Dave Robertson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Mar 2025 · Legal and Illegal Migration: Suspension · Hansard source

  More

  It has been a pleasure to take part in this debate with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for coming along today and contributing. This is obviously a hot-button issue across the country, and we should value having so many contributions from Members representing a wide range of constituencies, parts of the country and political persuasions. I thank all Members for the way the debate has been undertaken. There is always a risk on highly charged issues such as this that we lose the debate a bit and, on both sides, descend into behaviours that do not befit the best history of the House, but that is not where this debate went. This is a complex topic, and given that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) espoused the benefits of migration and the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) discussed the issues that drive people’s concerns about immigration, we can see that Members from both sides of the House have made this a considered debate. I hope that every single one of the petitioners looks at it with interest and sees that everybody has put a lot of time and thought into it. We all want to see some movement, if not to the same place, then in the same direction—there is widespread agreement on the need to deal with the crisis in the channel. We should applaud that, although we will have to wait and see quite how much of that makes it on to the front pages of the Daily Mail , the Express or The Guardian tomorrow. I again want to address the petitioners. We are here on their behalf, and I really hope they are listening, watching and reading Hansard , and are aware of how seriously all parties take this issue, even if we do not agree with the outcomes suggested in the petition. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 700824 relating to suspending legal and illegal migration.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Legal and Illegal Migration: Suspension · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 700824 relating to suspending legal and illegal migration. Before I begin my remarks, may I say what a pleasure it will be to serve with you in the Chair Dr Huq? This is a topic of real importance, which matters to an awful lot of people across Britain, but too often politicians fail to talk about it with the seriousness and depth it deserves. Views on immigration have become increasingly polarised in this country, and it is a sad fact that, at the close of today’s debate, I will receive hate mail, as I am sure many other Members around the Chamber will. Some will be from people who think that, because I am willing to talk about the rapid rise of immigration, I am somehow a racist, but some will come from people who think I am the worst example of “woke thinking”—whatever that is—and a soft touch who does not care about the country’s national security. Neither of those positions is right. Actually, when I talk to people face to face—real-life people who are not in politics—very few hold either of those essentially polarised opinions. One thing I am really hoping for from today’s debate is that we can bridge that gap and start to talk frankly and fairly about this issue. Everybody in this room wants to make progress on it, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will bear that in mind and that we can have a positive and open discussion—a grown-up debate—which is what this country deserves. When thinking about immigration, two things are clear to me. The first is the role that migrants have played, going back centuries, in making this country what it is today—the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Jutes, the Normans, the Flemings, the Irish, the Windrush generation, people from across the Commonwealth and countless others. It would be remiss of me not to go through that list and make particular mention of the contribution of the millions from across the Commonwealth, and further afield, who fought shoulder to shoulder with our soldiers in both the world wars in the last century—and not only that, but who helped win the peace afterwards. The second thing we need to do, though, is to respond to that by saying that immigration has grown rapidly in Britain in recent years. In the years since the covid-19 pandemic, it has spiked dramatically, and I am sure it is clear to all of us in the Chamber—and certainly to the 219,000 people who signed the petition—that that is a worry for a lot of people. Voters consistently tell pollsters that immigration is one of the biggest issues we face, and the most recent survey by YouGov found that 69% of people think it has been too high over the past decade. I think that the worry that migration figures have grown too quickly is what underpins the petition. When I mentioned that I was going to lead this debate, I spoke to somebody back home, and their view was that, because the petition starts with the, “Close the borders!”, I should just try to ridicule somebody. That is absolutely the wrong approach in this situation. When we look into the detail of the petition—the explanation for it and what the petitioner has written—actually, the real drive here is not trade or imports; it is very much immigration, and I really do not want to try to patronise anybody by picking on a particular point and making ridiculous comments about it. Unfortunately, it has been a little more difficult than usual to prepare my introduction. When I have introduced petitions debates before, it has been my common practice that one of the first people I speak to is the petitioner themselves. It has been really valuable to speak to that person face to face, or via Zoom, to really see where they are coming from and, hopefully, build the speech around that. Unfortunately, the petitioner has not been able to respond to any of the requests for a meeting, so I have not been able to have that face-to-face discussion. However, I am going to do the very best I can to do justice to their petition and to talk about it in as much detail as possible. The petition calls for a temporary halt to all immigration, both illegal and legal, for five years. That word “temporary” is important. The petitioner writes that “our country is facing serious challenges both from legal and illegal migration”, and argues that strong action is needed. That speaks to a sense that we have reached a moment of crisis. The petitioner is not saying “never again” or dismissing the contribution that migrants make to our society, but they are worried about where we are right now. To go back to my initial point about having a grown-up debate, it is important that we recognise that the petitioner is not saying, “No people who weren’t born here”; this is a response to the situation as they see it. So where exactly are we? Since I have the opportunity to present this debate, let me present some facts to go around it. Since 2021, immigration to Britain has risen to unprecedented levels. In the 12 months to June 2024, net migration—the total number of people moving here, take away the total number of people who have left—was well in excess of three quarters of a million people. That is down on the previous year, but it is still vastly higher than the pre-pandemic estimate, which would have been closer to one quarter of a million. Within the 1.2 million people moving to the UK, 5% were Brits who were living elsewhere and who came home. I do not think in a million years that the petitioner would say that people who were born in the UK did not have a right to come back—I do not think that that is the point of view the petitioner is coming from—but the numbers do count them as people who have immigrated to the UK, because it is an inward flow. Another 10% of those who came were from the European Union, plus Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland, although more people from those countries actually left Britain than arrived here. The vast majority, about 1 million people, were non-EU nationals. Almost half, about 400,000, came here to work; around 375,000 were students and roughly 150,000 were asylum seekers or people coming through specific humanitarian schemes—the Ukrainian and Hong Kong nationals schemes are great examples there, and I am sure there is widespread consensus about the importance of maintaining those safe and legal routes. Most of the remaining 100,000 or so people came for family reasons, and again I think most people would support people’s right to live a proper family life. The petition talks about both legal and illegal immigration. The vast majority of people arriving in this country do so through standard legal routes, with a work permit, a student visa or some other type of permission. However, we all know that a large number of people come to the country through what the Government call “irregular routes”, most of them by crossing the English channel in small boats. Of those people, around 94% go on to claim asylum and around 70% are successful, which is a similar proportion to those arriving through other routes. In the year to September 2024, just under 30,000 people arrived in small boats; that figure is down by a third from a peak of more than 45,000 in 2022, but still much higher than we saw before that. In fact, it is 100 times—not 100%, but 100 times—higher than it was in 2018. However we look at it, that is a really bad thing. The English channel may only be 20 miles across at its narrowest point, but in boats such as those we have seen people using to try to cross it, journeys can be extremely dangerous. It is one of the busiest shipping lanes on the planet, and the crossing is very dangerous. By October last year, 2024 had already become the deadliest year on record for channel crossings: 69 people had died trying to reach our country. Those are lives that should never have been lost. The people who profit from those journeys are the organised criminal gangs that are prepared to put profit in the way of people’s safety. Given that background, it is important that we debate the petition in full, in detail and openly. As part of the work behind writing this opening speech, I spoke to a wide range of stakeholders, who said that suspending migration would be possible as a policy choice, but that it would have impacts. That is also worth saying: it is potentially doable, but as legislators we have to go one step further and talk about what effect it would have. Before I carry on, I thank everyone who shared their time and knowledge to help to make this as informed and useful a debate as possible: the Centre for Policy Studies, the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. When we talk about the effects that introducing this policy might have, let us start with work. What would it mean for jobs and our economy to stop that immigration completely, even for just five years? Polling suggests that, right now, the only factor that worries Brits more than immigration is the economy, for obvious reasons. Therefore, thinking about the impact of immigration on jobs is a huge part of where the debate should be going. One of the big worries voters have is that migrants take jobs that could otherwise be done by Brits, driving down wages in our economy. Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that there is no fixed number of jobs in Britain and that, because we have the advantages of living in a liberal, free market economy, the number of jobs rises in good times, when people have money to spend, and in bad times—

• 10 Mar 2025 · Legal and Illegal Migration: Suspension · Hansard source

  More

  I note the hon. Member’s comments about how things worked in the ’80s and ’90s. For most of that time I was not very old, but to his point about asylum success rates being different then and now, in both of those decades the UK was subject to the European Court of Human Rights, so does he agree that if there has been a change, it is probably not because of the Court?

• 10 Mar 2025 · Legal and Illegal Migration: Suspension · Hansard source

  More

  I was about to pick up on a couple of the right hon. Member’s points, but the major thrust of what he was saying was about dependants who do not bring any economic value. However, particularly if we are talking about dependants who are children, we have to consider the future economic value of having potentially amazing people coming to this country, with potentially amazing skills, who can deliver wonderful things for our country. My wider point, on what migration means for the job market, is one that is worth discussing. Migrants do not take jobs from a fixed pool. The simple fact is that, when people migrate to the UK, they spend money. A rise in population can mean more cash in the economy and more money for businesses, allowing them to expand and create more jobs for those who have come to the UK. However, the reality is that the impact that migration has on the economy is quite small. Overall, migrants make our GDP bigger—that is a fact—but not by a vast amount. Migration is not a silver bullet to create more jobs, higher wages and boom times, which is pretty unsurprising if we think about it: if immigration did do all that, I do not think that as many people would be as worried about it as they are. The other thing that comes up when we talk to people about this issue is wages. Although migration may have an impact on GDP, they are interested in what it does to the wages that people can earn? For the most part, looking across the economy as a whole, all the measurements say that the answer is very little. The impact is difficult to measure—it is such a small value that it is difficult to put a number on—but experts find that wages are not substantially higher or lower because of migrants. Most of us know, however, that people’s understanding of the economy is not about a number written on a spreadsheet somewhere that an economist is looking at; it is about, “Do I have a job?”, “Does it pay well?”, and, “Do I have enough to get by?” The one place where immigration does have an impact is on the lowest-paid workers. For those people, it has an admittedly small impact, but it does depress pay ever so slightly. That is very easy for us to say, but if people are struggling to make ends meet anyway, any impact on their wages in the wrong direction is a big deal. Beyond that, if we are to talk about immigration, jobs and the economy, we have to talk about what sectors of the economy rely on migrants. Many sectors and lots of industries in our economy struggle to fill jobs with British workers. The ones that I would single out, though, are seasonal agricultural work, such as fruit picking, and care work. Those are two sectors where migrants make up a big share of the workforce. To look at care specifically, in England, which is where I will start, carers are often paid less than they could get working in a warehouse for one of the large internet companies—I will not name the one that begins with an A—as a delivery driver or in the local supermarket. That can make care work unattractive to people. People who want to be carers do it not only for the pay at the end of the month, but because they enjoy looking after people who need their support and help—older, disabled or other vulnerable people. As a result, almost one in five carers in the UK is a migrant worker and, for them, the wages are better than they might get at home. It is interesting to compare that to Scotland and Northern Ireland, where there are far fewer migrant carers. That is because wages for carers are higher in those areas, so they are attracting more British workers and there is less of a drive to employ migrant workers. The Migration Advisory Committee reckons that raising the wages of carers by £1 an hour would make the job much more attractive to English workers, beating out those other jobs that currently pay more. That is where we can talk about this being a policy choice. It is down to any Government to make these policy choices. They could choose to do the investment—it would be about £2 billion a year—that would enable that to happen, but it would potentially leave unfilled jobs in other key sectors, or leave other areas unable to find the labour they needed. I have a few points to make before I shut up and let other people contribute. I think it is important that we talk about public services. Immigration will have an effect on them. Everybody recognises this; it makes an obvious difference, with more people registering for doctors and dentists, needing hospital treatment, sending their children to school, and using other public services. However, it also means more people paying tax to pay for those things, so it is not quite a “good or bad” argument; it is one that we have to have in the round. If we look at the figures, we see that some migrants, particularly those highly paid migrants mentioned by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), tend to pay more in tax than they take out by using those services. However, in other areas the impact is not offset in quite the same way, and having more people just makes things harder. Housing is the most obvious example. We know that we have a housing crisis in the country; there is broad political consensus about that. Rents are rising, and people are paying eye-watering sums to own a house. It is becoming much harder to get out of the private rental sector and on to the housing ladder. Because migration increases our population, it means more competition for homes and potentially even higher prices. The irony is that, in the short term, we need skilled construction workers to come here to start building the homes, because we have a gap in those skills in Britain, but if the population rises faster than we can build housing, it will exacerbate the crisis. Earlier I spoke about the number of people coming to live in the UK on student visas, and I think it is important that I go into a bit more detail on that now. Some of us, and some people I have spoken to, may not consider international students to be migrants, but that is how they appear in the numbers, which show that almost a third of the migrants to this country last year came here to study. The international education strategy set by the previous Government aimed to increase the number of international students studying in the UK to 600,000 by 2030. Those students pay higher fees, which helps to pay for the world-class research universities that we have in the UK—one of the things that I am sure all right hon. and hon. Members are very proud to support. International students make up roughly a quarter of all students in British universities—up from closer to 10% all those years ago when I was a student. At some of our universities, though, the share is much higher. International students make up more than half the total at Imperial College London, University College London, BPP University, Coventry University and the Universities of Edinburgh and Southampton. The number of international students is already starting to fall, because they are no longer allowed to bring dependants with them or switch to a work visa before the end of their course. Applications were down by almost a third last year, which means we have another difficult choice to make: either raise the fees that British students pay to help to balance the books, or potentially remove funding from the university sector, which is so important to the economy and to our soft power. Cardiff University has already announced plans to cut 400 jobs and axe courses because of fewer international student applications, so this is already starting to have an effect. Fewer international students could result in some institutions going under. The final point that I want to make is about culture. This is a much more difficult issue to tie down, but a lot of voters talk to us about the culture that people bring with them, and the potential impact of high levels of immigration on British culture and the kind of country that Britain is. I think all of us know that there are lots of versions of Britishness and that trying to tie down a definition of that word would take longer than the three hours we have for the debate today. There are people in this country who are totally chalk and cheese, whom we love and we loathe. There are different groups—those who really identify with others and those who really do not. Again, we could spend a long time talking about that idea on its own. None the less, at the same time there is a shared sense of what it means to be British. That is not just about where somebody was born, or the colour of a passport; it is something much more fundamental—something that people share. It is fuzzy and hard to define, but we do know it. For lots of people in this country, Britishness is not the only part of who they are, whether they are a third-generation immigrant or somebody newly arrived here. It is not a zero-sum game, where people must only be British and nothing else. It is perfectly legitimate for people to feel British-American, British-Canadian, British-Nigerian, British-Indian or British-Pakistani. Dual nationality and the variety of approaches that people have brought to the country have resulted in amazing developments in the last centuries. That is something that a lot of us want to celebrate, but while a lot of people see that the vibrancy, the new cultural ideas, the new foods and music and the different businesses on the high street are great, there are some who feel hesitant and that things are moving too fast for them. I believe that when we get to know people who seem a bit different, we tend to find that we have a lot more in common with them than we first thought. Breaking down barriers and getting to know our neighbours can result in people feeling closer, with a stronger sense of community, but if that work is not done and people feel unable to break down the barriers, they may feel more isolated, distant and nervous, and that their community is changing in ways that they did not agree to and cannot control. I feel the need to say that a minority—and it is a minority—of people in this country have views on race and immigration that we should all condemn. There are, unfortunately, some people who will try to use debates like this to further their own poisonous ends. There are also in this space many people who feel nervous discussing such matters—nervous about being dismissed as being racist, even though they are not coming from a place they consider to be racist. That is why I return to my initial point: let us have a grown-up discussion, talk about this in the round and recognise that not everybody starts from the same place. Let us also recognise that if we want to get this right—and people do want to get this right—we will have to build consensus, build bridges and work with everybody in our community, whether that is the settled population, different parts of the settled population, migrants, expats or anyone else. There is clearly a mood in the country that immigration is too high. That tells us something about how Brits feel about our country. It speaks to everything that the UK has to offer that so many people want to make their lives here and share in our Great British values, but it is hard for some people to feel proud and optimistic about that when they look around and see shut shops, when jobs in their town, city or village do not pay well despite long hours, when they cannot see a doctor or a dentist, and when they cannot afford to pay their rent or even dream of buying a house. Fixing those problems is hard and complicated. Ending immigration is a policy choice the Government could choose to make, but it will not be a silver bullet that will fix all those issues. Any Government who made that decision would have to do so with full knowledge of the potential impacts, some currently unseen. This petition, more than anything, demonstrates the fear about where we are right now. Change is needed. People are really eager to see Members like us, who have the opportunity to speak about this subject, talk about it in a way that, hopefully, moves the country forward.

• 6 Mar 2025 · Public Procurement: Support for SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad that I am at the front of this particular queue, Mr Speaker. Right across the country we have amazing, cutting-edge businesses, such as Great Wave AI, a start-up in my constituency that is already helping the Government to take advantage of AI. It wants to grow faster and do more work with Government Departments. What work is the Minister doing to ensure that small British start-ups can play their part in the AI revolution in government, not just mega companies such as Meta, Microsoft and Google?

• 6 Mar 2025 · Public Procurement: Support for SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  4. What steps he is taking to support small and medium-sized enterprises in public procurement.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Days · Hansard source

  More

  It is no surprise to me that I am the third MP from Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent to take part today, because in Staffordshire we now have 1,350 open cases waiting to be heard by Crown courts. That figure more than doubled over the last five years of Conservative mismanagement, and it is the highest number since records began. I spoke to the police commander in Lichfield on Monday, and one of his major concerns is that delays in justice being seen to be done in courts is making harder his job of building the relationships he needs with our community. The worst cases he has raised with me include serious sexual assault and rape cases that have been delayed for almost five years. What steps will the Secretary of State be taking to make sure that these additional extra sitting days are targeted at the most serious offenders?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Economic Growth: New Transport Infrastructure · Hansard source

  More

  The midlands rail hub project would represent major investment in rail infrastructure across the west midlands. Crucially, it would mean more frequent trains on the cross-city line, which serves Lichfield. Before the pandemic, that was the busiest commuter line in the country outside London. What assurances can Ministers give me and my constituents that more trains will be coming on this line, and coming soon?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Economic Growth: New Transport Infrastructure · Hansard source

  More

  5. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to increase economic growth through new transport infrastructure.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  It is clear that Russian aggression is making our continent less safe. What we have seen in the past week is this House largely, this Government particularly, and this Prime Minister absolutely rising to that challenge. What steps will the Prime Minister take to ensure that our European allies also rise to that challenge and commit to spending 2.5% of their GDPs on defence?

• 27 Feb 2025 · Non-league Football Clubs · Hansard source

  More

  I am blessed to have two non-league football clubs at step 4 and step 5: Chasetown FC and Lichfield City. Who can forget Chasetown’s giant-killing exploits in the FA cup a few years ago? The sense of achievement and togetherness that brought to the entire town of Burntwood is difficult to replicate. Does my hon. Friend agree that while it is important to recognise clubs’ economic value, it is the social value—the togetherness, camaraderie and civic-mindedness that come with supporting these clubs—that is so valuable for our communities?

• 27 Feb 2025 · Non-league Football Clubs · Hansard source

  More

  Hear, hear!

• 26 Feb 2025 · High Street Rental Auctions · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) for securing this debate. It is an important debate, because when we talk to people in towns such as Burntwood in my constituency, they see their town centre—their high street—as a physical representation of how well the economy is doing. For obvious reasons, much of the conversation in politics at the moment is about growth, which the Government have placed at the heart of what they want to do, but the line about growth being felt everywhere needs to be demonstrated through a revival of our high streets and town centres. I look around at hon. Members present in this debate, and we are town MPs by and large. It is town centres that have really struggled over a number of years of Government inaction, as well as the bluff and buster about levelling up that failed to do anything. When I talk to my constituents about what levelling up means, it is very difficult to tie down, but if growth is to be felt everywhere in the country, it needs to come back to those high streets and town centres. I am pleased that the new Government are giving councils the powers to act on the issue and revitalise our high streets, such as the power to take an empty shop and get a business in there, so that somebody can visit and buy something, or they can spend their time and invest themselves in their town. Within that, I am particularly pleased that Lichfield district council is an early adopter and will be acting quickly to use those new powers to ensure that landlords are leasing those properties in Lichfield city centre and Burntwood. Lichfield is lucky to have a thriving city centre, and we are fortunate to have great cafés and a wonderful set of pubs and restaurants, including the only Michelin star ever awarded in Staffordshire. Although my constituents are happy to have that café culture, they would also like to go into town and buy more than a vape. They are happy to support charity shops, but they would also like something that did not have the word “charity” before “shop”. Hopefully, the introduction of this new policy, as well as the district council following it through, will change the economics to support those traditional retailers, such as clothes retailers, to come back to our cities so that people can patronise those shops. Up the road in Burntwood, it is a different story. Burntwood is a town of around 35,000 people. It developed from a number of villages growing into each other during the last century, but it has been starved of investment for decades. The town centre in Burntwood, which is almost ready to go, is great and there are wonderful businesses at Sankey’s Corner, but it has not had the investment to make that really kick on. This new Government policy is a wonderful opportunity to ensure that, where there are great shops, the gaps in the middle are filled. People in Burntwood are sick and tired of being told to wait their turn. For too long, under the previous Government, that was the policy for such places: “Wait your turn. Keep bidding for these £20 million pots, and one will come to you eventually, but we can’t tell you when. It might come down the line”—but it never came. People in the town do not want to wait for a handout. They do not want someone to ride in on a white charger and say, “I am bestowing upon you your £20 million. It will solve everything for you!” That is not how our economy works. We do not have a planned economy in the UK—it is not Soviet Russia. We want to support genuine, real local businesses to start up and deliver services for our residents. I looked forward to coming to this debate to discuss this issue and say how important this policy is for councils to make sure that people have venues to access.

• 26 Feb 2025 · High Street Rental Auctions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend from the end of the railway line for his intervention—it is a long railway line and the busiest outside London. He is right that towns should never be pitted against each other. Far too often, even in my constituency, which has two towns of around 35,000 people, it is sometimes felt that one of them gets the cheese and one of them does not. That is unfortunate for the town that is considered to have got the cheese, because everyone deserves the support, but it is really unfair for the town that feels like it does not have it. Every single town deserves that kind of town centre; every single high street deserves that vibrancy. They deserve to thrive, and the people who live there deserve to have that centre—a place they can invest themselves in in their local area. On that basis, I am very happy to support the policy that the Government are introducing. However, that absolutely cannot be the end of this. I will keep fighting for Burntwood town centre. I will keep fighting for high streets, and not just in towns—I could get on to village high streets, but somebody will punch me in a minute. I will continue to fight for more for Burntwood and continue talking to developers, working with the council and working with any stakeholder that I can to drive investment into our town centres. This is a great start from my Government, but there is always more to do.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Groceries Code Adjudicator · Hansard source

  More

  What a pleasure it is to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) for securing this debate on such an important issue. I spent the whole of last Monday during the recess visiting farms across my constituency, from the edge of Lichfield all the way up to Kingstone. Several of the dairy farmers I met last week raised with me, independently and without prompting, the need to see dairy processors covered by the groceries supply code of practice. Independently, they said that one of the things that we can do to encourage and improve profitability in dairy farming is to ensure that the code is applied to those processors—the middlemen who buy their milk from the farmers and sell it on to supermarkets. The code is designed to ensure that farmers get a fair deal, but because it applies only to those retailers with an annual turnover of £1 billion or more, the 14 biggest supermarkets are covered but some third parties that supply the supermarkets are not in its scope. British farmers, whether they are dairy farmers or from any other part of the industry where there are different processes, must get that fair deal. That is what the code and the adjudicator were set up to establish, and we should ensure that we carry that forwards so that every single farmer gets a fair deal. One thing that strikes me is that the NFU’s call to expand the coverage of the code by decreasing the turnover limit from £1 billion would mean that a lot of those processes would be covered. I am interested to hear the Minister’s remarks on that, because that is a non-fiscal intervention we can make that can drive profitability significantly in the farming sector and support the people who feed the nation.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Maternity Services · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this debate. Fundamentally, it is about giving kids the best start in life and giving mums the best care. There are few subjects of more importance to us, right across the House. The evidence is clear that midwife-led maternity units are great for babies and mums. They are every bit as safe as the big hospitals we have heard many hon. Members talk about today, and one of the benefits they offer is the option of a more natural birth, with less intervention from health professionals, unless it is necessary. Mums who deliver in a midwife-led unit are less likely to need a caesarean or help from forceps or a vacuum. While those procedures can be life-saving, and we should thank the people who use them every day to support babies into this world, they come with downsides. Caesareans increase the risk for mums, including haemorrhage, blood clots and infections in the womb, and they take much longer to recover from. The potential side effects of forceps and vacuums are less severe but are, nonetheless, very real. As the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) said, choice is important for mums. So that people can have the birth they want, we should make sure that, when they come to the end of their pregnancy, they can choose where they want to deliver—be that at home, in a more clinical setting if there are additional risks, or in a midwife-led unit. In Lichfield, we were lucky enough to have a fantastic midwife-led maternity unit at Samuel Johnson community hospital. The unit was closed during the pandemic for reasons we all understand, given the national crisis, but it has never reopened. The closest maternity unit is at Queen’s hospital in Burton, 11 miles up the A38. When High Speed 2 is not destroying the transport infrastructure in my constituency, that is not necessarily a significant trip in an ambulance, but it presents barriers to those who do not have access to their own transport. It is currently the only option available to people in Lichfield. However, mums in Lichfield will soon not be able to choose that midwife-led unit because it is on the chopping block. That would be a huge loss. The service gives women in Lichfield, Burntwood and the surrounding villages somewhere close to home to deliver in a calmer, quieter setting than the big hospital. Where that is appropriate, I think everybody in this room, and people much more widely, would want to support it. Shutting the midwife-led unit would mean less choice for mums, and potentially worse outcomes for mums and babies. I have met many people whose children were born in that unit and who are so happy to have had the option. When I mentioned that I was taking part in this debate, one of my staff members said, without prompting, that she had had four kids—two in the clinical setting of a big hospital, and two at the Samuel Johnson community hospital. She was so much happier with her experience in the midwife-led unit. She was not, in any way, talking down what happened in the other hospital, but the more natural, quieter and more relaxed environment was a benefit as she was going through childbirth. I thank everybody who works in maternity services, and I particularly thank those who champion midwife-led units.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Rural Crime: Prosecution Rates · Hansard source

  More

  As I am sure the Solicitor General knows, fly-tipping is the most commonly reported rural crime. In 2022-23, the last year for which there is full data, there were well over 13,000 significant multi-load incidents; I use the phrase specifically, as it is an internal description. Those incidents cost more than £4 million to clear up, yet just 22 custodial sentences were handed out in that time. What assurances can she give me and my constituents that the most egregious examples of fly-tipping, like those we saw in Lichfield two weeks ago, will result in jail time for the perpetrators?

• 6 Feb 2025 · Rural Crime: Prosecution Rates · Hansard source

  More

  8. What steps she is taking to help ensure increased prosecution rates for rural crime.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Speech and Language Therapy · Hansard source

  More

  I place on record my thanks to all the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, starting with the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), who made an excellent contribution, as I think we would all expect. I congratulate him on his campaigning on this important issue. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) for raising the story of her constituent Samantha, who I am sure will be watching the debate closely. I thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for reminding us of the importance of supporting the next generation and all those who come after. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) for raising the issue of unacceptably long wait times for speech and language therapy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) for highlighting the caseload faced by speech and language therapists in Stoke-on-Trent and the great county of Staffordshire. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for discussing the need for early intervention and the remarkable impact that it can have. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) for the story of her father’s experience in speech and language therapy. I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), for his excellent contribution on the need to raise awareness around aphasia, which does not necessarily get spoken about enough in the community. I thank the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, for her considered remarks and for avoiding making the issue a political football. It is really important to highlight where we do agree, because there is often more agreement than people realise in this place. By working together, we can achieve those goals. I especially thank the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock)—did I get that right?

• 27 Jan 2025 · Speech and Language Therapy · Hansard source

  More

  Mam never quite got round to teaching me the Welsh that she speaks. I thank the Minister for his kind words about her and for outlining the complicated funding scenario that currently exists for speech and language therapy, along with the Government’s desires for the future of this therapy as an example of the three shifts that the Government will introduce in the NHS, and the need for people to engage thoroughly with the NHS 10-year plan consultation as a vehicle to securing those changes. I thank the Petitions Committee for allowing me to lead the debate. It has been a real pleasure, not least because my constituency was the fourth most supportive of the petition. Finally, on behalf of all hon. Members who have been able to contribute today, I say an enormous thanks to Mikey, without whose campaigning we would not be here discussing this issue. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 657935 relating to speech and language therapy.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Speech and Language Therapy · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 657935 relating to speech and language therapy. May I say what a pleasure it is to lead this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers? Before I turn to e-petition 657935, I beg your indulgence to mention that today is International Holocaust Memorial Day and the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. Given that it is possibly the last significant anniversary on which many of the survivors will be with us, it is really important that we mark today, because we must never, ever forget the crimes that were committed in the early part of the last century. I stand four-square behind the work of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in making sure that we never forget and that we can turn darkness into light. Today I am introducing a debate on a topic that we so often take for granted, particularly those of us who have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Communication, and our ability to speak and to put our views on the record, is fundamental. It is fundamental to Members of Parliament because of the job that we do, but it is also fundamental to everybody across this country and, in fact, across the globe. The power of communication is in our ability to speak and to express our thoughts, our feelings, our hopes, our needs and our politics. In its simplest definition, it is how we connect with each other. For some people, however, it is not so simple. The words, feelings and thoughts are there, but they cannot quite find how to get their words out. That is so difficult for many people, and we should never overlook it, because every single human being has the ability to communicate and a need to connect with people. Supporting people to make sure that they can always find the words, and that they can always communicate and reach out to others, is something that I am sure everybody would support. That is where speech and language therapy steps in—not just as a treatment, but as a lifeline and a way to help people to find the words. It is about helping people to find their voice and to overcome the barriers that keep them from being heard. If we cannot communicate, we can feel invisible and alone, which is a huge challenge in itself. Speech and language therapy is more than just a clinical service; it is absolutely vital to a huge number of people across this great country. It is the bridge between silence and expression, and between isolation and inclusion. Speech and language therapists are the unsung heroes who help people to rediscover their ability to speak, to listen and to engage with the world, regardless of whether they are a child who struggles to form words, an adult recovering from a stroke, or someone with a lifelong condition that affects communication. Last week, I had the great privilege of speaking to Mikey, who created this fantastic petition. One thing that struck me in that meeting was not just how thoughtful, well prepared, well read and on top of every single part of the issue he was, but his determination that this debate should not just be about him. It is not about Mikey’s treatment or his journey, although he is very able and willing to discuss them with people; it is about Mikey standing up for people who find themselves in a similar situation to him. When we meet somebody who is a true campaigner, and who is willing to spend their time and effort supporting people across their community, we should applaud them. I place on the record my thanks to him for his work. When I spoke to Mikey, he told me that he is actually one of the lucky ones. A year and a half after he was diagnosed with apraxia, he was offered an hour of speech therapy a week. That was a huge boon to Mikey’s ability to take part, develop and just be part of the world. He feels lucky for that one hour, because the ability to access speech and language therapists is a postcode lottery, but it should not be a matter of luck. Getting help for something so important should be a minimum; in fact, the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists recommends four sessions a week for Mikey’s condition. Mikey raised that not because he did not feel supported, but as an example of the fact that current provision and support do not meet the need, even for people like Mikey, who, in his own words, is lucky to have the support that he has had. Just over 23,500 adults and more than 67,000 children and young people are on a waiting list for speech and language therapy. Every one of those lives can be touched and immeasurably improved by ensuring that they have the treatment they need to rebuild the confidence that they may have lost. Mikey told me that, after his treatment, his confidence has grown, he is less anxious, he is able to speak publicly with strangers and friends, and he has been able to get a job and catch up in education. That is all down to the speech and language therapists who have supported him to reach his goals. Not everything is down to the therapists, obviously—Mikey is responsible for a huge amount of what he has done—but his ability to express himself, and to show the world where he is coming from and what he does, is down to the language therapists who have supported him. I met representatives of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists and Speech and Language UK last year, and the most striking thing that came out of those meetings was how important it is to look at this issue through the lens of social justice. The most striking piece of data that they shared is that 25% of all children, when they go to primary school, have some form of diagnosed or undiagnosed speech, language and communications need. If one looks at the most deprived areas of the country, that percentage rises to 50%. On top of that, more than 60% of children in young offender institutions have communication difficulties. That information—that reality—is too stark to be an accident; something could be driving that. Reaching out and ensuring that people can express themselves and engage with the world at large, whether that is school, friends or family, can support them to access the world and prevent them from going down a path that could end with them making some difficult decisions and finding themselves incarcerated. However, it is not just about young people; it is also about adults who develop conditions such as dementia, Parkinson’s, which is close to my heart, or long covid, which we will be talking about a lot over the coming years in the post-pandemic world. The speech and language difficulties that can come with long covid have driven demand since the pandemic, although there was significant demand for speech and language therapists before that. I will touch briefly on Parkinson’s, because a close family member—my mum—suffers with it. Mam learned English to go to school, as her family spoke Welsh at home, and since she moved to England, where she brought up me and my brothers, she has spent her whole adult life communicating in her second language. Mam was also fluent in French. Seeing where she has gone with her Parkinson’s—just not being able to find the words—is a real challenge for all of us who know her. Helping her to find that word and communicate is something that I think everybody who knows her would support, and I am sure that anybody with a relative in a similar position would also be eager to support them with that. Parkinson’s UK did an audit of its members in 2022 and, of the people it spoke to, just 40% had access to speech and language therapy. Only 15.5% were referred to therapists at the diagnosis stage and only 8% were seen. That is one example—I beg the House’s forgiveness for raising one of such significance to me; I picked it because that is where I have a lot of direct experience—but there are many, many conditions that can be supported through speech and language therapy. Returning to the postcode lottery that I mentioned, there are areas of this country where integrated care boards are spending less than £1 per person receiving therapy—I think 58p was the smallest number that I saw. In the best-funded area for speech and language therapy, the ICB was spending £16.35 per child who was receiving therapy, which is a vast difference. Now, I am not going to say that ICBs are not doing their job; we are all aware that there are regional disparities and that ICBs have to cut their cloth according to the funding available. When we see such a significant disparity, however, with around 30 or 32 times the amount being spent in one area compared with another, it highlights that for far too many people, it is a real fight to get the support that they need because the funding is not there. In the Minister’s response, I am interested to hear whether anything can be done in the long-term 10-year health plan for the NHS to set minimum standards or whether the Government intend to level the playing field between different areas. Many people, especially those from disadvantaged communities, live in areas where services are scarce and where waiting times are long. That can exacerbate some of the issues faced by those communities, as well as by the individuals affected. We know that it is not always about just funding or putting more money into the system. Where money is needed, it should be there, but recruiting and retaining speech and language therapists is vital. No amount of funding in the world can replace a human being actually doing that role, or the skills, training and care that they provide for the people they are supporting. There is a shortage of therapists in our system, and many are leaving the profession due to burnout, insufficient support and unsustainable workloads. When I spoke to the royal college, it was absolutely clear that recruitment is one side of the coin, but retention is the other. It is not just an operational necessity, but how we increase the number of speech and language therapists available and make sure that the more experienced people can train, support and mentor people who are less experienced to get through those grades, from grade 5 to grade 6 and so on. A survey by the royal college found that 17% of speech and language therapy roles are currently vacant. That is a huge number: almost one in five. Ensuring that we have the right number of people to support the vital care that people need would have a profound effect across the country. The biggest shortages are in bands 6 and 7 in the NHS, which are the more specialist roles. Across the board, therapists are saying that they want to do the job. Nobody goes into healthcare for the money, but because it is a vocation and they want to support their community and support people where they need it. To support them, however, we have to do something about caseloads to ensure that they can devote enough time to each person they see. I am proud that the Government will bring forward a 10-year plan to offer a vision of a healthier, more resilient NHS. However, given how well supported this petition has been and how important speech and language therapy is for people who need it, I am very eager to hear that the Government are taking the issue seriously and making sure that speech and language therapy is fully integrated into that 10-year plan, so that we can look much more at preventive care, get community services to deliver support where it is most needed, and prevent those acute issues developing. I am very glad to see so many hon. Members from both sides of the House in the Chamber. Ultimately, this debate is an opportunity for us to talk about speech and language therapy, and to make sure that it has the place that it deserves at the heart of our health system. I am sure that there is much more that other hon. Members will want to say, and I look forward to the contribution from the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti).

• 23 Jan 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday I received one of the best emails that I have received since becoming a Member of Parliament. It came from my constituent Gareth Stewart and related to his son Hugo, who has finally secured a place at the Royal School for the Deaf in Derby. Hugo is deafblind, and it took two years for his parents to secure an education, health and care plan for him. It had to go to tribunal because it was consistently blocked. Even though the school had agreed to Hugo’s place, ready for September, the county council continued to fight his parents, so the resolution came only yesterday. I have spoken to Gareth several times about his case, because it is so serious. He was content with me raising it on the Floor of the House on the condition that, in his words, I used it to speak about the wider problems that we have in Staffordshire with the special educational needs and disabilities system. Too many parents face the same challenges. They often use the phrase “delaying tactics” to me regarding the need to go to tribunal, and the consistent arguments at every step of the process. Will the Leader of the House update us on her discussions with Cabinet colleagues about introducing a Bill to fix our broken SEND system, and will she bring forward a debate on the shocking number of wrongful council decisions on SEND support that end up being overturned at tribunal?

• 22 Jan 2025 · Public Services: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing this debate on a really important subject. My constituents in Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages surrounding them, like people across the country, know just how hard it can be to access basic public services in rural areas. I rise to talk about an incident on Monday that has already had a significant amount of national press coverage and was mentioned yesterday by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), in winding up a debate. In the early morning hours of Monday morning, an enormous pile of rubbish was fly-tipped at the top of Watery Lane, a country road leading out of Litchfield that has about nine residential properties. When I heard about it, I popped up to have a look, and a genuinely staggering amount of waste was up there: it was a cuboid perhaps 20 feet wide, 15 feet high and probably at least 40 foot long. This was not a few tyres out the back of a Transit van but an industrial scale, enormous fly-tip, which meant that the lane was completely unpassable from the north. Unfortunately for residents living on Watery Lane, the southern end of that road has been closed for a housing development for a few months, so for a time they had no access to public services. When we talk about public services, there can be nothing more basic than the ability of the fire service, ambulances and the police to get to an emergency, should one occur. I thank Redrow homes because, as soon as it was made aware, it put a member of its staff up the top of the lane by the road closure who could keep the service road—the road that runs past—clear and make sure there were no accidents involving people crashing when trying to get down the road. Redrow also opened up the compound on its site so that the emergency services could access those properties, should they be needed. In the event, they were not, but that was more by luck than anything else. I am glad that, should they have been needed, Redrow was able to step in and do that. The company also offered to help the council clean up. When it comes to asking builders to be considerate to their communities, that is a great example of an organisation stepping up. It is important that we raise such serious examples of industrialised rural crime. There must have been a serious set-up involving an articulated vehicle of some type because of the sheer size of what was left. Some residents have estimated that there may have been 200 tonnes of rubbish, which has today been cleared following hard work by the district council. Although there was a way for those nine households to get in and to get out to work, that morning they faced not being able to go about their business—they could not get to school or to work. The fly-tip also led to a massive issue for the Curborough countryside centre just off Watery Lane. About 20 businesses are based there—I will declare an interest as my old man’s art studio is up there now, although he is not a commercial exercise—including a butcher, a distillery, a café and a bakery as well as a host of others, including Cocker Hoop Creative, which runs Lichfield’s food festival. All those businesses lost two days of trade due to this rural crime. When we talk about the provision of public services in rural areas, that is not always just about the availability of hospitals, the availability of doctors, the distances from A to B or the availability of bus services. As important as all those are, it is also really important that we see a response, including from the police service, that is attuned to the issues of rural areas. That fly-tip was much more serious because of where it happened. In that instance of serious fly-tipping, as in other such instances right across the country, it is really important that the police have the necessary framework to prosecute these individuals. We need an investigation into the case in Litchfield this week, because there may be some clues in that tip that could lead to a resolution. But investigations need to end not only with significant fines; we also need to start considering custodial sentences, because the actions of those individuals pose a genuine risk to life, for example if an ambulance cannot reach someone having a heart attack. This problem affects rural areas much more significantly than urban areas, which is why it is important to raise it as part of this excellent debate. I thank again my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland for securing the debate and I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting me leave to contribute.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  1. What assessment the Commissioners have made of the effectiveness of the listed places of worship grant scheme.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  The listed places of worship grant scheme is essential to renovations and improvements being made by St Michael on Greenhill church in my constituency. Can the Second Church Estates Commissioner give any assurance to me and my constituents across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages that this grant and Government support will be available to support excellent projects such as the creation of a new community hub?