Aphra Brandreth MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to clause 41, which brings into sharper focus two pillars of a fair and rights-based mental health system: the provision of clear information to patients and the strengthening of independent mental health advocacy. It rightly recognises that, when a person is detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, often during a period of acute crisis and difficulty in their life, they need to feel that their clinical needs are being met, but in a way that respects them as individuals, with the same entitlements to dignity and agency as any other member of our society. The clause provides for informal patients to be eligible for an independent mental health advocate. I welcome the extension to enable more individuals to access this vital advocacy. It empowers patients to know that independent advocacy is available, but we must ensure that there are sufficient resources so that those who choose this help are given sufficient support when they are in a potentially vulnerable position. As someone representing a constituency that is in England but borders Wales, I also welcome that these changes bring care into line so that advocacy help is offered to informal patients, regardless of which side of the border they are accessing treatment. The clause places a renewed duty on services to ensure that information is given to patients clearly, promptly and in a form that they can understand. It introduces an obligation for advocacy providers to determine, through an interview, whether a qualifying patient wishes to use the service. This support is important; no person should be expected to navigate the complexities of mental health legislation, or their rights under it, without proper guidance. However, where there is a duty “on hospital managers and others to notify providers of advocacy services about qualifying patients”, can the Minister clarify who is meant by “others”? Will there be a list of people and roles who are given this responsibility? The role of an independent mental health advocate is vital. These individuals can be a lifeline. They can help people to understand their rights and any medical treatment, and crucially, can support an individual to have their say about any treatment. Clause 41 rightly reinforces the importance of independent mental health advocates, and it is important that we match that ambition with the legal and practical steps to support them. It is entirely right that we welcome the recognition of the role of independent mental health advocates, who serve a vital function in ensuring that patients’ voices are heard and their views represented, especially when navigating what can be an incredibly complex legal and clinical environment. Their independence is fundamental to not only their effectiveness but the confidence that patients and families can place in the system, which brings me back to my point. It is therefore important that we support independent mental health advocates with the resources that they need to do their job effectively. If we are to rely further on advocates, we need to ensure that they are in a position to deal with that, so that we do not create statutory entitlements that are difficult to act upon. Actions, as well as words, are needed. At present, many areas already struggle with advocacy coverage. If we now place additional expectations on the service, and I believe that we will through this provision, we must ensure that there are sufficient numbers of trained, experienced independent mental health advocates across the country to meet rising demand. Can the Minister reassure the Committee that the necessary people with the skills and training are available to fulfil this expanded role? We must also consider the patients’ experience, as has been the focus of so many of the remarks made in the Committee today. Again, I emphasise the vulnerability of patients at times of crisis. If we are to tell patients that support in the form of an advocate is there for them, we need to ensure that it is accessible and easy to reach and understand. Clause 41 moves us in the right direction, but implementation is everything. It must be backed by local accountability, adequate funding and clear operational guidance. This includes ensuring that all patients, regardless of background, language or capacity, are given support that is appropriate and effective. It is vital to consider the wider implications of this clause. The reinforcement of the independent mental health advocate’s involvement should be mirrored by greater investment in advocacy services, stronger integration with care planning and more regular engagement with patients themselves on how these services work in practice. In our earlier discussions, my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon suggested that we use trials, which could also be considered here to ensure that, as changes are brought in, they are matched by appropriate service levels. I am largely supportive of clause 41, which I think moves us in the right direction towards a transparent mental health system that is there for patients, ensuring that they have a voice and are not an afterthought. As long as it is deliverable in practice, and does not give false hope to patients, the clause strengthens the Bill.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I rise to speak in support of amendments 44 and 45, which have been tabled by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. These amendments seek to put patients at the centre of the Bill by promoting a safe therapeutic environment and recovery from any childhood trauma. Clause 8 provides for a new definition of “appropriate medical treatment”, which requires that treatment to have “a reasonable prospect of alleviating, or preventing the worsening of…a patient’s mental disorder.” Amendment 44 would introduce an additional criterion to the definition of “appropriate medical treatment” by establishing that an appropriate medical treatment should not only address the individual’s immediate health needs, but be designed with the intent to reduce psychological distress and actively support an individual’s recovery from the effects of childhood trauma. This recognises the long-term impact that early, adverse experience can have on mental and emotional wellbeing and ensures that treatment approaches are trauma-informed, compassionate and conducive to long-term improvement. People who present with serious mental health concerns need to know that they are receiving support and care in the right environment. They are at their most vulnerable, and having the confidence in their environment can make a world of difference. That is particularly pertinent for those who have suffered childhood trauma. It is important that we deal with the consequences of mental ill health, and adequately address the root causes. Among these, childhood trauma is one of the most serious and persistent factors contributing to long-term psychological conditions. By supporting this amendment, we would create a more resilient system that is equipped to respond to the reality and prevalence of childhood trauma in our society. I recently met with Alison, who heads up a fantastic organisation called WeMindTheGap. It is based in Wrexham, but it is now moving and expanding to cover parts of my constituency, Chester South and Eddisbury. It does a fantastic job supporting young people who have struggled in the conventional education system, are absent from school or have dropped out of the system. We discussed childhood trauma and the rise in the number of young people not currently in any kind of education. One of the points that Alison made that resonated with me is that absence from school is linked not just to deprivation, but many contributing factors, including difficult domestic situations, isolation and rural isolation. Many of these challenges are the most severe ones linked to childhood trauma, and although there are many wonderful organisations stepping in to support young people at an early stage, for some the impacts of childhood trauma continue to affect psychological wellbeing into adulthood. Sadly, childhood trauma is a societal issue that we face, and it is more common that we might imagine. Therefore, a step to embed trauma-informed care into the legal framework, specifically for childhood trauma, is a step in the right direction. Childhood trauma can lead to self-destructive behaviour in adults. There is, as my hon. Friend pointed out, evidence to show that it is a causal factor. We must recognise the long-term impact of adverse childhood experiences on mental health. This amendment, by adding a new criterion to the definition of “appropriate medical treatment” to require that treatment to aim to minimise distress and to support recovery from childhood trauma, would embed trauma-informed care into the legal framework. Amendment 45, by inserting the words “seeks to minimise the patient’s distress and promote their psychological wellbeing and recovery from any childhood trauma”, would reduce the risk of re-traumatisation. Responses to symptoms or behaviours must be supported; it is about helping people to move towards genuine recovery. Childhood trauma is unique, and it presents symptoms that are different from other mental health illnesses. Therefore, having a dedicated, compassionate and person-centred approach to care is incredibly important. Setting the right culture to support patients, recognising the trauma that they carry and ensuring that there is adequate support and provisions in the legislation and the legal framework, is the right approach. I am therefore pleased to support these amendments, which would strengthen clause 8.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to make a few remarks on new clause 11, which would require a costed plan to ensure that ICBs and local authorities are able to provide adequate community services for individuals with learning disabilities and autistic people at risk of detention under part II of the 1983 Act. We need to ensure that there is a fully cost-effective plan with accountability to support those with learning disabilities. For instance, Cheshire West and Chester council, one of the local authorities in my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury, has let down parents, families and those with learning difficulties because of its poor management. It has come at the cost of adequate provision, particularly in school places, and therefore puts more people at risk of mental health problems because they are not getting the support they need in the community. With the measures outlined in new clause 11, we could go a long way to ensuring accountability. I am sure the Minister will agree that we need to ensure that commitments are backed by funding for the good of those who need SEND support. I urge all those on the Committee to reflect on the value of the new clause. Crucially, it would also require the costed plan to be informed by a consultation with a range of stakeholders. That is incredibly important, because we need to listen to the lived experience of those who are often extremely vulnerable to ensure that they receive the right support. In my intervention, I referred to some of the important groups in my constituency. Down Syndrome Cheshire and the Cheshire West and Chester SEND Accountability group are just two examples, but there are so many more. They are clear that they value being listened to, so that they can inform the process. The new clause would ensure a costed plan, where commitments are not just words, but backed by funding. Crucially, it would mandate a formal consultation process to inform the plan, incorporating the view of a broad range of stakeholders, including those with lived experience such as those I mentioned in my constituency. There are individuals, carers, healthcare providers and advocacy groups whose voices all matter. We need a plan that is costed so it can be delivered, and that, crucially, reflects the needs and rights of those most affected. I fully support the new clause.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Road Safety and Active Travel to School · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is giving an interesting speech and making important points, but distances in some rural areas mean that walking, and often cycling, are not feasible. Does he agree that any review needs a particular focus on rural roads and should perhaps support reducing speeds outside schools? In constituencies such as mine, there is not yet a policy of having 20 mph. Perhaps he can give some examples of rural roads in the Netherlands.

• 19 Mar 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with that excellent intervention. The frustration that hospices have is that in order to recruit staff, they need to pay wages comparable to what NHS staff receive, and this change is making that virtually impossible to do. Hospices requires a highly specialised workforce to provide the levels of care and dignity that they offer to patients. Without the proposed exemptions, I am unsure as to the sustainability of the hospices that serve my constituents. The second issue I would like to mention briefly is the impact on transport for children with special educational needs. As we know, the complex needs and challenges of SEN children varies from case to case; some will need specialist transport to and from school, for appointments, or just for everyday tasks. Many of these young people are vulnerable children, to whom process and routine matter. They might have a driver with whom they have built a bond and who understands their needs; they might be a highly anxious child, or perhaps a non-verbal child who has a driver who can use British Sign Language. For my constituents in Chester South and Eddisbury, specialist transport is of the utmost importance. Our communities are isolated and rural, and parents and children rely on this vital service. There are no transport alternatives in many areas. People cannot get a bus—not even one without a specialist driver—leaving many of my villages cut off with no public transport options at all.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Relief · Hansard source

  More

  The UK is now the only country in Europe to tax education. Does the hon. Member recognise that this policy is about Labour’s ideology and not about improving education for all children across our country, irrespective of whether they are in the state sector or the independent sector?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Road Safety: Schools · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered road safety around schools. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine, and to have secured this debate on such an important topic. On 12 November last year, a young boy left school at the end of the day, stepped into the road directly outside his school and never returned home. That terrible accident took place at a school in my constituency. Investigations remain ongoing and, therefore, I will not go into specific details of what happened, but at the heart of this is an 11-year-old boy, a student at the nearby school and a much-loved son. He was crossing Wrexham Road, a busy arterial road into Chester, where the speed limit is 40 mph. Tragically, he did not make it home that night; I cannot imagine what his parents have gone through. It is every family’s worst nightmare. I am incredibly grateful to his parents for meeting me, and for their work in their son’s memory to do all they can to ensure that no other family has to face such a tragedy. That accident has shaken the community to its core. The family, friends, school and wider community, many of whom have voiced concerns about speeding and road safety before, are determined to make a change. But it is clear that this is not just about this tragic incident, for which the investigation remains ongoing, nor is just about that school and that road. It is about every child’s journey to and from school, and the value we place on their safety and security. I have spoken to many constituents who want to see a meaningful change. I want to mention the Make Wrexham Road Safe campaign and the team from the 20’s Plenty for Us campaign, who have met me and been so helpful in raising support and interest. Like them, I want to see long-lasting, effective changes to make roads outside schools safer. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), my neighbouring MP, who also met me about this subject. In Chester West and Chester, there are 19 schools located on 30 mph roads. There are four that have speed limits of 40 mph. Shockingly, one is located on a road with a 60 mph speed limit. As I understand it, current legislation allows a degree of subjectivity to speed limits and how local authorities seek to implement them. According to Department for Transport guidance, updated on 17 March 2024, a speed limit of 20 mph may be put in place for “major streets where there are—or are likely to be—significant numbers of journeys on foot, and/or where pedal cycle movements are an important consideration, and this outweighs the disadvantage of longer journey times for motorised traffic”, and “residential streets in cities, towns and villages, particularly where the streets are being used by people on foot and on bicycles, there is community support and the characteristics of the street are suitable”. Needless to say, for every school, there are significant journeys made on foot and on bicycle. Where this tragic incident occurred, on one side of the 40 mph road is a school for children aged seven to 18, and on the other side, a new residential estate that will have approximately 1,500 new homes, many of which have already been built. There are also proposals to build an additional new school to support the development. Further down the road is a nursery, all within half a mile of each other. As our housing needs have grown, developments have sprung up everywhere, yet the surrounding roads often do not reflect their new residential setting. It is clear that there are a significant number of journeys on foot and on bicycle. The guidance asks that this “outweighs the disadvantage of longer journey times for motorised traffic”. In this instance, there are 15,000 people who have signed a petition and who clearly believe it does outweigh the disadvantage. The school, the residents’ association for the neighbouring housing development and I have been inundated by correspondence from parents and residents asking me to do what I can to campaign for a speed limit reduction outside schools. Therefore, with regard to the balance of advantage and disadvantage, I do not think that anyone would mind slowing to 20 mph around a school if it means that children are safer. Let me be clear: I am not calling for a Wales-style blanket 20 mph limit, but for Wrexham Road and the many roads outside schools across the country, a reduction to 20 mph seems perfectly rational and appropriate. I therefore suggest that a reasonable compromise could be that local authorities are directed to have a default 20 mph limit outside schools, and that any deviation from that—any increase to the limit—would need to be for a justifiable reason, subject to the context of each case. The onus would be on justifying greater speeds, not on justifying why 20 mph is appropriate. That would better protect against and mitigate needless tragedies, and manage speed outside schools for the good of our children. As a mum of teenage children, I know the reality is that children do not always assess risk or concentrate as we might want. Primary school-age children, in particular, can make mistakes and miscalculations when crossing roads. Sadly, they are sometimes distracted by phones or friends, or they may simply be daydreaming. Of course, teaching them about road safety is also vital. We all remember being taught to stop, look and listen. I know that the local schools, including where the accident took place, and our fantastic local police have already been doing so much to teach and encourage children to stay safe on our roads. However, we are talking about young children, who can be easily distracted and may make mistakes. Reducing speed can make a huge difference to the severity of an accident involving a vehicle. There is a 2.5% chance of a fatality if a pedestrian is hit by a car travelling at 20 mph. That increases drastically to a 90% chance of a fatality if the car is travelling at 40 mph. Given such a stark contrast in outcomes, surely a 20 mph limit outside schools is suitable and sensible. Added to that mix is the fact that many schools are now located in areas that are far busier, with many more cars and lorries using the road system than it was originally designed for. Wrexham Road is a clear example of that. As mentioned earlier, a significant development has taken place, and there are more people and road users living in the area than before. That road would once have gone through gentle Cheshire fields and farmland, but is now in a major urban area. Wrexham Road leads to a business park, the main A road that joins Chester to Wrexham, and the M53, which runs to Merseyside. We have become more reliant on cars, and the transport system has therefore changed to meet the demands of drivers. Outside schools, however, the primary focus ought to be not on how swiftly how we can get past, but on the children, who are at greater risk. I am fortunate to have many amazing schools in my constituency. Although not all of them border a large housing development or an arterial road, Chester South and Eddisbury has a very large rural community, which brings different challenges that we must mitigate to prevent accidents outside schools. Country lanes and roads are by nature more dangerous than roads in urban areas. Often, they are narrower, have blind bends and their condition is worse. Delamere Church of England primary school and Eaton primary school have a 20 mph road directly outside the entrance, but a busy 60 mph road adjacent that pupils have to walk along or across. Three schools in my constituency, Bickerton Holy Trinity Church of England primary school, Bridgemere Church of England primary school and Calveley primary academy, have 60 mph roads directly outside their grounds, with a 20 mph limit only when lights show. I do not consider that sufficient mitigation. We rightly encourage children to travel to and from school by bike or on foot—it is good for them and for the environment—but many parents do so with trepidation, because they are concerned that the conditions outside school are too dangerous. I am a mum, so I share the concerns of so many parents across Chester South and Eddisbury, and indeed the country, that their children are at greater than necessary risk when walking to school. That ought not to be the case. It is worth noting that in many cases, we in the United Kingdom are the exception when it comes to traffic management outside schools. In the US and many European countries, strict laws regarding speed, including school zones, mean that speed can be reduced significantly. We can learn and implement lessons that will help us to reduce incidents outside schools and reassure parents, teachers and pupils that it is safe for them to go to and from school. In concluding, I reiterate a point to which I alluded earlier: when considering speed restrictions and mitigations around school, the overriding focus should be the safety of the children. Slowing down to 20 mph outside a school is such a small change to make to prevent the life-changing consequences that we in Chester South and Eddisbury sadly know all too well. We can and must do more to ensure that every child returns home after school. They are at the start of their lives, with so much potential, and their safety is paramount. We can do good by revising policy and rethinking speed limits for them and their families.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Let me begin by drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies). Increasing employers’ national insurance contributions will be hugely detrimental not only to businesses, but to employees in my constituency. I have been contacted by many local businesses which have expressed disappointment about the Chancellor’s breaking of her manifesto promise not to raise national insurance contributions, anger that it has been done without a full realisation of the consequences for the wider economy, and fear that they may not be able to weather the impact of this decision. I want to take a few moments to share with the Committee some examples of organisations in my constituency that have reached out to me to explain why these amendments are so necessary. Bradley Barns is a family-run nursery school in Malpas which provides full day care and early years education for nearly 80 families from the local community and surrounding areas. Access to quality childcare provision is vital for the many parents and carers who need to balance jobs with family life. Of course, Bradley Barns hugely values all its employees, and is keen to be the best employer it can be. It currently employs 24 staff whose skills, time and care are vital to children during their formative years. However, while the impact of the Bill might force some businesses to lose staff, in the nursery sector, where the child-to-staff ratio is so critical—indeed, it is a legal requirement—Bradley Barns cannot do that, and nor would it want to. Matt and Vicky, who run Bradley Barns, tell me that as a direct result of this policy, they will now need to find an additional £2,600 every year for each person whom they employ. The Government made clear in their manifesto that they would not tax working people, so who exactly does the Chancellor think will be paying for her decision? It will be working people in Chester South and Eddisbury and across the country, and at many nursery schools like Bradley Barns they will be left with no option but to increase fees. For some families, the increase will not be affordable: that is the harsh reality of the Government’s choice. I also want to highlight, as others have, the impact on the many hospices that provide vital support and care for people at the most vulnerable time in their lives. I recently visited St Luke’s Hospice and the Hospice of the Good Shepherd, two of the wonderful hospices caring for individuals and families throughout my constituency, and met their leaders and staff. We know about the funding challenges that such hospices already face. They rely on the good will and generosity of so many people who donate. This ill thought-through Bill will add substantially to their costs, and none of us wants to see them forced to cut services or reduce the level of care that they provide. I sincerely hope that hospices, and the people for whom they care so brilliantly, do not pay the price of this policy, and that the compromise suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) is considered. So many business have contacted me to share their concerns about the detrimental impact of this decision. It will be felt by community pharmacies, by GPs who may be forced to compromise on the care they provide for their patients because they are not eligible for employment allowance, by care providers and by nurseries.

• 17 Oct 2024 · Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) for securing this debate on agricultural property relief and business property relief. Like her, I represent a constituency with a large rural community of many farms and agricultural businesses, so I am acutely aware of just how important the relief is for the long-term viability of farming and the wider implications for UK food security. There is already a recruitment crisis in the sector, which is heavily reliant on families to work in farming into the future. While I would, of course, encourage young people to look into agricultural and land-based courses such as the ones offered at the excellent Reaseheath College in my constituency, it is fair to say that farming is often in the blood, with the skills and knowledge passed down from generation to generation. If the physical means to farm, the land and the property, are not passed down to the next generation, then we risk losing the people, knowledge and skills that we desperately need to keep the sector viable. I have spoken to farmers, who are clear that changes to agricultural property relief would mean that land would have to be sold to cover the cost of subsequent tax bills. I know that that is the case across the country. According to a large CLA poll, 86% of farmers said that all or part of their land would need to be sold when they passed away, if agricultural property relief was removed. Farmers have already been through a challenging time. Rising costs for energy and fertiliser, inflation, and adverse weather are just some of the issues that farmers have faced in recent years. The Government need to stand by farmers and support them, not restrict and punish them as the removal of APR would do. Across the House, we rightly say that food security is national security. Farmers need land to produce food. If the Government remove protections that are in place to exempt farm land from inheritance tax, it will be yet another step to putting our food security at greater risk. This is a very real problem that is pertinent to all of us, whether we are farmers or not, because all of us rely on food that is grown to feed our nation. Many farmers across Chester South and Eddisbury provide jobs directly and indirectly—for instance, through food production or hospitality—that rely on local produce. Farmers are also essential for land management and maintaining our environment. This policy threatens the future of the countryside. I remind the Minister that he stood on a manifesto that committed to not raising taxes on working people. I would respectfully suggest that any change in the current rules and rates of agricultural property relief would be contradictory to that promise. Farmers are working people. They work incredibly hard, often without the recognition they deserve, and they must be supported, not penalised.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Exemptions · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. The policy will impact all children across our country, and needs to be taken seriously. I have spoken previously about the challenges of SEND provision in my constituency, where families wait months for an EHCP. They are already being let down, so I am deeply concerned about the added pressure of this policy. Finally, the policy is simply unworkable. The Government are asking staff and bursars to rethink how they operate invoicing and fee processing halfway through an academic year. At the very least, I urge the Government to move the start to the beginning of the next academic year. This is not about embossed stationery, swimming pools and astroturf; it is about children and their education. I urge the Government to think very carefully about this decision and to do as the headteachers at my roundtable on Friday suggested: put children at the centre of this policy.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Exemptions · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important debate. Just last week, I held a roundtable with headteachers, school governors and bursars from five independent schools in and around my constituency. I am grateful to Abbey Gate college for hosting. The message from everyone at that meeting was clear: the child is not at the centre of this policy. This is not just about the more than 1,600 pupils attending independent schools in my constituency; it is about the education of every single child, because every pupil who leaves the independent sector as a result of this ill-thought-through policy will mean further pressure put on the state system. As independent schools try to absorb rising costs to minimise the impact of these taxes, they are faced with difficult choices about how to continue the important charitable work they do, including fully-funded bursary places—as many as one in 14 pupils at one senior school in my constituency. Like others here, I am particularly concerned about the impact on children with special educational needs.

• 5 Sept 2024 · SEND Provision · Hansard source

  More

  Despite legislation requiring a final education, health and care plan to be in place within 20 weeks of an initial assessment, Cheshire West and Chester council is putting in place just 6.5% within that time, which is fewer than one in 15 children. Too many children in my constituency are being let down by the Cheshire Labour councils, so I want to highlight the work of the CWaC SEND Accountability group in bringing families together on this issue. Does my hon. Friend agree that a more efficient EHCP system is crucial in delivering for SEND children and their parents?

• 24 Jul 2024 · Education and Opportunity · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) on his maiden speech. This is my maiden speech, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I must tell you that I arrive in this place fired with enthusiasm—so much so that my Whip has warned me that I need to be careful that that is not how I end up leaving this place: fired, with enthusiasm. I am a new woman representing a new constituency: Chester South and Eddisbury. It is without doubt one of the most beautiful, extraordinary and inspiring parts of the United Kingdom, encompassing the southern wards of the great city of Chester, those below the River Dee, and many and varied villages in the heart of Cheshire. Audlem, Bunbury, Wybunbury, Wrenbury, Weaverham, Lache, Handbridge, Christleton and Huntington, Tarporley, Tattenhall, Tarvin, Kelsall, Cuddington, Farndon, Malpas—those are just some of the very special places with which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and this House are going to become quite familiar in the coming years, I hope. Much of my constituency is rural, which is one reason why I found the King’s Speech so disappointing. This Government profess an ambition for growth; if so, it is simply extraordinary that there was no mention of the contribution of farming to our national economy. Food is fundamental: the contribution of the countryside to our country is incalculable, and a Government who are so metropolitan in their outlook that they fail to understand that and reflect it in their agenda are, to use the context of today’s debate, both missing an opportunity and in need of an education. My constituency is both urban and rural, as is our country. Understanding the importance of both, and the necessary balance between the two, is key to our country’s future economic and societal success. The joy of my constituency is that it includes a rich range of dynamic village communities and a swathe of one of the greatest historic cities in Europe, the matchless city of Chester. It is a business and tourism hub that faces challenges, of course—from basic connectivity to burdensome business rates—yet boasts many successes, among them the major employers in the Chester business park and the University of Chester, whose business school falls within my constituency and at which no fewer than 27 Commonwealth countries are represented among its staff and students. In the 2023 international barometer survey, the university was named in the top 10 nationally in 20 categories, including a top three placing and four top five category placings. Chester’s potential is unlimited, and I shall seek to ensure that this Government give it the fullest chance to bloom. There are also fantastic schools in Chester South and Eddisbury, some of which I have already had the pleasure of visiting and many more that I look forward to going to over the coming months. Alongside our excellent state schools, we have two independent schools educating over 1,600 pupils, including nearly 400 students with SEND support who do not have education, health and care plans. Those students will face VAT under the Government’s current plans—plans that will reduce choice for parents and increase pressure on the state school system, with no clear benefit to any of our young people. Chester South and Eddisbury has much to offer, from the glories of Delamere forest—which welcomes more than 750,000 visitors each year—to the excitement of Oulton Park racetrack and Peckforton castle, the home of civil weddings in England. I say that advisedly, because it was the then owner of Peckforton castle who inspired a former Member of Parliament for the City of Chester to introduce a private Member’s Bill that became the Marriage Act 1994. For the first time, that Act allowed civil weddings in this country to take place in venues other than registry offices, including castles, historic houses, hotels and Chester zoo. Some might argue that that single piece of legislation has contributed more to happiness in England than any other legislation of its type. The former Member who introduced that legislation, who I know quite well—in fact, I have known him since I was born—reminds me regularly that his 1994 Act illustrates how, in this place, an ordinary Back Bencher can make a difference. I hope to make a difference in the years to come, not only by badgering the Government about delivering local bus services and improving mobile phone and broadband connectivity, and demanding that they back our farmers and ensure the investment and infrastructure our villages and city need to thrive, but perhaps by introducing legislation of my own in the fullness of time. I draw inspiration from my constituency and from my predecessors: not only my father, who was the Member for City of Chester in the 1990s—Mr Speaker will know both how marvellous and, sometimes, how irritating it can be to have a parent who was themselves a Member—but the newly elected hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), who sits on the Government Benches and who previously represented the City of Chester. I look forward to working with her on matters of mutual benefit to our constituents. I particularly share with my predecessor in Eddisbury, Edward Timpson, his inspiring passion for education and his concern for the care and development of young people. Another of my distinguished predecessors from whom I have learned is Stephen O’Brien. In his maiden speech a quarter of a century ago, he said something that I, as someone who served in the civil service for more than a decade and went on to run a small business, can wholeheartedly echo as I visit the many small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency: “The prosperity of those businesses is primarily dependent on less government, less tax, less interference and, above all, a release from the stranglehold of regulations, choking as they do a business’s ability to compete and an entrepreneur’s incentive to take the risk”. —[ Official Report , 28 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 1159.] With such a constituency and such predecessors, I know that I stand on the shoulders of giants, with much to do and prove. The House of Commons Library, which I have to say I am already finding invaluable, has advised me that I am the first Member of Parliament in its entire history to have the forename Aphra. I am named after Aphra Behn, the 17th-century playwright, poet and author, who was the first British woman to earn her living as a writer. The great 20th-century novelist Virginia Woolf said of her: “All women together ought to let flowers fall upon the tomb of Aphra Behn…for it was she who earned them the right to speak their minds.” What a privilege it is to be in this place, in the 21st century, able to speak my mind on behalf of my constituents across Chester South and Eddisbury.