plan to expand its military offensive to capture and occupy all of Gaza. That will put 1 million children at acute risk of starvation, epidemic disease and death, with the deliberate blockade of food and essential supplies. Does the Minister deny that that constitutes genocide in real time? When did he last assess the real risk that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Spring Statement · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor knows that our economy has been driven to the edge over the past 15 years, with ordinary people forced to bear the burden while a small minority have amassed extreme wealth. She could change that. Her own Back Benchers are lining up to argue for a wealth tax. Why will she not do the fair and right thing and introduce a tax on the very wealthiest, rather than launching austerity 2.0 and removing vital support from disabled and ill people?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Requiring developers to include solar panels in all new homes and buildings would be extremely popular with the public and help deliver net zero targets. Can the Secretary of State give an update on his discussions with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, including those on mandatory solar as part of the future homes and buildings standard?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Today, I will concentrate on the important arguments for new clause 34 and amendment 173. New clause 34 would extend the provision of free school lunches to all primary school children. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), who tabled this important new clause for consideration in Committee, with the backing of 42 hon. Members, and to my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), who moved it. To set the context for new clause 34, the children’s charity Barnardo’s is clear that we are seeing epidemic levels of poverty among children in the UK. Across the country, families are facing a desperate struggle to put food on the table, keep the lights on and heat their homes. Nationally, 4.3 million children are in poverty; in my constituency, 3,920 children are growing up in poverty—that is 21% of children. This shocking state of affairs was a political choice made by the previous Government and those who backed austerity, and we should not repeat it. The No Child Left Behind campaign, which underpins new clause 34, is backed by more than 250 civil society leaders, from unions to charities, medical bodies to faith leaders and mayors to councils. This widespread backing is unsurprising because the case for universal free school meals is overwhelming. The need for free school meals is acute. We all remember Marcus Rashford igniting the campaign during the pandemic, pointing out that we could fill 27 Wembley stadiums with the 2.5 million children who did not know where their next meal might come from. The shameful legacy of child poverty continues. Poverty is embedded, with research from the University of Bristol showing that one in five schools run a food bank—a figure that is, I am told, even higher than the number of community food banks operated outside schools by the Trussell Trust and the Independent Food Aid Network combined. The National Education Union has explained that its members see the struggles of children in poverty every day, with 80% of teachers asked saying that they have provided food for hungry children out of their own pockets. One NEU member said: “So many of our children arrive tired and hungry. I find the issue with food so awful. I stock my school kitchen every week with fruit, cereal, milk, biscuits….the number of children who pop in to see me and then ask for food has grown over the last 2 years. It is heart breaking.” A universal approach is the best policy for three key reasons. First, it is good for children. Universal provision helps children learn, grow and thrive in school. For example, research published in November 2024 evaluating London’s roll-out of free school meal provision to all children attending primary state schools found that the policy helped children’s readiness to learn and ability to concentrate. The Department for Education’s evaluation of the pilot undertaken by the last Labour Government found that pupils in schools where all children received free school meals were found to have made four to eight weeks’ more progress in maths and English over two years. In that pilot, the poorest children made the most progress, reducing the attainment gap. In areas with means-tested provision, the effect on the attainment gap was negligible. On the health benefits, research published by the British Medical Journal found that less than 2% of packed lunches met school food standards, so this policy is a major opportunity to increase healthy eating. It would also reduce stigma and shame, giving pupils a better sense of belonging in schools. Means-tested provision leads to children feeling singled out and labelled as poor, impacting on their enjoyment of and engagement with school. Secondly, providing free school meals for all is an effective investment. The evidence shows that universal systems reduce inequality and deliver economic prosperity beyond the classroom. A cost-benefit analysis of expanding free school meals by PricewaterhouseCoopers shows that for every £1 invested in universal free school meals, £1.71 is generated in core benefits, such as increased savings for the NHS and schools and increased lifetime earnings and contributions for young people. Other expert research shows that the provision of universal free school meals increases pupils’ lifetime earnings, with the biggest increase being for the most disadvantaged children, thereby reducing inequalities for a generation beyond school. Work by the Food for Life partnership demonstrates that when food is sourced sustainably, more than £3 in social, economic and environmental value can be created for every £1 spent, mostly in the form of new jobs in the local economy. Thirdly, universal provision is more efficient. We know that providing free school meals helps end a situation where children fall through the gaps. Means-testing will always miss some children and families. In England, the draconian eligibility criteria mean that one in three children living in poverty are considered too well off to access free school meals. Restrictive eligibility, complicated registration processes and stigma also block countless families from accessing support. Universal systems are also more efficient, because they massively reduce administration. By putting an end to means-testing children for food, schools get back administration time, as all children’s meals will be funded together via one mechanism. Free school meals for all also eradicate problems of school lunch debts. Universal policies are also easier to defend and protect from erosion by future Governments who may seek to freeze thresholds or restrict eligibility. In the UK, Wales and London are leading the way in providing free, universal, healthy meals at lunchtime for every child in primary school as a means of reducing inequality—not just in school but for entire lifetimes. England needs to catch up. I sincerely hope that the Minister will consider building on the excellent progress on breakfast clubs contained in the Bill. New clause 34 makes the case for free school meals for all primary school children, but I want to be clear that I and my party support the extension of this policy to all children in school, because hunger does not stop at the age of 11. I hope to divide the House on this vital new clause, which builds on the excellent breakfast club provision. I urge all hon. Members to vote for the new clause, because we know that children cannot learn when they are hungry and that free school dinners for all is a winning policy for the economy, for families and for children. I turn briefly to amendment 173, on local authority consent for the withdrawal of certain children from school. Home education is an option that works extremely well for some families, and indeed many children thrive in this environment. Nevertheless, for vulnerable children, there can be real dangers in dropping out of sight of public agencies. The Bill already rightly mandates that if a local authority has live child protection concerns about a child, because they are suffering or are likely to suffer significant harm, then their parent must obtain the consent of the local authority to withdraw the child from school. Our amendment would extend that mandate to children for whom the local authority has previously had concerns and taken action under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 in order to safeguard and promote their welfare. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, supported by the Children’s Charities Coalition, has called for this strengthening of the Bill’s protections to safeguard the most vulnerable children, for whom withdrawing from school poses a risk to their safety and welfare. Last year, the child safeguarding practice review panel published its analysis of serious case reviews involving children who have died or suffered serious harm because of abuse and neglect. Those children were not in school at the time, under the proviso of receiving an education at home. Of the 41 serious case reviews, 23 of the children —over half—were previously known to children’s social care, including being subject to a child protection plan prior to the incident. Under clause 25 as it stands, such children would not be safeguarded, which I am sure is not the Government’s intention. I therefore urge the Minister to seriously consider amendment 173 as a proportionate and necessary safeguarding measure.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. and learned Gentleman is making an extremely powerful case about righting an injustice and about the importance for our parliamentary system of following the recommendations of an ombudsman. Does he agree that the Government revisiting this issue will strengthen our democracy? We have heard just how strong the cross-party consensus is; notably, that includes many Labour Members, as well as Members of other parties, referring to the pledges we made in the election. Is that not why it is so important that the Government think again to restore faith in democracy?

• 13 Mar 2025 · NHS England Update · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. We all want to see a well-run NHS that delivers for patients, but as he knows, patients are being treated in corridors, staff are severely overstretched and too many people cannot get access to a GP or a dentist when they need one. In that context, I was concerned to read in the media last week that there are plans for £7 billion of cuts to services, and for ICBs to be asked to cut costs by 50%. Can he reassure us that, as we go into the new financial year, we will not see cuts to frontline services? When I meet the chief executive of Norfolk and Waveney ICB next week, will I hear that cuts to frontline services are being considered as a result of Government budgets?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Housing Development Planning: Water Companies · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady makes an eloquent and moving case about the impact of inadequate sewerage systems on residents moving into new properties. Does she agree that there is also a need for a stronger regulatory system for the supply of fresh water? In my constituency we have a water management zone, which prevents new businesses, such as a brewer I spoke to recently, from expanding. At some times of the year, there is too much water, and at other times, there is too little. Does the hon. Lady agree that more effort needs to be put into strategies to manage the supply of fresh water, as well as the issues she raises?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  On behalf of the Green party, I welcome the Prime Minister’s strong support for Ukraine, his work for peace and his commitment that there should be no decisions about Ukraine without Ukraine. However, given the scenes that we saw in the Oval Office on Friday, which people across the country will have been aghast at, given the bullying tactics of President Trump, and given the fact that Trump clearly views this as a business opportunity, how will the Prime Minister ensure that the interests of Ukraine remain front and centre in the peace deals?

• 24 Feb 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. It is indeed important that we have cross-party support across this House, standing in solidarity with Ukraine and being clear that Ukraine must be front and centre of the peace talks that must take place, but it is deeply disturbing to hear some of the comments from President Trump, including the absurd claim that Zelensky is a dictator and the ridiculous suggestion that Ukraine started the war. Therefore, when the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister go to Washington later this week, will they make it clear to President Trump that Ukraine must be at the centre of these peace talks and that the Ukrainian people have an absolute right to self-determination?

• 5 Feb 2025 · English Devolution and Local Government · Hansard source

  More

  I am a strong supporter of genuine devolution of funding and powers, but when the Deputy Prime Minister says that she wants to devolve power from Whitehall to the town hall, my constituents are concerned that it could in practice mean centralising power from local communities to remote county halls. Can she confirm that the Government will not impose huge remote unitary county councils if that is against the wishes of local residents, and how can she justify cancelling local elections when the county councillors last elected in 2021 have no mandate to lead on negotiating changes that are expected to last half a century?

• 5 Feb 2025 · High Street Retailers · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister rightly talks about the importance of supporting small and independent businesses. One thing that those businesses rely on is having access to banking, but banks are closing, which has a particular impact in rural communities. For example, my constituents have lost Barclays in Harleston and this year are due to lose Lloyds in Halesworth and Beccles. Will the Minister outline the progress that the Government are making on their pledge to roll out far more banking hubs so that local communities and businesses keep access to banking in their market towns and areas?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Solar Farms: Agricultural Land · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Solar Farms: Agricultural Land · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the principles that the Minister is setting out, particularly on the impact of climate change on food security. Every model of net zero energy that I have seen includes a greater role for renewable energy on land, but is there not a risk that without a clear land use strategy that shows how we will achieve a resilient food supply while meeting net zero targets, decisions about where solar farms are located will end up getting made on a piecemeal basis, rather than the basis that the Minister is setting out?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Airport Expansion · Hansard source

  More

  Globally, half of aviation emissions are a result of flights taken by the wealthiest 1%. In the UK, 70% of flights are taken by the richest 15%. Is expanding aviation capacity not a matter of fairness? It will facilitate the very richest, who are already frequent flyers, to be able to fly more, while the noise, carbon emissions and air pollution impacts will be inflicted on the most ordinary people in society, including the poorest at home and around the world.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Agricultural Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  Diolch yn fawr—thank you—to the hon. Member for giving way. Farmers in my constituency say to me that their problem is the threshold. The on-paper values of their farms—often several million pounds, even if the farmer makes no actual surplus income from the farm—would take them well into being caught by this policy. But the current situation is not working either, because non-farmers bought up more than half the farms and estates sold on the open market in England in 2023. One local farmer told me that a 350-acre farm in Suffolk was bought by a merchant banker from London who had not even seen the farm and was clearly not intent on farming. Does the hon. Member agree that although we need the Government to increase the threshold, those arguing for the status quo are not doing farmers justice either?

• 22 Jan 2025 · Education, Health and Care Plans · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the work that the Minister is doing to address this issue and that there are no quick fixes, but given the terrible cases we have heard today—I have constituent who had to wait two years for an assessment, which spanned the whole length of their GCSE courses—does she agree with those who point out that the funding allocated so far will, given council debts, hardly touch the sides in terms of the SEND capacity that is needed?

• 22 Jan 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Expanding London’s airports and building a third runway at Heathrow would be incredibly irresponsible in the midst of a climate emergency, flying in the face of the Climate Change Committee’s advice. The Prime Minister clearly knows that, because he and seven Cabinet colleagues voted against a third runway at Heathrow in 2018. Will he confirm his position?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to correct the record following my intervention on the New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill on Friday. I said: “Regulations were due to come into force in 2016 that would have required all new homes to have zero carbon standards. Those regulations were scrapped by the coalition Government.” —[ Official Report , 17 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 631.] In fact, regulations that would have required all new homes to have zero carbon standards were due to come into force in 2016, but they were watered down by the coalition Government in 2014, and the requirement for all new homes to have zero carbon standards was scrapped. What was left of the watered-down regulations was subsequently scrapped by the following Conservative Government in 2015.

• 17 Jan 2025 · New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; my former colleagues at the MCS Foundation have provided research in support of the Bill. I want to pick up on the hon. Gentleman’s point about timescales, because in my experience this issue is the one that is raised most commonly by residents wanting to see action. Why on earth, they say, are new homes being put up without solar panels on them? Time is of the essence, but is it not the case that we have already lost many opportunities to progress? Regulations were due to come into force in 2016 that would have required all new homes to have zero carbon standards. Those regulations were scrapped by the coalition Government. [ Official Report , 21 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 976.] (Correction) [Hon. Members: “No, they weren’t.”] The briefing I have had says that they were scrapped in 2014. [ Interruption. ] Either way, I am pleased to see cross-party support today to press ahead with this proposal at speed. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that speed is of the essence here to ensure that homes are not being put up without solar panels?

• 16 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for the new clause. We all recognise the situation he describes. In East Anglia, planned housing growth over the coming decades outpaces available water resources. In my constituency, we already have a water resource zone in Hartismere where business operations and planned business growth are being restricted by the water available. He is addressing some of the important points about water companies’ being able to take responsibility, but do we not also need a joined-up approach? The planning system must be used to address the issues by means of stricter water efficiency requirements, sustainable drainage systems and housing plans that are realistic given the available natural resources. Is there not a problem with just putting the ball in the water companies’ court, rather than taking a more joined-up approach?

• 16 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  For several decades, the water companies have been able to profit from failure. There is a strong groundswell of opinion among the public, across political persuasions, that real action must be taken and that if there has been real failure, water companies must not just be allowed to carry on operating in the private sector. I welcome the hon. Member’s amendment; mutual ownership is clearly one alternative model. Does he agree that full public ownership is another option that should be investigated in these circumstances?

• 16 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for the helpful clarification that the Cunliffe review will consider ownership models, including those that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has advocated. Will the Minister clarify why the Government are not permitting the Cunliffe review to consider full public ownership as one of the options? Why would they not allow an open assessment of all the potential options, especially given that, as we have heard, public ownership is so common in countries around the world for what is a natural monopoly?

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I reiterate my apologies for not being able to be present at the Committee last week due to illness. I am pleased to be here today to speak to new clause 1, which would clarify that water companies may be subject to special administration measures should companies be guilty of significant and sustained environmental breaches. I commend the commitments the Minister made during last Thursday’s sitting that the legislation will have a meaningful impact to ensure that water companies deliver for customers and for the environment. That echoes the Secretary of State’s pledge to the House in December to bring to the water sector “reform that puts customers and the environment first.” —[ Official Report , 16 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 78.]

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her response. I appreciate that special administration would only happen in extreme cases. We have, however, repeated failures and neglect, including on environmental performance, from a number of water companies. That is why I wanted to make the provision explicit in the Bill that environmental neglect could be a reason for special administration. I take her point that there are reviews and wider plans underway. Although I am happy not to push this to a vote at this stage, I will take a close interest in how the situation progresses. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 2 Establishment of Water Restoration Fund (1) The Secretary of State must, within 60 days of the passing of this Act, make provision for the establishment, operation and management of a Water Restoration Fund. (2) A Water Restoration Fund is a fund— (a) into which any monetary penalties imposed on water companies for specified offences must be paid, and (b) out of which payments must be made for expenditure on measures— (i) to help water bodies, including chalk streams, achieve good ecological status, and improve ecological potential and chemical status; (ii) to prevent further deterioration of the ecological status, ecological potential or chemical status of water bodies, including chalk streams; (iii) to enable water-dependent habitats to return to, or remain at, favourable condition; (iv) to restore other water-dependent habitats and species, especially where action supports restoration of associated protected sites or water bodies. (3) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, list the specified offences for the purposes of this section, which must include— (a) any relevant provisions of the Water Resources Act 1991, including— (i) section 24(4) (unlicensed abstraction or related works or contravening abstraction licence); (ii) section 25(2) (unlicensed impounding works or contravening impounding licence); (iii) section 25C(1) (contravening abstraction or impounding enforcement notice); (iv) section 80 (contravening drought order or permit); (v) section 201(3) (contravening water resources information notice); (b) any relevant regulations under section 2 of the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 (regulation of polluting activities etc) related to water pollution; (c) regulations under section 61 of the Water Act 2014 (regulation of water resources etc). (4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. (5) The provisions in this section replace any existing provision for the sums received for specified offences, including in section 22A(9) of the Water Industry Act 1991 (penalties).— (Dr Hudson.) Brought up, and read the First time .

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.