Liz Jarvis MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jun 2026 · Workplace Exposure to Silica Dust · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered silica dust exposure in the workplace. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I want to begin by paying tribute to my constituent Caroline Hudson and her sister Sandra, who are both here today. I thank them for their determination in bringing this issue to me and the wider public. None of us should underestimate how difficult it is to relive the loss of a loved one in public, but they are doing so because they do not want other families to suffer the same heartbreak. Sandra’s husband, George Elliott, was a keen golfer, a proud Spurs fan and a man deeply loved by his family and friends. He was a highly skilled stonemason who worked on buildings including 10 Downing Street. George died in November 2023 from silicosis, a devastating lung disease caused by inhaling respirable crystalline silica dust. His family did not know that he had silicosis until his post-mortem. By then it was too late. Before his death, George suffered through severe breathing difficulties, constant exhaustion, oxygen dependency and the cruel deterioration that the disease inflicts upon its victims. Silicosis is progressive and incurable. Tiny silica particles become embedded in the lungs, causing inflammation and permanent scarring. Over time, lung capacity is destroyed. Victims struggle to breathe, struggle to work and struggle to live normal lives. It also dramatically increases the risk of other serious illnesses, including tuberculosis, kidney disease, chronic bronchitis and lung cancer. The key thing about silicosis is that it is preventable. The Health and Safety Executive estimates that around 600,000 workers in the UK are exposed to silica dust every year, yet for far too long the Government’s response has not matched the scale or seriousness of the threat. One of my uncles died from mesothelioma. We cannot let silica dust inhalation become another scandal on the scale of asbestos. It is important to note that silicosis is increasingly affecting young workers—people in their 20s and 30s—and that the increase is largely due to engineered stone. The rise in the popularity of engineered stone has transformed modern kitchens, and these products are now everywhere, but many engineered stones contain extraordinarily high levels of silica—in some cases, up to 95%. When dry cut without proper controls, they release enormous quantities of deadly dust into the air. The current system is leaving workers vulnerable. I welcome the recent steps the HSE has taken, following public concern and pressure from campaigners, clinicians and affected families. It has declared the dry cutting of engineered stone to be unacceptable, and introduced new guidance requiring water-suppression techniques, respiratory protective equipment and health surveillance, and a programme of more than 1,000 inspections across the UK. However, there are concerns that the HSE’s current resources, enforcement powers and inspection capacity are not sufficient to deal with what could become a major national occupational health crisis. There is a fear that enforcement remains inconsistent, and that rogue operators continue to evade scrutiny altogether. Does the Minister believe the HSE has the capacity, staffing and resources necessary to effectively regulate the sector? If not, what additional support will be provided? Australia has already prohibited engineered stone, following hundreds of silicosis cases among workers, and last week California took the first step in that direction. There should be absolute agreement on some fundamental principles: exposure limits must be rigorously enforced, proper personal protective equipment must be mandatory, workers must receive proper training, and health surveillance must become vastly more robust. Australia’s national screening programme identified hundreds of cases that otherwise might not have been detected until the disease had progressed to a dangerous stage. Experts there found that one in four screened workers had silicosis. Why are we not introducing a targeted national screening programme here in the UK for workers in high-risk sectors, such as kitchen fitters, stonemasons and construction workers? There needs to be a large public awareness campaign for those potentially at risk and for NHS practitioners. I would like to recognise the journalists who have been campaigning and raising awareness of this issue, including Joe Duggan at The i Paper , and the all-party parliamentary group for respiratory health. Recent analysis provided to senior NHS officials and reported by The i Paper suggests that more than 1,000 UK stonemasons could already have silicosis linked to exposure to engineered stone. The same report estimates that around 4,000 workers in the UK may be operating in informal or illegal parts of the industry, where basic safety protections are routinely ignored. Silica safety should form part of compulsory training in construction, stonemasonry and apprenticeship schemes. Real-time dust-extraction systems should be properly explored and rolled out where appropriate. Occupational health records and GP systems should better identify workers exposed to silica, so that symptoms are not repeatedly missed or dismissed. One of the most alarming aspects of this crisis is that we still do not know its true scale. It beggars belief that silicosis was removed from the official list of notifiable occupational diseases in 2013. As a result, cases are frequently hidden within broader categories such as lung cancer.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Supported Internships · Hansard source

  More

  I have been contacted by a mum in my constituency who is trying to find a supported internship for her son, who has an EHCP. Even with the “Find an apprenticeship” service, parents are left having to research and find suitable options themselves. What further action will the Minister take to ensure young people with SEND are not disadvantaged in accessing supported internships?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Endometriosis Services · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) for securing this important debate. I welcome to the House all the women in the Public Gallery. I have also heard from many women in my constituency who have lived with the devastating impact of endometriosis. It is shocking that so many have had to endure years of pain, uncertainty, dismissal and a lack of access to timely diagnosis and specialist endometriosis services. According to the charity Endometriosis UK, it takes on average nine years and four months to receive a diagnosis of endometriosis in the UK—nearly a decade of a woman’s life blighted by debilitating pain, missed employment and educational opportunities, declining mental health, difficulties with fertility, and being told far too often that what they are experiencing is normal. We know that one in 10 women are affected, yet awareness remains far too low among the public and healthcare professionals. The economic cost alone is estimated at £11 billion a year. Behind the statistics, however, are real people, real families and real suffering. My constituent Lucy, who is a teacher, told me that she has been suffering tremendously every month, unable to work on the first day of her cycle due to the pain and side effects. Every single month she has been left unable to stand, doubled over in pain, and with dizziness and vomiting. After nine years of debilitating pain, fertility issues, being refused treatment and being told that some people just suffer, she has finally had a laparoscopy, which revealed that she has endometriosis. She is hoping that she can now grow her family, but it should never have taken so long for a diagnosis.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Student Loan Repayment Plans · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. On the point about some courses being preferable to others, does he agree that it is vital that children from disadvantaged backgrounds have access to the creative industries and are able to pursue careers in those industries if they want to, and that it is shameful to suggest that those courses are somehow worth less than others?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Student Loan Repayment Plans · Hansard source

  More

  I have heard from many young constituents who are frankly pretty despondent right now. They have endured a global pandemic. They are grappling with the cost of living crisis, a housing crisis and difficulties in securing entry-level jobs. On top of that, they carry the incredible burden of large student loans, made ever larger by high interest rates and a frozen repayment threshold, leaving many feeling they will never be free of it. We need to acknowledge that an entire generation of graduates on plan 2 student loans have essentially been mis-sold their loans. One constituent told me about their son who, despite repaying his loan for five years, has seen his balance increased by 33%. How can that possibly be justified? The cumulative impact of successive changes to the terms and conditions of student loans in England has fundamentally undermined confidence in the system. The threshold has been moved around haphazardly by successive Governments, being regularly frozen, including by the current Government. Many students were told that this was manageable debt, but in reality it has developed into something totally different from the graduate contribution system it was intended to be. The repayment threshold was supposed to rise with earnings. The previous Conservative Government’s decision to freeze it was a needless move to take money away from graduates. It is a stealth tax. According to the money-saving expert Martin Lewis, the most direct thing that would help all students would be not to freeze the repayment threshold. Will the Minister look at that as a matter of urgency? Student loans also impact the ability to get a mortgage because they are used for affordability calculations. There must be an immediate reversal of the repayment threshold freeze, and RPI should no longer be used to calculate interest.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to carry on. My constituent Anne, who is a teacher, told me that she sees the mental health ramifications and the impact on education of mobile phone usage in schools, and believes the only way to protect the future of children is to ban their exposure to harmful apps. After meeting a local headteacher a few weeks ago, I asked the Secretary of State what interim measures the Government are considering to help schools manage pupils’ access to social media on mobile phones. She stated in her response that phones should not be used in schools, but schools do need support to enforce this. Without stronger enforcement tools, clear national standards and practical support, it will be very difficult for schools to get a grip on social media use during the school day without spending money they simply do not have. We must also be clear-eyed about the potential shortcomings of age verification schemes. Early reports from the Australian scheme have highlighted issues with security and privacy. Teenagers can still migrate to smaller apps, borrow credentials or find ways around age verification technology, all of which pose risks to their online safety. Can the Minister confirm that the Government’s consultation will rigorously examine how systems can be designed to minimise data collection and safeguard the privacy of young people? Social media and online content have changed what it means to be a young person today. One constituent told me that her 11-year-old daughter travels to school every day with fellow pupils, but because those girls have smartphones and like to scroll on the journey, she feels they are not interested in becoming friends with her, resulting in low self-esteem, isolation and not having local friends. My constituent dreads the emotional impact that smartphones will have on her other child when he starts secondary school. The onus should not be on children and young people to protect themselves from online harms—it should be on platforms to prevent it in the first place. As long as the owners of tech companies allow harmful material to flourish, children are essentially being asked to build resilience in environments engineered to expose them to harm. We can teach children about online safety, respect, decency, courtesy and healthy relationships at home and in the classroom, but that work is actively undermined online by algorithms that reward extreme content and by platforms that are too slow to remove illegal and abusive material. Ofcom should be strong in enforcing clear regulations that protect users. Liberal Democrats were the first to call for a ban on harmful social media, alongside a future-proof film-style age rating system that focuses on the harms platforms pose. The widespread consensus in this House and across the country that something urgently needs to be done to stop children accessing harmful online content reflects the pressing desire for the Government to get a grip of this crisis. We must act now to protect children, hold tech giants to account and ensure that all children are safe online.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Social Media Ban · Hansard source

  More

  I recently met a headteacher in my constituency who told me that social media use during school hours has reached the stage where some schools are weighing up budgeting for and investment in schemes to reduce phone distraction against investing into additional teaching staff. Her school is trialling the use of a new app that minimises distractions by controlling access to non-essential apps during the school day. Other schools have a system of secure phone-locking bags, but they are expensive. Before the results of the Department’s consultation are published, what interim measures is the Secretary of State considering to help schools to manage pupils’ access to social media on mobile phones?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Scrapping the two-child benefit cap is the single most important action this Government could take to improve outcomes for children in poverty. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have called for it consistently, so I am pleased that the Government are finally taking this step. Children and young people in Eastleigh and across our country have paid the price for a policy that was never about fairness, but instead about cutting support to the families who are often struggling the most. This cruel, shameful policy should never have been introduced in the first place. I reiterate that circumstances can change in a heartbeat: redundancy, bereavement or discovering that a child needs special care, meaning that a parent has to give up work—these life-changing events can all have a huge and sometimes devastating impact on household income. According to the End Child Poverty coalition, 20.6% of children in Eastleigh are growing up in poverty. These experiences in early childhood shape outcomes for life, affecting health, educational attainment and future earnings. Without further action, over 4 million children in the UK will still be growing up in poverty by 2029. Housing costs, inflation—particularly food inflation—and high energy costs continue to be central drivers of hardship. The Department for Work and Pensions’ own impact assessment has found that around 50,000 low-income families currently affected by the two-child benefit limit will gain nothing when it is lifted in April. A further 20,000 will see their incomes lift only partially from April, due to having their income raised to benefit cap level. What further measures will the Minister take to ensure that all children can fulfil their full potential? Citizens Advice Eastleigh recently advised a single parent whose universal credit was reduced by nearly 30% due to the benefit cap, which, combined with her high rental costs, left her with only £400 a month to feed and clothe her children and keep them warm. Charities in my constituency and across the UK say the same thing: the Bill on its own, while welcome, is not enough. A fair society does not balance its books on the backs of children. It is frankly astonishing that the Conservatives would reinstate the two-child benefit cap. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Conservatives’ policy did not have a significant impact on labour supply and has not considerably affected fertility decisions, so the only thing it did was to drive more children into poverty. What a terrible legacy that is. I wonder what they would say to the 72% of children living in poverty who are in working families, and the families with three or more children who are in poverty through absolutely no fault of their own. A fair society protects its children, invests in them and gives every child the chance to thrive. That is why I support this Bill, and why I will continue to press for further action until child poverty in this country is eradicated once and for all.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Post-16 Skills Education · Hansard source

  More

  Stuart, the managing director of GW Martin—a precision engineering manufacturing firm based in my constituency—welcomes the additional support for apprentice training in small and medium-sized enterprises, but asks that the Government ensure that training providers will receive adequate funding to strengthen the training available. Can the Minister assure Stuart that fantastic SMEs such as GW Martin will be supported so that they can employ more young people from Eastleigh and give them meaningful opportunities to start their careers?

• 23 Oct 2025 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Many survivors of the infected blood scandal and bereaved families are still waiting far too long for compensation. They include my constituents, the family of Kevin Newman, who was infected with HIV and hepatitis C while a pupil at Treloar’s college and tragically died in 2018. The family received their first payment last December, but have been waiting for another ever since, and now have to fill in yet another form with a time limit. Will the Minister ensure that these payments are speeded up?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of parents from Eastleigh. I frequently hear from constituents who are exhausted emotionally, financially and physically by a system that too often feels like an adversarial battle. Alex, who is a police officer, told me: “Just managing our child’s medical appointments, EHCP paperwork, medication and occupational therapy exercises is enough work for one person…somehow I squeeze it all in around my busy day job. But the trauma caused by dealing with this in your own home is beyond anything I have witnessed at work. Unpaid carers all over the country are drowning. Don’t we deserve more than this?” They do deserve more. In Eastleigh, 12.5% of students receive SEN support. However, there are critical delays in securing an EHCP assessment, which significantly impacts the wellbeing of children while their parents battle with the system. According to the latest figures, 59% of EHCPs in Hampshire take between 20 weeks and a year to be issued. Hampshire county council has declined assessments for 23% of EHCP applications. My constituent Justine had to deal with considerable back and forth with Hampshire county council over getting transport to school for her son. She said that the uncertainty was “making his anxiety worse. The lack of routine and structure is frankly cruel.” Routes have been changed without notice and drivers swapped at the last minute, and some families have been refused transport all together. The result has been distressing for children and young people who understandably rely on routine and predictability, some of whom have been left so anxious by the confusion that they refuse to travel. Families who are already stretched to breaking point should not have to face this level of disruption on top of everything else. It is welcome that the Government recognise the need for reforms, but families desperately need and deserve clarity about what the plans look like. All children deserve a fair system that recognises their needs and gives them a chance to thrive.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Two weeks ago, the No. 61 bus made its final journey—yet another bus service my constituents relied on has been lost, with no apparent thought given to how people are supposed to get to work, school, college or hospital appointments, or simply from A to B. The withdrawal of the 61, which took residents directly to Winchester hospital, will make life significantly harder for many of my constituents. That is why I support new clause 37, which would guarantee every town a regular bus service to hospitals and GP surgeries, and amendment 2, which would ensure that socially necessary routes include those serving hospitals, schools and colleges. As well as the 61, we have seen the withdrawal of the 461, the major route that served Peter Symonds college, and the 46, which was an important service for the residents of Valley Park. They were cut because they were not considered commercially viable, but healthcare and education are essential services. No one should be left isolated from a school, college or hospital simply because a bus company cannot turn a profit. In addition to cuts to bus services, Conservative-controlled Hampshire county council’s decision to withdraw discretionary top-up enhancements to the English national concessionary travel scheme has increased challenges for my disabled constituents. I support new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), because disabled people must not be unfairly restricted in when they can travel. The removal of the companion bus pass and the restriction of free travel to between 9.30 am and 11 pm creates fresh barriers for many disabled people, including the 55,100 visually impaired residents in Hampshire. Last month, I visited the Guide Dogs community team centre in Chandler’s Ford, where I spoke to constituents who are deeply worried about the cuts. One told me she now struggles to reach medical appointments, while another, due to her disability, prefers early morning buses to avoid bright sunlight, which causes her severe eye pain. I have been supporting Guide Dogs’ campaign to make sure that people with a visual impairment can travel independently and with confidence. Many visually impaired constituents understandably require assistance to travel safely, often relying on friends and family to accompany them to work, school and medical appointments. I have heard from constituents that losing access to the companion pass has meant that they are travelling less and resorting to costlier methods of travel, including taxis, to get around. The savings to the council are minimal compared with the cost to my constituents’ quality of life. That is why new clause 2, which would remove time restrictions on disabled concessionary passes, and new clause 9, which would extend free travel to carers, are so important. They would help restore independence and dignity to those who need public transport the most. I hope the Government will accept the amendments that I have addressed and ensure that socially necessary routes are protected, because my constituents need affordable, reliable buses now.