Michelle Welsh MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.