Neil Shastri-Hurst MP: speeches

Speeches

• 19 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I fear that I may test your patience a little further on this occasion, Mrs Harris, but I rise to address clause 48. Although much of the Bill aims to modernise and humanise our mental health framework, and in many ways it does so commendably, clause 47 presents not only an opportunity, but a challenge: to ensure that we get the balance right between liberty and protection. The clause will make an amendment to section 72(4) of the Mental Health Act 1983. As the Minister said, it will shift the burden of proof in tribunal proceedings concerning patients who are subject to a guardianship order. Under the current legal framework, it is the patient who must demonstrate that the criteria for guardianship are no longer met, by showing either that they are no longer suffering from a mental disorder or that continued guardianship is no longer necessary for their welfare or the protection of others. Clause 48 would reverse that burden. It would place the onus instead upon the local authority to demonstrate, in the mental health tribunal, that the individual still meets the statutory test. The tribunal would be required to direct a discharge unless the authority can prove otherwise. Let me be clear: I am not opposed to the principle of this reform. On the contrary, I believe that there is a strong case for rebalancing the legal dynamics in favour of the individual, particularly when we reach situations in which their liberty and autonomy are at stake. The principle of least restriction is not, or should not be, merely aspirational; it should be foundational to any mental health regime in a liberal democracy. I say with equal conviction that the practical operation of such a change requires careful thought and adequate resourcing. It must be done under clear legal parameters. Precisely on those fronts, I seek clarification from the Minister and, if I may be so bold, I seek some improvements to this aspect of the Bill. First, we must consider the legal principle at play. A reversal of the burden of proof in this context is not technical or incidental; it marks a constitutional shift in the relationship between the citizen and the state. Traditionally, as the Minister well knows, the burden of proof lies on the party making an assertion that departs from the status quo. In this case, that would ordinarily be the patient applying for discharge from the guardianship. However, when the state exercises more coercive powers—particularly powers that have an impact on an individual’s liberty and private life—it is appropriate that the state be required to justify those powers afresh, especially when challenged. That is the logic that clause 48 seeks to embrace. In broad terms, as I say, I support it. The approaches are reinforced by our obligations under article 5 of the European convention on human rights, which protects the right to liberty and security of the person. It is clear that any deprivation of liberty must be justified not just initially, but on an ongoing basis. Jurisprudence from Strasbourg has repeatedly emphasised that periodic review mechanisms must be substantive and not merely procedural in nature. The state must show continuing justification and must not rely on past assessments or presumptions in its favour. Clause 48 helps us to move closer to compliance with those principles, but the legislation, as drafted, does leave some important questions unanswered. What, precisely, is the standard of proof that local authorities must meet? Is it the civil standard on the balance of probabilities, or is it something higher, given the gravity of what is at stake? If we are to take this shift seriously, we must also give tribunals clear statutory guidance on how to interpret the new burden. Otherwise, we will fall into the trap of risking inconsistency in decision making, confusion among professionals and a potential increase in appeals and legal challenges. Secondly, and crucially, I would like to press the Minister on the question of practical implementation. Changing the legal burden is not merely a matter of legislative drafting; it requires a systematic adjustment in how evidence is gathered, how professionals prepare for tribunal hearings, and how decisions are reviewed internally within local authorities. As hon. Members will know, local authorities are already operating under intense financial and operational pressures. Mental health social workers are often working with caseloads that stretch the limits of what may be considered reasonable. Legal teams within councils are often overstretched and under-resourced; if we now place them under a legal obligation to present a comprehensive, evidentially sound case for continued guardianship—perhaps at multiple intervals across an individual’s care pathway—we must ensure that they are adequately supported to do so. What assessment have the Government made of the financial and operational impact of clause 48? Will local authorities receive new funding to enable them to meet that duty? Will social care professionals receive specific training on the evidential requirements now expected of them? Without such support, we risk not only undermining the intent of the clause, but creating a perverse outcome in which discharges may occur not because the patient no longer meets the criteria, but because the local authority lacks the capacity to make the evidential case in time. I also caution against the risk of overcorrection. Although I fully support the principle that individuals should not bear an unfair evidential burden, we must not move so far in the other direction that we weaken the legitimate protective mechanisms that should be in place. Guardianship is not detention; it is a community-based measure designed to provide oversight and structure for individuals who may struggle to live independently due to serious mental illness. It is used infrequently and only where strictly necessary.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I ask for a series of clarifications from the Minister about all three clauses. On clause 51, how will the courts be supported in identifying community-based alternatives to remand? What training or guidance will be provided to judges in applying the provisions effectively? What assurances can the Minister give that support pathways will be available before and after the changes have taken effect? I accept that clause 52 is a technical a change to the legislation, but it is an important clarification none the less. It will require some robust co-ordination between jurisdictions and clearer procedural safeguards. How will the Government monitor the implementation of proposed new schedule A2 to ensure that patients’ rights are preserved during transfers? Will guidance be issued to courts and practitioners in the UK and the Crown dependencies about the new procedures, particularly their cross-jurisdictional nature? What consultation has taken place, and will continue to take place, with authorities in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man before the measures are implemented in law? Finally, I recognise that clause 53 is arguably a sensible safeguard. The challenge will be to ensure compliance on the frontline, especially where legal duties to share information and duties to protect confidentiality can butt against some degree of tension. With that in mind, what support or training will be given to health and care professionals to navigate overlapping legal duties? Will the Minister publish sector-specific guidance on data sharing as a consequence of the Bill? How will the Government assess whether the legal framework strikes the right balance between patient safety and privacy?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in support of clauses 36 to 40, which provide critical legal clarification and technical refinements to the 1993 Act. While differing in scope and impact, each of these provisions is underpinned by a clear shared commitment to enhance public protection, uphold patient rights, and ensure that the legal framework reflects both current clinical practice and developments in case law. Let me begin with clause 36, which addresses a long-standing lacuna in the legislative architecture governing conditionally discharged restricted patients. It follows the 2018 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Secretary of State of Justice v. MM, where it became clear that the existing Mental Health Act did not permit the imposition of conditions amounting to a deprivation of liberty as part of conditional discharge. The decision created uncertainty for clinicians, tribunals and, most crucially, risk-managed patients living in the community. It is therefore pleasing to see that clause 36 seeks to address that gap. The clause introduces new statutory powers for both the Secretary of State and the first-tier tribunal, in respect of imposing deprivation of liberty conditions in the community. It does so with some stringent safeguards.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes a very valid point. There is that mechanism, but this is also about ensuring that the quality of the information that has been imparted—not just the process of it being done—is recorded. An audit process must ensure that the important conversations and information are imparted in a way that the patient and their family understand, in sufficient detail and as part of a process whereby, if there are concerns or doubts, they can be addressed in a ready manner. I take his point that there are metrics by which to measure things, but it is not just about capturing data; it is about capturing quality data in order to ensure that that is being fulfilled. To pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury about regional variability, consistency across the board is important not only in the regions, but in the delivery methods and capacity that underpin this crucial service. Finally, on potential confusion and legal information being communicated in inaccessible ways, it is important that legalese does not get in the way of clarity for individuals who will have to navigate the information. I am interested to hear the Minister’s views on how we can ensure that the information is imparted in an accessible way for all those concerned—importantly, not just for patients and their families, but for clinicians who have to impart the information. They need to feel comfortable navigating their way around what can often be a complex set of regulations and legislation. Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.— (Taiwo Owatemi.)

• 17 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. We all know, from our casework or personal experiences outside of this place, about the pressures on the Courts and Tribunals Service. Mental health tribunals are not exempt from that pressure. Changing the timeframe on which tribunals operate, and the frequency with which reviews take place, will inevitably increase the burden on the service. Therefore, although these changes are broadly welcome, it is important that we are cognisant of their impact on the resources that will be required, the number of judges and wing members that will be needed, and of course the hard standing of the court and tribunal infrastructure that will need to be made available. Other issues, such as those around the digitalisation of the service, will also need to be addressed. Clause 31 will recast the regime for automatic tribunal referrals, replacing the prior six-month structure with the concept of “a relevant period”. For detained patients, referrals will now occur at three months, then 12 months, and annually thereafter. For community patients, they will occur at six months, then 12 months, then annually. Most significantly, hospital managers will be under a new duty to refer a case when no review has occurred in 12 months, regardless of whether an application has been made. That is a sound reform. The clause will introduce coherence to a previously fragmented system, and establishes a minimum standard of legal oversight. The inclusion of a backstop provision—that no individual should go more than 12 months without review—is essential. In a system in which patients may not always have the means or capacity to apply for a review themselves, it offers a critical safety net. Clause 31 will also repeal section 68A of the 1983 Act, which has become unwieldy and duplicative. By streamlining the referral process, the Bill enhances legal clarity and administrative efficiency, but I would caution that the increased complexity of the new timeframes may require significant training of those responsible for their implementation. Clause 32 will provide for restricted patients who are subject to deprivation of liberty conditions. It goes further than clause 30 by imposing mandatory referral duties on the Secretary of State. Under the clause, a tribunal must be convened after 12 months, every two years thereafter, and at four years if no review has occurred. Crucially, the clause also codifies the tribunal’s powers. It may now vary or impose conditions, including those that constitute a deprivation of liberty, provided that they are necessary to protect the public from serious harm and are no more restrictive than hospital detention. That clause introduces a principled, proportionate framework for balancing public protection with patient liberty, and avoids vague or discretionary use of such powers. Finally, clause 33 will apply the same principles to restricted patients not subject to deprivation of liberty orders. Such individuals, although under fewer constraints, are none the less subject to significant legal orders. The new requirement for a tribunal review at two years, and every four years thereafter, ensures that oversight is regular and non-discriminatory. All four clauses are united by a clear objective to rationalise tribunal access, enhance procedural safeguards and bring the Mental Health Act into alignment with modern standards of fairness and proportionality. However, I will close with a caveat: rights without resourcing are hollow. If we are to place greater demand on the tribunals service, and to rely on it as the guardian of liberty for thousands of individuals, it must be adequately funded, staffed and supported. Legal representation must be accessible. Tribunal members must be properly trained. Hospital managers must be equipped to meet their new responsibilities. With those reservations, I broadly welcome clauses 30 to 33 as a necessary recalibration of our mental health law. They reflect the dignity of the individual, the demands of public safety, and the enduring principle that no one should be deprived of liberty without fair or timely review.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I rise to speak briefly to clause 7, which in many ways is a tidying up of the other changes in the Bill to ensure alignment. In that sense, it is a necessary part of this legislation. For too long, mental health tribunals, which have an important function, have been operating under criteria that are too broad. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth pointed out, that can lead to inconsistencies with modern clinical practice. It is therefore right that we move to clearer, more risk-based criteria to ensure that detention is maintained only where absolutely necessary. There are obvious reasons behind that, such as to ensure greater consistency in tribunal decision making and strong safeguards to ensure that patients are only detained or kept under community treatment orders when absolutely necessary. I want to pick up some of the arguments my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth was developing around the demands on the tribunal service. The Minister will be well aware of the challenges facing the court and tribunal system in this country. If, as anticipated, this will lead to an increase in the number of hearings—both in first instance and potentially in appeal—what assessment has been made as to the number of not only judges, but wing members that will be required to facilitate this process? What has been determined regarding the capacity of the resources of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service—in terms of not only physical hard standing, but the vital role that clerks and tribunal staff play in ensuring that hearings are done in a timely manner and the paperwork is completed consistently? Thirdly, what is the expectation of the sustainability of that workload as the Bill comes into fruition? I pick up on that in particular, because, given the transition arrangements that appear to be within the legislation, this will be a retrospective as well as a prospective change. I would be grateful if the Minister in summing up could address those issues.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right. An individual can attend an emergency department to be assessed and be seen by a doctor before a decision is made on whether that patient should be admitted to that hospital, transferred to a tertiary centre or discharged back into the community. New clause 24 seeks to provide clarity and certainty for practitioners on that grey area and, crucially, it seeks to provide a safeguard for patients who have yet to be formally admitted to an institution—a hospital, community placement or wherever—but need a crucial intervention.

• 22 May 2025 · Independent Sentencing Review · Hansard source

  More

  Public confidence in the criminal justice system—and, importantly, the confidence of victims—is paramount. Since 2010, the use of community-based orders has decreased by 61%. That is in no small part because of concerns about offender engagement in the process. If the Government are going to pursue this route, what steps has the Lord Chancellor taken to model how many will reoffend and, more importantly, that they will be rigorously reinforced?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to you, Chair, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate for her intervention. She is right: it is absolutely critical that patients are given the full information in order to make an informed choice. I do not think any of us would disagree with that. But actually that goes entirely with the wording of the Bill as it stands. The hon. Member for Stroud has already highlighted the relevant provision—clause (4)(4)(c), which states that the initial discussion must explain and discuss with the patient “any available palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support.” Therefore a requirement to have those discussions is already stipulated in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate makes an interesting point about who has that discussion. But are we saying that only a palliative care specialist is capable of having those discussions? Of course, those who work in the field are highly trained individuals, but we must not be unfair or do a huge disservice to other healthcare practitioners who provide excellent palliative care in this country. My father was a general practitioner for more than 40 years. He provided a huge amount of palliative care throughout his career, both in the community and in hospices. Look at Marie Curie’s own website, which talks about the provision of palliative care in this country and very much about primary care provision and secondary care provision. Within secondary care, of course, are the specialists—clinical nurse specialists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists; I could go on. But of course, as the hon. Member for Stroud will know particularly well given his former profession, there is another body of general practitioners, community nurses, district nurses, advanced nurse practitioners, pharmacists and social workers, who are all involved in this process. I think the amendment comes from a good place; at first blush, I can see absolutely where it is coming from. But despite that, it leads us down the bureaucratic thicket that Chris Whitty spoke about.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Dr Fellingham, to circle back to the issue of training, could you go into more detail about what the initial training consists of—the nature of it and the number of hours—and how that compares with the refresher training? What is the system for mentorship, supervision, appraisal and continuing professional development requirements? Dr Fellingham: It is important to reflect that only people who are at quite a significant point through their own specialty careers are eligible to become assisted dying practitioners in this country. For instance, I was a consultant anaesthetist and I had already been practising for more than a year. I had lived experience of caring for patients both living and dying, both anticipated and unexpectedly, over a career spanning more than 10 years, before I came to the point of assisted dying. To become eligible to offer assisted dying, I then had to undertake training developed in a special package by the Queensland University of Technology. That training package takes about two days to complete and there is an exam at the end before someone can become eligible. The exam has a 95% pass rate. Once someone has qualified with that training, they are offered the opportunity to give their details to the state-wide care navigator service. The vast majority of people opt to do that. Once they do that, they basically become engaged in this incredibly supportive, collaborative and nurturing multidisciplinary team within a professional organisation that, in our state, covers all the assisted dying practitioners—the doctors—but also the care navigators, the pharmacy service, the individual voluntary assisted dying programme managers and the end of life choices co-ordinators, who exist in all our hospital systems. Because we are all consultants in our own specialties, there is not the same level of supervisory oversight as we would give to junior doctors—there are not forms that we fill in; we do not accredit one another—but we do acknowledge that we are all learning and growing in this space. These are new laws: even the oldest in Australia has only been going for five years. Every single one of us is motivated from a place of wanting to support, collaborate, grow and learn from one another, and ensure that the care we are offering to people in this challenging space is of the absolute highest quality. We have a really robust community of practice. We meet monthly. Half those meetings are online to allow our regional practitioners to join, and half of them are face to face. They are extremely well-attended closed sessions where, especially over the time that we have developed relationships with one another, we find an incredibly supportive space to share our experiences and to learn, grow and develop from one another. In terms of CPD, we all have to maintain our professional registration. I have both general and specialist registration with our supervisory body, which is like the General Medical Council. I complete my mandatory CPD requirements each year, as per my specialist college. On top of that, I have just redone the refresher training, which is once every three years. That is just what was mandated in our state. If someone has not done VAD practice, they have to do the whole thing again. That is only for people who have been active in this space. That training is shorter—it is about half a day—but it is really a reflection of what we are doing on a weekly basis. We are living and breathing this work, and really strongly collaborating with everybody else who does it.

• 27 Jan 2025 · A&E Services: Solihull Borough · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for bringing this debate to the Chamber. Being neighbouring MPs, he and I have worked very closely on this issue. He notes the size of Solihull borough; of course, with the Government’s housing plans, that is likely to increase significantly, almost touching a quarter of a million. Does he agree that in those circumstances, it is absolutely critical that we have an A&E provision within the borough to serve the community?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, commend the hon. Member for Spen Valley for her efforts in pulling together this list; it is an unenviable task, given the number of contributions that were made. It is important that we do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. There is a wide range of individuals and organisations that we would all benefit from hearing from, but given the time available to the Committee—which is much more extensive than most private Members’ Bills have, by some margin—we are not in a position to hear oral evidence from all of them. But there is an open invitation for everyone to contribute written evidence and for us, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire noted, to speak to engaged parties outside the Committee to feed into our thought processes and deliberations. On the amendments tabled, I understand the reasons for amendment (b) on the Royal College of Psychiatrists, but I have to say that I disagree. The hon. Member for Bradford West said it was about coercion. I could understand if she were making an argument that we need to hear from the Royal College of Surgeons about the issue of capacity, so I do not think that this is universally confined to psychiatrists; it is something, as a surgeon, I dealt with every day when I was getting consent for operations. We have to think about how we get a wide range of opinions on the subject: we have the Chief Medical Officer, who can comment on such issues from a policy perspective; we have the BMA, which I am sure will send representatives who will be most able to deal with the questions that are to be asked; and, of course, we have the General Medical Council, which is the ultimate regulator and arbitrator of this issue. The Committee is also about ensuring that this legislation is as fit and as robust as possible when it goes back to the House for consideration. That is where I think that having a legislator from a jurisdiction in which this has been implemented is crucial. Not having the member for Sydney in the New South Wales Parliament—where they have implemented this, and have dealt with some of the thorny issues that the Committee and subsequently the House will have to deal with—would be a mistake. Likewise, having more geriatricians and palliative care physicians is a better balance than having those with some other expertise—well-meaning as they may be, they are not necessarily dealing with this at the coalface. I do not support the amendments for those reasons.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Exemptions · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. At the outset, I must declare a personal financial interest in relation to this issue. There is a multiplicity of reasons why the Government plan to impose a 20% VAT levy on private education is a fundamentally poor choice. It plays to the idle trope that independent schools are the preserve of the privileged and the wealthy when, as many of my own constituents will attest, that is simply not the case. It is a policy that lacks nuance in its pursuit of an ideological desire to level down rather than lift up the standard of education across the board. The detrimental effect of this ill-conceived policy is nowhere better illustrated than in the cohort of pupils whose parents are in receipt of continuity of education allowance. CEA is critical for military and diplomatic service families, who need boarding schools to provide a stable education. A societal and moral contract exists between the state and our military, a golden thread that runs through our society and binds the two together. The Government’s proposals threaten not just to shake that bond, but to break it. To date, the Government have provided no assurances that the policy will exempt those service families in receipt of CEA. Combine with that the rushed decision to implement the plan by January 2025, and it is little wonder that service families are deeply distressed by the ongoing uncertainty. If the Government fail to grip the situation, the cost of a suitable education for many armed forces children will become unaffordable. Many parents will be forced to withdraw their children from the school they currently attend and, in the worst-case scenario, many will make the decision that service life is no longer compatible with their family and leave, risking our national security. By failing to act with competence, the Government are failing to uphold the contract between the state and our armed forces. My request to the Minister is to provide the service community with reassurances that they will not be left high and dry.

• 7 Oct 2024 · NHS Performance: Darzi Investigation · Hansard source

  More

  May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) on her deeply affectionate speech? Her constituency is a place that is close to my heart, my grandparents having resided in Claygate for a number of years. I also congratulate the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), and I am sure his father would be hugely proud of how he spoke with great affection for his home constituency. On 5 July this year, 76 years to the day since the NHS came into being, my mother was involved in a serious road traffic accident. But for the skill and care of the health service, she may well not have survived. Many of those who cared for her were my former colleagues in the major trauma service at University Hospitals Birmingham. I know that the care they provided was not an exception; it was not a case of going a little further for a former colleague. No, this was yet another example of the brilliant and dedicated care that our healthcare professionals provide every day. While we rightly acknowledge and praise the endeavours of all our healthcare workers, we must not put the NHS on such a pedestal that it becomes a sacred cow. While we can all appreciate the hard work and dedication of our NHS staff, it would be unwise and a mistake to construe those same workers and the institution as one and the same thing. There is a real risk that such a religious fervour develops around the institution of the NHS that its growth and development are stifled. We have reached a point where any constructive criticism of the organisation is deemed to be levelling the same criticism at the staff who keep the wheels grinding through every shift. The NHS was built to provide episodic acute care. Now it is heavily dominated by the management and treatment of chronic conditions. The hospital-centric model that presently exists is arguably outdated, and a paradigm shift to a more preventive, community-based model should be pursued. For far too long it has been the workforce who have risen to the challenge, rather than the organisational structure itself. The principle that our health service should care for everyone regardless of their personal wealth is profoundly important. To undermine that would be to disrupt the foundations upon which it is built. However, we would be doing the NHS a disservice if we failed to have an honest debate about how we improve it. In the short time that I have remaining, I wish to raise the issue of the over-centralisation of decision making. We have ended up in a position where clinicians and managers on the frontline are less empowered and trusted to make decisions and deliver for their patients. Too many decisions are made at the centre, which leads to overly complicated and often conflicting layers of approval and process. Ultimately, by enabling risk to be held by other parts of the system, local decision makers will be more empowered, decisions will be made in a more timely manner and a greater sense of trust will be established.

• 5 Sept 2024 · SEND Provision · Hansard source

  More

  I will not give way, purely because of the amount I have to get through in the time. Aside from family members, children spend most of their developing lives with their teachers. It is important that the teaching curriculum is sufficiently flexible to enable children to reach their true potential. I would also like to make special reference to those military families whose children suffer from special educational needs. Having served in the military myself, I know of several families who have encountered adverse effects as a result. With regular school moves, often between different local authorities, there is an inevitable need to reapply for an EHCP, thereby delaying access to the provision that is so desperately needed. My final request to the Minister comes as no surprise: to achieve all these improvements, it is important that local authorities receive the funding they need. In particular, I ask that my own council receive its fair share of funding, because Solihull council presently takes in SEND children from Birmingham but receives much less funding per pupil. That matter needs to be rectified. Those three things—awareness, training and funding—will have a real, tangible impact on young people, their families and their life chances.

• 24 Jul 2024 · Education and Opportunity · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I start by congratulating you on your election, and on taking up the Chair today? May I also congratulate those on the Government Front Bench on taking up the burden of ministerial office? I wish them the best of success with that. It is with no little pride and a great sense of honour that I rise to give my maiden speech in this House. I am indebted to my constituents for sending me to this place, and I will do my utmost to ensure that I repay the faith that they have put in me. It is a particular pleasure to follow so many excellent maiden speeches over the last few days. I would like to commend the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for his magnificent speech. His constituency is a place that I hold dear, having trained at the Royal Military Academy, and I wish him well in his stewardship of it. I think he will make a great contribution to this House. My constituency is Solihull West and Shirley. Like many others, it was newly created following the boundary review. While it is very much based on the old Solihull seat, the wards of Silhill and Elmdon have moved into the new Meriden and Solihull East constituency. In return, Blythe ward has moved into mine, joining Olton, Lyndon, St Alphege and Shirleys West, South and East. Therefore, I have not one but, technically, two predecessors. As I have alluded to, Blythe ward was represented in the last Parliament by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti). I am delighted to join him in this place, and I thank him for his support and help over the last few weeks. Julian Knight served as the Member of Parliament for Solihull for nine years. He gave particular service as Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I am sure that hon. Members on all sides of the House will join me in wishing the whole Knight family the very best for the future. I also pay tribute to Julian’s predecessors in this place. Lorely Burt is still held in great affection by residents, who remember her as a proactive constituency Member of Parliament. The late John Taylor, an avuncular man, was Solihull through and through, and he is fondly remembered for his dedication to public service. His widow, Ann, is still a stalwart of the local community. Before John came a fellow member of the Bar, Percy Grieve QC. Famously, Percy once had the campaign slogan “Grieve for Solihull”. I am delighted to tell the House that there is no need to grieve for Solihull any longer. For those hon. and right hon. Members who have not had the good fortune of visiting Solihull West and Shirley, we may be compact, being a mere 40 sq km in area, but we pack a good punch. We are a diverse community, welcoming to all. We benefit from our confluence of cultures, which serve to create a greater societal bond. Together, we are greater than the sum of our parts. I am particularly proud that several thousand Hong Kong British nationals overseas have chosen to make the area their home. The land now forming Solihull West and Shirley was once covered by the ancient forest of Arden on the banks of the River Blythe. The earliest settlement in the area can be dated back to the iron age. The density of the forest of Arden was such that even the Romans found it impenetrable, for throughout the Roman occupation of these isles it was held that no Roman roads passed through it. By the time of the Anglo-Saxons, the forest of Arden was part of the kingdom of Mercia. A clearing in the woods was established, and the settlement of the manor of Ulverlei was founded. It is here that the town of Shirley now sits, the name Shirley meaning a bright clearing. The town of Solihull is thought to take its name from the site of the stunning Arden church of Saint Alphege, which can be dated back to the 13th century and was built on a mound of marl. This soily hill gave rise to the name Solihull. Of course, over the years the two towns have changed somewhat. They are a bustling centre for business and enterprise. We are the home of the Touchwood Centre, we have fantastic businesses such as Gymshark, and nearby Jaguar Land Rover remains a significant employer for many of my constituents, and a major economic driver for the local area. We are blessed with good and outstanding schools, providing our young people with the skills and opportunities to succeed in life. Through the enterprise and leadership of the local council and the former West Midlands mayor, Andy Street, there has been an ambitious brownfield-first housing policy, delivering sustainable homes for the future while protecting the green belt. However, while many will associate Solihull West and Shirley with prosperity, there are pockets of deprivation, and I will therefore work tirelessly to ensure that those parts of the constituency have the investment and opportunities to shine in the years to come. When you first enter this place, it is impossible not to be struck by the history that comes before you. It makes you reflect upon your own place in the annals of time. There have been many doctors who have entered this House before. There are several of us in this new intake alone. There have been a number of soldiers who have stood up and served again—indeed, there is almost a platoon of us entering the House for the first time. And as for lawyers—well, frankly, we could be an extension of the Inns of Court. However, it struck me the first time I entered this place that there was a chance that I might be the first Member to have done all three. And that rather flatters the ego. Well, how wrong could I have been? Like the bubbles burst in the back garden by my young son George, my illusions were quickly burst. A former Member for Wimbledon, Charles Goodson-Wickes, had done all this before, and he added being chairman of the Countryside Alliance to boot. So, alas, my place in the history books will have to wait, for the time being. I do hope, however, that my professional experiences will allow me to contribute effectively to this place on behalf of the people of Solihull West and Shirley—by being a critical friend on the issue of health and social care, so that we improve patient outcomes; by protecting the rule of law and ensuring access to justice; and by upholding the military covenant, and continuing the commendable work of the former member for Plymouth, Moor View, who is sadly no longer in this place, and others to ensure that Britain is the best place in the world to be a veteran. I am painfully aware of the good fortune and opportunities I have had in life. I have benefited from a loving family and been provided with the opportunities to fulfil my potential. Sadly, that is not the case for all, so during the course of my time in this House I will seek to champion the early years agenda, so that we give young people the best chance in life. I will also seek to work with Members from across the House to improve SEND provision in this country, so that we can move the conversation away from the level of disability and focus instead on the level of intervention, and ensure that every child can access the curriculum and achieve their potential, irrespective of the hurdles they face, because it is only by investing in our young people that we invest in our society. Those of us who choose to enter the political arena have a duty to conduct ourselves with tolerance, dignity and respect. These are the values that the public rightly expect of us, and in this, my maiden speech, I make a promise to my constituents that these are the values that I will uphold for as long as they are gracious enough to send me to this place.