Jerome Mayhew MP: speeches

Speeches

• 19 Mar 2025 · Transport Connectivity: North-west England · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  When I fought the last election, I was honest with my electorate, telling them that we would save £12 billion from the welfare budget. Was the Minister honest with her electorate when she talked about Labour’s plans to cut disability welfare, or is she making this policy on the hoof because the Chancellor has destroyed economic growth?

• 13 Mar 2025 · NHS England Update · Hansard source

  More

  It is an inescapable fact that one top-down reform is being fixed by another—one that will last about two years, according to the statement. Although I wish the reform every success, we must recognise that the experience of the NHS in Wales shows that reform on its own is no guarantee of success. The Secretary of State rightly said that change is hard, and it is inescapable, I am afraid, that while this reform is ongoing, the NHS leadership will be hugely distracted by turf wars, redundancies and the development of new working practices. What steps will he take to prevent that distraction from having a negative effect on frontline services?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I did not follow that, so I will just have to move on.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) suggested that we should have a return to secondary action. What is my hon. Friend’s view?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way to the hon. Lady, and then I will make some progress.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. As we all know, Members are required to draw attention to any potential conflicts of interest prior to speaking, in order to avoid any impression of, among other things, paid advocacy. Given that clause 52 will lead directly to increased payment of money from unions to Labour Members of Parliament, I ask for guidance on the proper declaration of interests. Most Labour Members due to speak this afternoon have received thousands of pounds from the unions—totted up, I make it £283,974.86. In addition to a general reference to their entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in this instance, where there is a direct link, should they not also set out the actual amount of money they have received?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I cannot add any more to that. He has hit the nail on the head. I support amendment 291, in the name of the Opposition, which would remove clause 52. At the moment, this is a circular Bill of self-interest: Labour Members get money from the unions, the Bill increases union powers and that clause increases the amount of money from the unions. The clause is brazen and shaming, and it should be removed.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The intervention from the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) is a classic distraction technique. This Bill addresses the unions and union membership, and clause 52 moves money from unsuspecting union joiners directly to the Labour party. There is no other explanation for the clause.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will in a moment. Here we have it: a clause of direct financial interest to Labour Members. We have so far had two speakers who have both received very significant sums from the unions, to which they did not directly refer. The first was the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), who has received £20,000 from the unions, according to his entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The second is the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray), who has received £14,000 directly from the unions. This is germane to this debate.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This is a chaotic mess of a Bill, cobbled together in 100 days to satisfy a press release. We have the unedifying spectacle of an amendment paper that is 274 pages long, as the Government try to correct their many mistakes. The main thing that I want to address in my short speech is the idea that Labour is beholden to the unions. That is often suggested, but let us just look at the facts, because we need to put this to bed. Between 2019 and 2024, Labour received only £31,314,589 from the unions, and in this Parliament more than 200 Labour MPs have been paid directly by the unions. The Ministers in the Department for Business and Trade have collectively received about £120,000 from unions. What are the unions paying for? Whatever it is, they have been handsomely repaid in the drafting of this Bill. To make it easier for Labour Members, who were all here to hear my point of order, perhaps they could put their hands up if they have not received any cash from the unions—oh dear, oh dear! Clause 52 suggests that there should be a requirement to contribute to political funds when people join a union. It changes the rules on how union members should donate and how they should contribute political funds to the Labour party. Clause 52(2) changes subscriptions from an opt-in to an opt-out. That raises the question: why do we need this clause? What is the problem that the Labour party is trying to fix? Is £31 million just not enough? This clause encourages unions, when signing up members, to take advantage of their distraction, because members will not be focused on that and they will fall into what is in effect a subscription trap. In other circumstances, the Labour party does not think that subscription traps are a very good idea. In fact, the Government sent out a press release on 18 November 2024 entitled, “New measures unveiled to crack down on subscription traps”. That sounds good so far. It says: “Consultation launched on measures to crack down on ‘subscription traps’ and better protect shoppers…Unwanted subscriptions cost families £14 per month per subscription and £1.6 billion a year in total”. It goes on: “New proposals to crack down on subscription traps have been unveiled today…‘Subscription traps’ are instances where consumers are frequently misled into signing up for a subscription…It comes as new figures reveal consumers are spending billions of pounds each year on unwanted subscriptions due to unclear terms and conditions and complicated cancellation routes.” The Business Secretary says: “Our mission is to put more money back into people’s pockets and improve living standards across this country, tackling subscription traps that rip people’s earnings away is an important part of that.” Clause 52 flies in the face of that press release.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do not accept that difference. Taking advantage of people’s inattention, as this clause expressly sets out to do, is taking advantage of people for financial gain. The difference is that the people who gain in this instance are Labour Members. That begs the question: why have they drafted this clause and why, shamingly, will they vote for it later?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. I used to be an employer. I was an entrepreneur for about 15 years, and we employed more than 1,000 people. Does she agree that exactly those people who are a bit of a risk because they have something not quite right on their CV and are a high-risk hire, are the people who will not get jobs as a result of the Bill?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  When my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) asked a moment ago which businesses support the Bill, the Minister mentioned the British Chambers of Commerce. I have just visited its website, which states: “The British Chambers of Commerce has used an evidence session on the Employment Rights Bill to highlight businesses’ serious concerns about the legislation and the speed and detail of consultation.” Will the Minister withdraw his comment?

• 11 Mar 2025 · North Sea Vessel Collision · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Yesterday morning, shortly before 10 am, the container ship MV Solong collided with the oil tanker MV Stena Immaculate, which was at anchor in the North sea off the coast of Yorkshire. The Stena Immaculate was on a short-term charter to the US navy’s military sealift command and was carrying 220,000 barrels of jet fuel. The Minister has not formally confirmed the cargo of the Solong, a Madeira-flagged vessel, but it has been widely reported that it was carrying 15 containers of toxic sodium cyanide. I listened to the statement carefully, but can the Minister confirm that that is now not his understanding? The collision and the resulting spill are deeply concerning. However, before questioning the Minister on the Government’s response, I join him in paying tribute to HM Coastguard, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the emergency services, and all others who helped to respond to the incident. As the Minister noted, the emergency services were on the scene swiftly and their actions saved many lives. Approaching fiercely burning vessels with a risk of explosion takes enormous bravery and we all commend them. I am grateful for the confirmation that all mariners from the Stena Immaculate have been recovered without injury, and that 13 of the 14 crew members from the Solong have been brought safely ashore. Our thoughts and prayers are with the family and colleagues of the missing member of that crew. I understand that the search for life has concluded, but can the Minister update the House on the efforts being made to recover that mariner? Turning to the collision itself, the Minister confirmed that early investigations do not point to foul play, but will he commit to remaining vigilant to ensure that any indications of foul play are carefully investigated? Additionally, will he inform the House of the impact on the investigative process of the involvement of ships registered in both the US and Madeira? Have the Government contacted the respective Governments to ensure their close co-operation? The Minister will be aware of the deep concern over the effect of the oil spill on the surrounding marine environment. Environmental organisations have warned of potentially devastating impacts of pollution from the tankers on the habitats and species in the area, including threatened seabird colonies, grey seals and fish, and nature-rich sites such as the Humber estuary, where conservationists have been restoring seagrass and oysters, could be devastated by this emergency. Has he been briefed by the Environment Agency on its response, and could he give us more details on it? The Minister made reference to the drift of the Solong and the risk of it running aground without intervention. Can he update the House on the steps that will be taken to ensure that that does not happen? I understand that the marine accident investigation branch has begun a preliminary investigation into the emergency, and I am pleased that the Minister is working closely with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency as it conducts an assessment on the counter-pollution response that may be required over the coming days. However, I seek assurances that the Government will engage closely with local communities, who will be concerned about the impact of the collision on their environment. The incident involves multiple Departments spanning emergency response, environmental protection, maritime safety, defence and chemical transport regulation, and effective cross-Government co-ordination is therefore crucial. Will the Minister assure the House that such co-ordination is taking place and that Parliament will receive regular updates? It is, of course, too early to draw significant conclusions at this stage, but it is clear that something went terribly wrong in the handling of these two vessels. We will support the Minister in whatever action is needed to ensure the highest standards of safety on the high seas.

• 7 Mar 2025 · Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  What fun we have had. We could have proper jobs, but instead we are talking about space industries and debating their importance. I recognise the ambition of the last Government; when deciding which Department should monitor space industries, one might have thought it would be the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, but no—we thought it should be the Department for Transport. I am delighted to stand in front of you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to support this hidden jewel in our high-value industry. In the latest data that I could find, from 2023, the industry has revenues in the United Kingdom of £18.9 billion. It is supported by about 1,800 businesses, the vast majority of which are SMEs, right across the country in all our constituencies, developing the small satellites that are the particular expertise of Glasgow. This is the first time that I have had a Glasgow mafia of MPs in the Chamber all underselling their own constituency or city, because while they said that Glasgow produces more satellites than any other city in Europe, I believe the Department for Transport said in the previous debate in February 2024 that it is the largest manufacturer of satellites in the world outside of California. There are 52,000 full-time equivalent workers employed directly in the sector. If we add in a supply chain of about 130,000 people across the country, we can see that this is already a very significant sector. It is growing in terms of employment, at 6.7% per year, and in terms of investment. Again, in 2023, the last year for which figures were available, there was investment of £8.85 billion into the space industry in the UK, and there is huge opportunity for more growth. Applications for small satellites are going through the roof—on their way to orbit—and the geography of the UK is almost uniquely suitable for low Earth orbit satellites. Whereas the large satellites that we used to send up into space need to be sent up near the equator, being closer to the north pole makes launches into low Earth orbits more suitable. The other thing we have is lots of sea around us in case it all goes wrong. Additionally, the increase in the geopolitical uncertainty of the world makes it more important than ever that we develop our domestic capabilities in this area. For all those reasons, the last Conservative Government backed commercial spaceflight from the UK and created the founding instrument for the industry, the Space Industry Act 2018. It created the legal framework for commercial spaceflight, and it was followed up in 2021 by the creation of a spaceflight regulator—the Civil Aviation Authority. I am proud to say that we took advantage of the genuine Brexit benefit of being able to create a regulatory environment far faster, and in a more comprehensive fashion, than our EU friends over the water have been able to do. It gives us a genuine commercial opportunity for rapid growth, which we have already seen. Although the Space Industry Act 2018 is good, it is not perfect. As we have seen from yesterday’s news in Florida, when we occasionally have what is described as a “rapid unscheduled disassembly”, what goes up can come down. When it does so, it can cause loss and damage. UN space treaties make nation states responsible for loss and damage caused by space activity launched from their territorial areas, and it is for this reason that section 36(3)(a) of the 2018 Act passed financial responsibility from the state to the operator, requiring that the person carrying out spaceflight activities must indemnify His Majesty’s Government for loss, subject to any limit set out in section 12(2), which gives the regulator—the Civil Aviation Authority—the power to set an upper limit for that indemnity. The rationale for a limit on indemnity is clear: without it, it would be impossible for insurers to assess the quantum of risk associated with an unforeseen event. In actuarial terms, if we cannot assess the quantum, the risk can no longer be insurable, yet we have already imposed through legislation a legal duty on any space operator to have sufficient insurance, which prompts the question of what insurance is sufficient. This issue has been identified and is the genesis of the two-clause Bill that we have before us today. The problem with the wording is that the cap on the indemnity is not mandatory; the Bill simply allows for a cap. Before taking an investment decision that could involve many hundreds of millions of pounds, big investors need reassurance beyond a Government policy statement to give them the confidence to commit large sums for investment, and this Bill fixes the problem. Section 12 turns the power to cap an indemnity into a requirement to do so. The last Government supported a private Member’s Bill introduced by the former Member for Woking, Jonathan Lord, which had suspiciously similar drafting terms. The Second Reading of that Bill was held on 23 February last year and, to my great disappointment, the legislation was lost in the election wash-up as we approached July. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition wholeheartedly welcome the reintroduction of the Bill today. If nothing else, it has given us an opportunity to rehash some rather painful space puns— Hansard is still reeling from last time. I have read Hansard from February last year, and there is a noticeable difference in the kinds of space puns used. From Labour Members, I am sorry to say that we have had references to Trekkies, “Flash Gordon” and “Star Wars”. From the Conservatives, we have had references to “The Clangers” and the Soup Dragon, which are much more patriotic. Other contributions to today’s debate are worthy of mention. I have already referred to the over-representation from Glasgow—the city’s MPs spoke for about half the debate—but some very serious points have been made. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady), who I think is the first space lawyer in Parliament, spoke about the geopolitical risks and the need for a satellite launch capability in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) noted that about 20% of all space jobs are in Scotland, and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) highlighted the increased role for women in the sector and the potential to break down stereotypical barriers, for which I commend her. Moving south of the border, the hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) made unfortunate references to both “Flash Gordon” and “Star Wars”, but she also made a serious point about the opportunities for young people in her constituency and beyond. Moving further south still, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) commented on what a time it is to be alive—I agree with him. He will have noted that the previous career of the hon. Member for Glasgow East was chargeable by the hour, which might explain the position in which we have found ourselves. All those contributions recognise the hugely important role that space already plays in our economy and the incredible opportunity that the sector has to drive growth for all of us. The Bill gives the Minister the opportunity to confirm that His Majesty’s Government, despite the change in party, remain fully supportive of space industries and that he is wholly behind the Government’s target for the UK to be the leading provider of commercial small satellite launches in Europe by 2030. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow East on proposing this legislation. It changes two pesky words—just six letters if we add them up—but is six years in the making, which begs the question about the speed at which our legislative processes are able to operate. After the first Bill’s rapid unscheduled disassembly in the general election, I hope this Bill has a smooth lift-off and takes its place in the firmament of British legislation.

• 6 Mar 2025 · International Women’s Day · Hansard source

  More

  This is not my first International Women’s Day debate, but each one presents a fantastic opportunity to learn about the exceptional women who have made our history and to be reminded, as though I need it, that many of those exceptional women are in the Chamber today. My contribution for Norfolk is Elizabeth Fry. I am particularly proud of her, because she happens to be my five times great aunt—that is as close as I get to real commitment and fame, I am afraid. In the early 19th century, she was horrified by the conditions in prisons. She visited Newgate prison and instead of walking on by, she took action. She funded prison schools for the children who were incarcerated along with their mothers in those days; she taught employment skills; she promoted rehabilitation as a concept, which was new at that stage; and she developed a wider movement for reform. In 1818, Elizabeth Fry was the first woman ever to give evidence to a House of Commons inquiry. Directly because of her campaigning work, we have the Gaols Act 1823 and the Prisons Act 1835, which were the beginning of the end of the truly terrible conditions of the 18th century. We talk now about violence against women and girls, but that is not new. In her personal diaries, she expressly discussed the need to protect female prisoners from rape and sexual exploitation. I recognise that things have improved beyond recognition from those days, and we should celebrate that today and at other times, but too much remains the same. Under the last Government, new offences of stalking, non-fatal strangulation, coercive control and public sexual harassment were introduced. The fact that that new legislation was needed demonstrates our corporate failure to change attitudes. Those conditions would have been familiar to Elizabeth Fry back in the 1820s. Our work is not about legislation, because that is not the solution. Legislation deals with and treats symptoms, but the problem is the generational transfer of attitudes, I am sorry to say, typically from father to son. It is our work to challenge those generational attitudes. I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler), but on this I stand shoulder to shoulder with her.

• 13 Feb 2025 · Cost of Rail Services · Hansard source

  More

  The latest experiment in nationalisation has shown in just two years that state inefficiency has pushed up costs—not reduced them—by £600 million, forcing fares to rise, alongside an increase in delays, a slump in customer satisfaction, and cuts, instead of improvements, to services. The data shows that in England, Greater Anglia has been the best performing operator, saving money for taxpayers while serving passengers with modern, punctual trains. The Secretary of State is about to launch a public consultation on nationalisation—one that has been as delayed as ScotRail trains. I am told that even the plan to publish it today has been further delayed, with the excuse of No. 10 on the line. If the Secretary of State consults, she has to be prepared to listen. Will she now listen to the deep concerns of the rail industry, and not just the ever-generous unions, and avoid another disastrous nationalisation?

• 13 Feb 2025 · Cost of Rail Services · Hansard source

  More

  I am very interested by that last answer, because the Government do think that nationalisation will reduce the cost of rail travel. What lessons has the Secretary of State learned from the SNP’s nationalisation of ScotRail?

• 6 Feb 2025 · Financial Education · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered financial education. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on financial education for young people. Many members of that august body are on the Benches today, and it is worth pointing out that it is the second-largest all-party parliamentary group in Parliament, beaten only by that on the communal love for beer. There is a reason why the APPG on financial education is so popular: financial education is a profoundly important topic that affects the lives and life chances of our communities right across the country. We cannot sugar-coat this: we are in a mess when it comes to financial education and financial literacy in our economy and our society, and we have known that for ages. This is going back a few years, I accept, but one of the reasons why I was first drawn to this topic is that I did not receive any lessons on personal finance at all during the whole of my education. In fact, it is true to say that I have been taught considerably more about the formation of oxbow lakes than about personal finance, debt management, budgeting, saving, compound interest, pensions and individual savings accounts. Those are things that grown-ups worry about, and that have such an impact on their lives, yet they were simply missing from my education. I am afraid it does not stop there, because I have asked my children—aged 21, 18 and 15—about their financial education, and they have received none at all, so there has been no improvement, yet we know that this matters profoundly. We know that those unfortunate enough to grow up in a financially chaotic household have no education from their parents, do not understand debt, except for seeing the consequence of it, and do not understand budgeting. Prudent financial management then becomes a middle-class secret. If we care about the poor and the most disadvantaged in our society, financial education must be a core part of the curriculum in our schools. We know that financial stress has a huge impact both on our economy and on our society. Way back in 2014, Barclays bank did research that showed that 17.5 million hours were lost to the economy because of financial stress. We also know that financial stress, or financial worries, is one of the core components of family breakdown and the break-up of relationships, leading to arguments in the home and distress caused to children. Yet we know what the solution is. We have had loads of research. The Money and Pensions Service has said that attitudes towards money and finances are fundamentally established by the age of just seven. We know that financial education in schools is directly correlated with higher career earnings, reduced personal debt, increased pension savings and increased savings more generally. We have all been elected to this place, and we have all come here, I assume, to improve the lives and life chances of our constituents. The single biggest thing we can do for our constituents in our time in this place is get effective financial education into the core curriculum. I say that to the Minister, because she needs to reflect on what her ambitions are for her time in this place. We have had a crack at it. Back in 2014, we, or our predecessors, thought we had done a jolly good job, because financial education was included in the national curriculum in secondary schools in England, and in primary schools in the devolved nations. Last year, on the 10th anniversary of that change, the all-party parliamentary group on financial education for young people undertook research to see what the impact of that inclusion in the national curriculum had been. The awful truth was that it was virtually negligible, because financial education was not in fact being taught. We made the mistake as policymakers of saying, “We’ve changed the policy—job done. That’s the solution”, but we did not take the next step and ensure that the policy was implemented effectively. Indeed, 55% of teachers responsible for implementing the national curriculum were either unaware of the requirement, or unsure of whether there was a requirement to teach financial education, and 62% of children had no recollection of having received any. Why did we think we had solved the problem with policy, when in practice the change did not take place? Part of the answer is that financial education was included within personal, social, health and economic education, and it was not measured by Ofsted, and we all know that we get what we measure. Another part of the answer is that teachers lack confidence, because they too have not received financial education, and they are unsure about their personal finances. Far too often, financial education depends on there being a personal convert among the teaching staff. Some schools do a brilliant job on this issue, but too often that is wholly dependent on there being one member of staff who takes the bit between the teeth. Just today, Young Enterprise, which operates the secretariat of the all-party group, published a report called “Making the Classroom Count”. It has done research, and has assessed the state of provision and how we can improve it. Its first conclusion concerns the curriculum in both primary and secondary education. This subject is too important to be left to the peripheries of the educational process; it must be recognised as a core element. If financial education is a core part of the curriculum, it must be measured as such by Ofsted. The second issue is accountability; we must inspect for financial education, because we get what we measure. The third issue is guidance. There must be access to trusted teaching materials for hesitant teachers. Too often, the all-party group heard that teachers were not sure which resources, from the plethora out there, they should trust, and they are naturally hesitant about branded materials coming into schools. We need the Government to take a step forward and build on the work already being done on trusted resources. The fourth point is about awareness; the Government must be clear and express the fact that financial education is a core part of the curriculum. Finally—I put it last because it is the least important—comes money and resources. They are necessary—we need money to achieve things—but if the Government took steps one to four, we would be 95% of the way there. There is a solution to the money side of things. I understand that the Chancellor is never keen to write a cheque, but we have the dormant assets scheme, and financial inclusion is a core element of the distribution of dormant assets. We also have the National Lottery Heritage Fund, which has offered to match-fund the element spent on financial inclusion. Surely there is a way that the Government can make best use of that money. The Government are reviewing the national curriculum, so now is the time for them to take a bold step, and not just have the policy, but ensure that it is acted on. Will the Minister include financial education in the primary curriculum? Will she undertake to measure what she wants to see in our schools, and require Ofsted to report on financial education in primary and secondary schools? Will she embed financial education in the curriculum, and not just in PSHE? Will she show some ambition, in the light of the 2029 OECD programme for international student assessment on financial literacy? Will she commit to the Government applying to join that scheme? Will the Minister develop the good work of the Oak National Academy, which has produced about 42 online lessons to support financial education and literacy? Will she follow that up with a commitment to developing trusted paper resources for the educational sector? Finally, will she consider making proper use of the dormant assets fund and the National Lottery Heritage Fund, and directing additional funding from those sources to financial literacy education in our primary and secondary schools? I started by talking about ambition, and I want to finish on that, too. It is profoundly important for the life chances of our constituents over the next 10, 20, 30 and 40 years that we grasp this issue now. We spend so much time on tittle-tattle in this Chamber, making cheap debating points that may make the headlines in the evening, or tomorrow. I do not care whether this debate is reported, as long as we can get this simple change to our educational processes and deliver for our constituents. Now is the time to do it.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Financial Education · Hansard source

  More

  I thank Young Enterprise, the secretariat of the all-party group on financial education for young people, the Money and Pensions Service, GoHenry, MyBnk, HSBC, Santander, Your Money, Money Wellness, the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, AQA, UK Finance, and the Bank of England, who all briefed in advance of this debate. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove), my co-conspirator in the debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on her first outing at the Dispatch Box. I thought she did brilliantly. When talking about financial education, I start with my own family. I realised that I may have gone a bit too far when one of my grown-up children confided to me recently that she feels physically sick every time she spends money, so I may have overdone it a little. Equally, 175 years ago, my forebear, Henry Mayhew, was declared bankrupt for the third time. His great friend was Charles Dickens, and it is said that the character of Mr Micawber was based on Henry, so I will end the debate with one of the more famous quotes from Mr Micawber: “Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty-pound ought and six, result misery.” How right he was. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered financial education.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Financial Education · Hansard source

  More

  It is the way he says it.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Medicinal Cannabis · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey. Do not worry, I have not defected. I just sat here, rather than where Conservatives would normally sit, because I did not want to interrupt the flow of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) while he was making his speech. I am grateful to him for securing this debate. I am here because of one of my constituents, Matt Hughes, and particularly on behalf of his son, Charlie, who has severe treatment-resistant epilepsy. Mr Hughes has been to see me on a number of occasions. I am in the thick of a correspondence battle with the Department —the latest was in December last year—trying to deal with some of the problems that have arisen out of the 2018 NICE guideline change, which was brought in by Sajid Javid. Somebody looking at the NICE guidelines would think, “Problem solved—wonderful! We can get access to these very important treatments for severely epileptic children.” But we are here today because that access is simply not available in practice. It is no good for us, as policymakers, to think that we have done the job because the policy has changed: if it is not working in practice, there was no point in changing the guidance. There are a huge number of problems. There are licensing issues, to which I will return in more detail. There was the very unhelpful advice given by the British Paediatric Neurology Association in 2021, which seems to directly contravene the advice of NICE from 2018. There are many examples in which general practitioners have thought, after clinical assessment, that this kind of treatment, particularly second-generation drugs, should be supplied and yet local hospital advice was against it. Finally, there is the failure of the funding pathway. We have already heard about individual funding requests, but one problem is that the general application for many children to benefit from this kind of drug means that it fails the exceptionality test, so requests for individual funding are being refused on the grounds that the impact of the drug on the particular patient is insufficiently exceptional.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Medicinal Cannabis · Hansard source

  More

  That is the purpose of this debate: to encourage the Minister to get the NHS to change practice in this area. She could usefully start with the difficulty in licensing because second-generation medication is personalised. It does not have one or two active ingredients, but up to 20—that is probably not the right terminology but I hope we all understand—and the amounts of each of those active ingredients are personalised, in a patient-centric way. Yet we persist in applying a randomised controlled trial approach simply not appropriate for personalised medication. As a result, there is a failure to adopt licensing for medication that, anecdotally, is hugely effective, and has been hugely effective in supporting my constituent Charlie. It is not beyond the wit of man to design an appropriate licensing system for this kind of medication because it has been done effectively elsewhere. We could look at the examples of Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Italy and even some states in the United States of America. If they can do it, why can’t we? I would be grateful if the Minister addressed that question specifically. Why do we persist with randomised control trials when we know that that acts against the adoption of this kind of modern medicine? Why does the Minister think that the licensing approach in all those first-world countries is in some way dangerous or inadequate? Rather than repeating current policy, what change are the Government proposing to make to provide access through licensing for multiple active ingredient patient-centric dosing? What change are they proposing in relation to individual funding requests? Are they prepared to fix the problem of exceptionality, given that these drugs are routinely refused because they help too many children? This is a huge issue. An estimated 35,000 children are affected. I hope the Minister will not dole out sympathy alone in her response, but set out the active change that the Government intend to make.