Neil Shastri-Hurst MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Brilliant organisations such as citizenAID, which was co-founded by two of my former bosses, Major General Tim Hodgetts and Professor Sir Keith Porter, provide brilliant education about civil resilience and emergency preparedness. In an increasingly uncertain world, will the Leader of the House commit to Government time for a debate on that really important issue, so that we are upskilling our citizens in case of serious incidents?

• 24 Jun 2025 · National Security Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Given the scale of foreign-influence operations, particularly those of China, does the Minister accept that Britain’s societal resilience remains far too limited? Without clear Government messaging, how can institutions or the public properly play their role? Will the Minister commit to expanding the defending democracy taskforce to include public education, support for free media, and curbing People’s Liberation Army-linked speakers at taxpayer funded events?

• 28 Apr 2025 · School Costs and Employer’s National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister solve this equation? VAT is pushing more students into the state sector and increases in national insurance are squeezing staff budgets, yet the Government say their ambition is to improve school standards and staff retention. How does that add up?

• 28 Apr 2025 · School Costs and Employer’s National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  10. What estimate she has made of the potential impact of increases in employer’s national insurance contributions on the number of teachers employed in schools.

• 27 Feb 2025 · War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this important debate, and saluting him for the incredible work he has done in leading on this issue. As always, it is hugely heartening to see so many colleagues from across the House in the Chamber. It serves as a timely reminder of the united approach that we have taken on this issue and of our resolute and undiminished support for the Ukrainian people. In my constituency, we have welcomed many Ukrainian families, and I am always touched and moved by their stories of resilience in the face of the greatest hardship. Many Members have spoken before me—not just in this debate, but through the course of the week—about the importance of the Government’s welcome announcement of increased defence spending and the need for our allies also to step up to the plate. While I do not intend to repeat those arguments today, I will add that we alone do not determine our defence spending: it is our enemies too, but it is also our allies. With the United States announcing a potential step back from their support for Ukraine, it is clear that we as a nation have an overriding obligation not only to Ukraine but to our citizens and the wider world to step up and keep Putin’s war machine at bay. If we fail to do so, we will be opening the gates to totalitarian regimes across the world. The reality is that the United Kingdom has armed forces that are fit for peace. However, over the past eight months or so, we have entered a much more dangerous arena, and we need to be ready for any outcome. In the time available to me, I want to raise two further points. First, I reiterate the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green on the increasingly pressing need to release the $300 billion in frozen Russian assets to aid the Ukrainian Government in the rebuilding of their country. Secondly, I want to pick up on my right hon. Friend’s comments about what we can and must learn as an armed forces from this conflict and from the heroic efforts of the Ukrainian military, with many making the ultimate sacrifice in defence of the sovereignty of their country. The war has shown a clear shift in the nature of warfare and in the nature of each serving person’s working realities. War is now in a much more hybrid state, fought not only in traditional land and maritime realms, but back in bases in remote locations, yet we still follow traditional medical guidelines setting out who can serve and who does not have the opportunity to do so. This where I feel we can learn from Ukraine, which, very early on in the conflict, amended and adjusted many of the medical requirements for its serving personnel. In our military, there is often a mindset of “soldier first”, which may well exempt someone who has suffered a knee injury while playing sport at school, anyone with Raynaud’s phenomenon, for example, or anyone wearing glasses over a certain prescription. Rather than making a generic medical exemption list for the whole force, I invite the Minister at least to consider tailoring the medical requirements to the position being applied for. For example, what are the chances of a person’s glasses being blown off if they are operating from a chair in a drone centre hundreds of miles away? What is the reality of an intelligence officer in a remote location looking at satellite information losing the feeling in their fingers due to the cold because of Raynaud’s phenomenon? What are the chances of a Royal Navy dental officer not being able to complete a check-up because of pain in his knee? We need to be much more flexible. Although I accept that there is a certain degree of hyperbole in my argument, the point I am making is a serious one. If we are to turn the tide on our recruitment policy and difficulties in this country, we need to tailor the medical requirements to the specific role. We must become more versatile and adaptive as a fighting force—like our friends in Ukraine. As a country, we are often guilty of preparing for the war that we have had, rather than the war that we will face in the future. As we reflect on the three years since Putin’s illegal invasion, I say to the Government that we should not waste any more time or waste what we have learned at the cost of so many thousand Ukrainian lives.

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

  More

  I fear that my hon. Friend may be oversimplifying what I was saying. Perhaps I was not clear enough, so I will elucidate. I was certainly not suggesting that the required skills were merely those of being able to have a consultation and a conversation. I was talking about having the skills to have the information that needs to be imparted and the knowledge that underpins that and being able to articulate that within a consultation. It is a much wider picture than just having the communication skills—it is having the knowledge that underpins that. I am saying that that is not necessarily the domain only of someone who works in palliative care. There are a number of specialists who work within this field—it is a multidisciplinary field—and they all bring their expertise. The issue is about ensuring that anybody having these conversations has the knowledge base to conduct them properly.

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

  More

  I am grateful for the hon. Member’s intervention, which leads on to the point I was going to make. We are getting bogged down in nomenclature about what speciality is involved when this is actually about training. It is about whether the individual having the conversation has the requisite skills to have a meaningful conversation. Clauses 5(3)(a) and 8(6)(a) stipulate that the co-ordinating doctor or independent doctor “has such training, qualifications and experience as the Secretary of State may specify by regulations”. That is the key part. This is about ensuring that people having incredibly sensitive, challenging and difficult conversations with patients about choices available to them at the end of life have the requisite skills and knowledge to do so. That may not be applicable to each and every general practitioner, but those having those conversations should have that knowledge.

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

  More

  The hon. Member makes a valid point. The reality is that, regardless of specialty title, there will be individuals who are better placed to have certain conversations and discuss certain issues than others. I look back at my own clinical practice: some colleagues would have had a better bedside manner than others, for example. I do not think this comes down to the name of the specialty; it comes down to the underpinning skills and knowledge. That is the point I am trying to make. We can get bogged down by saying, “Everybody has to see a palliative care specialist”. Of course, that is open to people: if they wish to have a referral to a palliative care specialist, they can see one. However, as the hon. Member for Stroud said, some people may not want that. We cannot be removing the autonomy of patients when their decision-making process is that they choose not to engage with that. They may want to speak to their GP because they have had a relationship with them over 30 or 40 years and have the patient-doctor relationship that is so important when dealing with these important discussions. Perhaps they would feel less comfortable having that discussion with a clinician they had just met for the very first time.

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

  More

  I do not think that offends the principle at all. Whether I was working within the NHS or the private sector, if a patient requested an onward referral to a different specialist, I would action that. If I did not have the requisite skills or knowledge, or felt that they would be better served by a different speciality, I would refer on to another clinician. I do not see how it would be treated any differently in the NHS than it would be privately. I am afraid that I do not follow that argument.

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

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. She makes a number of points. First, may I say that I am sorry about her own health issues? I think she hit the nail on the head when she said that the GP may not be able to offer that service. For instance, take shoulder injections. Some GPs can do a shoulder injection with steroids; some will refer to the hospital for it. My father was a GP who could do them, but others would have referred to me when I was an orthopaedic surgeon and I would have done them in clinic. This will not be right for every single general practitioner; the issue is about having a cohort of general practitioners who have the skill and ability, and about having a flexible system that works for patients. It all circles back to the training point. The individuals who do this have to have the requisite skills. That, of course, will be set down in regulation. The other point that the hon. Member for Bradford West made is that clause 4(4)(c) says that any clinician having that discussion must be able to explain “any available palliative, hospice or other care.” It therefore follows that if the clinician is unable to do that because of a lack of skill or knowledge, they should refer on to somebody who can do it. That is the fundamental principle of having informed consent and discussion with patients. If a clinician cannot provide that information, they ask for somebody who can. That was not uncommon in my practice: if I had something that was outside of my area of knowledge or specialist interest, I would refer it to a colleague. That is how those conversations take place. The Bill as it stands allows that flexibility for patients without confining them. But it gives them the very welcome option of a palliative care referral; that is entirely open to them—it is not closed off from them. Of course, they will be fed into the palliative care route anyway, following the trigger of their terminal diagnosis. They will be going on the journey, and having further conversations around their end of life care. Those are the points that I wish to make.

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

  More

  Q My question is directed to Dr Mulholland. Thank you to the Royal College of General Practitioners for the helpful written evidence. I want to pick up on something in it, which is summarised in paragraph 6 but gone into in more detail in paragraph 7, and that is around the refusal of practitioners to engage in the assisted dying process. I note the wording that has been used by the Royal College, which is that GPs and any other healthcare professionals can refuse “on any ground”. That is distinct from the Abortion Act 1967, which in section 4(1) sets out that it can be a conscientious objection. Can you explain why you have decided to take what appears to be a broader expansion of that definition, and why you have chosen that particular wording? Dr Mulholland: We are aware that we have a range of views in RCGP across general practitioners. Some of them have very strong views for or against based on moral grounds, and some of those are based on religious grounds—traditional conscientious objection grounds. But others do not want to take part in assisted dying just because they do not want to; they do not feel it is part of what being a GP is, or part of what they trained for. In discussion with colleagues today, someone shared with me that for 35 years they have spent their time trying to extend the life of patients—that has been our role—and to help them towards the end of life. It is a philosophical change if they start to think about whether the patient’s life should end earlier. There are some colleagues who may decide that for those reasons, they do not want to take part in this. There will be others who very definitely do. We have that range, so we feel that a doctor or a health professional should have the right not to take part on any ground, and that should be protected—they should not feel the obligation to do something that they do not feel is within their wishes.

• 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.

• 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.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted to see that you are proudly wearing the newly formed Royal Army Medical Service tie, Mr Speaker. In Solihull West and Shirley, the new year has been welcomed by increases in bus fares and reductions in services. In places such as Cheswick Green, people are faced with choosing between either more expensive and difficult journeys or not being able to get to work, the shops or college. Given the Government’s stated ambitions, what assessment has the Minister made of the economic impact of the policy?

• 11 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  A particular subset of pupils affected by this policy are those in receipt of the continuity of education allowance. The revised figures for the CEA, released recently, do not fully protect those pupils from the uplift on VAT on school fees. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of this policy on retention and recruitment into our armed forces and our diplomatic service?

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) on her excellent maiden speech? Not only will her daughter have been inspired by her words, but so too will countless other young women. I must declare a personal financial interest in relation to independent school fees. I want to start by telling a story of aspiration, sacrifice and hard work. This story was told to me by a parent who is going into Christmas feeling devastated. They have worked tirelessly, missing valuable time with their child, and sacrificing holidays and any form of luxury because of an aspiration to give their child an education that otherwise would have been out of reach. This parent said to me, “I am not a rich person; I hustle every day to make the money I need to send my child to this school.” This parent will now see all those sacrifices come to nothing, as her child faces the upheaval of moving schools in the middle of the academic year. Let us imagine that child’s first day in their new state school, their school year having been disrupted, and their efforts to catch up on the missed learning as a consequence of being forced to change schools part way through the academic year. They join 35,000 other students across the country who are expected to do the same as a consequence of this policy. Their classroom sizes swell as the promise of 6,500 new teachers remains years away from becoming a reality, and the school struggles to stretch its existing budget to accommodate the new intake. There are not enough textbooks, computers or teachers. Let us imagine the child with special educational needs and disabilities. Their routine having been overhauled, they start to fall behind in their class. Despite the very best efforts of their teachers, who want to provide the extra support so desperately needed, they simply do not have the bandwidth. The consequences of that are children’s future prospects slipping through their fingers every day, because the school they now attend has not been adequately resourced for the arrival of them and their fellow new classmates. Imagine being the parents of these children. They are not rich; they just want the best for their child. As a consequence of one ill-conceived, ideologically driven policy, that dream has been snatched away, with no consideration of the impact it will have on families, on schools and on teachers, who will be left redundant. While the Government speak of a hope to bring aspiration to all, their policy to charge VAT on independent school fees will do the precise opposite. It will not deliver high standards across the board. This is not a policy that lifts up; on the contrary, it will deliver the worst for all children. It is the very definition of levelling down. A Government cannot be expected to get things right all the time, but it is not unreasonable to expect a Government to recognise when they have got something wrong. It is not unreasonable to expect a Government to hold up their hands and to pause, reflect and recalibrate. If the Government’s true endeavour is to bring about policies for positive change, they must be willing to recognise when they need to change course, and this is that moment. I ask the Government to demonstrate some moral courage, admit that they have erred and abandon this policy of folly.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q3. In the past week, there have been reports that more schools are slated for closure as a direct consequence of the Prime Minister’s ideologically driven policy to introduce VAT on school fees and increase national insurance contributions. This pattern will be seen up and down the country and will lead to staff being unemployed and pupils and parents being cast adrift. Will the Prime Minister do the decent thing, abandon this policy and apologise to those affected?

• 6 Nov 2024 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention, and I agree with him entirely. I am mindful of the tightness of time, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will the Chancellor reconsider the exemption list, to protect the vital services I mentioned, much as she reconsidered when it came to VAT on continuity of education allowance payments? We all understand how much money the Chancellor hopes to raise, but I ask today that she sets out a realistic plan to raise the money. What is her plan to grow the economy? GDP growth predictions are lower than inflation rise predictions, which effectively means the economy shrinking over the next five years. Finally, I ask the Minister to set a firm date for the publication of the Government industrial strategy, so that businesses have stability, rather than being on the receiving end of the Chancellor’s smash-and-grab tax raid.

• 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.

• 5 Sept 2024 · SEND Provision · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to speak under your chairmanship today, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for tabling this important debate. I wish to place on record my gratitude to all the teachers in my constituency for the work they do and—in the spirit of this debate—to the teachers and staff at Hazel Oak and Reynalds Cross, the two maintained special schools in Solihull West and Shirley. I particularly want to single out the parents of children with special educational needs, who often strive so incredibly hard to achieve the best for their children. In January 2022, there were 2,023 Solihull residents with an EHCP—a 16.1% increase on the year before.

• 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.

• 5 Sept 2024 · SEND Provision · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is entirely right; the delays in EHCP assessments are a hindrance to a child’s access to the national curriculum. We are failing them by not doing those assessments in a timely manner, and we need to improve on that. I agree with her comments entirely. A constituent has told me that the nearest school with the necessary facilities for her son is 31 miles away. That means that she and her child have had to settle for a school that is not fully equipped for his needs, simply due to geography. My constituency surgery, like those of other Members, is regularly visited by parents with similar cases. Evidently, the current system is not working. Therefore, I wish to propose three changes that I believe will lead to a significant improvement for schools and families affected by SEND provision. The first is something that everybody in this room is already leading on: raising awareness of SEND. It is heartening to see so many Members engaging with this topic, and it is only by doing that, and by educating ourselves and others, that we can hope to make a change for the better. The second is identifying children with special educational needs at an early age, which is vital to maximising their life chances. That is why I would like to see better training and resources provided to teachers to help with earlier detection.

• 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.