Mike Wood MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 18 Dec 2024 · British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister did not seem to answer the questions raised by the shadow Foreign Secretary, so may I ask this just one more time: from which budget do the Government plan to make the annual payments that he is proposing to the Mauritian Government?

• 18 Dec 2024 · Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement · Hansard source

  More

  The core spending power tables that the Government have published today show that total Government funding for South Staffordshire is down by 7.5%. Just what do the Government have against council tax payers in South Staffordshire?

• 9 Dec 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I join other Members in paying tribute to Figen Murray for the tenacity and courage with which she has campaigned—a campaign that has done so much to bring us to this point. Any of us who have been touched, even indirectly, by a terrorist attack know the pain, the loss and the shock. That pain is only made worse if there is a suspicion that anything, no matter how slight, might have been done to have avoided or reduced the harm done. In fighting this campaign, Mrs Murray really has done Martyn’s memory proud. As has been obvious throughout this debate, there is a huge amount of consensus on the need for the measures in this Bill. It is a good Bill. The draft Bill before the election was a good draft, it was improved by pre-legislative scrutiny, and the Bill that this Government introduced and that has come out of Committee is better. The decision before us tonight is not whether we want these measures, because I think we agree, without exception, that we do. The decision before us is what can be done to make this the very best Bill it can be—one that provides the protections that are so clearly needed, as we heard from witnesses in the Committee’s evidence sessions and throughout the debate around the Bill, both inside and outside this House, without putting an unnecessary burden on those venues that do not need it for the purpose that we seek. It is precisely because this Bill has broadly struck the right note that I rise to support new clauses 25 and 26, tabled in the names of the shadow Minister and the shadow Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) respectively. In doing so, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests relating to hospitality, although I intend to speak primarily not on the hospitality sector, but on the voluntary sector and volunteer-run venues. I am thinking, in particular, of a venue in the constituency I represented until this year’s general election. The Brierley Hill Civic is a medium-sized venue in the Black Country and, about a decade ago, an asset transfer process was started to transfer it from Dudley council to Dudley council for voluntary service. Over that time, Dudley CVS has done a fantastic job—a really professional job in every sense of the word—in providing a first-class venue for the area. It will typically host a few events each year that top 500 attendees, although they do not reach as high as 800. The standard duty in this Bill is absolutely appropriate for a venue like Brierley Hill Civic. The concern is about how Dudley CVS, which is primarily run by volunteers, would be able to fulfil the enhanced duties if the threshold were suddenly lowered, taking the venue into the enhanced duty category. That would cause them great difficulty on a practical level as well as a financial level, because as a non-profit-making organisation, they have to balance the books.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Trade Barriers with the EU · Hansard source

  More

  We all support efforts to remove unnecessary trade barriers, but we must also be clear with our European partners on what we cannot accept. What is the Paymaster General prepared to say is off the table: dynamic alignment, British fishing rights, or maybe asylum burden-sharing?

• 27 Nov 2024 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  Following on from my hon. Friend’s question, the key to reducing violence against women and girls is, of course, effective policing, which was a clear commitment in New Decade, New Approach. When does the Minister expect policing numbers in Northern Ireland to reach the levels set out in that commitment?

• 25 Nov 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  By the Minister’s logic, are we to assume that support on business rates for hospitality and retail is to end in April 2026?

• 19 Nov 2024 · Infected Blood Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  The infected blood scandal is one of the most painful and shameful chapters in the history of the British state. For decades, hundreds of individuals with bleeding disorders and other conditions were infected with HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C due to the use of contaminated blood products such as factor VIII and factor IX, which were often imported from overseas. Not only were those infections preventable, but warnings from the medical community were ignored by successive Governments and the national health service. The victims and their families have endured unimaginable suffering, including the loss of loved ones and social stigma, and, tragically, many have even been blamed for their own illnesses. The health service that was supposed to treat them, heal them and look after them, and the parts of the state that were supposed to protect them, betrayed them. The institutions of this country failed the victims and their families at such a scale that it is almost beyond comprehension. I am pleased that this subject has been brought forward to be debated today, because a subject as important as this deserves to be thoroughly discussed in the House. As this is my first debate as shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office, I want to put on the record that although there will be much that the right hon. Gentleman and I disagree on, this issue is not one of them. He can be sure of our support as he works to put right a historical wrong, which continues to have a devastating impact on families across the country. This issue is simply beyond party politics. I thank the Paymaster General for updating the House today, and for the tone and tenor that he has already struck in this place since the general election. The infected blood inquiry, established in 2017 by the former Prime Minister Theresa May, was only started because of the tireless efforts of victims and their families, but it has shed a horrifying light on the true scale of the tragedy. I echo the Paymaster General’s thanks to Sir Brian and his team for the great service that they have given in conducting the inquiry. It stands as a testament to the power of the victims’ voices and to the need for transparency, justice and accountability at all levels. Although I am here today on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I want to reiterate the words of the previous Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who apologised on behalf of not only the previous Government, but Governments stretching back to the 1970s. I know that this sentiment is shared by the current Leader of the Opposition and the whole of our party. We are truly sorry that successive Governments and the NHS failed to listen to medical experts, victims and their families, and the inquiry reveals a decades-long moral failure at the heart of our national life. A great many of its victims and loved ones sadly died before they ever saw the truth being acknowledged. I am pleased that this Government and the previous Government have publicly recognised the scale of the damage and acknowledged the mistakes, and, most importantly, are now taking steps to try to make amends and provide support and compensation for the many victims. We on this side of the House will continue to support the Government’s ambition to make the first payments before the end of this year. It is important that the Government are pushing ahead with the compensation scheme, which is of the size and scale that is rightfully deserved by the victims, including those who are sadly now deceased, and their families, and that it will take into account all the medical, financial and emotional suffering. As I have said, the Minister will have our full support on this side of the House. An apology is, as he has said, meaningless without not just redress but redress at speed. In addition, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be working further with the Health Secretary to help implement stronger medical screening protocols, as well as safety measures to ensure that the UK’s blood supply continues to be safe and free from contamination. A scandal like this cannot be allowed to happen again, so the Government must continue to ensure that the global standards for blood safety are met and regularly updated. This includes improving regulations, where appropriate, around the sourcing of blood products, and constantly updating, where possible, the methods for virus detection. It is also important that we further enhance training and education for our healthcare professionals regarding ethical practices, patient consent and the safe use of medical products. I know that a lot has changed in the national health service in the nearly 50 years since the start of the scandal, but a key aspect of this total failure was the lack of informed consent and the failure of healthcare professionals to adequately communicate the risks associated with treatment. As the inquiry has shown, there were numerous cases of disrespectful attitudes towards infected patients, which is completely unacceptable. Patients were often blamed for their condition or treated as though they were a burden. As the inquiry has recommended, training must include the ethics procedures as well as patient-centred care. This scandal, sadly, is a painful case study on what happens when this is not the case. Medical staff in the NHS should always approach patients with dignity and empathy, as we know they almost all do on a daily basis. They should ensure that all risks and benefits are clearly communicated and that the rights of patients are upheld. Adding to this point, and perhaps more broadly as a society, we must continue the great work of recent years on destigmatising those with conditions such as HIV and hepatitis—I note the exceptional work of the Terrence Higgins Trust on the former in particular. As has been said, the victims of the infected blood scandal were victims not only of the NHS and the many Governments’ failings, but of social stigma and discrimination. As the inquiry found, they faced vilification despite the fact that many had received contaminated blood products through the same NHS that was blaming them through no fault of their own. I encourage the Government to continue with public education campaigns to combat the stigma surrounding blood-borne viruses and HIV, as well as implementing better protections in the workplace and public life, so that we can be sure that those infected are not subject to the pain of further discrimination. I would like to put on record my own thanks to the brave victims and their families. As I said at the start of my speech, we would not be here today if it was not for them and for their campaigning; their hard work; their faith to keep going when nothing seemed to be changing; and, when the message simply did not seem to be getting through, their relentless will to fight, knowing that a great injustice had been done; and their love for their friends and family members, many of whom are sadly no longer with us today, who are all impacted by this terrible situation. Their courage is truly awe-inspiring, and no amount of compensation will ever undo the great tragedy, so great is the pain and suffering they have been through. I sincerely hope that they will have some peace one day; peace in the knowledge that their Government and their health service have listened, and that all their hard years of campaigning, and the abuse and vile vitriol that many have faced, were not for nothing. In the end, after far too long, they have indeed been heard, and because of all their combined efforts and sacrifices, we can now come together to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again. They have moved the nation and this Parliament with their deeply personal stories, and we are all deeply sorry for everything they have been through and for everything and everyone they have lost. I thank them all for their extraordinary bravery.

• 18 Nov 2024 · Bus Funding · Hansard source

  More

  Passengers in many parts of the country, including in my constituency, rely on cross-boundary bus services for shopping, visiting friends and family, and accessing vital public services. Too often, however, cross-boundary services can feel like a bit of an afterthought. Will the Secretary of State look at how funding mechanisms can be used to encourage passenger transport authorities to properly integrate those services, because community ties do not stop at county boundaries?

• 18 Nov 2024 · Financial Services: Mansion House Speech · Hansard source

  More

  The Pensions Minister will be all too aware of the ongoing problems facing members of the west midlands pension fund, one of the country’s largest public sector pension funds. Why does the Economic Secretary think that the Chancellor’s eight mega-funds will provide a better service than the west midlands pension fund in investing those people’s pensions?

• 12 Nov 2024 · Pubs Code: Guest Beers · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is making a very important point, because whether it is the Carlisle Brewing Company in the hon. Lady’s constituency or Kinver Brewery in mine, our family breweries play an important role in providing that diversity of product and high-quality beer that is particular to our local communities. Does the Minister recognise the devastating impact of the Chancellor’s changes to business property relief in the Budget on the future of so many family breweries across the country?

• 6 Nov 2024 · Uyghur and Turkic Muslims: Forced Labour in China · Hansard source

  More

  I suspect that this will be the final time that I speak on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition in an international trade debate. Following the events across the water overnight, there might be an alternative vacancy in Government that means the Minister may move on before too long. If this is the last time we face each other, let me thank him for the courtesy that he has shown during my brief time shadowing him. It has been greatly appreciated. I join other Members in congratulating the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) on securing this important debate on an urgent and deeply troubling issue. It affects not only our values and moral standing as a nation, but the integrity of our supply chains. The evidence of the systematic forced labour of Uyghur and Turkic populations in China’s Xinjiang region is clear and undeniable. Reports indicate that over 1 million Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities are detained in camps, facing conditions that are nothing short of abhorrent and genuinely disgraceful. They are subjected to forced labour under the watchful eye of a regime that seeks to erase their identity and culture. The situation is not just a distant tragedy; it is intertwined with our own economy and lifestyles, affecting the products that we import, buy and consume in the United Kingdom. We have long recognised the importance of aligning our trade policies with our commitment to human rights. Our strategy for UK-China relations has been built on three pillars: protect, align and engage. That approach has driven us to strengthen our national security protections, deepen collaboration with our allies and engage with China where our interests converge. The previous Government introduced measures to ensure that British organisations, both public and private, are not complicit in and do not profit from the human rights violations in Xinjiang. Those measures include the review of export controls as they apply to Xinjiang, to ensure that the Government do all they can to prevent the export of goods that may contribute to human rights abuses in the region; the introduction of financial penalties for organisations in the UK that fail to meet their statutory obligations to publish annual modern slavery statements under the Modern Slavery Act; new robust and detailed guidance to UK businesses, setting out the specific risks faced by British companies with links to Xinjiang and underlining the challenges of effective due diligence there; and a Minister-led campaign of business engagement to reinforce the need for UK businesses to take action to address the risk. We have led the international community in condemning China’s gross human rights violations. In March 2021, we imposed sanctions on key officials involved in those abuses, acting alongside 29 other countries. Furthermore, we were the first nation to lead a joint statement at the UN condemning those violations, back in 2019. This year we did so again, now with a record-breaking 51 signatories. These actions demonstrate our unwavering commitment to holding China accountable, which I know is being continued by the new Government. In 2023, our updated public procurement rules were designed to mitigate modern slavery risks, ensuring that no taxpayer money inadvertently supports these violations. We also introduced strict measures under the Procurement Act 2023 to exclude suppliers involved in labour market misconduct, further reinforcing our commitment to ethical sourcing. However, it is essential to recognise that although we have made significant strides in previous years, huge challenges remain, particularly in how businesses engage with entities that may be complicit in these gross abuses. Sadly, the situation with fast fashion companies such as SHEIN raises enormous concerns. SHEIN has been widely criticised for its alleged links to forced labour in Xinjiang, yet we see troubling ties emerge between the current Government and companies such as SHEIN. It is deeply concerning that the chief executive of SHEIN has recently been engaging with senior figures within the Labour party. That raises uncomfortable questions about access and influence within Government when we should all be standing firm against human rights abuses. Although we have taken decisive action, we cannot allow our progress to be undermined by those who seek to profit from exploitation. As has been said, the European Union has taken a proactive stance against companies such as SHEIN. However, the disparity between the EU’s action and our own lack of action highlights a critical point: we must be unequivocal in our commitment to human rights and free from the taint of associations that contradict our values. The implications of forced labour in our supply chains extend beyond ethical concerns; they pose serious reputational risks for the businesses themselves and threaten our trade relations around the world. We have a responsibility not only to protect the rights of the Uyghur and Turkic populations but to safeguard the integrity of UK businesses. Companies that choose to engage with suppliers linked to forced labour rightly risk facing a backlash from consumers who demand accountability and transparency. It is our role to make that accountability and transparency easier. I have five questions that I hope the Minister will address in his response. First, before the election Labour promised to declare formally what is taking place in Xinjiang as a genocide. Is that still the Government’s intention? If so, did the Foreign Secretary raise that intention with Wang Yi during his recent visit to Beijing? Secondly, when do the Government plan to launch the international legal action against China on Xinjiang to get what is happening there formally declared on an international level as a genocide, as they also promised before the election? Thirdly, how does the Energy Secretary’s decision to sign off on three enormous solar farms, some of which involve companies judged to be the most complicit in human rights abuses, sit with the Government’s commitment to remove the products of forced labour from UK supply chains? Fourthly, will the Government introduce measures to ensure that the UK does not become a dumping ground for solar panels made by slave labour, as both the United States and the European Union have already done for their markets? Finally, has the Minister met with Uyghurs and Turkic Muslims and their representatives, as his Department develops its China audit? As we move forward, all UK businesses must conduct thorough due diligence to ensure that their supply chains are free from forced labour. It is imperative that we renounce any friendly or commercial ties with entities engaged in or linked to forced labour. We must remain steadfast in our commitment to human rights, standing alongside those being persecuted in Xinjiang and ensuring that we do not profit at their expense.

• 4 Nov 2024 · Budget: Implications for Farming Communities · Hansard source

  More

  According to statistics published by DEFRA last Thursday, an average farm in England measures 88 hectares, which is roughly one hectare for every word that Labour had to say about farming in its last manifesto. What assessment has the Minister made of the typical value of a farm of that size—about 88 hectares?

• 30 Oct 2024 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  We have yet to see the departmental allocations. It is clear in the OBR’s projections that there are massive increases in borrowing, but even the savage tax rises that have been set out today are dwarfed by the increases in spending. The choices that the Chancellor has made are not to do with any black hole; they have been made because of her priorities, which were set out before the election. People were told that taxes would not have to rise under a Labour Government, but they are now seeing the reality. The current budget deficit will increase by £9.3 billion a year.

• 30 Oct 2024 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I am getting glances from Madam Deputy Speaker to suggest that I ought to be winding up. The costs are proportionately much higher for those who employ part-time workers on modest incomes. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) has said, we are seeing French labour laws and German taxes, and I fear that will lead to Spanish unemployment rates. This Budget is damaging for growth, for national finances, for small businesses and working people and for farming in our rural communities. It is smoke and mirrors. It is the fiscal equivalent of the people on Westminster bridge who invite tourists to put money on “find the lady”. It is a Budget that is hidden behind semantics, sophistry and small print. It is bad for the country and the sooner that it can be reversed, the better.

• 30 Oct 2024 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor and the Prime Minister made it very clear to voters that nothing in Labour’s plans would require tax rises, other than very specific tax rises that they had indicated. They said that they were not looking to raise taxes on businesses, working people and farmers, which was dismissed as “a lie” in the television debate. We now see that the claims made during the election campaign were untrue only inasmuch as the Leader of the Opposition and shadow Chancellor hugely underestimated how much the Labour Government would hike people’s taxes. Again, a false prospectus was sold. Page 11 of the OBR’s outlook sets out that earnings growth will halve over the course of this Parliament. This is a betrayal of working people. It is the tax on jobs that the Chancellor was so keen to attack while in opposition. The increase in business rates will add £6,000 to the bills for a typical pub at a time when so many are only just managing. Per worker, the increases in national insurance contributions for businesses will add—

• 30 Oct 2024 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I do not know whether you, like me, are a fan of “Yes Minister”, Madam Deputy Speaker, but if you are, you may remember the first ever episode of what was supposed to be a sitcom. In the episode called “Open Government”, Sir Humphrey started by explaining to Bernard, “Dispose of the difficult stuff in the title. It will do far less harm in the title than in the actual report.” That seems to be a lesson that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken to heart. While we see any number of posters, slogans, signs and reports with “growth” in the title—it even popped up once or twice in the Chancellor’s speech—there is virtually nothing in today’s Budget statement, or in the hundreds of pages of documentation that the Treasury has published today, that will actually lead to growth in our economy, and there was almost nothing in the King’s Speech that could deliver the meaningful growth that the economy clearly needs. With every hour that passes, it becomes clearer that the Chancellor’s promises have not been delivered, and that there is a very wide gap between what was promised and the hopes that were raised before the election and what we have seen both in the legislative programme and in the first Budget in 14 years—as has been said—to be presented by this Chancellor of the Exchequer. The problem is not the black hole that the Chancellor claims to have found, but whose existence the OBR’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” report does not support; the problem is not that hole, but the enormous gap—the chasm—between what the Chancellor and the Prime Minister promised in opposition and before the election, and what they are now delivering for our constituents. With every hour that goes by, people are seeing that they were sold a false prospectus on that growth. The OBR’s report makes it absolutely clear that while it expects a temporary boost to GDP in the short term, there will probably be some crowding out of private activity in the medium term. That is why the OBR forecasts that the measures in the Budget will not raise growth but will cut growth, in 2026, 2027, 2028 and 2029. This is an anti-growth Budget. We were looking to the Chancellor to announce measures to support growth locally in our constituencies. Where is the certainty when it comes to the levelling-up funds that our communities were promised? Where is the certainty when it comes to the long-term plan for towns that our communities were promised—the plan that, in my previous constituency before the election, I worked so hard with local stakeholders, local councils and the combined authority to help to secure? The new boundaries mean that those projects are no longer in my constituency but in those of Labour Members of Parliament. Although it has been pointed out repeatedly that people voted for change, the people of Brierley Hill did not vote to lose a next-generation vehicle technology centre that would deliver the new skills that the community needs. The people of Dudley did not vote to lose £20 million of long-term investment from the towns fund, which would make such a difference to the community.

• 30 Oct 2024 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. We do not need to take his word for it, definitive though it is. The Chancellor herself was clear that many of the tax rises that she has introduced today are taxes on jobs and can only find their way out of people’s pay packets. People were sold a false prospectus on our national finances. Before the election, the then shadow Chancellor promised that Labour would be the party of “fiscal responsibility” and that she would have “iron discipline”. Well, at least Gordon Brown was faithful to prudence for a full term. It looks as though fiscal responsibility has been jilted at the altar by the Chancellor within her first few months. Page 6 of the OBR outlook makes it clear that the measures in this Budget will increase borrowing by £150 billion over the course of this Parliament.

• 22 Oct 2024 · Pub and Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Ms Vaz. I should have drawn attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests before I spoke. I hope you will help me to get that on the record.

• 22 Oct 2024 · Pub and Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly agree that, although in England the hospitality sector has long had a number of challenges, the picture north of the border is even worse because of decisions made by the Scottish Government. It is essential that the Chancellor publishes the replacement for business rates. She announced three years ago that she would scrap them, but the sector is still no clearer about what she will bring in instead. It needs clarity next week. If for some reason, even after three years, the Chancellor still cannot say with what she is replacing business rates, she must commit to extending the 75% relief, and not just until next March or the March after but right up until a new system is in place. Hospitality businesses are particularly impacted by high energy costs. The Government need to make good on the promises to help that they made before the election. The Prime Minister promised to take £53 billion off business energy bills by 2030. I ask the Minister a simple question: how much can hospitality businesses expect their energy bills to fall by next year? Pubs and hospitality also need the Government to recognise the impact of regulation, no matter how well intentioned, on small hospitality businesses in particular. It was disappointing that neither the Deputy Prime Minister nor the Business Secretary seemed to acknowledge the warnings in their own impact assessment about the harms that could be caused to small businesses in sectors like hospitality by their employment legislation. Those fears are only made worse by reports the Government are considering further regulation, banning smoking in outdoor beer gardens and outside nightclubs. That change would have minimal, if any, health benefits while causing huge damage to venues. It could even have the perverse effect of shifting people from drinking outside in beer gardens to drinking and smoking more inside their homes. Finally, as has been said, for the many pubs and hospitality venues that are just about getting by, the reported rise in employer’s national insurance contributions could tip many over the edge, making the difference between continuing and closing. If the Chancellor insists on going ahead with this highly damaging jobs tax, then it is even more important that the Government do more to support pubs and hospitality. I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire for bringing this debate, because pubs and hospitality are a force for good. They need and deserve our support.

• 22 Oct 2024 · Pub and Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Ms Vaz, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to respond to this important debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Official Opposition, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing it at such a crucial time for the industry. Pubs and hospitality are a force for good. They are good for the economy, contributing more than £120 billion nationally and delivering £54 billion in tax receipts to the Treasury, which I am sure the Chancellor will be grateful for next week. They are good for jobs, employing 3.5 million people across every age band, from teenagers to pensioners, and with an even gender balance. They are also good for our communities; our pubs, cafés and restaurants are the heart of local life, bringing people together. Indeed, for many villages the pub or café is the last service surviving in the village, offering a community hub that covers everything from jobs clubs and parents and toddler groups through to serving as the village shop, and even—as I saw at one Pub is The Hub initiative in Cornwall—the hairdressers. Pubs are a force for good socially, helping to tackle the scourge of loneliness and isolation. Few people could have failed to be moved by the advert for Charlie’s Bar last Christmas. It shows an elderly man walking from his house to his wife’s grave, raising his cap to passers-by, only to be blanked, but he finds comfort and companionship in his local in Fermanagh. Less well celebrated are the hundreds of initiatives up and down the country, such as the Go To Place at Love & Liquor in Codsall in my constituency, which brings 60 or more people together each Wednesday morning for a coffee, a chat and a bit of breakfast. Although we are all too familiar with the dangers of excess drinking, well-regulated and well-run pubs and bars are forces for good for our mental health. The work done by Professor Dunbar at Oxford university shows that people who have a local where they drink regularly in moderation are likely to be happier and more content than those who do not. Their physical and mental health is likely to be better than that of people who do not. They are likely to have more friends on whom they can depend and feel more engaged in their community than people who do not. Pubs and hospitality venues have, of course, faced a range of pressures over the past few decades, some of which have been referred to. Some are the results of changing consumer demands, preferences and social habits, but others have been exacerbated by policy decisions made here in Westminster and Whitehall, such as the smoking ban, high business rate bills, and alcohol duty rates that are significantly higher than most western European countries. The previous Government took a range of actions to help to alleviate some of those pressures. They abandoned Labour’s hated duty escalator, which had meant above-inflation rises in duty every single year. They cut beer duty for the first time in half a century, and introduced multiple freezes in duty, which means that beer duty on a pint in a pub is now significantly lower in real terms than it was in 2010. They introduced a reduced rate of duty for draught beer and cider, taking advantage of the freedoms after Brexit. They helped to reduce the huge disparity in the costs that pubs and bars face, compared with supermarkets and off-licences. The link between duty rates and alcohol consumption is tenuous, but we know that higher taxes on alcohol lead people to switch their drinking from well-regulated licensed premises to drinking at home, and from drinking lower strength beers and ciders to higher alcohol by volume wines and spirits. Crucially, hospitality and retail business rate relief has meant that small and independent hospitality venues have received 75% off their business rates. That has made the difference for many between being able to continue and being forced to shut their doors for good. The new Government made a lot of promises before the election, some of which they now seem to be trying to row back from, but pubs and hospitality need them to deliver now, starting with next week’s Budget. The Chancellor needs to start with a cut to alcohol duty. A return to the previous Labour Government’s approach of continuous duty rises would be devastating for many pubs and breweries. That could be done by widening the draught beer duty differential, cutting the cost of draught beers and ciders in pubs, bars and restaurants, and targeting support where it is desperately needed. Above all, the Chancellor needs to finally publish her replacement for business rates with a new system that is fair for the hospitality sector, which pays a disproportionate share of business rate receipts—

• 15 Oct 2024 · Post-sepsis Syndrome · Hansard source

  More

  We think that about 48,000 people a year lose their lives to sepsis, but the truth is that we do not know, because the data is inconsistent. Will the Minister look at establishing a national registry to track sepsis cases, so that performance can be measured, published and improved?

• 9 Oct 2024 · Sepsis Awareness · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on securing this debate on such an important issue, which is very close to my heart personally. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I start by just speaking about myself a little. In January 2017 after the Christmas break, I came back to Parliament, like many colleagues did, with a bit of a cold. Of course, we carry on working—after all, it is just a cold. Weeks went by and it was getting a bit worse, so I took a course of antibiotics. I suspect, like the hon. Gentleman, a seven-day course of antibiotics very rarely clears up an infection for a gentleman of my physique. Within a short period, the infection was starting to come back and I had a sore throat. Nevertheless, it was only a sore throat, so I went out to Strasbourg for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe meeting that week, and while there, my condition deteriorated. I was feeling really grotty on the Tuesday morning so I just stayed in my hotel room. On Wednesday, things were so bad that I asked someone to do me a favour and go to a chemist. By Thursday, they had got so terrible that I booked an appointment with a GP in Strasbourg, which, as a typical man, was very much a last resort. The GP did the normal checks—blood pressure and the like—and gave me a throat spray. I was feeling pretty awful, so I flew back that evening and struggled through constituency events on Friday. By Saturday morning, I was getting up and putting on my suit on top of my pyjamas and telling my wife that I had to come down to Westminster to vote. She recognised that that was not entirely typical behaviour and phoned for an ambulance. Within a few hours I was in an induced coma. I remained in a coma for the next 11 days after a septic shock diagnosis. The consultants told my family I had about a 10% chance of surviving and that if I were to pull through it would almost certainly be with life-changing effects—amputations, brain damage or other severe effects. Fortunately, of course, I was extremely and unbelievably lucky, largely because of the amazing care that I received from the staff at Russells Hall hospital in Dudley. Above all, I was lucky that on that Saturday morning as I presented at A&E, the nurse walking past happened to recognise that the symptoms, which looked much like any number of other conditions, particularly meningitis with a rash, could be sepsis. Sepsis is a life-threatening condition. It is a response to infection that can lead to tissue damage, organ failure and death if not treated promptly. Despite its severity, the number of deaths and the many, many other people left with their lives fundamentally changed by sepsis, very few people are able to spot the signs, which of course delays diagnosis and treatment. Even the GP in France, who I am sure was an extremely well qualified and professional physician, did not spot that my symptoms could be sepsis. That lack of awareness contributes to the staggering statistics that the hon. Member for Ashfield went through. There are around 48,000 deaths a year in the United Kingdom due to sepsis, which means that by the end of this 60-minute debate, the chances are that five more people will have lost their lives to sepsis. A further 25 people will have had their lives changed by sepsis. Globally, it affects around 49 million people, with probably around 11 million losing their lives each year. There is a growing body of opinion that believes that the majority of covid deaths were probably covid deaths where the infection triggered a septic response. I keep saying “probably” because, frightening as the figures are, they are best guesses. We do not know. Although the reporting in the United Kingdom is better than in almost any other country, it is still not consistent. It is possible that a death will be recorded just as a multiple organ or respiratory failure despite it being a case of sepsis or of septic shock. It is important that we step up to the challenge of reducing those deaths, which, as has been said, represent more than the number of lives lost to breast, bowel and prostate cancers combined every single year. We need a sepsis register so that we know how many cases there are and how those cases progress. One of the most alarming aspects of sepsis is that it often goes unrecognised until it is too late. I was lucky that it was spotted as I presented at A&E—even two or three hours later might have made the difference between a 10% chance of survival and a quite minuscule chance. Our friend and former colleague Lord Mackinlay was similarly fortunate; although his condition deteriorated at an astonishingly rapid rate, it was caught just in time for him to survive. Early identification and diagnosis are important because, in most cases, timely broad-based intravenous antibiotics will be enough to stop the infection from triggering a septic response. Promoting Sepsis Awareness Month is therefore not just about sharing statistics or stories; it is about saving lives. By educating the public and healthcare professionals about the signs and symptoms of sepsis, we can ensure that more people receive the urgent care they need. The UK Sepsis Trust, which does so much amazing work and is led by the incredible Dr Ron Daniels, has a three-point plan that we all need to get behind. We need to be able to measure and publish performance data on sepsis care pathways, so that we can see how they are responded to and can measure successes and where things have not been done correctly. We need fast and reliable diagnostics, to allow those on the frontline to make the correct decisions quickly, without lengthy waits for test results to be returned from central laboratories. We also need to increase awareness of sepsis, as the hon. Member for Ashfield is doing so well with his debate today, to ensure that medical professionals and the public are able to ask the question: could it be sepsis? I am speaking with a slightly croaky throat, but I am fairly sure that this time it is not the strep B infection that triggered that septic shock in January 2017. I can be confident because, unlike nearly eight years ago, I am all too aware of the signs and symptoms of sepsis: slurred speech or confusion, extreme shivering or muscle pain, passing no urine for a day or more, severe breathlessness, skin that is mottled or discoloured, and a feeling normally described as “like you are going to die.” Having had it, I would say, “It feels like you want to die.” If the public and healthcare professionals across the system are aware, can look out for those six signs, and ask that question—could it be sepsis?—then many more lives could be saved. Sepsis could then be spotted earlier in people like Abbi, whom the hon. Gentleman spoke so movingly about, and Lord Mackinlay, and we can ensure that life-changing conditions can be dealt with far sooner.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is clearly correct. Many people, but particularly pensioners, will be worried about what this Chancellor will take away from them next. Without these payments, many will be forced to choose between heating their homes and other essential expenses such as food or medication—people such as my constituent Linda, who wrote to me: “My husband has several medical issues this year and I am very worried about the heating situation…I think it is likely that we will cut back on nourishing food. I cannot believe that a British Government would penalize our generation like this.” Another constituent, Dawn, wrote: “Now I fear the winter months, and afraid…of hypothermia. I personally am just above the threshold to qualify for pension credits. I am a single person claiming state pension and also have a small NHS pension…I can foresee me not using my central heating this winter.” Those are difficult choices that this Chancellor and this Government have forced on too many of our pensioners, and they are choices that no one should have to make, and particularly not those who have contributed so much to our society.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s choice to remove the winter fuel payment from 21,365 of my constituents is cruel. The payments have been a lifeline for so many pensioners, helping them to stay warm during the harsh winter months. Most pensioners live on fixed incomes, so having almost no notice—no time to prepare—means that the impact of this loss of income on many pensioner households will be that it is increasingly difficult for them to afford basic necessities. A number of Labour Members have talked about difficult choices, but the reality is that the Government have run away from difficult choices. They have ducked the difficult choices. The difficult choice would have been to be upfront with voters during the election campaign, to explain why they felt this was necessary, appropriate and, as some have said, morally right, and to trust voters to decide whether to give them that mandate. Instead, they ran away. There are difficult choices, but unfortunately the difficult choices are the ones that they have left our constituents to face.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  I think that the hon. Gentleman has a huge amount of cheek. He should consider first the inheritance of that previous Conservative Government: the present candidate for the chairmanship of the Business and Trade Committee had written that there was no money left. He should also bear in mind that what we saw during those 14 years was not only restoration in the economy but a huge growth in pensioner income, and what we see now is the fastest growth in the G7, unemployment at record low levels, and inflation also back at low levels. The Chancellor wants us to believe that this decision suddenly came to her at some point in the run-up to the King’s Speech, some time after the general election, and that it would not have been possible for her to imagine it before polling day. She claimed in July that it was not a decision that she wanted to make. However, as has already been pointed out, in March 2014 she stood at the Opposition Dispatch Box, barely feet away from where I am now, demanding that winter fuel payments be means-tested. In July she said that it was not a decision that she expected to make, yet, miraculously, this year’s Labour manifesto was the first in almost two decades without that specific commitment to protect winter fuel payments. This is a decision that had been a decade in the making—a decade in the planning. Labour had a decade in which to prepare and get it right, but we are seeing how poorly thought through it was. We cannot have a Social Security Advisory Committee report, and we cannot have an impact assessment. Labour imagined that it could take the money away from pensioners with no impact on our NHS or on charities. This decision is wrong, and it needs to be reversed.