Maya Ellis MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 9 Sept 2026 · Youth Parliament: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an extremely important speech about young people’s participation in politics. I recently got to meet Freddie Burnett-Cherry, the MYP for Preston and South Ribble in my constituency. I was particularly impressed by how much work he has already done to better his community, such as youth surveys on antisocial behaviour and work on water safety. Does my hon. Friend agree that greater investment in the UK Youth Parliament is not just a nice thing for young people, but a brilliant investment in improving our communities right now?

• 4 Sept 2026 · Infants, Parents and Carers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted to wholeheartedly support the private Member’s Bill of the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), which pushes for vital provision to support infants and families, and would finally put into legislation the requirement for the Government to report to Parliament annually on how this country supports children and families from pregnancy to age two. I am very proud to be the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on babies (pregnancy to age two). Over the past two years, I have seen through that role that the evidence on this subject is there a hundred times over. We know that there are 3.5 million children under the age of four, all of whom will grow into UK citizens whom we need to thrive. We know that some of the most significant brain development happens before the age of two. We know that Sure Start centres were directly linked to a reduction in special educational needs. We know that the Department of Health’s own research says that early intervention could save £45 billion a year. As I always say, though, to many of the people in this sector and to my own constituents, even though the evidence is there a million times over, sometimes getting the political will is even harder. That is why I think we are in a really lucky position right now: 41% of MPs are women, and I am really glad that feminism has developed to a point where this is finally coming before the House. We also have the maternity taskforce, for which I am proud to be a member of the parliamentary expert advisory panel. I think we have a moment now where these things are coming together, and finally there is the political will and momentum. Women particularly are finding their voice, alongside all the incredible dads, and parents and carers across households, who are really standing up, but we have to keep shouting about this. I am delighted that the Bill finally puts the first steps into legislation, but it is important that we build on it. One of the powerful arguments for the Bill is that no Government would now question the funding for free entitlement to schooling at age five. No Government would change that. I think this is about putting the same assumptions on to care from pregnancy and birth, and making sure that no future Government could change those basic principles, with which I think we all now agree, without a lot of difficulty. I want to pay a few tributes to those who have got us to this point, because there are people who have been banging the drum on this issue for decades. Dame Tessa Jowell, who has already been mentioned, along with Lord David Blunkett and Naomi Eisenstadt, who was the civil servant who led on Sure Start, all put so much of the framework in place. Lord Frank Field, who went on to develop partnerships during the Cameron Government, was an incredible force in this space. Dame Andrea Leadsom has worked really hard to bring the Bill forward and made sure family hubs continued under previous Governments. And most recently, this Government, driven in particular by our hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), are bringing in Best Start family hubs to really start to rebuild the Sure Start legacy. I also want to pay tribute to the wonderful Nicholas Peacey MBE, who passed away this summer after a lifetime of work with young people, which included leading the Foundation Years Information and Research charity, which I am honoured to chair. Nick was relentless in his positive support for early years and for stakeholders like myself, with a conviction that nothing was more important than babies. I believe he knew that the Bill was coming through Parliament, but there was so much more that he was excited to do and we will miss him. The Bill is deliberately simple. Organisations have lobbied me, and I am sure others, about the fact that they wish it did more. I have been very grateful to Dame Andrea Leadsom and the wonderful Will Quince for educating me on how important it is to keep a Bill simple. It is important that the public know that this Bill is about creating a basis and making sure something gets through and on to the statute book, but it is absolutely only a start and we will all in this House, I am sure, be committed to building on it. The Bill will serve as a foundation. If it becomes law, there are a few things the Government could do to ensure a glowing first report. Too often, mothers, babies and parents are treated as an afterthought in policymaking. The Bill recognises a simple truth: if we want healthier families, greater equality and better outcomes for children, we have to pay more attention to the early stages of life. Maternity care is one of those areas that currently gets shamefully low focus. Around 84% of women will become mothers, and maternity care is often the first time a healthy adult really interacts with a publicly funded institution. Her experience and the experience of her family around her of what her taxes have been paying for is currently woeful. The state of maternity care should concern every one of us. The Care Quality Commission found that 65% of inspected maternity units required improvement or were inadequate for safety. The fact that two thirds of maternity services have been rated unsafe should be treated as a national emergency. The consequences are not felt equally either. Black women are nearly three times more likely to die during pregnancy or in the year after birth than white women. Babies born in the most deprived parts of our country are more than twice as likely to die around the time of birth than those born in the least-deprived areas. We have had more than 700 recommendations on maternity care over the past decade. We do not need another list of recommendations; we need investment in staff, workforce stability, continuity of care and time for professionals to build trusting relationships with women and families. How women experience pregnancy and birth is not a nice to have; it has profound consequences for mental health, family wellbeing and long-term outcomes. Women deserve to feel safe, listened to and empowered through pregnancy and childbirth, and as they take their first steps in feeding and caring for their baby. The Bill is also about what happens after birth. We know that the first 1,001 days of a child’s life are among the most important in determining future outcomes, yet they receive remarkably little attention. Currently, only around 55% of infants develop secure attachments, despite overwhelming evidence that early relationships shape future health, wellbeing and life chances. Recent research has shown that expanding parent-infant relationship support in the most deprived communities could save the Government £1.2 billion annually. The Bill also speaks to a challenge that sits at the heart of gender inequality. Becoming a parent remains one of the biggest drivers of inequality between men and women. Mothers still carry a disproportionate share of caring responsibilities and the result is the motherhood penalty: lower earnings, reduced career progression and less financial security for many women. Evidence shows that when fathers take meaningful leave in a child’s life, mothers are more likely to return to work, more likely to progress in their careers and more likely to share caring responsibilities on a lasting basis. Many of us here are campaigning for the Government’s parental leave review, which concludes in December, to fund six weeks of paternity leave paid at 90% of pay. As a mother to two young children, I have seen at first hand among my peers, alongside all the overwhelming evidence, the life-changing difference it makes to a child’s early years, and to equality, when parents are enabled to take equal responsibility from the very start. For me, the Bill is a foundation not just for how we support babies, but for how we support families to support their babies, because it is families who are at the coal face, families who get up in the night, who do not get to clock-off, and families who get the criticism when things go less well with their children. I would like to make a point in support of targeted universalism, as some of my colleagues have made, with early years support. It feels like it strays outside my political home in some ways, but not in others. The Labour movement was founded in working-class families and ensuring opportunity for all, but the movement has been upheld and sustained by other groups, particularly feminists—and feminists of all backgrounds. While we must ensure that financial disadvantage does not become a barrier—and I will always defend that as the first goal of a Labour Government—we cannot ignore the strain that women from all backgrounds are under with caring responsibilities, especially at the earliest stages of a child’s life. I wanted to be a politician because I have felt for the last 20 years how relentlessly hard it is for women, even from a more supported background, to do everything expected of them. We need earlier services for all women—for all families—because currently even wealthier women hold a hugely disproportionate amount of the responsibility for physical caring and the mental load of working out what is the right thing to do for their child. We need to support those women, because it is against our Labour values to still be enabling such inequality of care. We also need to support them because it is often those women—if they have the right support and balance, equality with their partner, and confidence in the balance they establish between work and family—who get to stand up in this place and fight for everyone else. Most women I know do not think they could be in this place because of the things they would have to juggle. The Bill does not just enable healthy babies; it enables the systems for women to thrive. I have been incredibly lucky to have a largely positive journey with my two gorgeous children, but it should not be luck that made that happen, and it should not be luck that enabled me to stand in this place because of that equality. The Bill recognises something that every parent knows: raising children is not a private issue to be solved behind closed doors; it is a public good. When we support parents, we support children’s development, strengthen families, improve health outcomes and reduce inequalities. Unlike what most economic theory would have us believe, human capital does not just appear like magic at age 18; endless unseen effort goes into creating those productive, mentally healthy members of society. The Infants, Parents and Carers Bill asks us to take those realities seriously. It asks us to invest earlier, think longer term and put parents, babies and carers at the centre of policy rather than taking them for granted. For those reasons, I am frankly emotional that this Bill might actually become legislation, and I am beyond delighted to support it.

• 4 Sept 2026 · Infants, Parents and Carers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As much as we know the damage that screentime can do, a good majority of parents use screens not because they think that that is the best thing for their child; they are often used as childcare or as a way to get the tea made. Does the hon. Member agree that it will be critical for this Government to research why parents rely so much on screentime, and how we can support parents not to have to do so?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Longridge Community Hospital · Hansard source

  More

  I am proud to present this petition on behalf of residents in Longridge in my constituency of Ribble Valley regarding the future of Longridge community hospital, which serves patients across a large semi-rural area, many of whom need health services within easy reach of their homes and families. The petitioners, and those who signed two similar petitions—combined they have over 3,000 signatures—are calling on Lancashire and South Cumbria integrated care board to improve the consistency of its communications and protect the long-term provision of services at Longridge community hospital. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to direct NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board to commit to a full reopening of the hospital to provide health services to benefit the community, and to promptly address fire safety concerns, providing a timeline to reassure residents of when to expect a resolution to their concerns.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Ribble Valley, Declares that Longridge Community Hospital serves patients in a wide geographical rural and semi-rural area, many of whom need health services within easy reach of their homes, but its inpatient services were temporarily closed in November 2025, with beds relocated to Chorley Hospital in December; and further declares that this temporary relocation has placed strain on many residents and left people fearful of the future of health services in the Longridge area. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to direct NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board to commit to a full reopening of the hospital to provide health services to benefit the community, and to promptly address fire safety concerns, providing a timeline to reassure residents of when to expect a resolution to their concerns. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003217]

• 24 Jun 2026 · Farming: Financial Sustainability · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing this timely debate and welcome the Minister to his place. I asked local farmers in Ribble Valley what they would like to highlight in this debate about profitability. As hon. Members would expect, the responses included the increasing tax on fertiliser, energy prices, the short-sighted farming vision, the public’s understanding of where our food comes from and its value and quality, seasonal staff and many other things, so I am really grateful that the Government today outlined their farming vision to 2050. In the interests of time, I want to highlight a broader question about who we what to be as British society. We could choose just to import most of our food, but to me, farming is core to our Britishness. We value our local farm cheese brands, we value our rolling green hills, and we value the role farmers play in maintaining our walkways and gritting our paths in winter.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Farming: Financial Sustainability · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. The main point I want to make, alongside all the powerful financial and security arguments that have been made, is that we need farming to be financially sustainable because we want it to be sustainable. We want it to be part of what we prioritise as this country. A More In Common poll found that, after the NHS, our British countryside is what British people value most about this country, so please, let’s not take it for granted. With no farmers, the countryside is not sustainable either.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Private Sector Investment: Lancashire · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with my hon. Friend. As much as the debate is about Lancashire, one thing that will underpin change for both our counties is a commitment to devolution and to towns, so that the focus is not just on our cities. We know what works. Our enterprise zones at Samlesbury and Warton have already helped to deliver a cumulative £1.2 billion in private investment. In the wider north-west, private capital already supports 873 businesses. We have world-class assets, from BAE Systems, which supports 20,000 jobs in the north-west and partners with 1,400 UK suppliers, to our nuclear renaissance, anchored by Springfields, Westinghouse and Heysham. The data is firmly on our side. Lancashire offers a cost-effectiveness ratio of 1:80 for tech talent. That means that a tech professional’s take-home pay goes significantly further in Preston or Blackburn than in London or even Manchester. We are a magnet for the next generation of start-ups, already producing 16 academic spin-outs from our universities that have raised £36 million in equity this year. I will take a moment to highlight a couple of specific initiatives that exemplify our county’s proactive approach to investment. Fhunded is a project close to my heart, as I had the privilege of working directly on its development during my time at Lancashire county council, prior to my election to this place. I want to give a huge thanks to my former colleagues at LCC, especially Dan Knowles and Rory Southworth, who have nurtured this initiative into the vital economic engine it is today. Fhunded has become a cornerstone of our early-stage finance community, acting as a curated bridge that brings our brightest founders and most ambitious funders together. Its impact is undeniable. The vast majority of equity raised in Lancashire throughout 2024 was generated through connections made via the Fhunded initiative. It serves as a perfect case study for this debate: a local government-funded catalyst that is successfully mobilising private capital and ensuring our high-potential start-ups can thrive right there in Lancashire. Another brilliant publicly funded initiative is the RedCAT Catapult run by East Lancashire Chamber of Commerce. It has exceeded targets set by the previous Government on return on investment, supporting businesses in the low carbon technology and advanced manufacturing sectors. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) is meeting the Minister soon to discuss the initiative, and we would welcome some initial thoughts today on potential support for future funding. Beyond the big names, we must support our foundational economy. In Lancashire, family-owned, mid-tier businesses are the key to the supply chains that drive our most vital sectors. They have the potential to scale, to bring new innovation and to distribute growth across our entire economic base. KeTech, in my constituency, is an established software and data SME that powers 80% of the UK’s train data, but has struggled with winning UK contracts over foreign competitors. Our ability to work with such small and medium-sized enterprises is currently heavily constrained by the loss of local economic development funds, but the Lancashire county combined authority has the potential to drive key pilot activity based on our leadership in the mid-tier business council. When it comes to growth, we know from our city region neighbours that it was the investment in culture and night-time economy that attracted the young talent needed for innovation to really thrive. The Guild Hall in Preston was a key entertainment venue for the whole of Lancashire but closed in 2019 due to reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete and will take over £60 million to rebuild. I hope that the Ministers in the Departments for Business and Trade and for Culture, Media and Sport speak regularly about the impact cultural investment like that can have on attracting talent and growth, and I hope that they will support Blog Preston’s campaign to reopen the venue. The county has quick wins and immediate opportunities in defence, energy and advanced manufacturing that simply do not exist elsewhere in the north. There are pipeline investments from Government that, if pushed through quickly, could provide a win-win-win by stimulating local economic growth, supporting the UK to retain key sovereign capabilities and driving national growth—the most important mission for our Labour Government. While my primary aim today is to put Lancashire back at the heart of Government thinking in general, I also have, as Members would imagine, some specific asks of the Government. First, will the Government confirm funding for the permanent home of the National Cyber Force at Samlesbury in my constituency via the defence investment plan? This £5 billion commitment by the previous Government needs continued engagement from Ministers. Secondly, will the Government continue their investment in the National Cyber Force ecosystem, including investment in the Blackburn cyber and skills campus, to ensure that my constituents get the skills to work at the National Cyber Force and that we do not just bring people in from elsewhere in the country? Thirdly, will the Government confirm funds to Westinghouse for next-generation nuclear fuel capabilities? Westinghouse at Springfields is the supplier of choice to fuel the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent platform. Fourthly, will the Government progress the office relocation requirements of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs as an anchor tenant to bring forward a new office quarter around Preston station? Fifthly, will the Government fast-track our move toward a mayoral combined authority with a commitment in the spring spending review for an interim settlement, similar to other areas, that allows Lancashire to pull its weight—as it clearly can—alongside its northern neighbours? I am nearly finished. Sixthly, echoing the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster), will the Government scope the return on investment of a second bridge across the River Ribble, west of Preston, to create a ring road around Preston and unlock the increasing gridlock in our rapidly growing county? Finally, will the Government commit to regular engagement with Lancashire MPs through the all-party parliamentary group on Lancashire, which I chair, to ensure that Ministers fully understand the opportunities for Lancashire to make a significant contribution to the UK economy? I am a red rose through and through in both party and county. I came back to Lancashire, and I will likely be there forever, because I see not only the potential, but a way of doing growth better—of businesses grounded in community, with care for the environment in which we are lucky to work and live and with a quiet relentlessness to thrive. Our businesses lead with humility; they understand risk and reward, and that is what makes them stronger. Those are Labour values, and it should be this Labour Government who help those values and those businesses to thrive. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Private Sector Investment: Lancashire · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. As I will come on to, it is about ensuring that we make the most of all areas of our country. Some of those areas already have growth, and we need to ensure that we are expanding the growth that is already there. Without a proper holistic look at how the Government can support businesses in Lancashire, not only will businesses struggle, but our UK economy will struggle more when we miss out on the huge potential for growth. I could stand here all night waxing lyrical about how wonderful Lancashire is—our hills, our grand town halls, our coastline, our grit—but I know none of those things speak the language of the Treasury, Government and growth, so I will focus on the numbers and the examples of how the Government have a growth opportunity in Lancashire that they need to not miss. Lancashire is a £40 billion GVA powerhouse. That makes us the 5th largest economy in the north. As the Minister knows, the current growth narrative for the north is often dominated by our major metropolitan neighbours. While we celebrate their success, any true growth narrative for the north must take non-metropolitan areas into account. At this point, let me be clear: “non-metropolitan” does not mean rural. There is a serious risk of people in Westminster making that mistake.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Private Sector Investment: Lancashire · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with my hon. Friend. As I will come on to, the people and places in counties such as Lancashire deserve that kind of funding. Even if the politicians who have been making the decisions have maybe delayed those opportunities to get devolution, we should not penalise the people there for that. Lancashire is a prime example of a polycentric economy. We have coastal and rural environments, but also urban environments from city centres to market towns, with many of the same issues and opportunities as our metropolitan neighbours. We are a county of 1.57 million people and over 55,000 businesses, contributing a massive portion of the north’s economic output. We face the same challenges—some of the highest levels of deprivation and worklessness in our urban pockets—yet we also have areas that rank in the top five of northern local authorities for productivity. We are not just waiting for growth; we have an economic base that matches any of our neighbours, where strengths in defence, energy and advanced engineering add unique productive potential to the north as a whole. The private sector in Lancashire is ready to lead. We have a dynamic project pipeline with the potential to attract over £20 billion in additional investment over the next decade. However, we are currently fighting with one hand tied behind our back. The macroeconomic data tells a sobering story: since 1998, Lancashire has experienced the lowest growth in investment spending of any UK region. Despite our high-value production base, we rank in the bottom quarter for average Innovate UK grant size, for example. These grants are increasingly concentrated in areas with strong knowledge-intensive business services, rather than production-oriented economies such as Lancashire’s. We must be honest about what Lancashire is missing out on because we lack mayoral arrangements, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) highlighted. Currently, we are excluded from 30-year investment funds estimated to be worth £30 million per year for our county. We are also missing out on the collective £200 million per year available to new mayoral areas and the city region sustainable transport settlements that our neighbours in Greater Manchester and Liverpool enjoy.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Private Sector Investment: Lancashire · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the opportunity to debate Government support for private investment in Lancashire this evening. Lancashire is my home. It is also the home of some of the most powerful innovators that we have in this country. Often, they fly under the radar of both Government and private investors. In many ways, that is because they do not need us. They already have exceptional trade links and supply chains within their own sectors—decades-old business models in multi-generational companies that just work—so they crack on, quietly making money for this country and prosperity for themselves. In some ways, they do not need our help when they have figured it out for themselves for so long, but we need them. We need companies that have drive and that, with Government support and further investment in enabling infrastructure, could do 10 times what they are currently doing for our economy. As a Labour Government, we are great at helping people who are struggling and who do not have the opportunities they deserve. I am grateful for the millions this Government are investing into Lancashire through Pride in Place projects, which will absolutely improve health and wellbeing—something we have particular need for in our county, where poor health accounts for a significant portion of the productivity gap. But, as a Labour Government, I think we could be more honest with ourselves that while overcoming deprivation is a top priority, growth is a top priority too. We could also be better at recognising where those growth opportunities are. I think it is fair to say that this Government are pretty convinced by agglomeration economics and by the idea that if we invest in city regions, the wealth will trickle out. But what happens somewhere like Lancashire, where there is already wealth but it has been supported consistently for decades by EU funding and then by the crisis and resilience fund and the shared prosperity fund, all of which have now been removed? It feels shortsighted to pull the rug from under Lancashire’s thriving economy in the hope that some wealth might trickle out from surrounding city regions in 20 years or so.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Private Sector Investment: Lancashire · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. As many of my constituents regularly tell me, the congestion we get when the M6 fails or has a closure is a nightmare when it falls on to the A-roads around the constituency, so a second bridge around Preston to create a ring road is critical. Staying with the subject of transport, my hon. Friends the Members for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) and for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) are having to fight relentlessly for better connectivity in their constituencies, which is where devolution could really help us. The Government may say that Lancashire did not come to the table when the offer was first there for devolution, but that is not the fault of Lancashire’s places and people, so it does not seem fair that they should suffer. Lancashire leaders are at the table now, so let us crack on. The disparities are reflected in our venture capital and equity investment volumes, which trail significantly behind Greater Manchester. In the first quarter of 2024, Greater Manchester reached approximately £104 million in investment, while Lancashire secured just £7 million. That innovation gap is not due to a lack of ingenuity; it is a lack of investment that acts as a direct drag on our wider commercial performance. When I speak to private investors—both those investing in small companies and those investing in big infrastructure —they often sheepishly tell me they know they should probably be doing more in Lancashire, but that they are creatures of habit. I am making it one of my missions to coax more of them up to Lancashire to see what is on offer, but I ask the Minister not to let this Government fall into the same bad habit of sticking to what we know, even though there is clearly such growth potential in Lancashire.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Royal Lime Trees in Walton-le-Dale · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted to present this petition on behalf of Walton-le-Dale residents in my constituency regarding the potential felling of the 18 royal lime trees that have stood for 112 years. In this petition, and in a similar, separate e-petition with almost 8,000 signatures, the petitioners believe that the Environment Agency has not sufficiently factored in local heritage in its preferred flooding solutions. Following is the full text of the petition: [ The petition of residents of the constituency of Ribble Valley, Declares that the Royal Lime Trees on Victoria Road, Walton-le-Dale, Preston, which have stood for over 112 years and serve as a living memorial to the coronation of King George V and Queen Mary, form part of the community’s identity and landscape but the Environment Agency’s current plans within the Preston Flood Alleviation Scheme would see 18 trees cut down; further declares that specific modelling has not been carried out and appropriate steps not taken to gather sufficient structural or geotechnical evidence for these plans; and further declares that the current plans are intrusive on the community and natural landscape, while less disruptive alternatives have not been adequately explored. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to direct the Environment Agency to commit to an independent review of the Victoria Road design in the Preston and South Ribble Flood Risk Management Scheme, and to provide flood defences that are environmentally responsible, respect local heritage and reduce community disruption. And the petitioners remain, etc. ] [P003206]

• 9 Jun 2026 · Water Safety · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Water Safety · Hansard source

  More

  A few weeks ago, 12-year-old Junior Slater tragically drowned in the River Ribble in the heart of my constituency. We will cover many things to prevent such senseless losses in this debate, but what struck me most in the village on the day that it happened was the hundreds of young people who were there from surrounding towns looking for something nice to do on a sunny day. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in order to prevent tragic deaths such as Junior’s, we need to ensure that there is also funding for places where young people can go and enjoy the outdoors safely, and will he join me in sending best wishes to the Slater family ahead of Junior’s funeral this Thursday?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Milburn Review: Interim Report · Hansard source

  More

  It is brilliant to see an example in the interim report of a young woman who taught herself Shopify in order to start a business. This Government have prioritised growth, which comes from innovation and entrepreneurship. Given that young people have incredible ideas and often thrive when they can direct their own destiny, rather than adapting to another company’s culture, does he agree that encouraging entrepreneurship among young people needs to be a significant part of the solution?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Preparedness for National Emergencies · Hansard source

  More

  We currently have a maternity inquiry addressing the fact that two thirds of maternity units are deemed unsafe in normal times, yet one of the clearest lessons from the covid-19 pandemic is how easily mothers and pregnant women can be overlooked even more when decisions are made at pace. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on babies (pregnancy to age 2), I am aware of how often babies and their parents are left out of policymaking, yet they absorb so much of the impact of keeping going in a crisis. Analysis of meetings of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies during the covid-19 crisis showed that gender was largely absent from key discussions. Helen MacNamara, a senior official at the time, later acknowledged that the lack of a female perspective “led to significant negative consequences”. She particularly highlighted the failure to properly consider childcare, domestic abuse victims, and pregnant women. The result was that many women faced pregnancy, birth and the post-natal period alone. That will have impacts for generations. If we are truly to be prepared for future national emergencies we must ensure that parents, babies and pregnant women are built into planning from the outset, rather than being treated as an afterthought.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Maternity Commissioner · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for introducing this debate. A huge thank you to Louise Thompson, Theo Clarke and the 150,000 people who signed this petition, for keeping maternity services on the agenda. The petition before us is motivated by a very real and deeply painful issue: the loss of trust in maternity services following preventable harm and trauma. I welcome the passion behind this petition. However, I fear that maternity care may be too complex, too nuanced and too diverse to be well served by a single national maternity commissioner, and that focusing our energy on that risks allowing the Government to tick a box, when what would make the greatest difference is sustained, courageous investment in maternity services themselves, as many of my colleagues have highlighted. Much of the current maternity debate understandably centres on trauma, risk and dissatisfaction. Those things matter, and I know others today have focused, and will focus, on how we reduce that. But when those become the only things we measure, we distort the entire system. I will therefore focus my comments today on women themselves, because how women experience birth is not a “nice to have”; it has profound consequences for mental health, family wellbeing and long-term outcomes. Around one in four women experiences perinatal mental health problems, costing the UK £8.1 billion annually when left untreated. That is true no matter what a birth is like. I would like to put my hand up today and say that I am a bit fed up with people rolling their eyes at the concept of a birth plan, for example. Of course women know that things might not happen exactly as they had hoped; a woman’s birth plan is about being prepared for all eventualities, expressing her wishes and being empowered. Anyone who suggests otherwise is undermining the right of women to feel in control and prepared for this huge change in their lives. I have had some beautifully powerful discussions with my colleagues over the past few months on the topic of giving birth. Some of them have felt looked down on for having a C-section, and some, like myself, have felt looked down on for wanting a home birth. The fact is that all those choices are completely valid. The problem is not someone’s birth choice; it is anyone judging them for it. On that point, I want to gently address an elephant in the room. The concept that midwives have sought “the pursuit of normal birth at any cost” entered public policy following the Morecambe Bay investigation in 2015. It was never intended as a literal description of all midwifery practice, yet it became a powerful and damaging shorthand. The report described a “seriously dysfunctional” service, which was “influenced by a small number of dominant individuals”, where poor leadership, weak clinical skills and failures in basic risk assessment created a “lethal mix”. The problem was not support for physiological birth; it was unsafe practice and toxic culture. However, over time, that nuance has been lost. Supporting physiological birth became conflated with recklessness. Midwifery philosophy was portrayed as being in opposition to safety, rather than working in partnership with it, as professional standards make very clear. The result has been a false binary in policy-thinking—safety versus choice, intervention versus physiology, or risk management versus women’s autonomy. That false binary still shapes decision making today, and it contributes to women feeling that birth is something done to them, rather than by them. If we continue talking in this way, I fear that we are making women’s bodies a political football. I believe that we and this Government are capable of better. I have heard directly from senior clinicians that rising intervention rates are linked to older mothers or decreasing health standards, yet the data does not back that up. The average age of a birthing mother has risen by less than a year since 2014, and the percentage of women giving birth over 35 went up from 23% to just 25%. That small increase cannot explain a 45% increase in interventions over the same period. We have to move away from anecdote and ensure that we are using the data. If this debate becomes another iteration of that same binary, we risk repeating the very mistakes that brought us here. While I welcome the clear passion behind the ask for a maternity commissioner, I worry that it would not capture the nuance of opinion and experience in the birthing space. There is so much more that I would love to say about how brilliant and resilient midwives are; about how brave every person who experiences and supports someone through childbirth is, even when we are expected to just crack on and deal with it; and about how great it is that our new women’s health strategy focuses on the importance of women being listened to. However, in the interest of time, I will finally focus on what we need from this Government. If we are serious about improving outcomes, we already know where to look. Continuity of midwifery care is recommended by both the World Health Organisation and NICE, and it is associated with fewer pre-term births, lower rates of loss and significantly higher satisfaction from families. Randomised control trials show that those benefits apply to women at both lower and higher risk. Despite a national commitment to rolling out a continuity of carer model, progress stalled because there were not enough staff to deliver it safely. In 2022, NHS England formally removed the target date, citing “insufficient staffing”. Many qualified midwives have left the profession, but evidence suggests that a significant number would return if they were able to provide relationship-based, compassionate care, with time to do their jobs properly. Let me conclude by speaking directly to Ministers. The question before us is not whether the Government recognise that maternity services are under strain—that has already been well established. The question is whether Ministers are prepared to act at the scale required. A maternity commissioner may feel tangible and responsive, but it does not avoid the hard truth: women’s experiences will not change without investment, workforce stability and systematic redesign. As other colleagues have said, there are over 700 recommendations on maternity safety already in existence. If the Government are serious about restoring confidence in maternity services, I ask Ministers: will they publish a fully funded workforce plan for maternity, including midwifery, retention and return to practice? Will they commit to resourcing continuity of carer models, rather than quietly shelving them when staffing pressures bite? Will they address the £27 billion maternity negligence bill not through litigation management, but through prevention? This Government must decide whether they want to preside over a system that simply manages failure, or whether they are willing to take the brave step of long-term investment to make the UK a place where women’s choices and bodily autonomy are respected, where safety is paramount, where joy and empowerment are not incidental but expected, and where professionals are supported to deliver humane, relationship-based care. We do not need another review, and I am not sure that we really need another title. We need staff, time, continuity, trust and investment. If we get that right, outcomes will improve, costs will fall, trust will return, and maternity care in this country can once again be something that we are all proud of.

• 5 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  On Wednesday, I joined midwifery students protesting in Parliament Square. I spoke to Kelly McDermott, who is facing the reality that 31% of newly qualified midwives cannot find jobs, which the Royal College of Midwives puts down to poor workforce planning. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending the incredible care that midwives give women? Will he also join me in calling on the Health Secretary to ensure that this Government will finally provide the step change in investment that our maternity services desperately need?

• 26 Feb 2026 · Universal Youth Services · Hansard source

  More

  11. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of universal youth services.

• 26 Feb 2026 · Universal Youth Services · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the universal approach of our new youth strategy, but in my Ribble Valley constituency, in which communities are small and often far away from city-centre youth hubs, young people miss out on support. Their family may be just about managing, but dual-career households and long hours leave little time to take children to activities. This country has an inequality problem, but it also has a productivity problem. I have had welcome conversations with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on how we can unlock real entrepreneurship, ambition and opportunity for young people, in order not only to reduce unemployment rates but to unlock and capitalise on the incredible energy and ideas of our young people. How will the Secretary of State ensure that, while we rightly support those most in need, we also provide all young people with third spaces for ideas and creativity?

• 26 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I recently visited the Lancaster University School of Mathematics, which is based in Preston on the edge of my constituency, a brilliant new place for 16 to 18-year-olds to take A-levels in maths and maths-based subjects. In a world where we desperately need more maths and technical skills, it was truly a joy to hear that students who had previously felt unsupported in their passion for maths now had a place where they could thrive. Will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging my young constituents to consider this brilliant choice now on their doorstep, and will he consider a debate on how the culture of our educational settings is crucial to enabling the creative and entrepreneurial learning we need for growth in this country?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Minister for Men and Boys · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that one of the things that has caused a lack of male role models is the lack of third spaces and youth centres? The disinvestment in youth services, which I think averaged about 70% per local authority under the previous Government, has led to a lot of the reduction in role models in the third spaces and youth areas, and in youth funding, and that this Government have reinvested in that.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Minister for Men and Boys · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that parents of men and boys are navigating a truly wild west? Although it is brilliant that the Government are committed to helping teachers to spot and navigate misogyny in schools, the fact is that parents are the ones at the coalface, especially in the early years. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking those parents who work really hard every day to raise kind, confident and compassionate boys who we are very proud of?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Healthy Relationships · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with my hon. Friend; she is right that both men and women want this. Everyone in society is demanding this, and I really hope that the Government will listen and take action. An even more critical point is that it is not just men and women but children who will benefit from this. Ten to Men found that a loving paternal relationship was the single biggest factor in preventing a boy becoming a man who abuses his partner. The macro win of all of this is higher labour supply and reduced gender gaps, the fiscal win is higher tax receipts and lower benefit dependency, and the household win is healthier relationships and more resilient income. Imagine the benefits if a dad or a partner could build a bond and confidence with their baby, so that understanding is deepened between parents, bonds are built to strengthen the determination to care for the baby, and a society is developed where protecting your family bubble becomes the pride point. I will be frank: I truly hope that this Labour Government and the most progressive and gender-balanced Parliament ever will catch us up by committing to six weeks of protected paternity leave at 90% of pay, paid for by Government, and do it soon. If we do not take the single biggest step we can closer to equality, I do not know what we are here for. The fact that radicalised me more than any other, and that tells me that we are still early on in the journey to equal and healthy relationships, is that before 1991 it was still legal to rape your wife. Anyone who got married before 1991 did so knowing that fact. We are only 35 years into a world that expects men and women to be equal in a marriage, and we are only beginning to work out what that means for us as a society. One of the biggest hills we have to climb is helping men and boys find newly empowered roles in equal relationships, in the same way that women and girls have been doing. Many colleagues in this place are doing important work on building role models and positive education for boys, and the Government’s own violence against women and girls strategy includes teacher training to spot the early signs of misogyny in boys. I truly welcome the plans for improved relationships education in schools that the Government are introducing this year, particularly plans to start this earlier in primary schools and to focus on how to develop healthy relationships. None the less, we must remain alive to how early we subconsciously introduce power disparities. As part of preparing for this debate, our friends at the Dad Shift challenged us to remember couples we admire for their equality, because role models are critical. The couple I admire most is Tom and Barbara Good from “The Good Life”. Amazingly, I only discovered the 1970s show recently and was slightly taken aback by how good they are to each other, in a way that makes me feel we have in some ways regressed from these days.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Healthy Relationships · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for healthy relationships. It is a pleasure to be under your chairship, Ms Jardine. May I start by wishing you a happy Valentine’s day for Saturday? “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.” That is probably the most famous line in British literature, but when it comes to British policy, the role of relationships seems too often to be an afterthought, yet they are the building block of a healthy society. I am the first to jump on our cultural obsession with relationships when there is a new “Bridgerton” season, but it is time that relationships became a political obsession, too. Valentine’s day is a moment each year when the country reflects on love, partnership and the relationships that underpin our families, communities and society. With public interest high in the pressures facing modern couples and with a growing body of evidence that respect, trust and equality prevent relationship breakdown, this debate offers us a timely opportunity to consider the factors that enable healthy partnerships in Britain today. Healthy relationships are fundamental to a number of key policy domains. Strong and stable partnerships are associated with improved mental wellbeing, reduced loneliness and better overall health outcomes, while relationship distress is linked to increased demand for NHS and social care services. In education and children’s services, the quality of parental relationships strongly influences children’s emotional development, attainment and long-term life chances. In the economy, relationship stability and equality affect workforce participation, financial security and the capacity of families to balance work and care. In efforts to tackle violence against women and girls, healthy norms, cultures and values are clearly fundamental. Policy decisions across those and other areas have a significant impact on couples’ abilities to build and sustain equal, healthy relationships. Workplace policies, such as parental leave and access to flexible working, shape how families organise care and employment. Housing affordability and security influence relationship formation and stability. Mental health provision, early years support and the wider social safety net all play a role in reducing pressures that constrain partnerships, while legal and justice frameworks affect how society responds to abuse, coercive control and family breakdown. The fact is that relationships today look entirely different from those just 20 years ago. Today, more than two thirds of families with dependent children have both parents in employment, meaning that the majority of households are dual income. With divorce well entrenched in our culture, one in four families with dependent children is a single-parent household. There are huge benefits to more people working, especially for women, and it is a good thing that people have access to divorce when relationships are not healthy, but we cannot just take the benefits of these improvements and not mitigate the impacts. What happens to child development when both parents are working full time, or when a single parent has no capacity outside work and childcare? What happens to our ability to bond with each other as a couple in a romantic relationship? What happens to our capacity to engage in and contribute to our local communities? Those shifts in the roles of couples and households also have negative impacts on relationships. We could mitigate those impacts, but as yet we have struggled to do so. This Government are rightly focused on growth as the key way this country can get back to a time of prosperity, but most parents I know—bear in mind that parents make up a huge part of the working population—are exhausted, and if I know one thing as a parent of small children, it is that nothing good or productive comes of being exhausted. How can we expect great output and productivity from people in the workplace when the strain on couples is so high? We have to pay closer attention to how households are coping. Relationship challenges impact not only what we produce in the workplace, but how we sustain our population. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has recently highlighted our falling birth rate and has rightly highlighted actions taken by this Government to try to change that, such as better funded childcare and measures on the cost of living and housing. Couples are operating under unprecedented strain to both parent or care and to work full time, yet we barely talk about the psychological toll. Then we are surprised that domestic violence rates increase, that mental health in both men and women is plummeting and adding to our welfare bill, that special educational needs and disabilities issues are skyrocketing and that couples are deciding that one child is enough. As a Government, we give couples screen time advice and encourage them to have more children, but we rarely ask, “What is life like for you right now, and what would make your life easier as a couple and as a parent in 2026?” Let us do that more. When it comes to domestic violence, the Government have made huge strides in developing a comprehensive strategy to combat violence against women and girls, but the fact remains that 3.8 million people experienced domestic abuse last year, and a quarter of all UK residents have experienced domestic abuse since the age of 16. The time when abuse starts in earnest is during pregnancy and the first 1,001 days of life. Some 30% of domestic abuse begins in pregnancy, rising to 40% in the first 1,001 days, precisely when infant brain development is the most sensitive to stress and trauma, but, terrifyingly, only 0.5% of maternity patients disclose abuse, so those numbers miss the majority of cases. Abuse during that period worsens maternal mental health, increases adverse birth outcomes and damages infants’ socio-emotional development. Those effects shift costs on to the NHS, social care, education and the justice system for years. Relationships between parents and children can lead to stronger and more secure relationships and behaviour among those children as they grow up, but we know that currently only 55% of infants develop secure attachments, and that insecure attachment is a key driver of poor outcomes later in life. Research this month from the Centre for Mental Health and the Parent-Infant Foundation finds that expanding access to parent-infant relationship teams to support parents in the most deprived areas to bond with their babies could save the Government £1.2 billion annually. The single most significant thing we could do in this Parliament to change all of this would be to introduce much better paternity leave—ideally at least six weeks at 90% of pay. Paternity leave in this country is truly embarrassing: two weeks is not enough. The UK’s offer of two weeks of unpaid statutory paternity leave is among the least generous in Europe, constraining fathers’ early involvement and entrenching relationship inequality. Modelling by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that six weeks at 90% of pay could deliver £2.68 billion to the wider economy, primarily through increased maternal employment and more equal sharing of care. Some 59% of people agreed that bad paternity leave made it difficult to share childcare responsibilities equally, not just in the short term, but in the long term, with patterns proving harder to shift.