David Burton-Sampson MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 23 Jun 2025 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

  I draw Members to my declarations of interest. As many of us know, the Pride movement started with the Stonewall riots in 1969, but some people now see Pride as a party. It certainly did not start that way, and for many of us it is still a protest and will continue to be so until we genuinely do not need Pride anymore. My Pride journey started as a bystander, until I became a councillor in 2018, when somebody decided to post literature all around the town of Basildon, telling the LGBT community to repent. Instead of getting angry, we organised Basildon mini-Pride within two weeks and showed that we were here to stay. It turned into a full-on Pride that is still going strong, with a programme of events throughout the year as part of the Basildon Pride Everyday programme. I am proud to still be chair of trustees for that Pride, and thank all its members and the volunteers who contribute to its work.

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This is my first time speaking to the Bill, so I want to start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for having the courage to bring forward such a significant piece of legislation. I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have been part of the debate and who have worked on the Bill so far for their thoughtful contributions. Until this week, I have remained open-minded and undecided on this Bill. My starting point in the debate was my own personal views. I am personally against assisted dying, because of my Christian faith, and for selfish reasons also, as I am a little bit scared of losing people and being there at the end of people’s lives. But, like all of us, I have received a significant amount of communication on this matter, so I, too, decided to launch my own local survey, in which I asked my constituents for their stance on the Bill: for, against or undecided. What became increasingly clear is that people are split on this issue. Fifty-five per cent of people were against, 42% were for and the remainder were unsure. That “for” figure is not insignificant. I promised my very close friend Emma that I would share the story of her mum Cheryl, who was diagnosed with terminal stage 4 cancer just over two and a half years ago. Emma wanted to cherish every last minute of her mum’s life, and she was outstanding at creating those special memories with her in the last year or so. Emma was against assisted dying at the time and wanted to do everything to keep her mum with her for as long as possible. Cheryl sadly died last year. Emma told me: “I think if something like this was legal it would stop people having to go through what mam went through on those last few weeks of her life. She could have had a dignified, pain free death. Instead, all her dignity was stripped from her and she was in so much pain, despite the strong pain meds. I will never be able to forget the screams. I hope this does get passed to give people like mam the choice and to be in control.” Like, I am sure, everyone else, I have received similar comments from constituents about watching relatives fade away in pain and agony, suffering a lingering death and begging for it to stop.

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not, because I want other Members to be able to speak. I supported the Bill on Second Reading, to allow the debate to move forward and with the hope of satisfying my concerns—the main two being the definition of mental capacity and how it can be interpreted, and the safeguards in place to ensure that an individual is not coerced. I also wanted assurances that the Bill is strong enough to avoid the slippery-slope scenario that we have seen in other countries. After listening to the debate on Report and absorbing the vast amount of information I have received from Members and various lobbying organisations on both sides of the debate, and after meeting people on both sides, including my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, I am satisfied that my concerns have been addressed. In my view, the Bill now has more controls than when we looked at it on Second Reading, not fewer. I also reject the suggestion that the Bill has not received sufficient scrutiny. The debate on assisted dying has been ongoing for many years. A significant amount of analysis, reports and information is available. The Bill has gone through hours of scrutiny in Committee and on Report, and it will, of course, go through the same in the other place. I have spent time looking at all the information, and I am sure other Members have, too. I believe in choice. Although at this stage in my life, I believe that assisted dying is not for me, there are many who feel otherwise. They should be able to make this deeply personal choice, just as they can make choices about so many other elements of their life, such as whether to follow a religion, marry, have children or get divorced. These are life choices, usually made by somebody of sound mind and with considerable thought. We should be able to make the same choices about our death. After much consideration, I am minded to support the Bill on Third Reading. I will listen to the rest of the debate, but I must say that if Third Reading is not agreed to, we cannot allow the debate to disappear for another decade. The country needs this option. My constituents tell me that we need to find an acceptable way to legislate as soon as is practicable.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. Again, I reflect on stories that I have heard from local constituents on the issues that are being addressed in the Lampard inquiry. Does the Minister agree that these provisions will help to avoid the too early discharges that have led people either to go back into care or to get into even more difficult situations? One of my constituents ended up taking his own life because he was discharged too early from care.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Banning Conversion Practices · Hansard source

  More

  Since the Supreme Court ruling, many trans people have felt discrimination and a loss of their rights despite still being protected under the Equality Act 2010. I am pleased to hear that the Government are bringing forward a trans-inclusive conversion therapy ban, but what else will the Minister do to ensure that trans people know they belong in our society and are valued?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Banning Conversion Practices · Hansard source

  More

  1. What steps she is taking to ban conversion practices.

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

  More

  I appreciate the hon. Member’s intervention. He makes the point that there may be situations in which the young person’s request might be inappropriate. However, on the flip side, there may be a situation in which it might be inappropriate for the person with parental responsibility to be the nominated person. They could have been involved in the situation that has led to that young person entering a mental health spiral—an abuse situation, for example, which has not been discovered by the authorities. That person would still have parental responsibility at that time. I think it is important that the young person can choose the person to support them in their ongoing care. I will be supporting clauses 24 to 28 and Government amendments 40 and 41.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I rise to speak to clauses 24 to 28, and I will start by sharing the story of two of my constituents: Carol and her husband John. John had been an active member of the local community before he was sadly diagnosed with dementia. As his dementia progressed, John was settled into a good care home and Carol was happy with the care that he was receiving. Due to a change in his medication, Carol was told that John had become more agitated and aggressive than usual. She was asked whether she would agree to John being assessed. Although she did not really understand what that meant, she did not see any reason to refuse. From that point on, Carol says that she felt like she had lost control over her husband’s care. John was assessed by four strangers, and Carol was told that she could not be present. Following the assessment, Carol was told that John would need to be detained under the Mental Health Act within the next two weeks. Carol was very concerned to hear that John would be detained, but despite having power of attorney, she was not able to overrule that decision. She hoped that he would be able to get help with his medication and that he would be discharged. In the end, Carol had only half an hour’s notice that John was going to be detained. She rushed to the care home to see her husband, who had been sat in the garden having a cup of tea with some friends, being abruptly put into a van by two men and taken away. She was not allowed to come with him, and for the first time in her life, Carol had a panic attack. She could not imagine how traumatic it was for John, who was disorientated and confused because of his dementia, to be taken by people he did not know to a strange place. John was taken to a secure mental health ward that was very different from the familiar environment of his care home. Carol was told that she could not visit him, but she was insistent and turned up anyway. She was then allowed to meet his doctors on his first day and was reassured to hear that he would be detained for only two weeks while his medication was reviewed. In the end, John was detained for eight months. Carol continued to visit every day, spending as much time as possible with him. She had specially adapted her home to accommodate John’s needs, but she was not able to have him discharged to either his home or a care home. Precious time was taken up with the endless fight to get John into a more appropriate environment. Sadly, John’s health significantly declined while he was detained. He lost the ability to walk and speak, and Carol felt that, in his declining state, he could not pose any danger to himself or anyone else. However, it was only after he was admitted to hospital for a catheter fitting that Carol was able to get him discharged, thanks to a doctor telling her that she could use her power of attorney to take him home—something she was told she was unable to do in the mental health facility. She took him to a care home, where, sadly, he died two weeks later. John’s cause of death was listed as Parkinson’s, but Carol feels strongly that the anxiety and fear of his final months contributed to his death. Carol understood that her husband was dying; all she wanted was to be included in making decisions about his care. She knew very clearly what she wanted for him. She told me: “I wanted him to die in a bed with clean sheets, with a window open and with me by his side.” Those wishes were not taken into account. As John’s wife and carer, Carol spent every day with him, yet she felt excluded from the decision-making process for his care. She should have been able to focus on what was important: spending time with him. The changes in clauses 24 to 28 would have helped Carol to feel more involved in representing John during his time in care. Clearly, there were failures to allow Carol, as John’s nearest relative, the rights that she was entitled to in order to support him. With the move from “nearest relative” to “nominated person”, the new rights afforded by the Bill would have given Carol even greater engagement. Given that she had power of attorney, it is likely that she would have been appointed the nominated person by the AMHP. However, moving forward, it is important that those rights are properly afforded to the nominated person, so that we do not have another situation like John and Carol’s. Although I welcome and fully support the changes in clauses 24 to 28, I seek an assurance from the Minister that all efforts will be made to ensure that the rights of nominated persons are fully recognised and assigned, and that nominated persons will be made fully aware of their responsibilities and powers, allowing advocacy for the patient under care. I turn briefly to amendments 54 and 55 and Government amendments 40 and 41. I agree with the Government’s view that if a child has capacity, they should be able to have the choice to appoint their own nominated person. I appreciate the intent of the amendments from the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, but I think that the Government’s approach is more appropriate.

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

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes a good point—mental health services are in a very bad place—but does he agree that the Government have already announced investment in mental health specialists in all schools, and in mental health crisis centres? I have no doubt that once the 10-year plan for the NHS comes out, there will be an even clearer path for how we tackle mental health issues.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I was interested to hear what the Minister has just said, but I think it goes much further. Can he give me assurances that we will take time to look at what is driving so many young black men in particular into these mental health crisis situations? We need to look much further back, at the start of the process, where something is pushing young black men into mental health crisis and they are ending up in a position where they have to be placed in a facility and go through a whole period of attempting to recover. Can the Minister give me his thoughts on what the Government are doing to prevent that from happening in the first place, particularly with this group of men?

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

  More

  I rise to speak in support of clauses 13 and 14. I have talked briefly today about the ongoing Lampard inquiry. There are two examples that are now public. Patient A was detained under the Mental Health Act for more than five years without a clear therapeutic plan and was subjected to prolonged seclusion and chemical restraint. The inquiry found that, despite the family raising concerns, there was a lack of clinical oversight and a failure to review detention and treatment status regularly. Patient B, a young man detained for over two years, experienced frequent use of rapid tranquillisation and segregation. The patient’s condition deteriorated, and that was documented, but there was no change to his care approach and no treatment review at all. I welcome the clauses, but I put to the Minister how vital it is that we ensure that these reviews happen. There is a three-month review process at the moment, but in those two cases it did not happen. I also welcome shortening the time to two months. It is vital that the three-pronged approach that is outlined in the Bill happens. We have heard that no one size fits all—individual care is so important. Establishing the capacity and competency of an individual is vital. Every patient is different and they should be treated appropriately. It is important to have appropriate review mechanisms in mental health care. Shortening the review process to two months for patients ensures that the therapeutic and clinical treatment remains appropriate. Hopefully, it also helps to lead to the desired quicker recovery period for the patient, but if not, it helps to adapt the treatment if a stronger or different type of treatment is required. The key is looking at ways to get people out of care as quickly as possible. Reviewing care regularly is really important. I welcome clauses 13 and 14.

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

  More

  The Lampard inquiry, which relates to my area of Essex, is ongoing. It highlights the issue of people being detained without any clear therapeutic plan or clinical justification. Does my hon. Friend agree that the clause will start to address some of the concerns raised by the inquiry?

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I have received contact from Send the Right Message, an organisation in my constituency of Southend West and Leigh. It welcomes clause 3 and clause 4, which I will speak to later, but it makes it very clear that during the implementation it is really important to hear the voices of the individuals who will be impacted and their families. As we work with the ICBs, local authorities and commissioners to implement these new regulations, I seek an assurance that the voices of the community will be heard.

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

  More

  The Labour Government are working on a range of early interventions for young people in the area of mental health and to stop them spiralling into crime, such as the Young Futures hubs and introducing mental health support in every single school. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but it sits outside the Bill, and there is plenty that the Government are doing. Regrettably, there will always be a need, at certain times, for a young person to be under a section 2 notice and to be brought into care for a period of time, for their own safety. That is unavoidable and will be the right thing for that individual, but there is so much work being done outside this Bill to help young people and others with their mental health.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Bank Closures and Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend mentioned the issues caused for businesses. There are also significant issues for charities. In my constituency, many local charities and community groups receive cash donations and struggle to find a place to bank them. Does he agree that this is an issue for charities, just as much as it is for local businesses?

• 4 Jun 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  This time last year, Southend United football club almost went bankrupt, thanks to mismanagement by the former owner, but on Sunday they made it to Wembley for the national league play-off final. Despite being beaten by Oldham Athletic at the eleventh hour, it was like the phoenix rising from the flames to see them on the pitch. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Southend United on their outstanding recovery, and give me an assurance that the Government are doing all they can to make sure that no club ever again has to go through what our club went through?

• 19 May 2025 · Gender Self-identification · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. In the Supreme Court ruling, the judge said that the Equality Act 2010 applies to trans people. Does the hon. Lady agree that we have been failing trans people for many years in this country, despite the fact that they are covered by the Equality Act? That has to change.

• 19 May 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all Members who have spoken so far to share their professional experience, leaving me feeling very under-qualified to speak on this matter, and those who shared their deeply personal contributions. We all know the shocking statistics associated with mental health. Indeed, the cost of poor mental health is calculated at £300 billion a year in England, and the life expectancy of people with a severe mental illness is around 15 years shorter than for those without one. I wish to draw Members’ attention to men’s mental health, which is an often neglected and overlooked area. Men’s mental ill health frequently goes unrecognised or untreated, leading to severe consequences. Men face unique challenges and are often less likely to seek help. About 12.5% of men in England have a mental health disorder. Only 36% of NHS referrals for psychological therapies are for men, and many men fear judgment for discussing mental health. Men can feel pressured to appear strong, leading to shame, fear of judgment and a reluctance to take time off work for mental health reasons. To add to that list of mental health disparities, we must add racial inequalities, as has been pointed out by many hon. Members. Black people in Britain are nearly four times more likely to be sectioned than their white counterparts, and the NHS’s race watchdog has warned that discrimination is playing a part in those high figures. Racial discrimination can prevent black and minority ethnic communities from accessing the care they need. We know that black African and Caribbean communities face particular barriers to accessing specific mental health services. They are less likely to self-refer to psychological talking therapies and less likely to be referred to such services by their GPs. In addition, the racism, racial violence and hate crimes that threaten many such communities have an additional impact on the mental health of community members, often leading to more severe mental illness, compounded by social injustices, discrimination and disadvantage. I recently visited Rochford hospital, a community and mental health unit that serves my constituency, where I saw for myself the disparity; there were a significant number of young black people on the ward—a mix that certainly does not match the make-up of our local area. We know the terrible toll that poor mental health can have, which can wreak havoc on people’s lives. My constituency of Southend West and Leigh lies within Essex, a county that is unfortunately the unwelcome focus of England’s first public inquiry into mental health deaths. The Lampard inquiry is investigating 2,000 mental health deaths in Essex between 2000 and 2023, which is yet another shocking statistic. It aims to examine the failures in care in Essex and hopefully ensure that they are not repeated elsewhere. The inquiry has reported that the alleged failings are on a deeply shocking scale and the Essex partnership university NHS foundation trust has had to apologise for the harm caused to those affected. The director of the charity Inquest, Deborah Coles, which provides support on state-related deaths, told the inquiry that “many NHS trusts were more concerned about their reputation” than about the care that they provided for their patients. She pointed to an “overuse in restraint”, segregation and seclusion, once again especially with black patients. As we have heard, the Government are committed to driving down poor mental health, and the Bill is among the steps they are taking. I welcome the measures outlined in the Bill, particularly the involvement of patients in decision making throughout their care and the strengthening of their voice. For too long, patients have been ignored. Given some of the emerging themes from the Lampard inquiry, I also welcome the measures on increasing the scrutiny of detention to ensure that it is used only where necessary and only for as long as necessary, and on the importance of having a nominated person in place. The Secretary of State talked about prevention, and I welcome the other measures that the Government are bringing in, such as the first men’s health strategy, which will also focus on mental health. The most tragic figures are on the terrible toll of people who take their own lives as a result of poor mental health. Men are disproportionately affected by suicide—the statistics are horrifying. Of the 6,069 registered deaths caused by suicide in 2023, 75% were men. Suicide remains the leading cause of death for men under 54. These are not just statistics: real lives are being lost. Sadly, I have had personal experience of the trauma caused by male suicide and the devastating impact that it has on the family and friends who are left behind. In November, my close friend Sam, a bubbly, charismatic, well-liked and much-loved guy, with a whole future ahead of him, unexpectedly took his own life, two days before his 34th birthday. His loss is still felt by many, and there are so many unanswered questions. We must fix this system. I speak today in Sam’s memory, and in memory of everyone else who has been let down by the level of mental health support available. I never again want to receive a call to say that someone close to me has been lost in this way. We must do better, and I am hopeful that we are starting to head in the right direction.

• 8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will remember me mentioning Julie Taylor, who has campaigned locally on this issue after the death of her grandson Liam. She welcomes these new clauses. She said to me that she welcomes anything that helps get rid of this awful crime, and that she thanks the Government for introducing them. Does the Minister agree that these measures give an even greater level of protection and prevention so that we can start to drive down the awful offence of knife crime?

• 8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. Like my right hon. Friend the Minister, I will always defend the right to protest, but it must be appropriate. Having one’s voice heard must not come at the expense of intimidating those who are peacefully worshipping. As the hon. Member for Stockton West mentioned, only recently in Southend my constituents were affected by a march that was purposely routed past a place of worship at the time when people were due to be leaving that place of worship. We have heard similar evidence of that happening across the country. Let us be clear: it is not acceptable that people should be intimidated while they go to or from, or are in, their place of worship, whatever their religion. I welcome the new clauses.

• 8 May 2025 · Trade Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister, the Prime Minister, Lord Mandelson and all involved in this work for getting the deal over the line. Unlike some Opposition Members, who seem intent on talking down the Government’s positive work and our country, I find the deal really positive. Does the Minister agree that this trade deal, the one with India and the fall in interest rates announced by the Bank of England are positive signs that the Government’s plan for change is working and will start to benefit people in my constituency and across the country?

• 29 Apr 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Signal jammers and other electronic devices are a real problem, and one that many of my residents did not realise exist until they were hit. I will never forget knocking on a door one Saturday morning, when the resident opened and said, “Where’s my car gone?” She said, “I’d locked it. It should be here,” but it turned out, again, that her car had been stolen using such a technique. The immediate inconvenience of a theft is significant, but it is not the only consequence. The victim may have to rearrange plans as they no longer have their car, and there are longer-term issues such as increased insurance premiums because of the theft. Keyless cars, which once seemed super-convenient, are now seen by many as a significant security flaw. I will never forget watching on CCTV after my neighbour’s car was stolen a few years ago using this exact method. The individual walked up to the car, gained entry and drove off, all in 45 seconds. Essex police has said that its stolen vehicles intelligence unit recovered £13.5 million-worth of stolen vehicles and parts in 2024—this is a real issue. I welcome clauses 78 and 79 and the tough new penalties for those who consider it appropriate to commit this crime, which is so disruptive to people’s lives.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As I look around the room, we all have our mobiles glued to our hands. They do everything for us now: payments, emails, leisure and, occasionally, phone calls. These devices are massively important to us. We all know the feeling of leaving home without a mobile device—many of us would have to turn round because we cannot live without it. There has been a significant rise in snatch-and-grab crimes throughout the country, and I know many constituents, friends and colleagues in this place who have been impacted. Given that these devices can be tracked, it is madness that the police are not currently able to go in and recover them. I take the point raised by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam about the accuracy of tracking. I do not think it is as big an issue as he makes out, but perhaps it is something for the Minister to consider. The biggest thing is that knowing the police can enter to recover these items will act as a deterrent. We need to drive down this crime. The prevalence of snatch-and-grabs in this country is simply unacceptable, so I welcome clause 93.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Irish Republican Alleged Incitement · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his answer to the urgent question. Nobody but those in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) know what it is actually like when somebody kills your MP. The reverberations are still being felt in Southend West and Leigh three and a half years later by the constituents, never mind the family of Sir David Amess, who will never recover from the loss. Does my hon. Friend agree that those in the public eye—anyone, in fact, but especially those in the public eye—should be careful with their words, because words have power and can be incredibly dangerous. We should condemn with all force the type of incitement we have seen from this particular group.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Football clubs command a special place in the hearts of their community and the hearts of their fans. Their continued success is key to the identity and community spirit of their areas, and local clubs bring a great deal of economic benefit. I know that is the case with my team, Southend United—the Shrimpers—in the heart of Southend and in my constituency. Over recent years, under the former owner, Ron Martin, we nearly lost our club. Financial mismanagement left the club unable to meet its obligations. It was put up for sale, but in the meantime creditors queued up at the door waiting to be paid. The club was taken to court, had numerous deadlines and point deductions imposed on it by the national league and faced a winding-up petition due to debt owed to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. What are we talking about risking the loss of here? We are talking about a club that was formed in 1906 and that started its life on the current Roots Hall site before moving to the Kursaal during the first world war, before finally finding its way back to Roots Hall in 1955 to a ground built almost exclusively by the supporters’ club under the leadership of Sid Broomfield. It is a community asset to so many. It is a place where people come to share a common purpose, a place for community engagement and, for some, a place that gets them out of social isolation. There is then the social impact of the club, estimated by the Shrimpers Trust to be worth £10.3 million annually. In one of its publications, the trust drew the following conclusions: “Fans are not customers; we are the key stakeholders in the football clubs… Football clubs are not businesses, they are cultural heritage assets born of and represented by their communities”. I am proud to see that this Bill tackles those issues head on. The Shrimpers Trust welcomes its provisions, while having some sensible suggestions to improve them further. I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has said that she will look at those in Committee. It is disappointing that the Tories want to kill this Bill, despite it being in their manifesto. Fans are clear that they are not happy about that. A statement released just today by the Shrimpers Trust thanks Members on both sides of the House for the work that they have done so far, but it also says: “We urge those parties to continue to work together to progress this legislation and…to listen to the fans as the game’s primary stakeholder, rather than be swayed by out-of-touch figures with vested interests”. I welcome this Bill.