Fleur Anderson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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?

• 10 Sept 2025 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Access · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Stringer, I omitted earlier to draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have been on two trips to Palestine: one with Medical Aid for Palestinians and one with Yachad. I wanted to make that clear and set the record straight.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Access · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for calling this debate, rightly highlighting the siege that is stopping food, water, hygiene, shelter and medical aid getting into Gaza, putting a spotlight on the aid agencies being blocked, and the role that the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is playing, or not playing, in getting aid to where it is needed. It is very important because this is the month of the 80th session of the UN General Assembly. I ask the Minister if that will be raised by our UK Ministers at the General Assembly, to make sure that the issue of humanitarian aid access is a key part of our interventions in New York? I pay tribute to the clergy and aid workers at the Catholic Holy Family church in Gaza, who are staying put to help the population despite the evacuation orders. I just met with the Palestine director of the UN World Food Programme, who says that it has the capacity to feed all of the population, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is not meeting the needs of the population, and it is too unsafe to collect aid. Their main point, though, is about law and order. Is the technical committee going to come into place and enforce the law and order that is needed for access to humanitarian aid? I would also like to know whether this was raised by Prime Minister this morning at the meeting with President Herzog.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Privilege · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for bringing this matter before the House. I am also grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing the motion to be debated, and to the hon. Member for North Dorset for his careful explanation of the procedure involved. I thank everyone who has worked together to enable this motion to come before this House, with nothing but a desire to support the Omagh inquiry. The Government are very supportive of the motion. Should it be agreed, the Government will await the work of the Committee of Privileges with interest. Question put and agreed to.