Michelle Welsh MP: speeches

Speeches

• 7 Sept 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the review, which gives us a real opportunity to get local government reorganisation right for my constituents. I hope that they will now be heard. Infrastructure in my constituency is creaking at the seams due to years of neglect by the previous Government. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the real concerns in my constituency about planning, local infrastructure and local government reorganisation, as well as an exciting opportunity to create a local country park?

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

  More

  For complete transparency, let me say that I am the national maternity adviser to the Government; I wanted to make that clear before I begin my remarks. I wish to place on the record my sincere gratitude and thanks to the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) for bringing this Bill to the House. I am genuinely delighted to speak in support of it, because its subject matter goes right to the heart of why I entered public service in the first place. There is one principle that has guided me throughout my working life: where someone is born should not determine their future. The postcode where someone is born, their parents’ income, and whether they are born in an affluent community or a former mining community, should never determine how healthy they are, how well they do at school or the opportunities they will have throughout their life. If we genuinely believe that, then we have to begin at the beginning—not at secondary school or primary school, but during pregnancy, at birth and in those first precious moments and years when so much of a child’s future is being shaped. That is why the Bill matters so much. It asks us to look seriously at the support available to babies and families, and at whether the provision we have actually meets their needs. This debate takes me back to the beginning of my career, in the heyday. Before coming to the House, I spent years working with children, young people and families, first for the YMCA in America, then back in Nottinghamshire, and then developing Sure Start services across Nottinghamshire and Derby. I worked on the frontline, directly with parents and children, and then I moved into management, helping to develop, plan and co-ordinate services for families—all based on the principles of early intervention, support and prevention. I was fortunate to work at a time when there was a real belief that children and families should sit at the centre of public policy. We not only talked about early intervention and prevention; we developed services to deliver it, bringing services together, including things like the common assessment framework. Crucially, we talked to parents, families and communities. I believed in Sure Start then and I believe in the principles behind it every bit as strongly today. Sure Start was never simply a building with a sign on it; it was an idea—a philosophy—not only about how we should treat families, but about how we give every child, no matter their background, the best possible start in life. It said that families should not have to be in crisis before somebody helps them, and that becoming a parent should not mean being handed a list of telephone numbers and then being expected to navigate half a dozen public services on your own. It recognised that a child’s life does not fit neatly into departmental boxes. There was early education and childcare, health visitors, breastfeeding support, parenting programmes, speech and language support, stay and play sessions, and family support and outreach. There was advice about benefits, employment and training. There was support for parents as well as for their children. And sometimes the most important intervention was not a formal programme at all—sometimes it was a cup of tea. In Nottinghamshire, we understand the power of a brew, because what it really means is to stop: for someone to listen, for someone to care and for someone to help. While I am not advocating for tea to necessarily be a national policy or an amendment to the Bill—nor will I ever advocate for how the Prime Minister makes a cuppa—I will always advocate for those working on the frontline having time to care, time to stop and time to listen, whether they are a support worker in a family hub, a health visitor or a midwife. Sometimes Sure Start was about a mum walking into a children’s centre, sitting down beside someone she had begun to trust and quietly saying, “Can I talk to you?” That conversation could be the beginning of getting help—that mattered. Relationships mattered and we worked with parents; I feel incredibly strongly about that. Good family policy cannot simply be designed in Whitehall and done to people. Parents know their children and their communities. They know what works and what is missing. When I worked with parents, we listened to them, we involved them, we asked them what they needed and we learned from them. We understood that the mother who did not attend a group was not necessarily hard to reach—perhaps we were hard to reach. Perhaps there was no bus, or the sessions were at the wrong time. Perhaps she was frightened of being judged. Perhaps she was exhausted.

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

  More

  That is exactly what it was all about. When that approach began to change—and it did change—I did not want to sit on the sidelines and complain about it; I wanted to do something. That journey eventually brought me to this place. I believe the principles behind Sure Start should never be consigned to history. We should learn from them and build on them, and whatever name we put above the door today, the fundamental principle must remain services built around the child and the family. That begins before a baby is born; it begins with maternity, and through my campaign on maternity safety, and—most importantly—through listening to families, those on the frontline, charities and organisations, I have become absolutely convinced that maternity policy cannot sit in a silo, separate from children’s policy. Safe maternity care, maternal physical health and mental health, supporting fathers and parents, and making sure that women are listened to are all early years policy. We cannot talk seriously about giving every baby the best start in life without talking about the care their mothers receive. I believe we need fundamental reform. That is why one of the most central proposals I have argued for is an independent maternity commissioner—someone whose sole focus is women, babies and families, with the independence and authority to change and challenge the system. When something goes catastrophically wrong, families should not have to become investigators, they should not have to understand every layer of the NHS, and they should not have to fight organisation after organisation simply to get the truth about what happened to the woman or the baby they love. We also need better national data, proper national standards and a culture where staff can speak up. Good midwives, obstetricians, maternity support workers and other staff who raise concerns should be listened to and protected, because a safe culture is one where people can say something is wrong before another family is harmed. There is another part of maternity reform that I believe is fundamental, which is continuity of care. I want us to be much more ambitious about what we mean by continuity. I do not believe that continuity should mean a good handover from one professional to another—I believe the same person should stay. A woman should be able to build a relationship with someone throughout their maternity journey. That relationship should not simply end because her baby has been born; every woman should leave hospital following birth with a full debrief, not simple discharge paperwork. That is part of prevention. Continuity also gives us an opportunity to address the appalling inequalities we see in maternity care. The latest MBRRACE-UK data shows that black women still face nearly three times the maternal mortality risk of white women, and women living in the most deprived areas have around twice the maternal mortality rate of women in the least deprived communities. These inequalities are unacceptable, and we cannot simply publish those statistics year after year and call it action; we have to design services that actively confront inequality and discrimination. Continuity can be part of that. If somebody actually knows the woman—knows her history and her circumstances—and is responsible for staying with her, it becomes much harder for her concerns to disappear between appointments, or for her to be forced to tell her story over and over again. All of this connects directly to the wider health and development of the baby. After maternity comes health visiting, then perhaps a family hub, early years provision, nursery and eventually school. Governments see these as separate services, separate budgets, and sometimes separate Departments; a parent sees none of that. They see their child—one child, one family, one continuous journey. That is how Governments should see them, too. A health visitor may identify a developmental concern, a mother may need breastfeeding or feeding support, or parents may notice speech and language difficulties. There may be early indications of SEND, housing conditions affecting a child’s health, financial pressure or difficulty in the parents’ relationship. A mother may be experiencing depression. None of those things exists neatly on its own. The worst possible system is one that waits until a family has deteriorated sufficiently to meet a threshold for help. We should not wait for a crisis; early intervention works. If we can support the mother earlier, we should. If we can help a family earlier, we should. If we can identify a child’s need earlier, we should. If we can prevent someone from reaching crisis, we should. That is not wasteful public spending; it is intelligent public spending, and it brings us directly to education. Education can transform a person’s life. I know that personally, as I was the first person in my family to go to university. I defeated the odds, but it does not and should not have to be that way. If we are serious about closing the achievement gap, we have to be honest about when it begins. It does not suddenly appear when a child starts secondary school. For some children, inequality begins to take hold before they ever walk through the school gates. Children arrive in reception having had very different starts in life. Every child deserves the opportunity to fulfil their potential. That should be not an aspiration reserved for the lucky few; it should be a promise that we make to every child born in this country. I know the Opposition do not think that we should talk about the 1980s, but I do, because I know what happens when hope is taken away. Growing up on a council estate in Notts in the 1980s, I lived and breathed it, and now I serve those very communities, which are still up against it. I came into public service and eventually into politics because I believe that government can put hope back. That is what Sure Start represented to me. That is what safe maternity care should represent. That is what good health services, early years support and education should represent—not charity or a favour, but opportunity: the opportunity for a mother to be safe and heard, the opportunity for a family to be supported before they reach crisis, the opportunity for a baby to be given the very best start in life, and the opportunity for every child, whatever street they are born in and whatever their parents earn, to look at their future and believe it belongs to them. Ultimately, that is the test of everything we do here—not whether we can write another strategy or create another pathway, but whether the child born tonight in the poorest household in the country has the same right to dream, to thrive and to succeed as the child born into the richest. Where someone is born should never determine their future, but what we choose to do in this House can.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Disability Living Allowance: Qualifying Period for Children · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. The bureaucratic system is failing families, but these issues could easily be resolved if medical evidence could be used instead of the qualifying period. I urge the Minister to look at ways in which medical evidence and research can be used in DLA to make the system better for those who rely on it. There are already provisions that allow the use of medical evidence to bypass the qualifying period, such as the special rules cases where someone is approaching the end of life. The qualifying period is outdated and does not reflect the complexities of lifelong conditions. I am aware that the Government do not know the cost of removing the qualifying period, but I do not think that any cost is worth more than parents’ ability to be there for their child when they have cancer. As it stands, we cannot cure childhood cancer. We cannot spare families the fear, the sleepless nights or the heartbreak of watching a child undergo surgery and chemotherapy. But we can ensure that when the worst happens, the Government stand beside them rather than placing further barriers in their way. Families should not have to prove their desperation for three months before receiving support. They should not have to navigate mountains of paperwork while sitting beside a hospital bed. They should never be forced to choose between earning a wage and being there for their child. Mabel’s story is one of hope. Today, she is back at school, enjoying the childhood that every parent wishes for their son or daughter. But her family’s experience has exposed a system that is failing too many in this country. The question before us is a simple one: when a child is diagnosed with cancer or another serious condition, do we respond with bureaucracy or with compassion? I believe we should choose compassion. I therefore urge the Minister to work with families, clinicians and charities to remove the three-month qualifying period and replace it with a system that recognises medical evidence at the outset. Let us ensure that no parent is forced to leave a child alone on a hospital ward because they cannot afford to be there. Let us build a system worthy of the families who rely on it—and let us act now, because cancer does not wait.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Disability Living Allowance: Qualifying Period for Children · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of removing the qualifying period for Disability Living Allowance for children. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. It is right and fitting that I start this debate where it all began for me, with dear Mabel—a brave, kind, clever, funny four-year-old girl who lives in my constituency—and her tenacious mum Rachael. When I was first elected to Parliament, I met with Rachael, my constituent, and she shared her experience with her daughter Mabel, who sadly had been diagnosed with cancer. Aged four, Mabel was diagnosed with Wilms’, a form of kidney cancer. After a horrifying six months, including two major operations and a tough course of chemotherapy, the family received the news that Mabel was free of cancer. Now, aged six, Mabel attends her local school, where I was fortunate enough to meet her, and is enjoying her life as a young child should. I know that the House will join me in wishing Mabel well. Following Mabel’s diagnosis, Rachael made an application for disability living allowance, which required completing a 40-page questionnaire that asks questions such as whether the four-year-old needs help monitoring their blood oxygen levels. Disability living allowance is supposed to support families of children with disabilities and serious conditions such as cancer. It can provide a lifeline of financial support at the time when it is most needed, yet the current system requires families to wait three months for the qualifying period. Let me be clear: the financial impact of cancer does not begin after three months. It is instant. Rachael shared with me that Mabel being diagnosed with cancer was the toughest time of her family’s lives. Despite that, she felt that they were in a more fortunate position than many of the other families on the ward. Rachael’s employer gave her six months off work as sick leave and her partner was able to work flexibly so that they could both spend time with their daughter at hospital. That time allowed Mabel to have support and care from her loved ones, and it allowed support from their family. I cannot even begin to imagine the anguish that families face with such a diagnosis—all the more when it is their child. Unfortunately, not every employer is able or willing to offer that support. That disparity should leave us asking: if we cannot be there when a child is diagnosed with cancer, what are we doing?

• 2 Sept 2026 · Disability Living Allowance: Qualifying Period for Children · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. Cancer is actually one of the clearest diagnoses that someone can get from day one. Cancer does not wait, yet families have to. The three-month qualifying period does not reflect the realities that families face. In Mabel’s case, the family were informed that they would not qualify for any support, as Mabel’s condition had not lasted for more than six months. In other words, she had not had cancer for long enough. That is despite her having undergone multiple operations and chemotherapy; to this day, she must still attend regular hospital appointments. It is my understanding that the qualifying period is meant to establish that a health condition is long-standing in nature, but with a diagnosis of cancer surely support should be given from the outset.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Disability Living Allowance: Qualifying Period for Children · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. Too often, the financial impacts of a cancer diagnosis are forgotten. People think about the hospital visits, the sickness and the endless tablets, but a disability or serious condition such as cancer has an impact on every single part of someone’s life. Following a diagnosis, families immediately have to deal with the financial impact. It is a sad fact of life that bills do not care whether a child has cancer; they will still be due. But we can care. Cross-party, we can care. We can unite and do the right thing. Families with children with a disability or serious condition have to wait seven months on average before receiving a single disability living allowance payment. That is months and months of rent, mortgage payments, electricity bills and council tax, and it is weeks and weeks of food shopping. It is compounded by the fact that household income drops by an average of £6,000 per year. For one in three, that can reach over £10,000. Sadly, it gets even worse: the delay in receiving DLA means that a parent’s ability to claim any carer’s allowance as an additional or an alternative has a further impact on the financial strain. It is also important to note that parents in work are unable to apply for universal credit, and that that cuts out other potential streams of support. All this leaves parents with an impossible choice, a cruel choice that no parent should have to make: do they leave their child alone in hospital to face this battle by themselves, or do they not go to work? Do they skip bills? Do they run the risk of losing their home? Do they not eat? Do they turn the heating off? This is the reality. These are decisions that families should never have to make, yet they happen daily for families up and down this country. During my meeting with Rachael, she told me about a young boy of just six years old who was also on the ward. His parents were left with no option but to carry on working. As the nurses were unable to provide round-the-clock care, Rachael helped him to use the toilet, helped to dress him and helped him to eat. It is heartbreaking to think of the many children who have no one beside them—not just for the children, but for the mothers and fathers being left with no choice. I missed my son’s first day back at school today and have cried about it, but that is nothing in comparison with having to leave a child who is suffering from cancer in a hospital bed. Let me be clear: DLA is not designed to act as a source of income. It is there to help with the extra costs of looking after a child with a health condition.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q6. The Donna Ockenden and Baroness Amos reviews have exposed some uncomfortable truths: that justice is not brought about by a system, a law, a protocol, a regulatory authority or NHS England, but by bereaved and harmed families having to speak up, over and over again, about the most horrific and traumatic experience of their lives just to be heard. Does the Prime Minister agree that the system is not only failing but cruel, and if we are to restore public trust then we must finally introduce the Hillsborough law in full, so that families can get the justice and accountability they need and deserve?

• 30 Jun 2026 · National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome Baroness Valerie Amos’s review, and I thank her and her team for their commitment to this vital work. Once again, this review confronts us with a very uncomfortable but real truth. The reality is that this inquiry and the Donna Ockenden inquiry did not come about because of a system, NHS England or a regulatory authority; it came about because families have to keep on speaking up, over and over again, about one of the most horrific and traumatic things ever to happen. All the while, there is a culture within of mutual protection, and a code of silence, which has enabled some staff to shield each other from consequences. I welcome the recommendation on the national maternity and neonatal commissioner—a strong, independent voice with the power to challenge—but we know that one appointment alone will not solve the problems. We need fundamental reform of the wider system of oversight and accountability. Regulators, NHS bodies and inspection regimes must change. Reviews do not save lives, but action does. We need strong leadership; big, bold decision making; and a determination to implement change, rather than simply to recommend it.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Nottingham Maternity and Neonatal Services · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. For openness and transparency, I note that I have been campaigning on this for six years and I am a harmed mother at Nottingham University hospitals NHS trust. I start by thanking the brave families—my friends—and Donna Ockenden and her team. What has happened is horrific: bullying, cover-ups, racism, discrimination and appalling practice. The way babies have been treated at birth and then at the end of their life is a national disgrace. One of the most uncomfortable truths in this report is that it was not a regulator, a policy, a protocol, a law or a Government Department that brought us this inquiry; it was families—bereaved families, harmed families—having to speak again and again about their most horrendous and traumatic experience for more than a decade. That does not signify a system that is working. The report identified avoidable deaths, harm and profound failings. The publication of this report is simply not enough. What is required now is action, accountability and change. Can the Secretary of State therefore assure the House that there will be a plan with robust oversight and questioning of regulators and senior staff? Will he work with Nottinghamshire families and Nottinghamshire MPs to ensure that justice is truly and fully delivered?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Prison Safety · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Access to appropriate healthcare is another shortcoming. Prisoners often do not have access to their prescription medication or mental health services, and their medical or religious dietary needs are not met. The inspectorate also raised concerns about “prisoners with disabilities living in neglectful conditions”. Discrimination has no place in our society, and no place in prisons either. I urge the Minister to treat this as a matter of urgency. I fear that if action is not taken quickly, an incident of self-harm will lead to another preventable death. Let me move on to the subject of staff. I very much welcome the fact that the Government have taken steps to reduce the threat posed to our prison officers. Although numbers remain unacceptably high, the rate of assault and serious assault on staff has reduced. I also welcome the fact that the Government have now increased the number of staff stab-proof vests from 750 to 10,000, and that 500 officers will be trained on the use of tasers for the most serious incidents of violence. However, I support the Prison Officers Association in calling for protective equipment to be available to all officers, not only to those in high-security settings. Prison officers put their safety on the line every day to protect the public. The least we can do is ensure they have the protection they need. Can the Minister tell me whether there are any plans to make protective equipment available to all officers?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Prison Safety · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered safety in prisons. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Since I was elected nearly two years ago, my office and I have been inundated with letters and calls from staff, prisoners and members of the public about the conditions at HMP Lowdham Grange in my constituency. I have heard repeated reports from prisoners of self-harm, deaths in the prison and instances of discrimination. I have also been contacted by staff sharing the impact of these incidents and the pressures on them, such as staffing and violence. These unsafe conditions are deeply concerning not only in their own right, but as a reflection of the wider challenges facing our justice system. To truly improve safety in our justice system, we must tackle the drivers of this violence. I thank the Minister for visiting HMP Lowdham Grange recently after I raised concerns with him. As he will be aware, the inspectorate released its report just yesterday, following the most recent inspection. It is reassuring to see some progress in areas such as visible leadership, improving health services and security relating to drugs. However, I remain deeply concerned about ongoing problems relating to self-harm and suicide.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Prison Safety · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. If the Minister has not been to Wandsworth, I ask him to go and see that model, which perhaps is something he can do going forward. Offenders cannot focus on rebuilding their life if they are struggling simply to survive or are experiencing thoughts of ending their own life. I hope that the Minister shares my concerns about the safety and wellbeing of prisoners and staff at HMP Lowdham Grange and that he will take immediate steps to support the prison, the prisoners and the safety of prison officers.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Prison Safety · Hansard source

  More

  One would think my hon. Friend could read my speech over my shoulder, because that is the next thing I will talk about. There remains a staffing crisis across our prisons, with officer numbers falling and many leaving the profession after only one or two years. I therefore ask the Minister, as my hon. Friend has done, what steps the Government are taking to improve staff retention, given its direct impact on prison safety. Our prisons are losing out on experienced members of staff, meaning that officers who often do not have the necessary experience or training have to handle situations for which they are dangerously unprepared. Finally, I would like to raise the impact of the safety of prisons on the wider public. Time and again, when I speak to residents and the local police force, I am told about the endless cycle of incarceration and offending that is plaguing our streets. The local police and shop owners in Hucknall in my constituency know exactly who the offenders are who steal from businesses. The police do all they can—they collect evidence, they make arrests and they bring offenders to trial—but they know that in a year’s time those individuals will be back on the street committing the very same offences in the very same community. This is not a sustainable system. Discussions about rehabilitation and treatment of prisoners are often overlooked or trivialised, but access to addiction support, healthcare and education is essential if offenders are to break the cycle of crime. As long as our prisons do not provide adequate rehabilitation, our streets will never be safe.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Prison Safety · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. In fact, some of the accounts that I have been given by prison staff, particularly women prison officers, are deplorable. The inspectorate notes: “There had been two self-inflicted deaths in the previous two years and support for those at risk of self-harm was weak.” The rate of self-harm had increased by 50%, and the number of serious incidents requiring hospital had doubled. The risks cannot be allowed to continue. More must be done to support prisoners and to support staff in addressing these issues. I am also concerned that the processes for notifying the prison of a risk to life are wholly inadequate. The information that is publicly available directs individuals to the Safer Custody line, yet there appears to be insufficient training for operators handling potentially life-threatening situations. My team and I have frequently found ourselves guiding operators through the appropriate steps or being placed on hold while advice is sought from a supervisor. In some cases, we have been asked to leave a voicemail, with a response promised within 24 hours. That is for somebody who is threatening to take their life, I hasten to add. If a prisoner is actively attempting to take their own life, I think we can all agree that 24 hours is far too long. When we are put through to the orderly officer’s line, there have been numerous occasions on which no one answers and we are forced to leave a voicemail on a separate line. On the occasions when we do speak to the officer, we are reassured that a welfare check will take place, but we have found that those checks often do not take place or that, when they do, an officer simply looks through the door before moving on. These concerns are reflected in the inspectorate’s findings. Care plans under assessment, care in custody and team procedures were judged to be poor, with most prisoners not engaged in education, training or work, and with few meaningful activities identified to support them.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Prison Safety · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As Members will hear in my speech, mental health and safety need to go hand in hand.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I met residents of the Hucknall colliery development in my constituency who have been left frustrated by high estate management charges, a lack of transparency and the appalling performance of managing agent FirstPort. Many cannot understand their bills or how they are calculated. Some are paying different amounts for similar properties, and many were led to believe that roads and public spaces would be adopted, only to find themselves facing ever increasing charges. They have been misled and ignored. Does the Minister agree that homeowners should not be trapped in these so-called fleecehold arrangements? Will he set out what action the Government will take to ensure that managing agents, such as FirstPort, are properly regulated, transparent and accountable to the residents who are ultimately funding them? My residents continue to be treated with contempt.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  2. What steps his Department is taking to reform the leasehold sector.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Child Sexual Offender Data · Hansard source

  More

  When I was a county councillor in Nottinghamshire, I asked the children and young people’s committee on a number of occasions where child exploitation was taking place in Notts, as well as what age groups and what genders it was affecting. However, I was denied that information both publicly and privately. Does my hon. Friend agree that child exploitation concerns should never be dismissed, that victims must be believed and that institutions must be willing to confront the truth, no matter how uncomfortable they may find it? Truth, transparency and accountability are how we protect our children.

• 20 May 2026 · Child Protection Online · Hansard source

  More

  10. If she will take urgent steps to protect children online.

• 20 May 2026 · Child Protection Online · Hansard source

  More

  Too often, children are exposed to harmful content online, with material promoting pornography and self-harm pushed towards them. Childhood should not be handed over to algorithms. As a mum, I know that parents are terrified that social media companies are putting profit before protection. Does the Secretary of State agree that not only should social media companies step up, but it is time to legislate to ensure that they take active steps to protect our children online?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Park Home Owners · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing this important debate. In my constituency, there are a number of park home sites, including in Rainworth, Calverton and Ollerton, and those sites often provide an affordable and accessible housing option for people later in life. Park homes in my constituency are situated close to local amenities, making them particularly suitable for vulnerable and older residents. However, the uncertainty that many park home owners face over their utility bills is a significant concern. In many cases, park home residents in my constituency purchase electricity, gas or water through the site owner rather than directly from a utility supplier. Although that arrangement can simplify billing by reducing the number of payments that residents need to manage, it can also make it difficult to understand how charges are calculated or to confirm whether bills accurately reflect individual household usage. It may sometimes be possible to request further information, but residents can be reluctant to do so in fear of retaliation or of a breakdown in relationships with site owners. No one should feel intimidated or isolated in their own home. I am concerned that the lack of transparency and risk of retaliation may disproportionately affect older and more vulnerable constituents. That is particularly worrying given the current uncertainty around electricity and gas prices. For far too long, park home residents have been treated as an afterthought: paying more, getting less and having little power to challenge it. The 10% sales charge, high utility costs and poor services are a pattern of unfairness. I urge the Minister to introduce real reform, restore balances and give my constituents the dignity and protection that they need and deserve.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Maternity Commissioner · Hansard source

  More

  There are more than 2,500 families involved in the Nottingham inquiry, some of whose cases were never reported appropriately. Given that, does the hon. Member agree that it is important to get the taskforce right, because so many bad things happened under the previous Government’s watch that were not reported to the inquiry and are not in the statistics and data that she has spoken about?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Maternity Commissioner · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. For complete openness and transparency, I am a harmed mother. I have been involved in the Nottingham inquiry, I sit on the national maternity and neonatal taskforce, and I am the chair of the APPG on maternity. I want to place on record my personal and sincere thanks to Louise Thompson and Theo Clarke. After the most traumatic and horrific birth trauma, they chose to speak out, not just for themselves—in fact, not for themselves at all—but for countless other women. That courage matters, because for every voice we hear, there are more still unheard. Courage after trauma should not be a necessity for change. That is why today’s debate is so important. I do not want to pre-empt the findings of the Baroness Amos review, but I welcome the national taskforce—it is the first of its kind—and the work the Government are doing. Maternity services are systematically failing too many women and babies, and we cannot ignore what is happening across the country. Families having raised concerns for years and years, but those concerns were not acted on soon enough. It is not about one hospital or one failure, but about a pattern of women not being listened to, warning signs being missed, fathers and birthing partners being ignored, and poor practice continuing unchecked, sometimes for years. We must be honest about this: the system of oversight has failed. That is certainly true in Nottingham, where the Care Quality Commission failed, the Nursing and Midwifery Council failed and the General Medical Council failed. When the system fails, it is about not just frontline care but the structures designed to keep people safe. Inequalities are profound and, quite frankly, a disgrace. Black and Asian women are significantly more likely to have birth complications and poorer outcomes. If safe care is not equitable, we do not have any safe care at all. That must change. Maternity systems are failing, but this did not happen overnight. There is also a societal problem. When did childbirth and maternity became a second-class health service? Past Governments allowed it to become overstretched and underfunded. When did we, as a society, become so apathetic towards birth? I stand here as the proud Member of Parliament for Sherwood Forest, but first and foremost—this was the path that brought me here—I was a harmed mother who was dismissed and told she did not understand her own body, and who is still living with the consequences. Through my work, I have spoken to over 1,000 families and hundreds of organisations with different stories and circumstances from different hospitals. The same themes come up again and again: women not being listened to, their concerns being dismissed and opportunities to intervene being missed. The message is clear and urgent: we need accountability without a culture of fear. We need a system where staff can speak up, families are heard the first time and learning drives improvement. But we must also confront something deeper: we have to change societal attitudes towards childbirth. Too often, women are dismissed, their pain is minimised and they are told, “This is normal” when something is wrong. That culture then seeps into our systems, and when it does, it becomes dangerous. Listening to women is not optional; it is fundamental to safe care. That is why we need a maternity commissioner. This cannot be a figurehead role: it must have real authority and independence, and the power to act, access data in real time, identify patterns early and intervene when warning signs appear. We cannot continue with a system where tragedies happen, reviews are written and then we move on. Rising baby loss, serious incidents and repeated failings must trigger action immediately. A maternity commissioner must ensure that poor practice is not allowed to continue unchecked; that people cannot hop from trust to trust to trust when they have caused harm, but that that is followed and tracked; that warning signs are not ignored; and that families are not left to fight for answers after the harm has already been done. That is one of the most horrific things: families go through the most horrendous situation possible. I was lucky: I walked out of the hospital with my baby. But when my baby was born, he was not breathing. I nearly died as well, but I walked out of the hospital. When I did, I was told it was not known whether my son would have developmental delays. I was also told he was deaf, which was incorrect as well. It was the most horrendous situation, but I walked out of the hospital with my baby. Thousands and thousands of women do not, and it is about time we started to face that reality, rather than using it as a political football. Our maternity services are systematically failing. Alongside that, we must recognise that there are profound examples of outstanding care across the country—dedicated midwives, doctors and other healthcare professionals going above and beyond every single day to keep women and babies safe. They are working under pressure and short-staffed and still delivering exceptional care. But they cannot do it alone. They need safer staffing and time to care. They need leadership and support. They need a system that works, a system that backs them, a system that protects them when they raise concerns and a system that enables them to deliver the care they know is needed. This is not about blame; it is about building something better—a system that is accountable without fear, a system driven by data and early intervention, a system that listens to women, families and staff, and a system that acts when it matters most. Maternity care should never be a postcode lottery; it should never depend on where women live and it should never, ever come down to luck. Every woman deserves to be heard. Every baby deserves to be safe. Every family deserves dignity, compassion and answers. Yes, we need a maternity commissioner, but we need more than that: we need a system and a society that finally listen to women, finally act and finally put safety where it belongs—at the heart of every birth.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Maternity Commissioner · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that working with the families to get the taskforce right, which has never happened before with any Government, is key? Getting the taskforce working and getting the right people on that taskforce is essential as well.