Mike Wood MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  The number of jobs lost in hospitality since last year’s Budget, just over a year ago, exceeds 110,000 as a result of the Chancellor’s choices.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I think the hon. Lady is extremely brave to come to that point so early, given the levels that bonds are still trading at. The OBR report is clear that the extra cost of borrowing, which is not replicated in other major economies, amounts to an extra £3 billion a year by 2030—more than the OBR expected just in March. In short, we are paying what I understand the markets call a “moron premium” because of the Chancellor’s choices.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that the information that came to light over the weekend seems to suggest that a very worrying bias has entered the decision-making process, and that this has cast a stain on Birmingham’s reputation as a welcoming city as well as raising serious questions about the senior leadership of West Midlands police ?

• 19 Nov 2025 · Businesses with Supply Chains in Great Britain · Hansard source

  More

  Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol says that where we experience diversion of trade, we may take unilateral action. The Secretary of State will be well aware that three reports in the past month have noticed significant trade diversion affecting trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Will he be clear with the House about just how much trade diversion he is willing to stomach before he uses the powers he has under article 16?

• 19 Nov 2025 · Draft Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for presenting the regulations. His Majesty’s official Opposition support them. Having, as the Minister said, concluded one agreement and very much supporting the second one, which really continues the international trade policy and trend of the previous Government, we certainly will not be dividing the Committee, but perhaps he can just set out the answers to a few questions about some details in the regulations. If we look at the particular regulation that underpins a lot of the regulation set out here, it generally appears quite technical, particularly in relation to definitions and cross-references. Will the Minister therefore confirm that these measures do not constitute a material policy shift and that the Government have assessed that the changes do not create any unintended consequences for contracting authorities or potential bidders? On potential bidders, how do the Government intend any changes within the regulations to be communicated to suppliers and potential suppliers based in the UK? When will any updated guidance following from the regulations be published? We are particularly concerned about any impact—not that we expect there to be any dramatic impact—on small and medium-sized enterprises or small employers. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that SMEs and microbusinesses in particular can navigate without an increased administrative burden any transition in the procurement systems covered by the regulations? Have stakeholders been consulted on whether further clarity is required, particularly for SMEs, charities and the voluntary sector suppliers that may be affected? The regulations are technical, but of course they are important for the integrity of the procurement system, so clarity and consistency remain essential both for contracting authorities and for the many businesses—especially smaller suppliers—that rely on predictable and understandable rules. Therefore, I look forward to the Minister’s responses and to ensuring that these amendments support a smooth and proportionate transition to the new procurement regime as it relates to Kazakhstan and Iraq. There is little further for me to say. We will be supporting the regulations.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q13. Everyone who cares about media independence and freedom will be relieved that RedBird has recognised that it cannot run The Telegraph , but there are serious concerns that it will burden the paper with unsustainable debt if the title is sold for less than half a billion pounds. Will the Prime Minister step in to prevent this from happening and enable a sale, at a lower price if necessary, without this toxic debt burden?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Legal Immigration: Statutory Annual Cap · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister not recognise that an important step towards significantly reducing net migration would be to make it clear to all those working in his Department or handling migration that there is a number that everyone is working towards? If that is the case, surely Members of this House should be able to vote on that binding cap, as happens successfully in countries such as Australia.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Legal Immigration: Statutory Annual Cap · Hansard source

  More

  12. What assessment her Department has made of the potential merits of introducing a statutory annual cap on levels of legal immigration.

• 3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Bill is the result of decades of campaigning and struggle by families fighting for answers. The thoughts and hearts of all of us in this House, regardless of party affiliation, are with the 97 victims of the Hillsborough disaster and their families. The tireless work of those families is ultimately responsible for uncovering the truth about Hillsborough and delivering an element of justice for the victims, whose memory was tarnished by the unwillingness of some individuals in authority to tell the truth. The Bill is also testament to the valuable work done by Bishop James Jones and his independent panel, for which we are truly thankful. The Bill is in no small part down to the effective campaigning of the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne); he has fought for those who joined him in going to Hillsborough on that terrible day in April 1989, but who lost their life, due to the terrible decisions made by the stadium operators and South Yorkshire police. Hillsborough stands as one of the most obvious and harrowing examples of the British state’s failure to remain accountable, truthful and candid. Unfortunately, it is not the only such example in recent years. We have had the Post Office Horizon scandal, the infected blood scandal, the families of pub bombing victims in Birmingham and Guildford denied justice following police misconduct, and the failure of the British state to properly acknowledge and tackle the rape and grooming gangs that have terrorised communities across the country. Each and every one of these failures undermines the British public’s faith in their Government, and each was a scandal made worse by institutions’ attempts to hide from responsibility, and to put their reputations and interests ahead of transparency and justice in the clearest possible examples of abuse of power. Calls for greater candour and accountability are legitimate and welcome; those of us in this place must always remember that our sole duty is to serve the interests of the British people and to do right by them. I thank all those hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to this Second Reading. I welcome the Prime Minister’s confirmation that the Government will table an amendment to extend the duty of candour to cover local inquiries, which was a clear gap in the Bill as introduced. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) spoke about the often heard cry of “never again”. We must make sure that when this Bill enters the statute books, it turns that cry into a reality. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) expressed legitimate concerns about the effectiveness and administration of some public inquiries, and I know those concerns are shared by some Ministers in the Government. The hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) spoke about the need for a change in culture that goes beyond legislation, so that taking responsibility, rather than covering up failings, becomes the norm, and not just a legal requirement. The hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) reminded us of the outrageous experimentation on disabled pupils at Treloar school and the lengths that authorities went to hide responsibility. Hopefully some of the Bill’s measures will be of some help to those pupils. The hon. Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), for Glasgow East (John Grady) and for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) spoke movingly about how failings in the NHS were made worse by a lack of openness, and about families simply not feeling heard. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) reminded us of the long battle fought by nuclear test veterans. As noble as this Bill’s intentions may be, we must be ever vigilant for the unintended consequences of well-intended laws. As this Bill proceeds through the House, we will scrutinise it closely to minimise the harms that may arise. In particular, we must make sure that the Bill does not inadvertently create a situation in which Government and public services can no longer function effectively, not because they are falling foul of the Bill, but because they fear that they may fall foul of it if its provisions are applied in ways that the Government did not intend. We must clarify how this Bill will interface with legal and disciplinary frameworks, including the civil service code. We must clarify how new standards of ethical conduct will interface with those and other frameworks, and we must have a clear definition of what it means to mislead the public. Under the Bill, that charge of misleading the public carries a criminal sanction. We obviously recognise some of the safeguards that have been included, but they are not as tightly defined as they might be. If politicians are to be able to represent the public effectively, we must be absolutely certain that this definition is watertight, because otherwise the Bill may give rise to a situation whereby legitimate decisions made by Ministers are subject to politically motivated lawfare. We rightly expect our parliamentarians, officials and Ministers to speak honestly, truthfully and with integrity, whether in the Chamber or outside, but clause 11(3)(a), by defining dishonesty in terms of “falsehood, concealment, obfuscation or otherwise”, risks leaving Prime Ministers, other Ministers and even constituency MPs at constant risk of vexatious complaints. We may differ about the adequacy, and even the accuracy, of some of the responses that the Prime Minister gives us at Prime Minister’s questions, but those disagreements must be a matter for the ballot box rather than the courtroom. We must also have a clear definition of the public interest, which is the idea on which so much of the Bill rests. In our political system, the public interest is not for bureaucrats or judges to decide. The public express their will through the democratic process, and elect Members of Parliament to implement that will on their behalf. Can the Government be sure that the definition of the public interest in the Bill will not conflict with efforts made by future Governments to implement those democratic wishes? It would be profoundly dangerous for any single Government to attempt to define the public interest in a way that would bind future Governments without giving sufficient weight to the role that the public themselves play in determining and articulating that interest. At their best, public inquiries offer opportunities to genuinely learn rather than to seek retribution; to establish what happened and how, so that action can be taken to stop such events being repeated, more harm being done to more people, more lives being lost unnecessarily, and more futures being stolen away, so that the oft-repeated words “never again”, of which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough spoke so well, can actually have some meaning. However, that can only happen with honesty, openness and a degree of trust—in short, with candour from all those involved. If this Bill can help to achieve that, it is well worth supporting. That is why, although we will work to tighten some parts at later stages to ensure that it operates properly, we will support it tonight.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement and for advance sight of it—although just under an hour is not a lot of time to digest 75 pages of documentation, so I will do my best. I join the Minister in acknowledging the work done by Sir Brian Langstaff and his inquiries, as well as the serious improvement in the pace of payments that IBCA has made in recent months. We thank Sir Robert Francis, David Foley, and all their team at IBCA. On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the measures that the Minister has announced that implement some of Sir Brian’s recommendations from the additional report, particularly those dealing with HIV eligibility start dates, the deeming of severity bands, evidence of the date of diagnosis, affected estates, and bereaved partner support scheme payments. Turning to the recommendations relating to hepatitis, we of course welcome confirmation that the Government will remove the earnings floor on the supplementary route exceptional loss award. However, I did not hear any specific reference in the Minister’s statement to measures to address recommendation 4(c) of the original report, which deals with effective treatment. Perhaps the Minister could set out how the Government intend to give effect to that recommendation. Similarly, could he set out what measures the Government are taking—beyond the appointment of the new members of the technical expert group that he has announced—in response to recommendation 2(e), which deals with the transparency of scheme design? That is particularly important in light of the inquiry’s worrying finding that victims did not feel that they were being listened to. I now turn to the recommendations that the Government did not feel able to accept immediately. I welcome the fact that the Minister is consulting on a way forward on those issues; clearly, as I have said, there is a need for transparency and proper consultation. The consultation period will last until the end of January next year. We recognise that there is little that the Minister can do about that clearly defined period, but given the need to address these measures without undue delay, will he ensure that once that consultation period closes, the Government respond swiftly to the consultation paper and introduce any necessary further regulations with maximum speed, so that this House can consider any further measures that are necessary? More broadly, how are the Government applying the lessons learned from the implementation of payment schemes for people infected to better inform the operation of payments to people affected and to their estates, as he referred to in his statement? What action is the Minister taking with the independent IBCA to ensure that the pace of payments, which has seen welcome progress, continues to accelerate and is not jeopardised by changes to rules and processes? As I said, Sir Brian’s inquiries have done incredible and invaluable work to give a voice to those who have battled so courageously against decades of injustice, and to ensure that victims and their families have some remedy, although clearly no amount of money can ever reverse the terrible harm done by this scandal over many years. The recommendations in the additional report that Sir Brian published shortly before the summer are an invaluable contribution. Looking forward, there will need to be a degree of policy certainty as we move from a period of review to one of rectification and delivery. That is one reason that the cross-party work, both before and since the election, has been so important to give confidence and certainty. Looking ahead, does the Minister have any indication as to when we might expect the inquiry to draw to a close, and what might the mechanism be for doing so?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. The triple lock was a great achievement of the previous Government, and we will be keeping it. From April, pensioners with private pensions as low as £2 a month will be paying income tax for the first time. At last year’s Budget, the Chancellor was clear that extending the freeze on personal allowances would breach Labour’s manifesto commitment. Will the Prime Minister prove the media speculation wrong, keep his promise and guarantee that there will be no extension to the freeze on personal allowances?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q9. I am proud that the last Government introduced the triple lock, and we have committed to keeping it. [ Interruption. ]

• 23 Oct 2025 · Civil Service Recruitment · Hansard source

  More

  Last year, the Government promised us that they were going to slash the size of the civil service, but instead the latest figures showed that the size of the civil service has increased by 7,000 compared with last year. It is not only other Departments that have failed to get a grip: the headcount of the Minister’s own Department is up by 7%. Will the Minister guarantee that when the next set of figures is published, it will show a reduction in the size of the civil service and the size of the Cabinet Office?

• 23 Oct 2025 · Civil Service Recruitment · Hansard source

  More

  I think that the Minister is missing the fact that she is in Government now and has been for well over a year, but the numbers are going up not down, as they promised. The Minister is correct when she says that the civil service must be able to recruit the brightest and the best, but surely she can see that that is not helped when the most senior civil servant, hand-picked by the Prime Minister barely months ago, faces a barrage of media briefings from within Government. Will the Minister and her Department commission an inquiry into the breach of the code of conduct for special advisers following the personal attacks on the Cabinet Secretary, and will she condemn the vicious media briefings that have clearly come from within No.10?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Rape Gangs: National Statutory Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  We have heard what the Minister said about diverse views among victims, but is she concerned that some survivors of these terrible crimes have described the process as a toxic, fearful environment and warned that there is a high risk of people feeling silenced all over again? What is she going to do to reverse that failure?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  On the hon. and learned Gentleman’s claim that the Government are making progress, does he expect the total number of nights spent in hotels by asylum seekers to be higher or lower this year than it was last year?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 16 Oct 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  On 14 March, my constituents Sue and Dave Evans lost their 18-year-old son, who was the passenger in a car being driven by a newly qualified driver. Yesterday, Sue and Dave were in Parliament with the RoadPeace charity to call for graduated driver licensing, to save other families from the devastation of losing loved ones in a preventable accident. When can we expect the Government to bring forward a road safety Bill, so that this House can consider proposals to reduce deaths caused by newly qualified drivers?

• 15 Oct 2025 · Jhoots Pharmacy · Hansard source

  More

  The failure of Jhoots is putting unsustainable pressure on other pharmacies across my constituency, but talks have not even begun on pharmacy funding beyond March of next year. Given the urgent situation with Jhoots, will the Minister review the timescale for those talks so that our pharmacies that are having to pick up this extra work can have some certainty about future funding?

• 15 Oct 2025 · UK Internal Market · Hansard source

  More

  On 26 November last year, the Health Secretary assured this House that the Tobacco and Vapes Bill will apply in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State will know that the age-based sales ban affects the placement of tobacco products on the market and so is potentially in breach of the EU’s tobacco products directive, so can the Secretary of State repeat the Health Secretary’s assurance and also tell us whether the Government have confirmed with the European Union that the ban will stand in Northern Ireland?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Child Poverty Strategy (Removal of Two Child Limit) · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 7 April, with the shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office, I tabled a question to the Minister for the Cabinet Office about updating guidance for Ministers on declaring hospitality and meetings with social media platforms. As this is the last sitting day before the six-month anniversary of tabling that question, may I ask you whether there has been any indication from the Government that they intend either to answer that question on the Floor of this House or to write to me in the near future?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have received hospitality below the threshold from UKHospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association, the Campaign for Real Ale and probably the British Institute of Innkeeping. Hospitality, as has been said, offers more than just a place for food and drink. With Pub is The Hub, I was fortunate to see pubs in Cornwall that offer everything from the last village shop to jobs, clubs and even the village hairdresser and barbers. I think of the venues that provide drop-in sessions to tackle loneliness and isolation in our communities, and I think of all the pubs, cafés and restaurants up and down the country that fund grassroots sports and raise enormous amounts of money for charities and local good causes. That is why the previous Government worked so hard to try to support them. They scrapped Labour’s beer duty escalator. There was a series of freezes and cuts in alcohol duty, and a new draught beer duty differential, so that a pint in a pub always pays less duty than equivalent beer bought in supermarkets. We had 75% business rate relief for hospitality businesses, taking three quarters off their bills. We must not forget the tens of billions of pounds invested in supporting hospitality during the pandemic and as we recovered from the effects of covid. Even though that support made the difference between surviving and going under for many, it was still tight. Many still carry a lot of covid debt and they still need our support. Instead, they have suffered a continuous onslaught of taxes and higher costs caused by Labour’s choices since the election. The changes to national insurance contributions, the national minimum wage and business rates have piled an additional £3.4 billion a year on to businesses, and the Government have hit hospitality businesses that rely on many part-time staff particularly hard. It is no wonder that eight in 10 operators have been forced to raise their prices since April. Business rates more than doubling for a small independent pub or café have meant that thousands of pounds is out of the till before a single pint has been pulled or a single breakfast served. Those are fixed costs that many just cannot meet. Some 69% of businesses are running below required capacity because of staff and cost pressures. One in eight are planning to cut sites and two thirds have cut staff hours. As has been said, the chair of UKHospitality put it plainly last month when she said: “At a time when the country needs jobs, the Government should be encouraging hospitality to grow and create jobs, not tax them out of existence.” As we prepare for the pre-Christmas Budget, we need the Government to take this issue seriously and to take hospitality needs seriously. They need to fix national insurance contributions by raising the threshold, particularly for smaller venues. They should introduce exemptions for young people and returners to work. We need them to reconsider their plans to pile further burdens on small businesses next year. We need them to come good on their promise to reform business rates and make sure that when that reform finally happens, those businesses are paying bills that are lower, not higher than what they were paying last year. Finally, the Government should look at how some flexibility can be added to covid loan repayments so that those loans do not threaten otherwise viable businesses.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the Minister give way?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Infected Blood Inquiry: Additional Report · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and for advance sight of it. On behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, I thank Sir Brian Langstaff for his initial work on the inquiry and for all his follow-up work. This additional report, focusing on compensation, is a significant and thorough piece of work that has been done in good time. Our thanks also go to those working at the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to get the money out to those who desperately need it. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) welcomes the valuable insight that he gained from his recent visit to the team on the ground in Tyneside. Above all, we pay tribute to the victims, the families and the campaigners who have fought relentlessly and bravely on this issue. I have previously raised in the House the concerns of victims and their families about the speed and structure of the compensation scheme. They have been repeatedly frustrated by a failure to speed up payments. Although there are signs that the pace is finally starting to increase, I know that their frustrations remain, and we share them. This scandal happened over decades, under successive Governments of different parties, but we all have a responsibility to do what we can to right the wrongs of the past as quickly as possible, and the Opposition will support the Government when they are doing the right thing in doing so. I have also raised the issue of engagement and called on the Government to further solidify ongoing consultation and communication with victims and their families. It was disappointing to see that, as Sir Brian laid out in his additional report, sufficient progress has not yet been made on that. I welcome the Government’s response on that matter, but I urge them to ensure that that engagement work is carried out rapidly and urgently. Victims and their families deserve real action and, as the additional report makes clear, they have had far too many assurances but not yet enough substantial engagement. I am pleased that the Government are now taking action on some of the issues relating to atypical personal or health impacts and supplementary routes, which I raised when we discussed the infected blood compensation scheme regulations in March. I know that will bring great comfort to many of those who have been infected with the diseases mentioned. I appreciate that the Government are taking forward Sir Brian’s recommendation on a grievances mechanism, and I am certain that across this House we all hope that implementation of this recommendation and the others from the report will meet the terms of reference of Sir Brian’s inquiry and will complete the compensation and resolution process. However, the Government must ensure that this mechanism is an active one, not simply a recording device. While it is incredibly important that lessons are continuously learned from this tragedy, it is also really important that those cases that contain difficulties with regard to compensation eligibility—which we know make up a significant proportion—are addressed as a matter of urgency, and that all such cases, many of which will probably come through this new mechanism, are considered carefully, and that all information on the claim status and decisions made on it are communicated clearly and frequently to the complainant. Above all, learning those lessons must not come at the cost of delaying payments to those who simply cannot afford to wait any longer. To that end, I would appreciate the Minister’s clarity on the number of personnel whom he expects to be tasked with the grievances mechanism and the oversight structure that will be put in place over it. Will that be the advisory board being established and, if so, what specific oversight powers will the advisory board have? We support the Government in taking these measures forward, and we will do what we can as the official Opposition to help these actions be implemented, but it is incredibly important that the Government are clear to this House what measures they are putting in place to ensure that the steps announced here today are carried through and enacted efficiently and effectively. No amount of money can undo the harm that was tragically inflicted on so many, but a comprehensive and effective compensation scheme can offer a lifeline to victims and their families who have suffered far too much for far too long.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Beer Duty · Hansard source

  More

  I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have also received hospitality from CAMRA, the BBPA, UKHospitality and probably the Society of Independent Brewers and Associates. I rise to speak not only as the Member of Parliament for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, but as someone who had the honour of chairing the all-party parliamentary beer group for more than five years. During that time, I worked with colleagues across the House to ensure that our brewers, pubs and beer lovers had a Government that understood their value to communities, our economy and local culture. Under the previous Government, real progress was made on duty. We delivered reforms that simplified beer duty, recognising the unique role that pubs and small brewers play in British life. We implemented draught relief, giving pubs a competitive edge and encouraging the sale of lower-strength beer on tap. Crucially, there was a series of freezes and cuts to beer duty year after year, scrapping Gordon Brown’s damaging beer duty escalator and meaning that, by the time of the last election, the duty paid on a pint of real ale in a pub was lower than it had been 12 years earlier. We embraced the freedoms afforded to us post Brexit to create a more proportionate, strength-based alcohol duty system, designed to support responsible consumption and encourage the production of lower-strength drinks, while putting pubs and licensed premises on a fairer footing compared with supermarkets and off-licences.