Fleur Anderson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  It is estimated that about 4% of homes will be affected in my constituency. I have really looked into this matter, and the surcharge being added to their bills is a fair way of redistributing our tax. This surcharge applies to a very small number of people who are able to afford it. What do we get in return? A fairer society, better public services and the NHS, which people will be using. We get all those benefits in return for a minimal surcharge that will be fairly distributed. Doing this through council tax, instead of in the other ways that were talked about, is fairest. Across the many changes in the Budget, we are looking for good things for our families, for businesses and for hard-working people. We are looking to make their lives better, bring down their bills and increase income. The increase in skills is such a necessary part of this Budget. This is a welcome Budget for Putney, for London, and for the country.

• 25 Nov 2025 · G20 and Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I join many others here in welcoming the recent progress on the war in Ukraine at the G20, in Geneva and most recently. Putin is continuing to circumvent sanctions via other countries. Will the coalition of the willing work with those other countries, as the Prime Minister has explained will happen, to ensure that that money, which is continuing to fuel the war, is cut off? That will enable a just and lasting peace and the rebuilding of Ukraine.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Gaza: Humanitarian Obligations · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for introducing this debate. She has mentioned the number of people who signed the petition, which includes 715 people from my constituency. They will have given money to many of the UK aid agencies that are trying to get this aid in urgently. Does my hon. Friend agree that all the aid getting that urgency is a measure of the success of the British Government’s work with the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre?

• 19 Nov 2025 · Myalgic Encephalomyelitis · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is a passionate advocate for women’s health. Does she agree that the reason for this disease often being overlooked and for the stigma she has talked about is that women are five times more likely than men to get it? Will she support clear funding, accountability and deadlines within the welcome plan that has been delivered, and a service for very severe ME for all ICBs?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman has talked about doing the right thing, but is not doing the right thing getting justice for over 1,000 families, including 200 veteran families, who have waited too long for answers about their loved ones? Putting victims at the heart of this process would be doing the right thing—getting on with legislation that will deliver the justice needed, instead of the delays and dithering that the Conservatives’ legacy Act provided?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will my right hon. Friend give way?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Parkinson’s Disease · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell, in this very important debate. I thank Parkinson’s UK, Parkinson’s Care and especially the “Movers and Shakers” podcast, whose dedication and campaigning led to the huge number of people signing the petition. I am sure the Minister has seen how many MPs are in the Chamber and how many people are in the Public Gallery today. Lots of people will be watching at home as well. In Putney, 163 people have Parkinson’s disease. Across the South West London ICB, 2,540 people were admitted with the disease in 2024-25. Overall, the NHS spends £325 million a year on unplanned admissions of people with Parkinson’s. This is a very big issue, which rightly deserves the attention it is getting today. I hope for some great answers from the Minister about what the NHS will be doing. First, we need more specialists for faster diagnosis. Many Members have mentioned the delays in diagnosis today, which is true in my constituency, but also in Northern Ireland, where one in 20 people wait more than five years for a diagnosis. Has the Minister spoken to the Northern Ireland Health Minister, Mike Nesbitt, about this issue? What steps are the Government taking to solve the Parkinson’s diagnosis crisis? Secondly, we need instant information. St George’s University has the vital Parkinson’s Connect resource, and it is using it, but can that be rolled out throughout the country? Thirdly, we need the Parkinson’s passport on social security. As many Members have mentioned, it is a fluctuating condition. The PIP system is failing people with Parkinson’s and their families and carers. Has that been raised with the Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms)? Comprehensive care and more funding will allow us to deliver care, dignity and hope to everyone living with Parkinson’s and their families.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Four years ago I introduced a private Member’s Bill to ban the sale of wet wipes with plastic in them. The previous Government dragged their feet, but these wet wipes cause fatbergs in our sewers, put millions of pounds on our water bills for all our constituents and pollute rivers and seas. This Government promised to bring in the ban, and they are doing so now. Will the Prime Minister join me in celebrating a Labour promise delivered, and share the message that we should always bin wet wipes and other wipes, not flush them?

• 11 Nov 2025 · Prisoner Releases in Error · Hansard source

  More

  As a Wandsworth MP, my constituents are very concerned about these releases. They have seen years of underfunding of Wandsworth prison. They have also seen more investment by this Government since coming into power than for years and years before that. From visiting Wandsworth prison, I have every confidence in its new governance and the systems it is putting in place. I thank the Justice Secretary for his response to my letter, outlining the changes in training, technology and resources, and the digital rapid response unit, which are being put in place to redress these wrongs. For the sake of my constituents, will the Justice Secretary outline the stronger release checks that he has put in place straight away?

• 5 Nov 2025 · House Building: London · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is painting a picture that I do not recognise in my London constituency. Is he aware that, as Mayor of London, Sadiq has averaged 10,000 more new homes completed a year than under Boris Johnson’s mayoralty? He has got house building going in a way that the Tory mayor could not.

• 5 Nov 2025 · House Building: London · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the second time today, Mr Mundell. I welcome this important debate and thank the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) for securing it. I declare an interest, as my son is studying construction management at London South Bank University—I hope he will be one of the house builders of the future. I also do so because, like all the other hon. Members in this debate, this is one of the biggest issues for my constituency—for so many people who come to my surgery and whom I see every day when I go out and about in the constituency, but also for my own children. I do not know whether they would ever be able to afford to live in my area, and that is no way to build a community. People need to be able to know that their children and grandchildren will be able to live near them, to have work near them and to live in areas that they can afford. At the moment, we do not have that in London; we have a broken housing situation. Tackling the housing crisis has always been a top priority for the Mayor of London. Despite some of the claims made today, the facts speak for themselves. Sadiq Khan has started more new council homes in London than has been the case at any time since the 1970s. Before the pandemic, he completed more homes than had been the case at any time since the 1930s. That is not luck; it is Labour leadership in action and working hand in hand with Labour boroughs, such as Wandsworth, to deliver for Londoners. Since 2018, 23,000 council homes have been built or are being built with the help of City Hall funding. We know that the challenges are real. House building is facing a perfect storm: the legacy of Conservative under-investment and, in Wandsworth, Conservative total pandering to developers; sky-high interest rates; soaring construction costs; and the lasting impact of Brexit. Those pressures demand bold, urgent action. That is why I welcome the emergency, time-limited housing package announced by the Government and the mayor, working together, in October. It is a serious intervention, with £322 million of new investment for a City Hall developer investment fund, which will be used to keep affordable housing rates as high as they can be. Like other hon. Members, I hope that we will not just see more dark houses. It is really important that local people have first dibs on all the new houses being built. We need to have those stalled projects unlocked and getting shovels in the ground. I will highlight two housing developments in my constituency that I think all hon. Members will be very interested in. This is good news. The first is New Acres, which is a £500 million, purpose-built neighbourhood on a brownfield site that has brought 1,034 new rental homes to Wandsworth; it was completed last year. The original plans were that 23% would be affordable. The mayor called the scheme in, and it is now 35% affordable, with 55% of that built in the first phase. It has not been a case of leaving it all to the next phase and then it perhaps not happening. It is there; it is real. It is in my community in Wandsworth. It is one of the UK’s largest build-to-rent schemes and it is—I underline—35% affordable. The second development is the Alton estate renewal, which just two weeks ago, in the UK’s largest ever regeneration ballot, was overwhelmingly endorsed by residents—82.4% voted in favour. That is the result of the Labour council coming in and saying that the previous Conservative council’s plans just did not work and were being imposed on the community. The Labour council said, “Let’s start again and work with the community.” The community could see that the plans would provide what they wanted for their area. There will be new GP surgeries; dedicated youth facilities, which I am obsessed with; a family hub; improved shops; green spaces, and up to 650 new homes—the developer is the council, so it will be able to ensure that it has the affordable housing and that the whole development is what the community wants—thanks to £100 million in investment from the council and £16 million in Greater London Authority funding, with a focus on family-sized homes. We need more affordable homes. I am grateful for the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, and for all the work the Minister did on it. I am also grateful for Awaab’s law and its extension to private renters, because the link between housing and mental health issues is very strong. But I agree with other Members that overseas sales need to be reduced. Buy-backs are very important, as is local government funding for repairs. Too many homes stay empty for too long between periods of use. Councils need more money to repair them along the way. A Labour mayor with a proven track record of house building, backed by a Labour Government with the ambition to deliver, and a Labour council, as we have in Wandsworth, is how we will solve London’s housing crisis. That is how we will build a fairer, stronger city for future generations.

• 3 Nov 2025 · Draft Environmental Protection (Wet Wipes Containing Plastic) (England) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted to speak in this Committee, having campaigned for this legislation for four years. In the UK, over 11 billion wet wipes are used annually—that is probably a conservative estimate; actually, far more are used—and wet wipes cause 93% of sewer blockages and fatbergs. Anyone who has seen a fatberg will not forget it, but water companies have to see them a lot because they are the main blockages in our pipes. They damage pipes and our water infrastructure, and they add huge sums to our water bills because of the cost of clearing them up. Water companies spend approximately £100 million a year clearing fatbergs, and that goes on to our bills. Anything we can do to reduce the problem will be a good thing for our bills, and for our constituents. As my hon. Friend the Minister and the shadow Minister said, huge damage is also caused to the environment and to marine life. The microplastics from wet wipes get into the systems of marine life and cause damage, especially to fertility and to feeding. Recently, a wet wipe island formed in the River Thames in the constituency of the hon. Member for Richmond Park. The island changed the course of the River Thames. It was the size of two tennis courts and at least a metre deep, and if you stood on it, you could feel its jelly-like texture. I am grateful to the Port of London Authority and to Thames21 volunteers for revealing the problem, and to the Port of London Authority for mapping the island with sonar from boats so that it could see the size of the island and see that it was growing. The island was removed this summer because the opening of Tideway has dramatically reduced the amount of wet wipes put out into the River Thames, and because this legislation was promised. If there are fewer wet wipes with plastic in, fewer will stay forever—it is not known how long they will take to break down—in the banks of the River Thames. There is therefore a reason to clear the wet wipe island and ensure it is not refilled. That is good news. I also thank the Marine Conservation Society and Surfers Against Sewage. This campaign has been a team effort and, as the shadow Minister said, a cross-party effort. For years, the Conservative Government promised to introduce this legislation, but they were not getting on with it, so in 2021 I introduced my private Member’s Bill. I did so again in 2022 and introduced a ten-minute rule Bill in 2022. In the meantime, I worked with water companies across the UK so that the campaigning on this issue would be less confusing. It was “fine to flush” in some areas and there were different campaigns by different water companies. Now there is a unified effort by all the water companies together to have the same public messaging. The threat of the ban encouraged Tesco and Boots to go plastic-free for all the wipes sold in their stores for any use—baby wipes, cosmetic wipes, cleaning wipes and so on. There really should not be all those wipes but those in Tesco and Boots have been guaranteed plastic-free since 2023. The main message must be: do not flush any wipes. No wipes are fine to flush. Even the ones that can be broken down join with fat and cause blockages, so they should not be flushed. As has been mentioned, the issue is similar to the plastic bag ban and the change brought about by Government regulation as well as behavioural change by the public. There is a clear message that we should all send. It is great that Wales is the first country in the world to legislate on this issue—the legislation is coming in very soon. Scotland has plans to bring this measure in soon, and in November 2024 the Northern Ireland Executive notified the World Trade Organisation of their intent to legislate. We look forward to the Northern Ireland Executive introducing their regulations as soon as possible, so that the whole of the United Kingdom is lined up on this issue. The industry has said that it is great to have 18 months, but I know from talking to the industry that it will take less than 18 months because there are alternatives that can be brought in at the same cost. That will make a huge difference to the amount of plastic in our rivers and waterways. Plastic comes from fossil fuels and is very hard to get rid of at the end of its life. Extended producer responsibility remains an issue. The wet wipe companies are not paying for the clean-up, which is paid for by us through our water bills. That is a problem. We have to keep working on labelling, as well as single-use plastic. However, the regulations are a huge step in the right direction. I am enormously grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, for the amount of work that she has done on this. She came into office determined to get this measure through, and she has. She deserves huge credit for that. I am very excited to be here today and working with so many people across the House and across the country on a small statutory instrument about a small item, a wet wipe, that will make a huge difference to our water bills and the environment. I am delighted that we have these regulations. I look forward to working with all the Members here and across the House to continue our work towards the circular economy.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Property Service Charges · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome this important debate and thank the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) very much on behalf of the many constituents who come to my surgeries, who write to me, and who I meet when I am out and about in the many developments across Putney, Southfields, Roehampton and Wandsworth town. I speak today on behalf not just of my constituents, but of leaseholders across the country who feel that they are being let down by the broken system—one that continues to allow unfair and sharply rising service charges, poor communication, and substandard services to persist unchecked. The limited rights to challenge such changes leave people feeling as if they are fighting the battle on their own. As we know from the number of Members present and from many other meetings, people across the country face these issues, so there is something wrong not just with the individual managing agencies that we are all thinking of, but with the system itself. The hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) mentioned regulation. Do we need more layers of it? We must also consider the checks and balances in the system. Asking people to go to the first-tier tribunal as a last resort is so daunting and cumbersome that it is not a proper check on the system. I welcome the Government’s decisive action to tackle long-standing injustices in leasehold and estate management. I thank the Minister for all his work on that, including the incoming changes. This debate is full of hope about those changes making a difference. Ahead of the closure of the Government’s recent consultation on strengthening leaseholder protections, I conducted a service charge consultation in my constituency, where it is a big issue in so many developments. The results, which I have submitted to the Government, were deeply troubling. More than 200 constituents responded to my consultation, and I think they speak for hundreds more. Almost 90% of respondents reported significant increases in their service charges. Even more—96%—said that they felt those increases were unjustified. That comes down not only to poor communication, but to the fact that many of those services charges do seem to be unjustified. Those are not isolated cases, as we are hearing in the debate. In 2024, service charges rose by 11% on average—well above the 2.5% rate of inflation—and, in my constituency, they average £2,300 per year. I see countless examples of eye-watering hikes. One constituent reported that their annual service charge had increased from £1,600 to £6,660 per year, for example, while another told me they were sent a large additional bill right before Christmas as their managing agent clawed back more money after an “error” in its accounting. That often happens during years in which the amount has already risen a lot, before rising more still because of extra charges and services provided—or not provided, as many constituents see it. Too many leaseholders are ignored by managing agents and charged for services that are sub-standard or not delivered at all, including cleaning services that show no signs of leaving the building cleaner, painting in communal areas that do not need to be painted or for which the charge should be lower, and, in one case, gardening services for gardens that do not exist. One of the most shocking examples in my consultation was a large development in my constituency. Leaseholders reported a revolving door of housing managers who are inexperienced, unqualified, overstretched and unfamiliar with the building’s history. The managing agent presents accounts that simply do not add up. Contractors are paid without checks, faults go un-penalised and residents are left to clean up the mess time and again. The managing agent has ignored numerous industry experts who have stated that important plumbing works need to be carried out. Some have said that the building is in serious danger of complete structural failure. Basic services are not carried out, yet leaseholders continue to foot the bill. The managing agent is supposed to paint the exterior at least every 10 years, but nothing happens. It is the same old story again and again. Six managing agents were named many times in my consultation. I will not name them here, because that would be damaging for the people who live in those developments. Clearly, there are some good managing agents and landlords, but there are also some very bad ones, and those are the ones that we need a new Bill to deal with. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 contains proposals for greater transparency through standardised accounts, mandatory reserve funds and easier routes to challenge unreasonable service charge rises, and managing agents will face mandatory qualifications and enforced membership of professional bodies. Those measures are all welcome. The previous Conservative Government had 14 years to act on these matters but passed leasehold reform law only in the dying days of the last Parliament, so their measures were rushed, poorly drafted and failed to ban new leasehold homes. I am very glad that this debate offers us the chance to talk about going further on industry regulation and to welcome the commonhold Bill. Leaseholders in my constituency and across the country have waited long enough. The system is broken, the injustice is real, and the need for reform is urgent.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Wet Wipes: Plastic Ban · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of banning plastic in wet wipes. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank colleagues across the House who have supported my campaign to ban plastic in wet wipes. I am also grateful to: the Marine Conservation Society; Thames21; World Wide Fund for Nature; Green Alliance; Water UK, which brings together all the water companies in the country; and Surfers Against Sewage, for their campaigning on this issue. I thank the Minister for being here and for sharing my passion for cleaning up our rivers and driving this policy forward. I congratulate her on the progress she has made and look forward to hearing more about that later. After years of delay and indecision from the previous Government, it is refreshing to see real momentum. The previous Government talked about this issue since 2016, launched consultations and made promises, but failed to deliver. This Minister has shown determination and clarity, and I commend her for taking action where others stalled. Since November 2021, I have campaigned relentlessly to ban plastic in wet wipes. I have introduced three bills in Parliament: two private Member’s Bills in 2021 and 2022 and a ten-minute-rule Bill in 2022. I raised the issue directly with the Prime Minister during questions at that time. I am proud the subject was in the Labour manifesto and I hope to hear from the Minister when the ban will be brought in for England. All four UK nations have notified the World Trade Organisation of their intention to legislate, and Wales leads the way. Congratulations to Wales as the first country in the world to pass a ban on plastic in wet wipes, which will come into force on 18 December 2026.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Wet Wipes: Plastic Ban · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The water companies need to invest in new ways of stopping sewage going out of their systems and in cleaning up our rivers, and not having to spend so much money coming out to clear up the blockages. That is down to wet wipes, so my hon. Friend is exactly right. The third reason I want to ban plastic from wet wipes is that plastic is made using fossil fuels—it is made from oil —and it is very hard to get rid of. This is one form of plastic that we can cut relatively easily, because alternatives are available to put into wipes to make them stronger. The UK uses over 11 billion wet wipes a year—that is 163 per person. As a mother of four and a grandmother of a little two-year-old, I know how useful they are, but convenience should not come at such a high environmental cost. Thames21 pulled 5,000 wet wipes from just 116 metres of the Thames. Its annual surveys have evidenced the impact of so many wet wipes on just the banks of the River Thames. I pay tribute to it. The Marine Conservation Society found that wet wipes containing plastic had been found on nearly two thirds of English beaches surveyed. This issue exists across the UK. I have seen the damage myself at the Beckton and Mogden treatment works. They have a special sifting part of the process to clear wet wipes because they are so prevalent. There is also wet wipe island near Hammersmith bridge, which was surveyed by the Port of London authority after Thames21 revealed the extent of the problem. It is about two tennis courts wide. When you stand on it, you can feel the jelly-like texture because there are so many wet wipes below to such depth. Thankfully, it was cleared this summer because the Tideway tunnel is coming in, so there is far less—95% less—sewage going out into the Thames, which means fewer wet wipes. It will not just fill up again. Five million wet wipes were taken out of wet wipe island. It really demonstrated the damage. The public are behind us and retailers are stepping up. Boots stopped selling plastic wet wipes in all their stores in 2022 because I have been talking about bringing in this ban and because the Government are promising to do it. Tesco did the same in 2023. Government action now will ensure that all the other retailers follow suit. Alongside the ban, the message must be clear: do not flush any wipes. Only the three Ps go down the toilet: pee, poo and paper. I support Water UK’s “Bin the Wipe” campaign. Instead of having lots of different campaigns from all the different water companies, which was confusing, there is now a joined-up attitude towards campaigning on this and encouraging people to have bins in their bathrooms so that they throw wipes away instead of flushing them. I know that the Minister has considered the wider issues, so I would like to hear about some of them. The first issue is the lead-in time. There is an 18-month lead-in time at the moment. After all the delay in bringing in the ban, could that be cut to 12 months to align England and Scotland with Wales, which is bringing in a ban in 12 months’ time in December 2026? The second issue is labelling. “Fine to flush” labelling is confusing. A little image showing a turtle crossed out means that wipes contain plastic, but it is difficult to understand. We need mandatory “Do not flush” labels on all wipes. Has that been given consideration? The third issue is about the polluter paying. Has consideration been given to making manufacturers contribute to the cost of the blockages? That could be done through an extended product responsibility scheme. The fourth issue is exemptions. The proposed legislation contains exemptions allowing pharmacies and some businesses to sell plastic wipes. Could those loopholes be reduced or removed? The fifth issue is the impact assessment. We do not want an unintended consequence of substitute materials being just as strong or dangerous as plastic. Will there be a full impact assessment alongside the regulations on what happens as a result of the ban, including the safety of substitute materials? I hope to see some good results. Above all, let us be clear: wipes should be binned, not flushed. I raise that in every school I visit in Putney. I say, “I am going to say something unusual for a politician”. Then I tell the students about it and they are instantly onboard. Children get it. Young people care deeply about the planet.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Wet Wipes: Plastic Ban · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has put his finger on the button, because this is about not flushing wet wipes, no matter what they are made from. Banning plastic in wet wipes is one step forward, but we need to do more. This is a UK-wide issue; no part of the UK is unaffected. What is the problem? Why am I talking about it so obsessively? First, microplastics from wet wipes pollute our rivers, lakes and oceans. They are ingested by marine animals, from plankton to whales, disrupting feeding, growth and reproduction. Microplastics cause internal injuries, digestive blockages and reduced nutrient absorption. They leach harmful chemicals such as bisphenol A, phthalates and flame retardants. They also absorb pollutants from sea water, such as heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants, which are then released into animals’ tissues upon ingestion. Those substances can cause hormonal disruption, immune suppression, developmental defects and death. Filter feeders, such as oysters and baleen whales—from very small to very big—are especially vulnerable. Microplastics can also alter sediment composition, affecting bottom-dwelling species, and they can destabilise entire marine ecosystems. They are very small, but they have a huge effect. Secondly, wet wipes block sewers and drive up water bills. They form fatbergs, trigger storm overflow spills, and cost a lot. In my water company area of Thames Water, it costs £40.7 million every year to clear the blockages. That is £200 million over the current five-year investment cycle.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Wet Wipes: Plastic Ban · Hansard source

  More

  This is a whole-of-society campaign. I think it is equivalent to when we reduced the use of plastic bags. There had to be some Government regulation, but there also had to be a change of attitude among the people using plastic bags—we need that here. We need Government regulation to push it through faster, otherwise the retailers will be too slow. We also need people to change their behaviour and not flush wet wipes. Groups such as the London Wildlife Trust do a fantastic job in this, as do Thames21 and others. We need a whole-society approach and today is a big step forward in that. Let us show that Parliament listens to young people in Putney and across the country, and understands the issue. I look forward to hearing when action will be taken.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Heathrow: National Airports Review · Hansard source

  More

  Heathrow aircraft noise has a significant detrimental impact on my Putney constituents. Similar hubs in other European countries affect far fewer people: for Schiphol it is 44,000 and for Charles de Gaulle 133,000, while for Heathrow it is more than 680,000 people who are directly impacted by the noise. Currently there are no legal noise limits. I welcome the mentions of noise in the Secretary of State’s statement; will she commit to a binding noise limit within the new strategy, as well as strong environmental limits and full community consultation in the process?

• 20 Oct 2025 · International Baccalaureate · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister’s support for the international baccalaureate. Ashcroft technology academy in my constituency runs a successful IB programme. Will he confirm that the programme will still be funded and that pupils can still choose to study the international baccalaureate at Ashcroft academy?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to the Secretary of State, the Defence Secretary and the Minister for the Armed Forces for working so hard to achieve this new phase of the peace settlement in Northern Ireland. As we celebrate peace starting in the middle east, this statement is a reminder of how long it takes to build peace and how important justice is for peace. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that by shutting down investigations, including into the deaths of more than 200 Operation Banner soldiers, without an adequate alternative, the unlawful legacy Act failed so many families and victims of the troubles, and the mess had to be undone?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Devolution: Impact on Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  We welcome devolution in London, but the ability of local councils like mine in Wandsworth to tackle growth could be undermined by the changes proposed in the fair funding review. In Wandsworth, 26% of residents and 33% of children live in poverty after housing costs. Will the Minister consider making adjustments to the proposed funding formula to properly account for housing and children’s services and ensure that no council is worse off as a result of the review?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Manchester Terrorism Attack · Hansard source

  More

  I share with Members the joy at the hostages being released today, and the sorrow at the loss of Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby, and I send my condolences to their families. I join the Home Secretary in condemning this attack and condemning antisemitism and racism. I met our local rabbi last week to share my solidarity, and I am so pleased that the congregation have received so many messages of support from across the community and other faith groups—the mosque, churches and other groups—and that there is real support from the local police, for which they are very grateful. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is vital that we continue to send a united message that we support the Jewish community and their right to live and worship in safety, and that we all have a role—here in this place, and in workplaces, schools and streets across this country—in taking action against this?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Baby Loss · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome this important debate, and I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), and the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), for bringing to the House, during Baby Loss Awareness Week, this debate on a grief that touches thousands, who often grieve in silence. I will use this debate to call for a UK-wide perinatal death reduction programme, and will talk about foetal growth restriction monitoring. I am really glad that the Secretary of State for Health is in the Chamber; that shows his commitment. This debate is well timed to inform the rapid review of maternity and neonatal safety in England. For many, baby loss is invisible and misunderstood. This week breaks that silence, honours lives cut short and stands with families who carry their babies’ memory every day. Like other Members, I pay tribute to charities like Sands, Tommy’s and the Miscarriage Association. Their work must be supported and recognised. I speak with a heavy heart to share the story of Maia Devlin Corfield, a beautiful baby girl who should be here today. Her parents Sherena and Jack came to my advice surgery to tell me about Maia’s stillbirth at Kingston hospital. Though Sherena’s pregnancy was low risk, Maia showed signs of growth restriction. Staff reassured Sherena but failed to act. Maia was born still on 29 November 2024. The autopsy showed she was healthy, but died due to a placental condition that halted her growth and breathing. Babies with growth issues like Maia are eight times more likely to die, and it was Kingston’s foetal growth monitoring system that failed her. It diverged from national standards and, despite early warnings, many unsafe practices like that remain. The Government’s own maternity and neonatal safety investigation into Maia’s death made nine recommendations, yet risks still persist and are not listened to. Sherena and Jack often feel that they are not being listened to, but bereaved parents need to be heard because by listening to them, we can identify those areas that need to change. It is that culture and the regulation and standards that all need to work together to see real change. Freedom of information requests by Sherena and Jack have revealed that at least 27 trusts cannot properly identify babies with growth issues. The issue is that many hospitals use a global growth monitoring system that under-detects small babies in high-income countries like the UK because it uses data from across the world. Safer UK-developed systems based on NHS data do exist and are used by many units, but Maia was failed by outdated growth charts still in use at Kingston and St George’s and at many other hospitals. A key part of the system is those growth charts. Donald Peebles, NHS England’s clinical director for maternity, has confirmed that a national safety alert will soon advise trusts to stop using these intergrowth charts, but is there a system to track which hospitals still use them, and how can we update foetal growth monitoring systems urgently? I have also talked to the chief nurse for the South West London integrated care board, who highlighted issues of midwife retention and recruitment and, in particular, maternity triage, which needs reform with a universal standard that would ensure consistency of safety and access—those early warning systems that failed Maia and are failing others. Just as we have a mental health investment standard, we should consider a similar maternity services standard as well. I turn to the demands for change. The “Saving Babies’ Lives Care Bundle” published by NHS England in June 2023 outlines three key elements for foetal growth monitoring, but they are not consistently adopted and then monitored to ensure that they are implemented. There are too few of those deaths in each trust to rely on the trust to take the action; it has to be done at a national level. In fact, it has to be done across every nation—Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England—otherwise there will be inconsistencies as there already are between the different nations. Will the Minister work with counterparts across the UK to ensure that no nation falls behind? Will the Minister meet Sherena and Jack to discuss how to improve maternity care and look at the findings they have? We owe it to Maia. We owe it to every family shattered by preventable baby loss to demand accountability, enforce standards and ensure that no parent is ever told that everything is fine when it is not.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Non-surgical Aesthetic and Cosmetic Treatments · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Sir Desmond. I welcome this debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing it. I agree with much of what he said, especially the issues about negative body image and the harm being done. I welcome the Government action that was announced recently. The announcement on 5 August of the forthcoming consultation and crackdown on unsafe cosmetic procedures is very welcome. The last Government did not do enough in this area, despite my pushing on one particular area of it, so I am glad that this Government are taking action. I look forward to hearing more about those actions from the Minister. I am here because in 2022 my constituent, Jan Spivey, came to my surgery with a lot to say. She was one of those surgery appointments where someone bursts into the room. She had so much to say that I had to encourage her to take a moment to sit down. She had been campaigning for a very long time on the Poly Implant Prothèse breast implant scandal, something that I have been raising ever since on behalf of Jan, who has been so affected by this personally, and on behalf of all the women across the UK. Up to 47,000 women have been affected by the scandal. It has really opened up to me the dreadful issues of surgical and non-surgical cosmetic treatments that need to be addressed. I welcome the comments from the hon. Member for Bromsgrove about how this is about cosmetic and non-cosmetic surgery. If we do not tackle one and get the regulation right for one side of it, we will not get it right for both sides, and they are really important. The company Poly Implant Prothèse, or PIP, was founded in France. It began distributing breast implants made from non-medical silicone, and it was later found that what had been put into the breast implants was basically mattress filler. The implants were far more likely to rupture and lead to long-term health conditions: they were found to have a 500% higher risk of rupturing or leaking and a direct link to a rare form of cancer. In 2010, PIP pre-emptively liquidated, but between 2001 and 2010, 400,000 people globally and 47,000 people in the UK received PIP breast implants. Many of those in the UK probably received them through implant surgery in another country. In 2011, following the death of a woman from the rare cancer, the French Government recommended that 30,000 women in France seek the removal of their breast implants, and removals were carried out. A criminal trial was held, and the founder of PIP was sent to prison for four years. In 2022, my constituent Jan came to talk to me about the health issues that she had faced as a result of these implants. She said that doctors were not listening to her. That is a pattern for both non-cosmetic and cosmetic treatments: going to the doctor, being told, “You’re an older woman; it’s menopause”—for younger women it might be ME or something else—and being written off. That is why we are discussing this matter today: for a long time women with these issues have not been listened to. There is an accountability gap. Many of the private healthcare providers that implanted those breast implants declared themselves bankrupt but then restarted, in the same premises under a similar name. There is also a data gap, because there is no good register of who received these implants. That is also the case with many other non-cosmetic treatments. Who is receiving these treatments and who is doing them? We need to know. In 2023, I secured a debate in the House to discuss this matter, but I felt that it was pushed aside by the responding Minister. The Minister agreed to produce implant cards with more information about the risks of having an implant put in, but did not agree to tell all the affected women what might be happening in their own bodies and why they were experiencing so many health issues—that it might be because of breast implants—or to remove them and solve the issue. The PIP scandal is not an isolated event; it is part of a broader, systemic failure in the regulation of medical devices. Both the UK and global systems have long-standing structural weaknesses that create recurring cycles. That is why I am glad that this debate has been secured and the matter brought to the attention of the Minister. There is inadequate pre-market oversight, excessive commercial secrecy, under-researched women’s health impacts, regulatory capture, financial conflicts and poor post-market surveillance. Who are the women affected? Where are they? What is happening to them? Patient compensation mechanisms are weak, and as I have said, women are routinely not taken seriously when they raise these issues. The key asks from the PIP campaigners are for the Minister to work with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which has absolutely failed them in this instance, and the NHS to recognise and publicise the risks associated with PIP breast implants. If there is a link between breast implants and health issues, the data should be easy to find. The Minister should urge the NHS to collect data to establish how many people have received these implants and how many have had them removed, and to proactively contact everyone affected through their GPs to give them advice. The Government should also conduct a review into the risks associated with PIP breast implants. I welcome the fact that the Women and Equalities Committee has begun an inquiry into this matter. I hope that the Minister will look closely at the outcomes of that inquiry—I am sure she will. I would welcome the Minister meeting me and PIP campaigners—I am sure that she will find Jan as inspiring and informative as I have—to discuss what actions can be taken to right this injustice and improve the health of thousands of women.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Hammersmith bridge closed six years, four months and 22 days ago, cutting off the bus routes and causing congestion in Putney. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), holding the first Hammersmith bridge taskforce meeting. When will the next one be held?