Cat Eccles MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Historical Forced Adoption · Hansard source

  More

  I add my thanks to the Prime Minister for this long overdue apology from the Government for the historical forced adoptions in mother and baby homes across the country. It is something that I have campaigned for since coming to this place. For far too long, the horrific experiences of mothers and their children were ignored. Sadly, many passed away before this day finally came. I join everybody here in paying tribute to all the mothers, children and campaigners, and the relatives who have supported them along the way. They have fought tirelessly; I recognise their courage and determination. Today, we take away their shame, because it is not theirs to bear. Many have been left scarred by the trauma that they endured—a lifetime of feeling unworthy, unloved, judged and guilty. Many babies lost their life due to poor maternity care, and the locations of their burials are not known. Could the Prime Minister consider a way to memorialise the lives lost and give back some dignity? Does he also recognise that even modern adoption practices are inadequate, leaving adoptees and their families ill-equipped to deal with trauma, attachment issues and identity struggles, and that we must learn lessons from all these historical events?

• 2 Jul 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents · Hansard source

  More

  Even before coming to this place, as a local councillor I dealt with so many issues relating to leasehold property management and unadopted estates. A notable example is the Doulton Brook estate in my constituency, a mixed freehold and leasehold estate with houses and apartments built just over a decade ago by Taylor Wimpey and managed by Trinity Estates. Residents have been dogged by issues from day one, with a lack of transparency around estate management charges and decision making, inheriting responsibility for communal land and infrastructure, and an associated public open space linked to the estate with no clear management and future transfer plan. I pay tribute to Alan Watts, the lead resident of the Doulton Brook action group, and all the residents who have worked closely with me to hold the developer and the managing agent to account and unpick the multitude of issues that exist on a mixed estate like that. I worked with the residents, the council, the managing agent and the developer to get the estate up to an adoptable standard. That was not a quick process, with pushback every step of the way. Developers should not be allowed to leave estates in an unadoptable condition, especially not to use it to generate more money from residents. I hope the Minister will look at how we can facilitate retrospective action for existing estates suffering with the fleecehold system, as well as new ones. I am part of the Labour for leaseholders group of MPs, and we challenged Trinity Estates’ CEO directly on poor practices. It was clear there was a total lack of oversight from head office as to what happens on the ground. They promised they would do better, but Alan and the other Doulton Brook residents have seen nothing change. I also want to raise concerns about the use of leasehold in retirement apartments such as Webb Court in Stourbridge, managed by FirstPort. Residents seeking to enjoy their retirement are left stressed and frustrated by poor communication and lack of accountability, with an agent who seems to see the residents as a hindrance rather than customers to serve. Recently, FirstPort took the decision to upgrade the alarm call system—not a problem, but the way it was done meant that elderly residents faced a sudden demand of a lump sum of £1,100, to be paid immediately. Following my intervention, that magically reduced to £300, and we negotiated a payment plan, but this was despite nearly £100,000 sitting in the reserve fund. I have provided support with issues in other retirement complexes with other managing agents, such as lifts left unfixed, as we have heard today, and residents harassed for payments that they have already made. I hope the Minister will consider the impact on our older generation in such situations, so that they are treated with the respect and dignity they deserve.

• 1 Jul 2026 · MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition · Hansard source

  More

  Does the shadow Minister recognise that this is not necessarily about the amount of remuneration, but the risk of corruption and the types of employment that have been mentioned by many Members in this debate?

• 1 Jul 2026 · MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for securing this timely and important debate. I know how hard he has worked on this issue over a number of years. Before the general election, Labour wanted to ban second jobs for MPs. It seems that ambition has now been placed on the “too difficult” pile to deal with another time, but the issue has not gone away. Public trust in politicians and institutions is at an all-time low, and we are duty-bound as elected Members to change that for the sake of democracy itself. Being an MP is a full-time job. In fact, it can and often does become a way of life. We never truly switch off, even on a rare free day. Before coming to this place, I worked for over 20 years as an operating department practitioner in the NHS. Long days, staying late and overtime were the norm, but I could leave my work at the door. I must admit, I would not want to do surgery working at home—it is not particularly suited to it. I am pleased that my hon. Friend has made exceptions for people like me who have a professional registration to maintain. Doctors, lawyers, nurses and allied health professionals work hard to gain their qualifications and registrations, and regular practice is required to maintain them. I also served as a local councillor for Wollaston and Stourbridge Town before coming to this place. My term was due to end in 2028, but I always said I would stand down at the next electoral cycle as it would not be feasible or fair to my residents for me to hold both roles. I stood down in May this year, having served without taking an allowance. However, that is not what we mean when we talk about second jobs. We mean paid consultancy and advisory work, often with conflicts of interest and lobbying expectations; paid roles as TV presenters; and people being paid for giving speeches and attending events. It all adds fuel to the fire of public commentary about elected politicians having noses in the trough and being on the gravy train—and let us not forget those brown envelopes. I believe that most hon. Members come to this place in earnest to serve their constituents and communities and to make people’s lives better, but those who seek to use it as an opportunity to bolster their bank accounts have not come here in good faith, and they damage public trust in all of us. We are not here to serve big businesses and corporate interests, or to facilitate contracts with Government and make introductions to important people. A clear line needs to be drawn under scandalous second jobs, and it is in our gift as Government to do so. Even during the covid lockdowns, when the rest of us were staying at home to prevent infection spreading—I was working as an operating department practitioner in emergency maternity theatres—some MPs saw it as a golden opportunity to cash in, with second jobs and dodgy contracts totalling nearly £5 million. While we are debating corruption and trust, I must also mention ongoing concerns about companies lobbying hon. Members, offering them hospitality or gifts. Those companies then appear in Hansard or in communications with the Government down the line. None of that is about what we know; it is all about who we know. Members should always have their eyes wide open to possible corruption and influence from outside bodies. An MP’s time is best spent prioritising their constituencies and the people they serve. If any Member feels their remuneration is not adequate, perhaps they should consider a different job. My current salary is nearly three and half times higher than what I have earned at any point in my career and I recognise the enormous privilege that has been bestowed on me, especially in the context of the ongoing cost of living crisis. It is also a huge privilege to represent my hometown of Stourbridge and the wonderful people who sent me here. They are the top of my agenda. This is an opportunity to show that MPs are not just out for themselves and to begin restoring public trust. Let us ban second jobs and start transforming our democracy with transparency, accountability and integrity.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  In 2026, the question is no longer whether we act on the climate crisis, but how fast we do so. Most people accept the science, which shows that the Earth’s average surface temperatures have increased significantly over the past century. It is hard to deny this in a week where the UK is yet again experiencing record-breaking heat, although one climate sceptic told me online recently that “it’s just weather”. Yes, there have been hot periods in recent history, but these are becoming more frequent and more prolonged, with global temperatures set to rise by 1.5°C to 2°C by 2050. While that may sound like a small number, these increases will lead to farmers’ crops failing more regularly, threatening food security. People’s health will be impacted. Sea temperatures will further increase; this will melt ice sheets and release massive amounts of carbon and methane into the permafrost, further increasing temperatures. The net zero brand, however, has become toxic, failing to clearly communicate what must be done and why. Measures to deal with climate and the environment are not “nice to haves”—they are essential to protect the country’s ecosystem, agriculture and infrastructure. It is no longer about whether we can afford to take action; it is about whether we can afford not to do so. If we do, our economy will actually benefit. We must confront the misinformation directly and put forward credible, practical solutions. The populist right promotes the misleading claim that the UK can secure its energy by drilling more oil and gas in the North sea, but in reality, projects such as the Rosebank oilfield would deliver only a relatively small supply of oil and be subject to global price shocks, all while causing significant environmental damage and giving more profits to oil giants. True energy security and lower costs will come from sustained investment in renewable energy, not from doubling down on fossil fuels. Some 37 years ago, Margaret Thatcher stood before the UN General Assembly and warned of the dangers of rising carbon emissions and their impact on the Earth’s climate. At the time, the Conservatives respected that evidence and engaged seriously with the science, but today the party is a pound shop version of its former self, more preoccupied with chasing Reform votes than offering serious solutions to the challenges facing our country. We urgently need to tell a better story on climate change and to show the public how policies will benefit them where it matters—in their pocket. During the last heatwave a few weeks ago, more than 80% of the energy in the grid came from renewable sources. That is a fantastic news story, and the public are set to reap the benefits from the planned decoupling of gas and electricity prices. Across the UK, we are already seeing warmer, wetter winters and hotter, drier summers, but this is not a task for DESNZ alone. A golden thread of safeguarding our environment for future generations must run across all Departments.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Support for Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the decisions taken by the Chancellor and Government colleagues to revise the electric vehicle targets for 2030, following representations from the industry, unions and MPs. Targets are really great, but they need to match capabilities and market realities. What assessment has she made of how the change will safeguard jobs in the automotive supply chain in my constituency of Stourbridge and across the UK?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Support for Industry · Hansard source

  More

  12. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to support industry.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Steel Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  May I add my voice to that of other Black Country Members? On behalf of Stourbridge, Brierley Hill and Netherton, I am grateful to the Minister and the Department for Business and Trade for their ongoing engagement with me and local businesses. It is much appreciated, but can I also add my voice to those calling for a review of quotas? In some places, those have been reduced by more than 80% on products not currently produced here. Equally, we have fabricated products being imported that are not subject to any tariffs, which could impact on local downstream supply chain industries.

• 17 Jun 2026 · High Street Shops: Illicit Activity · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. In March, the excellent work of Dudley trading standards officers was highlighted in a Channel 4 documentary in which officers uncovered links to organised crime and signs of child exploitation, including the illegal sale of vapes to children as young as 11. The trading standards team has been carrying out extensive enforcement activity against illegal shop operations, particularly those involved in illicit vaping sales. That work ultimately led to the closure of 31 illegal shops, including in Stourbridge, Brierley Hill and Netherton. Dudley council has since launched an internal audit, and it is reviewing evidence shared with child protection teams and examining whistleblowing reports from the last 10 years to ensure that nothing has been missed. It is vital that those responsible are held to account and, above all, make certain that strong safeguards are put in place to protect vulnerable children in future. I was a local councillor before becoming an MP and was always impressed by the proactive work of our trading standards and the local police. I have worked with them to secure closures of several local shops over the years and have even given evidence to strengthen cases. Despite those tireless efforts, they are working with one arm tied behind their backs. Closure orders only last for three to six months and then shops reopen with a different owner. Some shops have more than one location and transfer illicit stock across local authority boundaries to evade enforcement, which I have seen happen between my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger). All the while, trust and hope in our communities is eroded. I am really pleased that this Labour Government are taking action to support the work of local teams and restore pride in our towns and high streets. Recent national enforcement by HMRC strengthens cases against shop owners and adds to the arsenal for tackling this issue. Illegal activity has no place whatsoever on our high streets. It creates an uneven playing field for shops and services that follow the rules. We need to extend closure order periods, tackle phoenixing and hold landlords to account for who they let their units to. It also needs to be really easy for the public to report their concerns. We all hear from constituents who have suspicions about illegal shops in our towns and high streets, and we know that first-hand reporting always carries the most weight. In the past, concerns could be reported directly to our councils through their websites, but in some cases it has now been directed centrally through Citizens Advice.

• 17 Jun 2026 · High Street Shops: Illicit Activity · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right. I hear a lot from local shopkeepers that they are afraid to raise their concerns with the police for fear of being attacked. It is absolutely right to make it as easy as possible for the public, who are as frustrated as we are, to support this work. We are now seeing reports directed centrally through Citizens Advice, where there is no specific reporting mechanism for trading standards itself, which leaves people uncertain about where to direct their reports. I am hopeful that we will see an improvement in how we tackle illegal activity on our high streets and make our communities vibrant and welcoming once more.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Social Media Ban for Under-16s · Hansard source

  More

  In February 2023, Leo Johnson from Stourbridge died by suicide at the age of 19. His mother Jane remembers him as excited and energetic to start his life, and his passion for scuba diving fuelled his decision to study oceanography at the University of Plymouth. He became increasingly absorbed in his phone and social media, and told his friends that it was affecting his mental health—not because of dangerous content, but through the drip, drip, drip of comparison culture, which left him feeling inadequate, anxious and numb. Does the Secretary of State agree that a ban is the right thing to do, so that fewer young people like Leo are harmed?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who are taking the railways back into public control after decades of privatisation failure. Amendment 50, which stands in my name, would ensure that all Great British Rail products were available from ticket offices, ending the practice by some operators of making certain fares, particularly discounted fares, available only online. This practice significantly disadvantages those who have no access to digital ticketing, including many disabled and older passengers. It also discriminates against those on low incomes who cannot necessarily afford a smartphone or consistent internet access.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way—he is worth the extra minute. He has spoken about the rail perks that staff benefited from; does he agree that that has also been lost by those staff who have been outsourced? At West Midlands railway, the company wanted to offer those staff some discounted travel, but the Department for Transport actually refused. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the changes he has described would be welcome?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will my right hon. Friend give way?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are right to simplify retail under a unified Great British Rail offer, but the offer must be available to everyone, not just those who can navigate digital platforms. Accessibility must be designed into the system from the start, not added as an afterthought. I hope that the Minister can commit himself to ensuring that every fare and discount available online will also be available through ticket offices and assisted channels, so that no one is excluded. Amendments 51 and 52, also in my name, are intended to confirm the existing process whereby ticket office hours and staffing levels are regulated and any proposed changes are subject to consultation overseen by the passenger watchdog. The amendments would formalise that by including it in the Bill, ensuring that the current process is retained by Great British Rail. The last Government attempted to close about 1,000 ticket offices around the country. They were forced to U-turn after considerable opposition. In Stourbridge—alongside the RMT and George the station cat—I ran the biggest campaign in the country to save ticket offices. Public opinion was overwhelmingly in favour of saving them because they provide such a vital service to communities. They were saved owing to schedule 17 of the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement, whereby ticket offices can be closed only subject to consultation. During the consultation process a few years ago, it became clear that the public would not tolerate any closures. While this Government would not be so short-sighted as to try to strip communities of these important ticket offices, we must future-proof the legislation, and the amendments are consistent with the Government’s commitment to strengthen the passenger watchdog and passengers’ voices under GBR. I hope the Minister can assure the House that GBR will retain the current process, ensuring that there is consultation with rail users before any changes are made to opening hours or any closures of ticket offices are proposed. I had planned to speak in favour of new clause 16, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr, which I believe has now been withdrawn. It would have given us the opportunity to reopen closed lines and restore connections to ensure that no community is left behind. In my constituency, the proposed Stourbridge Dasher service to Brierley Hill demonstrates exactly what can be achieved by making smarter use of the infrastructure we already have. Put forward by local light rail company Pre Metro, it would link Stourbridge and Brierley Hill along a corridor currently plagued by heavy traffic congestion and very few viable road improvement options, and bring existing freight track back into use for passenger services, as it would have been before the Beeching cuts. Up and down the country, there are hundreds of similar examples of where existing lines could be used to restore connections and ensure that communities are no longer held back by poor connectivity.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Care in the Community · Hansard source

  More

  Last year I campaigned with the community and local councillors to save the Crystal dementia centre in Stourbridge. The centre provides community support for dementia patients and their carers, employs dementia advisers and assessors, and offers day services to many local people. Sadly, however, since we saved the centre Dudley council has sought to close it by stealth, preventing new assessments and preventing new users from joining. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is a disgraceful way for the council to act, which goes against the Government’s mission to provide quality care close to home, and will he meet me to discuss the matter further?

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

  More

  It is a huge pleasure to speak in a debate on a Bill to nationalise British Steel, reversing one of the many mistakes of the Thatcher Government in the 1980s. I will speak against new clause 9, in the name of the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), which would seek a private buyer for the nationalised British Steel company. It is absolutely right that the Government are taking action to nationalise British Steel and set out a clear strategy to strengthen domestic production. While the strategy will safeguard our steelmaking capability, we must recognise the realities facing the downstream steel sector, which has been impacted by having to compete with the unfair terms of international markets and by being consistently starved of investment. Many such businesses, including those in my constituency, depend on imported grades and products that the UK simply does not produce and that are regularly used in our defence force, the automotive industry and construction. I also oppose new clause 11, which would require the Government to create a level playing field between nationally owned and private sector businesses. While I support in principle the use of quotas and tariffs to back British Steel, we must avoid unintended consequences for the downstream industry. Sudden or poorly calibrated changes risk undermining downstream firms. These businesses are vital in constituencies such as mine, and supporting domestic production must not come at the expense of the wider steel ecosystem. I have discussed these matters extensively with the Minister on several occasions, and I look forward to welcoming him to Stourbridge in the coming weeks to meet a local steel company. Downstream companies have expressed legitimate concerns about the present proposals. I sincerely thank the Minister for engaging with me and them on these issues, but can he confirm whether, in cases where particular steel grades are not currently produced domestically, including zero-carbon grades, the Government intend to allow exemptions from the proposed tariff and quota regime? The most recent stance is that tariffs and quotas will be reviewed in 12 months’ time, but I really fear that that will be too late for some businesses. Will he consider transitional arrangements at the very least to offer some stability to the downstream industry? I will also speak against new clause 12, which would limit the financial assistance that can be provided under the Bill. While supporting British Steel, we cannot ignore the climate crisis. Our steel industry must be driven towards green, decarbonised production. On that point, the steel strategy states an ambition to transition to carbon-neutral steel production with electric arc furnaces when market conditions allow. It is worth noting that SSAB in my constituency, which is part-owned by the Swedish Government, imports zero-carbon steel from Sweden, where such steel—its only by-product is water—has been produced using electric arc furnaces since the 1980s. Following the Government’s introduction of an investment debt rule in 2024, I encourage the Minister to consider what further flexibility there could be to use a similar investment method to enable the transition away from coal-based steel production. I hope that he will reflect on those points and continue to engage well with the industry. With the right decisions, I believe that we can secure a competitive, resilient and low-carbon steel sector for the future.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Water Companies · Hansard source

  More

  In 2025, there were over 300,000 sewage spills into our waterways up and down the country. In March this year, a section of the Stourbridge canal had to be closed due to raw sewage spilling into the water from a broken Severn Trent pipe, killing hundreds of fish. Does the Minister accept that the current model of privatised water companies is failing to protect our natural environment, and as sewage spillages continue, how will her Department measure success in that area? If there is no improvement, when do we say enough is enough?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Equality Act 2010: Code of Practice · Hansard source

  More

  The proposed code of practice represents a major and worrying change in how equality law may operate in practice for trans people and service providers. A number of LGBTQ+ charities and equality organisations have warned that the guidance risks legitimising exclusion and increasing harassment of both trans people and gender non-conforming cis people. A number of my constituents across Stourbridge have contacted me because they are deeply concerned by the proposed changes. Will the Minister confirm whether this House will have the opportunity to debate and to vote on the final code of practice before anything comes into force?

• 21 May 2026 · Middle East: Economic Response · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the announcement from my right hon. Friend, particularly the suspension of import tariffs on more than 100 food and drink staples. I know that my constituents across Stourbridge, Brierley Hill and Netherton have been struggling with the cost of a weekly shop. Although we all enjoy a treat, including me, it was disappointing to see the headlines leading with biscuits and chocolate, given that we have a public health crisis with obesity and diabetes. Could the Chancellor assure the House that the Government remain committed to the healthy food standard, which encourages supermarkets to promote healthy choices, and will she work with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to ensure that efforts to tackle poor diet and obesity remain a priority, alongside the cost of living?

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  16. What progress he has made on implementing the steel strategy.

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  May I put on record my thanks to Ministers and the Department for their ongoing excellent engagement with me and my local businesses on the steel strategy? Many of the downstream businesses in my Stourbridge constituency currently import products—including zero-carbon steel—that are not produced in the UK. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that businesses like those in my constituency are not unfairly disadvantaged by the quotas and tariffs being introduced under the steel strategy in a few weeks’ time?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Allied Health Professionals · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for her opening speech and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for securing this long-overdue debate. As we have heard, allied health professionals make up the third largest clinical workforce in the NHS, yet sadly, time and again, we only hear about the health service in terms of doctors and nurses. Just last week, the Government announced a welcome package of measures to widen access to healthcare careers for people from disadvantaged backgrounds. It promised 2,000 new nursing apprenticeships and support for 2,000 young people from deprived communities to apply to medical school. Those commitments really matter, but for AHPs, there was nothing—not a single initiative, not a single pathway, not even a mention. That omission is not an oversight; it is a pattern. For decades, successive Governments have failed to recognise the value of and to invest in this vital part of the NHS workforce. That is especially relevant given the increase in workforce required to deliver on the Department for Education’s SEND reforms. We need more speech and language therapists, physiotherapists and occupational therapists, so why do we not make it easier for more people to access those careers? Before entering Parliament at the last election, I spent more than 20 years in the NHS as an operating department practitioner, and I am proud to be the first ODP here in Parliament. In fact, my time working in the NHS is in large part what politicised me and drove me to want to make the changes that are desperately needed to highlight and improve the profession. ODPs are unique within the healthcare workforce. At the point of graduation, they are the only professionals fully qualified to work across every area of perioperative practice: anaesthetics, surgery and post-anaesthetic care. My speech will focus on that profession. As of March 2026, there were 17,906 ODPs registered with the HCPC. They are highly skilled and highly committed, with strong retention rates across the NHS. Many go on to hold senior clinical leadership roles, not just in the operating department, and they play a crucial role in patient safety, service efficiency and the successful running of our theatres. My profession plays a critical role in keeping the NHS functioning and in safeguarding patient safety every single day. Given the recent reviews into maternity care, I want to highlight the importance of ODPs for maternal and neonatal safety. Nearly half of births are now done by caesarean section and ODPs are involved in every single one, playing a key role in the perinatal period. I therefore commend the College of Operating Department Practitioners for its recent contribution to NHS Resolution’s maternity (perinatal) incentive scheme safety actions. Given the importance of operating department practitioners to the NHS, they should be properly recognised, valued and supported; instead, too often they are forgotten, and that neglect has real consequences. An area of serious concern is the eligibility of operating department practitioners to supply and administer medicines within their scope of practice using patient group directions, known as PGDs. That is holding the profession back and creates a perverse situation in clinical settings, where an ODP must seek the supervision of a nurse or doctor to administer certain medications. For example, post surgery, it is common for patients to experience post-operative nausea and vomiting. There is a suite of antiemetics that can be given without a prescription under a PGD, but an ODP caring for the nauseous patient cannot give relief without input from a nurse or doctor, thus delaying treatment and putting unnecessary pressure on colleagues. Another example is ODPs working in endoscopy units, where sedatives are routinely administered under a PGD. The ability to administer vaccines is also impacted: during the pandemic, ODPs were unable to support the vaccination effort due to the use of PGDs, yet bizarrely, a healthcare assistant could carry out that role. ODPs are being prevented from making a valuable contribution to public health and system resilience. The Department recently carried out a consultation on expanding the supply and administration of medicines to ODPs, as well as to physiotherapists, paramedics and diagnostic radiographers, and we must move at pace to level the playing field to benefit both healthcare professionals and their patients. I ask the Minister to commit to adding ODPs to schedule 16 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and to outline when that change is likely to be implemented. Another example is the introduction of the graduate guarantee scheme for newly qualified nurses. While well-intentioned, its narrow focus has had the unintended consequence of some newly qualified ODPs finding themselves displaced and unable to secure posts with NHS operating departments. That is not just unfair to those professionals; it is short-sighted and risks wasting vital skills at a time when our health service can least afford it. A review of band 5 nursing roles is under way, yet no equivalent review is taking place for operating department practitioners or other AHPs. This selective approach risks unpicking the harmonised pay structures established under “Agenda for Change” in 2004. The Royal College of Nursing has long pushed for a separate pay spine for nursing, but that would be absolutely the wrong move, breaking the concept of “one NHS team” and creating two-tier employment, particularly in operating departments. We must uphold the fundamental principle of equal pay for equal work. Anything less would be a serious step backwards for fairness, morale and workforce cohesion in the NHS. Will the Minister therefore commit to ensuring that any review of band 5 roles includes AHPs so that parity and equity are properly protected? I know that in a recent letter to the College of Operating Department Practitioners, the Minister stated that “any review of the national profiles for ODPs would need to be supported by the NHS Staff Council, with the Job Evaluation Group—an established group of the Council—responsible for undertaking that review.” That absolutely explains the process, but it cannot excuse the delay. It is vital that this work is taken forward promptly and with a clear timetable. At the same time, ODPs and AHPs more broadly are still waiting for the publication of the NHS workforce plan. That plan, unlike those that came before it, must finally include meaningful, measurable commitments to the third-largest clinical workforce in the NHS, rather than relegating it to the margins once again. ODPs and AHPs more widely are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for recognition, fairness and a clear strategy that reflects the reality of how the NHS actually operates. As the third-largest clinical workforce, they are central to patient safety, service delivery and the long-term sustainability of the health service. I would like to put on the record my concerns about abolishing the role of the chief AHP in NHS England. While the current chief nursing officer is a strong and passionate advocate of AHPs, I believe that we need the representation and oversight that a chief AHP can provide. Finally, I would like to highlight the removal of NHS bursaries for allied health professionals. I was lucky enough to train with a bursary, receiving around £500 a month during my two years of training. While the recent introduction of apprenticeships has negated some of the costs of going to university, these places are limited and dependent on NHS trust training budgets. Getting into an excess of £30,000 of debt for a starting salary barely above the minimum wage does not incentivise prospective students to get into these professions. After decades of being overlooked, warm words are no longer enough. What we need now is action: fair pay structures that are protected, sensible regulation that makes full use of professional skills, clear career pathways and a workforce plan that treats AHPs as integral to the future of the NHS. The message from ODPs and AHPs is clear: they want to contribute, lead and be part of the solution to the pressures facing our health service. It is time for the Government to act and give this vital workforce the recognition and support they have long deserved.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Following the Environment Act 2021, all councils in England were required to introduce food waste collections and improved kerbside recycling by April this year. Despite the long lead time, Tory-run Dudley council waited till the 11th hour, leaving it ill prepared for the changes and without the vehicles needed to complete the collections. That has left waste uncollected and cardboard strewn over the streets, and crews have been working hard around the clock to catch up. Residents have played their part and complied with the new rules. Does the Leader of the House agree that Dudley council must meet its obligations to residents, and provide accountability and answers for its failures on basics such as waste collection?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q14. The announcement that pubs and music venues will receive a much-welcome reduction in business rates is a positive step. However, in our manifesto we did promise root-and-branch reform of business rates. Hospitality and leisure businesses in my Stourbridge constituency are facing a projected £20,000 increase in business rates over the next three years, along with employment cost increases and energy costs. Hospitality and leisure play a vital role for our communities, providing jobs and spaces to socialise in, so will the Prime Minister consider a similar rates relief package for hospitality and leisure?