Mike Wood MP: speeches

Speeches

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 24 Apr 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Last month’s fire at Cirencester is at least the third at a battery energy storage system already this year and residents are understandably worried when they are constructed near to their homes, yet Labour’s planning reforms will make building them in villages such as Lower Penn, Swindon and Wombourne in my constituency even easier. May we have a debate in Government time on the safety of battery energy storage systems, on planning regulations and on how we can ensure that local communities have proper oversight and a real say?

• 24 Apr 2025 · Plan for Change · Hansard source

  More

  Key to much of that plan is the Government’s target to make the UK the fastest growing economy in the G7. But with the International Monetary Fund joining the Office for Budget Responsibility and the OECD in massively slashing projections for UK growth and the IMF not expecting the UK to be the fastest growing economy in the G7 in any year between now and 2030, how confident is the Minister that the Government will meet that target?

• 22 Apr 2025 · British Steel · Hansard source

  More

  That is not true.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have to wrap up. When will the Government get serious, get a grip and put an end to this, once and for all?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Equality before the law is at the heart of the rule of law. As the great Roman statesman Cicero said: “For rights that were not open to all alike would be no rights.” The revised guidelines from the Sentencing Council fundamentally went against that important principle. To introduce a presumption that pre-sentence reports would be required not necessarily because of a particular vulnerability of offenders or circumstances related to their offences, but because of the colour of their skin, the region of their ancestors’ origin or the religious beliefs that they held is two-tier justice, no matter how laudable the intentions. This is not about Court of Appeal judgments such as Thompson, which the Lord Chancellor referred to, and it is not about factors that could fundamentally change the effect of a particular judicial sentences on an offender, or factors relating directly to the circumstances of the offence. This is purely about those characteristics. My right hon. Friend the shadow Lord Chancellor did a huge service to not only this House but our country when he raised this matter from the Dispatch Box on 5 March, because it was clear that the Lord Chancellor was completely blindsided. Neither she nor her Ministers knew anything about the proposals. In fairness to the right hon. Lady, who is not in her seat at the moment, I am sure that she was as appalled as we were at the idea that people should be treated differently purely because of their ethnicity, culture or religion. But this is a lacklustre Bill, which does the minimum needed to clear up the immediate mess of this Government’s making. [ Interruption. ] As I said, it does the minimum necessary. It is better than nothing—it is a very small step in the right direction—but it does not go as far as the Government should to introduce the reforms that are needed. The right hon. Lady had been Lord Chancellor for eight months, but she had so little grip of her Department that she not only did nothing to stop the Sentencing Council’s new guidelines, but was not even aware of them. Her representative had met the Sentencing Council just two days earlier. What were they doing at the Sentencing Council, if they were not there to stop such proposals? How is the right hon. Lady running her Department, if she was not even informed of the new guidelines? The proposals had changed during the process. The Lord Chancellor, unlike me and the Business Secretary, has actually been a practising lawyer. She will understand that there is a substantial difference between saying that a pre-sentence report may be particularly important, and stating, as a requirement, that such a report will normally be considered necessary, given the effect that statement has, and the triggers for appeals against sentences. Those changes were made almost at the point when the right hon. Lady became Lord Chancellor, yet eight months later, she had done nothing to stop them and was not even aware of them. This Bill stops only the narrowest and worst aspects of the guidelines from applying. If the Government were actually serious about taking action, they could have done so much more quickly. They did not even need to take action; an omission would have been sufficient. On 28 March, when my right hon. Friend the shadow Lord Chancellor brought forward his private Member’s Bill, all the Government Whips had to do was not shout “Object” in order for it to go forward. It would have restored proper ministerial oversight and, through the Minister, parliamentary oversight over sentencing guidelines. That would have allowed Parliament to take control of this fundamental matter.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Clearly, Parliament needs to have oversight of revisions to sentencing guidelines, so that they reflect the will of Parliament. The Government failed to act and have now brought forward this lacklustre measure. In the past few months, my hon. and right hon. Friends have uncovered multiple instances of two-tier principles being applied to bail, probation and other judicial matters. This is not a one-off, or a whistleblowing “fix it and move on” situation; it is systemic and endemic. We need much more radical reform than the Government are bringing forward today.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Domestic Abuse) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Sir Desmond. Legal aid plays a critical role in our justice system, particularly for the most vulnerable in society. Access to that legal advice and representation can be a lifeline for individuals facing incredibly difficult circumstances, and those who have experienced domestic abuse are often in particular need of such support. That is why any changes to the legal aid framework in this area warrant careful consideration. It is clear that a significant number of the changes in this draft order will help legal aid provision to keep pace with the evolving legal landscape. The alignment of terminology—moving from “domestic violence” to “domestic abuse” and from “financial abuse” to “economic abuse,” for example—is a necessary step to reflect the broader understanding of the multifaceted nature of abuse, consistent with the landmark Domestic Abuse Act. That modernisation of language is not merely semantic; it will help to make sure that a wider range of behaviours, and their impact, are properly recognised within the legal aid system, so it has our support. The amendments relating to immigration legal aid for victims of domestic abuse also warrant careful attention. The inclusion of those applying for leave to remain under the updated appendix to the immigration rules is a change that addresses a specific vulnerability. Individuals whose immigration status is tied to an abusive partner are in a precarious position. We support these changes, although we will closely monitor how they are implemented. We agree that the changes to the evidential requirements in private family law cases, allowing medical evidence from registered overseas health professionals, are a pragmatic step. Survivors of abuse may have sought medical attention outside the UK, and it is sensible and right that such evidence should be considered in legal aid applications. People who are fleeing abuse should not be inadvertently disadvantaged in accessing legal aid. The amendments concerning domestic abuse protection notices and domestic abuse protection orders represent a further stage in the integration of these relatively new protective measures into the legal aid framework. DAPNs and DAPOs were introduced to provide more streamlined and effective protection for victims of domestic abuse. The previous Government introduced statutory instruments in 2023 and 2024 to amend legislation to provide access to legal aid for both victims and respondents, where appropriate. This draft order makes further amendments so that the appropriate type of legal aid—civil or criminal—is available to those who are party to DAPO proceedings, and for those subject to DAPNs. It is right that victims and, where appropriate, respondents in such proceedings should both have access to legal representation to ensure fair and just outcomes. We will be particularly interested in the effects of these changes, which we support in principle. We particularly note the Government’s ongoing evaluation of the DAPN and DAPO pilot, which was launched on 27 November 2024 in the locations that the Minister mentioned, and how the legal aid provisions interact with the findings of that review. I understand that no formal consultation was undertaken specifically for this draft order, as the Government view these as technical amendments aligning with existing policy and legislation. While we understand the rationale, we reiterate the importance of ongoing dialogue with stakeholders, including legal aid providers and those representing victims of domestic abuse, to ensure that the practical implementation of these changes is smooth and effective. The commitment from the Ministry of Justice and the Legal Aid Agency to monitor the impact of these amendments on the legal aid scheme is important to ensure the transparency and adequate functioning of the legal aid system. The impact assessment accompanying this instrument provides a degree of insight into the anticipated costs and effects of these changes, and we note the estimated increase in the legal aid fund related to the expansion of immigration legal aid, and the assessment that other amendments are unlikely to result in a substantial increase in applications. We will monitor that closely, and we call on the Government to similarly keep these assessments under regular review, as the changes take effect. While we acknowledge the Government’s stated aims and the technical nature of many of these amendments, we also recognise the profound impact that legal aid has on the lives of vulnerable individuals. Ensuring that the system is accessible to those who genuinely need it, is up to date and reflects the realities faced by victims of domestic abuse is a shared objective. On the basis of the information provided and the commitment to ongoing monitoring and review, we will not divide the Committee on today’s order.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Easter Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to respond to this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. Having spent just over a year and a half in the Government Whips Office before the election, during which time the longest speech I was able to make in this Chamber was probably to move that this House do now adjourn, today is a chance to catch up on lost time. Several Members have paid kind tributes to our late and much-missed former colleague Sir David Amess, who of course always lit up these occasions with his wit, charm and good humour. As I say, he is hugely missed, and our thoughts continue to be with his family. In his absence, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, did a good job of opening the debate and running through a number of the issues that are dear to his constituents. He has furthered his reputation as a champion—a doughty champion, of course; if I do not add the “doughty”, it will not make the Google search—of local transport connections and step-free access at stations. Of course, he can always be relied on to give us a lift. My hon. Friend mentioned his experience at the Glebe school, where he was covered in powder. Having caught a little bit of the highlights of the new series of “Celebrity Big Brother”, I do not know whether they are currently making their services available to our former colleague from Lichfield. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East also alluded to his love of Tottenham Hotspur football club, although it was not clear whether that was a declaration of an interest, a confession or a plea in mitigation. In any event, what were the chances that he would be followed immediately by the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland), whose local team actually has won silverware—not just this century, but this season? The hon. Member spoke about the value of grassroots sports clubs to their communities, a view that I think is shared across the Chamber. He also spoke about his dedication to public duty in sampling local beer. Having been on the armed forces parliamentary scheme with him and visited a number of military bases, I know that that is a public duty that he takes most seriously, and not just when in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) spoke about the wonderful Safer Redhill initiative—a fantastic initiative from an excellent police and crime commissioner working together with the local charity sector and local organisations. The hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) spoke about the negative impact that gambling establishments can have on town centres, which Members from all parts of the House will be able to identify with. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) told us that Dorset was burning, particularly at Upton heath. Whether it is through carelessness or arson, these fires cause enormous damage, as well as impacting on public services. I am a little more wary than she is about reaching for a ban, but clearly people need to be accountable for their actions. The hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) spoke about bank branch closures and fair funding for schools. As a newly Staffordshire Member of Parliament since the boundary changes, I know that a lot of my schools in South Staffordshire will be sympathetic with that issue. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) spoke about yarn bombing, which is a fantastic phenomenon that we see in so many of our villages. It is not quite in my constituency, but I saw a knitted post box topper of George the station cat just outside Stourbridge Junction station as I was coming through at the weekend. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) is continuing the excellent work done by her predecessor to fight for the Wylfa nuclear power station. As she says, it should be a no-brainer, and it has to be a core part of our clean energy mix going forward. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) spoke about mineworkers’ pensions, which are obviously an issue of concern for many in traditional mining areas such as Staffordshire. An issue that probably goes even more widely across the country is NHS dental treatment, which the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) raised. As they said, with Easter coming up, things might be getting slightly worse, but routine and urgent dental care can be too hard to access in many parts of the country. This time last year, the previous Government announced a plan to try to do something about that, with £200 million of funding for 2.5 million more NHS dentist appointments, new patient payments and one-off payments to tackle dental blackspots. We need the Government to continue that work and to step up and make sure that all our constituents can receive the care they need. The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) spoke about community sports clubs, but also the local heroes we are all so proud of in our own constituencies. What is the best part of being a Member of Parliament? I think it is the chance to meet some of these people whose work often goes unacknowledged and to make sure that they get, if not the recognition they deserve, at least an element of recognition. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) made a fantastic contribution about the work done by local dance schools, which is important. For a lot of young people growing up, access to dance schools is not just for people who are joining the Royal Ballet. For boys and girls in every constituency, it helps with physical development as well as developing social skills. He also spoke of his own sports clubs, Silsden AFC and Keighley Albion rugby league football club. The hon. Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce) spoke passionately about the advantages of smaller, more localised unitary authorities over county-wide super councils. I hope the Government show the flexibility to move below their 500,000 threshold where appropriate. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) spoke about the social as well as the economic impact when an area loses its core industry. We hope that the Government will show flexibility on net zero to support the workers of Scunthorpe. I would like to refer to every speech, Madam Deputy Speaker, but sadly I do not have time to do so. Let me end by wishing you, and Members of the House and the House staff, a very blessed, happy and peaceful Easter recess.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Gambling Harms · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister for Civil Society knows about the fantastic work that Gordon Moody does at its Dudley treatment centre to help people rebuild their lives following gambling-related harm. The Secretary of State may not know, however, that Gordon Moody faces having to suspend its residential treatment because of the Government’s dithering over how to distribute funds from the gambling levy. Will she finally get a grip before other fantastic charities with expertise, like Gordon Moody, have to shut their doors?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Autumn Budget 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  The Northern Ireland Farming Minister estimates that three quarters of dairy farms in Northern Ireland could be hit by inheritance tax following the Chancellor’s disastrous changes. Given the particularly high cost of agricultural land compared with farming incomes in Northern Ireland, does the Secretary of State recognise that the Budget is a direct threat to family farms and thousands of livelihoods across Northern Ireland?

• 24 Mar 2025 · Draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for presenting the draft regulations. I am particularly pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury agreed to bring his enormous expertise on this matter to the Committee. When he was Paymaster General, he worked tirelessly to make sure that victims and their families could at last receive some degree of justice. Above all, I thank those campaigners and victims who have spent years pushing for justice for this terrible tragedy, which continued for over a decade. It has taken decades more for it to begin to be put right. This is an issue on which all parties have spoken as one, recognising the horrific harm caused to so many by this scandal. It has been a unity built around agreement with the incredible work done by Sir Brian Langstaff in his inquiry. There has been agreement across both sides of the House that we must implement the recommendations of that inquiry to begin to make right these serious wrongs. To be clear, we will not divide the Committee on the draft regulations because we do not want to do anything that jeopardises the payment of compensation that is already overdue to those who were affected or infected by contaminated blood. The biggest concern that Members share has been the very slow pace of assessing and paying compensation claims. We welcome the progress highlighted by the Minister, but as of 14 March only 63 offers of compensation had been made and only 40 accepted. That equates to about five victims paid per week since the Paymaster General’s statement last month. At that rate, it would take more than 15 years for all those infected to receive their compensation, and the draft regulations could extend compensation to perhaps 30,000 persons directly or indirectly affected by contaminated blood. It would take nearly 120 years to pay all those compensation payments at the current rate. We recognise that part of the purpose of these regulations is to give additional powers to IBCA to pay compensation, but the current pace is clearly unacceptable, and is causing significant distress and despair to many who have already suffered more than anybody should. That raises questions about whether IBCA has the capacity needed to properly compensate those affected and those infected by contaminated blood. It looks increasingly unlikely that the £11.8 billion set aside for compensation will prove to be sufficient. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will ensure that further amounts are made available, as and when they are needed? We have other concerns about the bureaucratic and evidential requirements in the regulations. There is a risk that those requirements prevent eligible people from applying. For example, not only partners, parents, children or siblings of infected persons but other carers of such persons can apply as “affected persons” for the care award to compensate for past and future care needs. However, they must be able to show that they provided an average of at least 16.5 hours of care per week to an infected person over a period of at least six months without reward or remuneration, show the nature of the care, and show the length of time such care was needed. How does the Minister expect that kind of detail to be evidenced? If care was provided to a friend or family member without remuneration, as the regulations require, how likely is it that there would be written records or agreements? What evidence does the Minister expect to be available when the care might have been provided many years ago, particularly if the infected person has sadly since passed away? We strongly support the IBCA framework document published two weeks ago and agree that there are sound reasons why it is appropriate, and arguably necessary, to initially second civil servants to allow IBCA to begin its important work without delay. However, as the Minister will be aware, some campaign groups have expressed concern about IBCA’s level of independence. Although the tight tariff-based approach set out in the draft regulations clearly has benefits in fairness and consistency—and we strongly agree that this approach is appropriate in the vast majority of cases—is there a risk that such a framework could fail to provide fairness in some unusual cases that do not easily fit within the categories and levels set out? Will the Minister look at how IBCA could be given discretion to take into account atypical personal or health impacts, such as infertility? IBCA could, for example, be allowed to consider individual cases for injury, autonomy and social impact awards, as well as for financial loss and care awards. The Minister will know that particular concerns have been raised about how those who developed hepatitis and haemophilia are treated under the draft regulations. Will he set out why haemophilia and hepatitis C cases were not included under the special cases mechanism in the supplementary route? How many infected people does he expect to be worse off as a result? Can he explain which experts decided which medical conditions would be recognised through the supplementary route and who among them had clinical experience of hepatitis and haemophilia? Some of the requirements to qualify for further compensation, beyond core payments, look particularly onerous. While it is, of course, essential to be careful when dealing with such large amounts of taxpayers’ money, I know that the Minister would not want the scheme to preclude people who have genuinely suffered different forms of harm and loss. Can the Minister give the Committee a clear idea of what kind of proof might be sufficient to demonstrate, for example, psychological damage caused by contaminated blood, which might then enable someone to access additional compensation? Turning to the estates of affected people, while recognising there might be circumstances in which the restriction could be harsh, we agree with Sir Brian’s recommendation, which is reflected in the draft regulations, that affected persons should be compensated in their own right but to go further and allow a claim by their estate would draw the circle too widely. However, can the Minister clarify what the position would be were an affected person to die after submitting an application for compensation, or possibly between receiving an offer of compensation and accepting it? Might their estate be able to benefit from a claim that had already been made, for which the affected person had been eligible before they passed away? The partners of infected people registered on support schemes to date stand to lose their right to receive 75% of their partner’s payments if they are bereaved, after the end of this month when the schemes officially end. Can the Minister explain why that decision has been made, and what assessment he has made of the extent to which other provisions within the draft regulations will make up for those amounts being lost by the bereaved partners of infected people who die after the end of this month? As I said at the beginning, we will not divide the Committee because we do not want to do anything that risks delaying payments to people who have already had to wait for far too long. The draft regulations will be a huge relief and an enormous help to many affected people. However, we all want an effective, equitable and comprehensive scheme. I urge the Minister, who I know cares deeply about this issue, to work with his officials and look at how some of the gaps and apparent unintended consequences might be resolved, so that all those infected or affected by contaminated blood can receive the compensation that they need and deserve.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is being generous in giving way. Prosecutors have a choice as to which charge to bring. They can still bring a charge under the common law offence, which as the Minister says, has a high maximum sentence—but one that is very rarely imposed—or, as with benefit fraud, they could bring it under a specific offence, as proposed in new clause 2. The Sentencing Council would then develop the guidelines that apply to deliberately defrauding public authorities. Although the Minister is right that the maximum sentence under the new clause is lower than the theoretical maximum for the common law offence, in practice, it is likely to see rather more substantial sentences imposed on conviction.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her response, but why does she feel that benefit fraud ought to be a specific offence, with maximum sentences under the Social Security Administration Act 1992, but that it is not appropriate for a specific offence to apply to people who deliberately defraud other public authorities?

• 17 Mar 2025 · Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  I wish the hon. Gentleman’s mother a very happy birthday. It is a great date of birth to share. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the ombudsman’s report concluded that there had been maladministration between 2005 and 2007, and that some women had suffered a loss as a result of that maladministration. The Government accept that there was maladministration. The ombudsman has left it to Parliament to decide how to make sure that those who suffered loss get properly recompensed. What would it say about us as a Parliament if we decide that yes, the maladministration is there and the loss is there but, frankly, we are not going to do anything about it?

• 14 Mar 2025 · Rare Cancers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), both on his good fortune in being drawn in the private Member’s Bill ballot and on his wisdom in picking this very important issue to take forward. Having been similarly lucky in being drawn in that ballot a few weeks after I was first elected, nearly a decade ago, I know the barrage of calls and emails that suddenly come your way—the very sudden and slightly fleeting popularity that comes from coming towards the top of the private Member’s Bill ballot—and the very many, very worthy causes and campaigns that come your way for you to choose between. The hon. Gentleman could not have picked a better cause than the one represented by this Bill, and if he is never again quite as popular as he was in the few hours after the publication of the ballot results, I know that he would willingly exchange all of that popularity in an instant for the difference that this legislation can make to so many lives across the country, if and when it is passed and implemented—as we hope it will be. I stand today not just as a Member of this House but as a friend who is deeply moved by the pain of seeing someone I care about—someone who has become like family—struggle against an insidious disease. This Bill is not just another piece of legislation; it is a cry for help. It is a plea for those who are fighting for their lives—a lifeline for families who are watching their loved ones slip away, bit by bit and day after day. Too often, those diagnosed with rare cancers are left stranded in a system that does not have the answers they need. We know the wonders that pharmaceutical companies can do in drug development, but the horrible truth is that few people are able or willing to invest the enormous amount of money needed to take forward drug development—knowing that about one in 25,000 drug candidates make it to market—for conditions that will require that drug 1,000 or 2,000 times a year, at most.

• 14 Mar 2025 · Rare Cancers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is obviously right, and I know that she approaches this subject with, tragically, a huge amount of personal experience. We have already seen drugs—in some cases, long-marketed drugs—being applied for new purposes and new conditions. Without those costly clinical trials, they will not be licensed or approved for prescription, and that is why the Bill is so important. Clinical trials are sadly a distant hope for far too many currently, and many patients are left with the crushing, gut-wrenching words, “There is nothing more we can do.” Those words can be a death sentence, but they do not have to be—not if we act. Many Members and House staff will know my senior parliamentary assistant and dear friend Dan Horrocks. He is best known as the owner of Bella, his therapy shih tzu who he had while he was being treated for his third brain tumour and who is often seen roaming around the Palace and 1 Parliament Street. Dan has worked for me since I was first elected in 2015, but he is not just my senior parliamentary assistant; he has become like family. He is a father, a husband and a four-time cancer survivor. For 14 years, he has fought this monster, each time feeling the ground slip more from under him as his options narrow, leaving him and his family with ever-reducing hope. We have seen him face unimaginable pain. I have watched him endure brain surgeries and radiotherapy, and seen the fear in his eyes each time the disease comes back and he hears his doctors tell him that they do not know how much more his body can take, and whether he can be put through that next course of radiotherapy. Dan’s journey started with something as simple as headaches, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West referred to in another case, that no one thought were serious at the time. As a teenager, three GPs all misdiagnosed that tumour and for unknown reasons, the GPs did not want to send Dan for a scan. A simple scan to check that there were no malign causes would have identified those tumours months earlier. It was a free voucher for an eye test that saved Dan’s life, because it was not until, by sheer luck, an optician noticed something wrong in his eyes that anyone realised the nightmare he was living. That optician saved his life. What followed has been nothing short of a nightmare: brain tumours, surgeries, radiotherapy and the heart-wrenching hope that every treatment might be the last, only for the disease to rear its ugly head again. Now the cancer has spread to his spine. His doctors and consultants have no answers. His options are dwindling, yet Dan’s fight is far from over, because Dan is not just fighting for himself, but for his two-year-old son, Elijah, who deserves to grow up with his father by his side, cheering him on at his first football match and guiding him through life’s milestones. Dan dreams of walking his son to school every day and of being there for every moment that really matters, whether it is his graduation or his wedding—the moments that every parent should have the chance to see. He is fighting with his wife, Sonia, who has been his rock through all of this. Sonia has stayed by his side through every hospital visit, through every sleepless night, and through every moment of doubt and fear. Together they have dreamed of a life growing old together, of watching their child grow up, and of building memories that will last forever, but that future is slipping away. That is why we are here today—to ensure that no parent, no family, no child has to face the horror of rare cancer without hope. This Bill is not just about changing laws or regulations; it is about giving families like Dan’s a fighting chance. It mandates a review of the orphan drug regulations to ensure that rare cancers get the investment they so desperately need, creates the national specialty lead to drive research and innovation, and establishes a registry service to help to connect patients to the clinical trials that really could save their lives. This Bill gives hope—a real chance for families who are facing the unimaginable. I stand here today with a heart full of hope, but also with a heavy heart, because I know that time is not on their side. Dan does not have the luxury of waiting. His family do not have the luxury of waiting. No one diagnosed with rare cancer has that luxury. That is why this Bill is so very urgent. We spend a lot of time in this Chamber talking about politics, but this is not about politics: it is about real people like Dan who desperately need our help. Cancer does not care about politics. It does not care what background we come from, our age or gender or what party we belong to. It strikes indiscriminately. It takes what it wants, and it leaves devastation in its wake. That is why we must respond with urgency, with compassion and, most importantly, with action. I strongly support this Bill and I urge all hon. Members here today to stand with us, to stand with the families clinging to the hope that there is something more we can do and to stand with those, like Dan, who are fighting for more time, for more moments, for more chances to hold their loved ones close. The cost of inaction is measured not just in money, but in precious lives lost. Let us pass this Bill. Let us give people like Dan and his family the hope they so desperately need. Let us give them a future—a future that is still within reach.

• 14 Mar 2025 · Free School Meals (Automatic Registration of Eligible Children) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I really must continue. The Government have promised to move on to the next Bill at quarter to two, so I need to keep interventions to a minimum. We also introduced extensive protections which have been in effect since 2018. They ensure that while universal credit is being fully rolled out, any child eligible for free school meals would retain their entitlement and keep getting free school meals until the end of the phase; in other words, until they complete either primary or secondary school if their family’s income rises above the income threshold such that that would otherwise have stopped. On breakfast clubs, we all know that breakfast is the most important meal of the day, setting people up with the fuel they need to make the most of the day ahead, and the evidence supports that. At this point, Madam Deputy Speaker, I ought to declare an interest. My wife is in teaching, although she is providing one-to-one special needs teaching rather than in a classroom at the moment. We know that those children who do not have breakfast are more likely to have issues with behaviour, wellbeing and learning. That is why the previous Government expanded the provision of breakfast, investing up to £35 million in the national school breakfast programme. That funding supported 2,700 schools in disadvantaged areas, providing thousands of children from low-income families with a free nutritious breakfast at school to support their attainment, wellbeing and readiness to learn. Moreover, we trusted school leaders to deliver, building a breakfast provision that fitted the needs of their pupils. That involved five different models, ranging from a traditional breakfast club to a healthy grab and go. The programme has had great success in supporting those who needed it most and I welcome the Minister’s confirmation that his party will continue to support it until at least next March. I hope the support extends past that date. Nutrition does not cease to be an issue outside of term time, which is why the previous Government rolled out the holiday, activities and food programme to support during holiday periods disadvantaged and low-income families in receipt of free school meals. Since 2018, the programme has delivered enriching activities and nutritious food to the children and young people who need it most, with more than £200 million each year delivering 15.6 million half days to children and young people across every single one of the 153 local authorities in England. The Bill requires local authorities in England to identify each child of school age resident in its area who is eligible for free school meals. It also requires state-funded schools that identify a child who is eligible to provide those meals. We support the desire to ensure that all those eligible for free school meals have an opportunity to receive them, so do not wish to prevent the Bill from proceeding. However, I have a couple of questions about how the Bill will achieve that, which I hope that the Bill’s promoter can address in his closing remarks so that Members can consider that as the Bill proceeds. I know that the hon. Member for Crawley has extensive experience in local government, and I think that 20 local authorities have now piloted their own auto-enrolment schemes at some point. In drafting the Bill, what consideration did he give to the burden that will be added to local authorities? Does he have any assessment or measure of the cost for local council tax payers and how that relates to both the savings for local families and the additional income for schools through pupil premiums? The Bill would also give powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations to make provision for the definition of the term “state-funded school”. In what circumstances does the hon. Member believe that a change in definition will be necessary? I will be clear, as we were in government, that we believe in targeting support to where it is most needed. We believe that the state should do less but do it well—but that does include delivering sufficient support to those who need it most, and particularly to children and young people.

• 14 Mar 2025 · Free School Meals (Automatic Registration of Eligible Children) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) on promoting this Bill so ably. The last Conservative Government massively expanded eligibility for free school meals, meaning that the proportion of children and young people eligible is much higher than was the case under any previous Government. The evidence here proves that the inheritance we left behind in this area last July was much kinder than that which the last Labour Government left us in 2010, with one in three children able to get a free school meal—as opposed to one in six when the previous Labour Government was last in office—despite a large fall in the number of workless households.

• 14 Mar 2025 · Free School Meals (Automatic Registration of Eligible Children) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  When we look at dietary habits in recent decades, we see that that is not confined to parts of the income spectrum. There has been a deterioration in the quality of diets going back over several decades that is quite separate from issues of poverty. As of January 2024, more than 2.1 million pupils were eligible for benefits-related free school meals, which amounted to 24.6% of all pupils. In addition, more than 90,000 disadvantaged students in further education received a free school meal at lunch time. Collectively, this supported the children and young people who needed it most to ensure that they could make the most of their world-class education, boost their health and save their parents considerable amounts that they could not afford.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Farming · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Clearly, the people who are best placed to avoid paying the tax are the very people who ought to be paying and contributing: the mega landowners. For the average cereal farmer, however, who could face inheritance tax bills of 1.5 times the value of their annual profits, the only recourse will be to sell land or machinery. That is so blatantly obvious that the fact that the Government do not see it makes it difficult to assume that the policy is down to incompetence rather than a deliberate strategy to dismantle family farms, particularly when combined with the compulsory purchase plans set out by the Deputy Prime Minister this week. Labour’s policies threaten the future of farming, rural businesses and the communities that rely on them. The sustainable farming incentive, inheritance tax reliefs, biosecurity, and the damage caused to our high streets by Labour’s Budget—in each of those areas, Labour’s mismanagement is letting down farmers, their families and our rural communities. Rural Britain can thrive when farmers are supported, businesses are protected and communities grow stronger. We will continue to fight for that future, and I call on the Government to change course before it is too late for our rural way of life. We will continue to fight for our farming communities, including mine in Kingswinford and South Staffordshire.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Farming · Hansard source

  More

  We believe in a future in which farming thrives—one based on stability, growth and sustainability. Sadly, Labour’s policies jeopardise all three. Whether it is the disastrous last-minute overnight closure of the sustainable farming incentive, the relentless family death tax assault on family farms, or the negligence towards rural businesses, Labour’s agenda harms the heart of rural Britain, including my Kingswinford and South Staffordshire constituency. Labour’s short-sightedness in deciding to stop accepting new applications for the sustainable farming incentive—with just half an hour’s notice given to the NFU despite the promise of six weeks’ notice—is a clear sign of its failure to understand the long-term needs of our farmers. While thousands of farmers were looking to the SFI for support, Labour has chosen short-term political convenience over long-term sustainability. Our farmers deserve consistency and trust in the future, not abrupt cuts to vital programmes. We will continue to back farmers. Labour’s inheritance tax policies are a direct attack on the heart of family farms. The planned cuts to agricultural property relief and business property relief will make it impossible for farmers to pass on their livelihoods and their businesses—the farms that they have been farming for generations—to their children without facing huge tax burdens. According to the NFU, someone who inherits an average cereal farm from their parents faces 10 inheritance tax payments, with each one representing 1.5 times what they can expect to make in annual profits. They are running at a loss to fund the Government. That is serfdom, not farming.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Farming · Hansard source

  More

  Given what the hon. Lady just said about the number of farm holdings, would she regard it as a sign of failure of this Government if that number is lower at the time of the next election?

• 13 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Some 66% of hospitality firms say they will have to cut staff or staff hours, 75% say they will cut investment, and 97% say they will increase prices because of the Chancellor’s manifesto-breaking national insurance increases. What assessment has the Minister made of the number of workers being dragged into national insurance contributions for the first time, and if the Government must continue with this disastrous policy, will they at least delay it for 12 months to bring it into line with the introduction of business rates reforms?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Sustainable Farming Incentive · Hansard source

  More

  The overnight withdrawal of the funding is yet another blow to many of my farmers in Kingswinford and South Staffordshire. The Minister still has not answered the question as to why he has broken his word, which was clearly set out on the Government website, to give at least six weeks’ notice, nor the one asked by the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), which was that if the reason for doing so was because the budget had become exhausted, when that first came to the Minister’s attention. Was it really yesterday afternoon?