Allison Gardner MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. Severn Trent customers in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire have seen their bills rise by 22% this year, and they are expected to rise by a further 47% by 2029. At the same time, Severn Trent reported pre-tax profits of £320 million in the last financial year, and the company’s long-term incentive plan could raise the chief exec’s annual remuneration to a staggering £3.1 million. In 2024, Severn Trent was responsible for more than 300 pollution incidents, and in 2023 the company was responsible for over 60,000 sewage overflows. People living on Paddock Rise in Trentham recently had to deal with the most appalling situation of having raw sewage in their street, presenting a serious public health risk. I have raised many times the challenges faced by the village of Upper Tean, including constant flooding, blown manhole covers, the children’s playground and the recreation ground being flooded with sewage water, and dead rivers with no fish. New developments are creating additional challenges. Although water companies are consulted on planning applications, they are under no statutory obligation to ensure that they upgrade their mains infrastructure to meet increasing demand. Developers meet obligations, as they should; water companies should also do so— especially if we intend to build 1.5 million homes. It is fundamentally wrong that my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South are facing higher water bills and poor services, while profits are siphoned off into the pockets of shareholders and chief execs. Basic necessities that we all need to survive should not be privatised and subject to profit incentives. Water is a basic human right. Our water should be under public ownership, not “control”, whatever that means—I would appreciate it if the Minister could provide clarity on the difference—and we need to listen to the 208,000 people who signed the petition. We need a water renationalisation plan now, and ownership of our water to be returned back to the people of this country and out of the hands of shareholders—owned by us and run for us.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This Government aim to shift the focus from treatment to prevention, and it is in that spirit that I have tabled new clauses 90 and 91, which would strengthen the frameworks around health inequalities and address the wider determinants of health. New data from Health Equals reveals a shocking reality: there is a gap of up to 18 years in life expectancy between different parts of the UK, and indeed between nearby neighbourhoods. Health Equal shows that in my constituency just a golf course separates two areas with an average life expectancy gap of eight years and 11 months. Reaching old age is somewhat of an aspiration in my more deprived areas. Indeed, in the most deprived communities people spend an average of just 52 years in good health. The stark inequalities are driven not only by healthcare, but by the wider determinants of health, including poverty, housing, education, employment and the environment. Within Stoke-on-Trent, healthy life expectancy at birth has fallen by 6.6% for men in the last decade. For women, the picture is even worse, with a 9.6% fall in healthy life expectancy to just 53.5 years over the past 10 years. This Bill represents a real opportunity to enshrine in law a statutory duty for the Secretary of State to go beyond reducing inequalities in NHS access and outcomes, and to reflect wider cross-Government goals for health improvement. Our health is shaped by the world around us—the food we eat, the money in our pockets, the air we breathe and the home we live in. In other words, every part of Government has an opportunity to influence people’s health. The purpose of new clause 90 is to ensure that the Government take greater responsibility for improving the nation’s health. That includes mitigating any increase in health inequalities, such as those seen in my constituency. The new clause would make improving health a duty, placing prevention on the same footing as treatment. But a stronger duty alone is not enough. That is why new clause 91 would require the Government to publish a new health improvement and inequality strategy within six months. The strategy would include long-term targets for adults and children, public reporting on progress, a duty on Ministers across Government to have regard to the strategy, and independent accountability arrangements. The Minister, who has worked very hard on the Bill—I commend her for her engagement—has alluded to the fact that pre-existing guidance and processes are in place, and these are designed to tackle health inequalities, and she is right. However, I argue that they are clearly not working, because health inequality has increased. I ask again what the harm would be of embedding this duty in the Bill to tackle the most fundamental issue in health across England: health inequalities. These amendments have cross-party support, and I note that they are also supported by the Health and Social Care Committee. I thank Health Equals for its work on these amendments. Again, I thank the Minister for her engagement and urge the Government to consider accepting these new clauses. I will briefly mention new clause 109, which also stands in my name. It was written by myself and Haris Shuaib, with whom I worked on the standard BS 30440 and a validation framework for the use of AI within healthcare. I previously worked with the AI and digital regulations service for NHS England, working with NICE, the MHRA, the CQC and the Health Research Authority. In the interests of time, I will say that in that duty I identified a number of accountability and regulatory gaps that certainly need further addressing. I ask that the Minister responsible for health tech meets me so that we can discuss these further. They partner quite well with new clause 108, which I had not spotted, so I apologise for not signing the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne).

• 4 Sept 2026 · Infants, Parents and Carers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree. I have never experienced it myself, but I live in awe of how women keep managing to go, day to day, having had that experience. After fighting for answers, Ashley finally achieved an independent review, which identified missed opportunities to detect and treat Chloe’s NEC earlier, alongside multiple instances of sub-optimal care. That review came after four earlier investigations, fought for by Ashley, that, by the trust’s own admission, had not been conducted to the required standard. Finally, the Royal Stoke hospital has accepted the independent review and its conclusions in full. It has apologised to Chloe’s family and acknowledged that Chloe most likely would have survived had those opportunities to detect and treat her NEC not been missed. This is devastating, because at the heart of this case is a mother who knew that something was wrong; a mother who should have been listened to, and a baby girl fighting to live. I must state that the Royal Stoke has made considerable improvements to its maternity services in recent years. At the time of Chloe’s short life, the maternity service was rated as requiring improvement, with safety rated as inadequate. However, after much work, self-reflection, culture change and process improvements, the service is now rated good. I had the honour of visiting and seeing the work of the amazing midwives. I commend the hospital for turning things around.

• 4 Sept 2026 · Infants, Parents and Carers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have spoken in this House before about Stoke’s rates of infant mortality, which consistently rank among the highest in the country. In the latest data, the infant mortality rate in Stoke-on-Trent was 7.6 deaths per 1,000 live births, almost double the national average. It is a stain on our society that in 2026 a child’s chances of reaching their first birthday can be influenced by where they are born. Infant mortality is explicitly linked to socioeconomic deprivation and is a consequence of deep-rooted inequality. Tackling our infant mortality rate is a goal that is deeply important to me, and I want to take this opportunity to tell the story of one of my constituents, Ashley Wilshaw—I will get upset—and the short life of her baby daughter, Chloe. It is upsetting, so if anybody who has experienced baby loss wants to step out, I am sure that Madam Deputy Speaker will understand. Chloe was born prematurely, just before 26 weeks, on 28 April 2011. That may sound like a long time ago, but it is not to Ashley. She was, in her mum’s words, “a settled, healthy and happy baby, a baby who knew what she wanted and fought so hard to be here.” As a premature baby, Chloe was at high risk of necrotising enterocolitis, or NEC, a serious bowel condition that can become life-threatening without quick intervention. Chloe had received blood transfusions and had been given formula milk, which are both risk factors for NEC. Chloe began to show signs that something was wrong. She became pale and quiet, her body temperature lowered, her heart rate rose to 200 beats per minute, she struggled to breathe, she began vomiting profusely and she refused feeds. Her abdomen became hard and distended, and blood appeared in her feeding tube—a clear sign of a perforated bowel, which leads to sepsis. Ashley did what any concerned parent should do—she asked questions, but she was not listened to. She was told that the blood was Gaviscon and that Chloe needed to continue being fed and medicated, causing Chloe agony. Ashley still was not listened to. When she persisted in raising concerns about Chloe, one nurse described her as an “over-the-top mother”. Chloe’s symptoms worsened. The investigations that may have identified the problem sooner were not carried out when they could have made a difference. Lactate levels were not checked. Blood gases were not carried out as appropriate. Scans focused narrowly on her lungs, and feeding continued despite signs of feed intolerance. Tragically, little Chloe died on 4 June 2011, aged just 37 days old. Leaving behind a very traumatised mum who, 15 years later, still struggles every day with her mental health to cope with the memory of the unnecessary pain and death of her precious baby girl.

• 4 Sept 2026 · Infants, Parents and Carers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend was with me on that visit, and I am sure he remembers how impressive it was. Importantly, one of the areas highlighted in that service improvement was communication with families and the way that feedback and concerns are now heard and acted upon. Listening to parents is not an optional extra; it is part of delivering safe and effective care. I ask only now, 15 years after Chloe died, that the hospital finally forward the agreed settlement to Ashley. She wants to provide a caravan holiday home by the sea for parents who have experienced the loss of a child, to allow them time to grieve and rest from the trauma. That brings me back to why the Bill matters. It calls for better support, guidance and information for parents and carers. In providing that support, we must recognise that parents know their children best. They know what is normal for their baby. They notice when something is changing. They may not always have the medical vocabulary to explain exactly what is wrong, but their observations are valuable. Their concerns should be acknowledged and considered and, where appropriate, incorporated into the clinical picture. Chloe’s case shows why that matters. Ashley saw that something was wrong; she raised concerns, she asked questions and she should have been listened to. Even while contending with the grief of losing her daughter, Ashley has sought to ensure that another family does not experience what hers did, and to ensure that Chloe’s legacy lives on. Ashley has developed recommendations for dealing with NEC, which show exactly what better support and guidance are needed—practical recommendations grounded in her lived experience. I ask the Minister to meet Chloe’s mother Ashley Wilshaw and me to discuss the recommendations and the lessons that can be learned from Chloe’s case. In the interests of time, I will not go through them now. I will never forget little Chloe Wilshaw or her brave mum Ashley. I hope Ashley has received some comfort from today. She has been listened to. I thank the Bill’s sponsor, the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), for bringing this crucial Bill to the House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson). I am honoured to support the Bill. With it, we may create a brighter future for all our children.