Olivia Blake MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q My point follows on slightly. Do you think the Bill will help to ensure a just transition for UK workers? You hinted at that, but I wonder whether Mike Clancy has a comment. Mike Clancy: Following on from what Mika said, and as we are focusing on the content of the Bill, we welcome the creation of GB Energy but our concern is that for some time energy policy has been long on rhetoric but short on delivery. By that we mean that, in the context of a just transition, the losses of jobs—

• 8 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I wanted to ask about the definition in the Bill on clean energy. Do either of you have any thoughts on whether that definition is clear enough? Dan McGrail: From my perspective, the definition is probably good enough. It is quite tricky to go too narrow and say renewable energy only, because there are certain areas, such as long duration storage, where the sector would like GB Energy to participate in, or at least to have the freedom to participate in, which, if it is too narrowly constrained or defined, may prove problematic later down the line. One thing I think would be advantageous in the definition, or in the objects, is to clearly set out the guard rails, such as ensuring the carbon budgets are referenced. If we reference the carbon budgets, future Secretaries of State would need to make sure that any investments that were made were in line with the delivery of the carbon budgets. That is comparable to what was done with the set-up of the Green Investment Bank, where there were specific references to what the Secretary of State would need to go back to primary legislation to change, and what would be foreseeable within secondary legislation—not directing the Green Investment Bank to invest in fossil fuels, for example, would have required a complete change of mandate. I think some similar thinking, therefore, would be helpful here. Adam Berman: I do not completely agree. I do not think there is a big problem of definition, but I would say that we need to ensure it is consistent with the CCC’s existing language and with the technologies that it thinks are consistent with the sixth carbon budget. Clean energy may encapsulate all of them, but I think we would have to make sure that it includes established mature renewables, nuclear, carbon capture, utilisation and storage and hydrogen, just to leave those options on the table. I do not disagree with Dan that there needs to be a focus, but GB Energy needs to at least be given the option to engage in the technologies where it thinks there may be additionality in terms of bringing in GBE’s involvement.

• 12 Sept 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Earlier this week, I met a constituent who was distressed by the fact that Enhertu—which could extend her life by two years—will not be available in England on the NHS. May we have a debate in Government time on the impact of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s new methods of evaluating health technologies, and in particular, the impact on secondary breast cancer of not approving life-extending medicines for NHS use that might have been approved under NICE’s earlier evaluation methods?

• 12 Sept 2024 · NHS: Independent Investigation · Hansard source

  More

  Lord Darzi’s report makes grim reading and lays bare the failure of the last Government. NHS staff up and down the country will recognise everything in it. Does the Secretary of State agree that much more needs to be done on retaining, recruiting and compensating the NHS workforce and making sure that we have a workforce fit for the future?

• 11 Sept 2024 · Planning Policy: Traveller Sites · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member highlights an important issue for his constituency that points to the failure in this space. I am not disagreeing, but I think we have to recognise that these rights come to the fore because of that failure, not the other way around. We really need to focus on that in our planning policies. We need to communicate with the community, work with them to understand their needs and make sure that those needs are being adequately met. We should not hold it against communities that have bought their own land; we should work with them to ensure they can go through the planning process adequately for their community needs and family needs. We also need better integration within communities of amenities and services, and we need to end the criminalisation. To do that, we need to challenge anti-GRT attitudes and the lurid headlines that drive them. That would be a good start to ensuring that the planning system works for the community. I do not disagree with the idea that the planning system is broken, but I think there is certainly a better way into the conversation that starts with an understanding of all our communities, not just one or the other.

• 11 Sept 2024 · Planning Policy: Traveller Sites · Hansard source

  More

  That is why I think it is important that local authorities work with the community to understand their needs. There are many reasons why individual families may not feel able to be on a site. They may also want to create their own space and home, which I completely understand. Rather than creating more sites, the previous Government moved to criminalise GRT communities through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Those laws should be repealed, in my view. We should be tackling the root cause of the issue: the failure of the system to support a diverse group of people who already suffer prejudice and discrimination. There is a lack of understanding about the realities for this group. It is not just that we need new sites and more pitches; the ones that we have are not up to scratch. That is certainly true of the sites in my constituency: they are often segregated from settled communities and suffer problems with access to services, transport and schools. There is no path to reach the community that I represent, so children have to walk down a 60 mph road to get the bus to school. When the street lights were updated, for some reason the contractor did not realise that the council owned the properties, so the community has been living with poor-quality street lighting rather than LEDs. I hope that that will soon be resolved on the site. That is the kind of suffering that we see in those communities. They are often seen as other, as different or as difficult to deal with. That is not true, in my experience. If we listen to the concerns of the community, we will see progress and clarity of responsibility, not only from the community itself but from the services that are meant to serve it. Decisions are often made to place sites in unsafe areas next to main roads, refuse destructors, traffic-laden areas, intersections of motorways, busy highways or railway tracks. There are many reasons that people would not want their children to be near those things. That has contributed significantly to the health, education and other social inequalities that we see in the community. We have to acknowledge that the isolation and segregation are partly due to political pressure. We know that local authorities have not achieved what they should in terms of sites, options and working with the community as best they can. That is why this is not just a technical debate on planning laws; we have to talk about tackling attitudes as well. When the Caravan Sites Act 1968 gave councils a statutory duty to create sites, many people opposed having them in their area. To put it bluntly, the location of many sites today is a consequence of anti-Traveller racism. The site in my area is right on the edge of town, away from many services. We need more sites and pitches, and we need to end the criminalisation of people living in a legitimate way, but we also need to work with the community and listen to their needs, understanding that they are individuals and have individual rights, as we all do. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton probably disagrees; he alluded to European human rights putting one group ahead of another. I disagree. I think that those rights protect us all and allow us all to have the individual rights and freedoms that we so richly deserve.

• 11 Sept 2024 · Planning Policy: Traveller Sites · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for securing this debate on a subject with which I am sure many hon. Members are familiar, although sadly that familiarity does not always come from a good place. Often it is driven by casework. My understanding of the issues has been enriched by listening to the Traveller community in my constituency and hearing about the problems that they have experienced. I have heard the concerns about a two-tier system in planning, but it was interesting to hear, in a discussion on a long-standing site run by the council in my area, that they are not eligible for the right to buy, even though some of those families have lived there for 40-plus years. The idea that there is a two-tier system in planning ignores the fact that there is also a two-tier system for this very prejudiced-against group of people. Too often our familiarity comes from lurid headlines that generate a lot of heat rather than shedding light on the problems experienced by a community facing discrimination and disadvantage across the board. It is important that we bear that in mind when we talk about the issue in the context of the planning system, and it is important that we are honest about the context of those problems. It is difficult to have a sensible discussion about how we best serve Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities when words like “incursion” are used and when groups of Travellers are repeatedly characterised as ruining picturesque landscapes, towns or villages, creating nuisance and disturbance, or somehow being above the rules. Given that context, we need to be explicit in saying that, far from the invalidation and demonisation of such communities that we often see in the media, the planning system should support this group to live in the way that they choose. There has been an absolute failure to provide adequate sites for those who do travel. Stopping places simply have not been available, so it is no wonder that families are looking for alternatives. Unfortunately, that means a huge shortage of sites and pitches across the UK, particularly in England. As a result, in 2019 some 13% of caravans were on unauthorised land, as the organisation Friends, Families and Travellers reports. What we are seeing is not an incursion, but rather a forced displacement due to the lack of available sites for those who choose to travel.

• 4 Sept 2024 · Preventable Baby Loss · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for securing this important debate. My thoughts are with all the families whose experiences he shared today and with all those present who have shared their personal experiences. This is an issue that is deeply personal to me, and I have spoken about it many times in the last five years. I am sad to say that I have not yet had my rainbow baby, but that does not stop the questions every single month for probably the last year, asking whether I am pregnant. I encourage colleagues not to ask women, because not only is it very rude but it can cause a lot of heartache for those who are struggling to conceive. I have had the honour of working with dedicated campaigners, including Myleene Klass, and we were privileged to welcome the then Minister responsible for women’s health to Tommy’s at Birmingham Women’s hospital. It was great to get them there. I extend that same invitation to the new Government’s health team to see the research that has been done there; to see an alternative model of care, which would see the end of the three-miscarriage rule and has since been piloted in response to the review; and to meet the families who Tommy’s has helped to have their rainbow children. It was incredibly rewarding to hear their stories about how small changes in care can really make that difference and allow people to have the families they so desperately need, while remembering the children they were unable to hold in good health. It has been brilliant to work with Tommy’s and Sands for several years, pushing for meaningful and long-overdue changes. It is estimated that 50% of people will be affected by baby loss during their lifetime, either personally or through someone they know. Miscarriage is common but that does not make it any less heartbreaking, and often that leads women—as well as men who have gone through it—to face grief in isolation. We have been trying hard to break the taboo, increase support from employers and establish bereavement leave and better mental health support, because in many cases there is none. Most importantly, we have been trying to improve the pathway of care by pushing for more early intervention for women who may be at higher risk—such as myself as I had undiagnosed diabetes—and for funding for research to make sure we are doing all we can to improve the life chances of people going through pregnancy. In the UK, 13 babies tragically die before, during or shortly after birth every single day. National reports indicate that up to one in five of those stillbirths and neonatal deaths could be prevented if guidelines were simply consistently followed. That is not good enough, and those deaths are not mere statistics but heartbreaking losses that call for our immediate attention and action. I want to highlight the progress being made in addressing the challenges in miscarriage in response to the independent pregnancy review, because it is important that we show that more can be done. We have touched on the three-miscarriage rule; it is important that we make sure that ending that is rolled out successfully. We are waiting for the results of the pilot, but I hope the Government will take seriously that change in the model of care, which is backed up by research. By all accounts, the number three was picked out of mid-air, and there is no reason why someone should have to wait to have three miscarriages before they get basic tests for diabetes or for other reasons to understand why they may have miscarried. It is cruel—we would not expect anyone to have three heart attacks before doing a basic test—and it lays bare the sexism in our medical system that we would allow people to go through that so many times and face so much loss and trauma before giving them the answers they need to perhaps go on to have successful pregnancies. The review provided 73 recommendations across various areas, including the graded model of care, which would be the alternative to the three-miscarriage rule and would give people the support they need after one miscarriage. It is currently being trialled at Birmingham. Another vital recommendation is 24/7 access to miscarriage care. At the moment, people may or may not have access to an early pregnancy unit, depending on where they live in the country. They may not have any access to information about what to do if they are suffering a miscarriage, which leads to people turning up to A&E or staying at home and losing a child unnecessarily. This critical measure would ensure that nobody has to navigate that painful experience alone, and I would love to work with the Government further on how we can develop it in an affordable and successful way to reach all communities, whether rural or inner-city. Data collection is an important area that I feel has been left out of the conversation somewhat. It is vital that we understand the issue. There has been a push for the systematic recording of all miscarriages in order to understand their true scale. The numbers we quote today are unknowns, really, because we have not been recording them systematically. I had an experience when being called for my flu jab. I was a bit bemused and asked why I had been called for one. They said, “Oh, it’s because you’re pregnant.” They looked down and saw that I was not pregnant and said, “Oh wait, you’re not.” That was a very difficult thing for me to go through. They did give me the flu jab, which is quite funny I suppose, but it was really hard for me to go to that appointment and hear that. Many of my constituents have been asked whether it is their first child or how their other children are doing, because the notes are not there. The way that miscarriage and baby loss is flagged on medical records is not sufficient to stop those awkward and very upsetting experiences for women who have been through baby loss. We want to get national statistics because we want to understand the true picture. That will allow us to set targets and measure the impact of the interventions that we so desperately need to introduce. Although the previous Government’s commitment to 20 short-term actions, including on some of the issues I have highlighted, is a positive step, it is deeply concerning that families are still having to face the trauma of multiple miscarriages before receiving investigative tests and mental health support, which is not fully understood either. People who have suffered loss are more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and suicide. These are very material issues for families who have experienced one miscarriage, never mind the trauma of three. I hope the Government can look into the issue in more detail. We have heard about issues of inequality. Black babies are more than twice as likely to be stillborn, and black and Asian babies are more than 50% more likely to die shortly after birth than white babies. High rates of child fatality and miscarriage are also reported in the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. This disparity is unacceptable. I urge the Government to renew and extend the national maternity safety ambitions and to set clear targets to reduce these inequalities. I welcomed the reviews of these two areas that were brought forward by the last Government, but I hope we can learn the lessons soon and get action for those mothers. Every baby deserves an equal chance of survival; their background should not matter. We must also focus on improving prenatal care. This is an area that people are again not given enough information on. Early and regular antenatal care is critical, but if we can provide advice, guidance and support for women who have disabilities and illnesses, we can help them have safer pregnancies. As we have heard today, the basic care is still not there for many people, and it is essential for us to focus on that gap. As I said, we need to ensure that every expectant mother has access to timely, high-quality care regardless of their background. Alongside that, addressing health inequalities is crucial; sadly, babies born into poverty are more likely to die by their first birthday than those born into wealthier families. That disparity is a stark reminder of the broader social determinants of health that contribute to infant mortality. We must tackle these inequalities head-on by improving access to healthcare, education and support for families—particularly those from disadvantaged communities. Preventable baby deaths are a tragedy that we have the power to address and prevent. Although we have made important strides, more work is desperately needed. I urge the Government to commit wholeheartedly to giving every baby the chance to thrive and ensuring that every family receives the support they need throughout pregnancy and, unfortunately, throughout baby loss.

• 3 Sept 2024 · Contracts for Difference · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Secretary of State and his Department on their excellent work. Given all that we have heard from the shadow Minister today, does my right hon. Friend agree that this Government’s record success shows that the main block to the sprint to renewables was the Conservative party?

• 2 Sept 2024 · Middle East Update · Hansard source

  More

  The children of Gaza have faced an onslaught from above and now face the spread of disease. Will the Foreign Secretary consider once again bringing those who are most vulnerable to the UK for medical treatment? Polio has a lasting impact, and those who have been infected could need a lot more support with lifelong disabilities. We also see children who need amputations and life-altering operations but have not been able to access the right quality of care because the hospitals have not been there. Can we look at this again? Other countries are doing so; let us be a part of that.

• 26 Jul 2024 · Making Britain a Clean Energy Superpower · Hansard source

  More

  Not a day goes by when the consequences of our inaction are not hideously illustrated. The wildfires in Canada today should shock us all into action, with 25,000 people having been displaced from their homes. The previous Government continually poured fuel on the fires of the climate crisis, entrenching our reliance on volatile international markets, but this Government have plans to totally turn the corner. Our journey to becoming a clean energy superpower is not only an environmental imperative but a chance for economic growth and to address the cost of living crisis while making Britain energy-independent. That is why I welcome the Government’s plan to launch Great British Energy, a publicly owned company funded by making big oil and gas pay their fair share from the incredible windfalls they have been receiving. This initiative demonstrates a strong commitment to cutting carbon emissions and embracing renewables. It is a crucial step to lowering our bills through a zero-carbon electricity system. It is so important that we ensure that this step is co-ordinated, working with new initiatives such as Skills England to ensure that across the board we are increasing training opportunities, especially in key areas such as maritime apprenticeships, which will help with our offshore wind efforts. It is also incredibly important that we unlock the potential of community energy, which has a vast untapped potential for smaller scale renewable schemes that could be owned and operated by local communities, building that resilience into our communities directly. Realising that potential would bring clean, affordable and secure energy to local people. I very much look forward to working with the Front-Bench team on these issues, and supporting the Bill as it makes its passage through this House. I congratulate the Minister on his appointment.

• 24 Jul 2024 · Education and Opportunity · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree that we need a more holistic approach. I recently visited Whirlow Hall farm in my constituency, which provides alternative provision, but also further education, in an agricultural setting. It is great to see the opportunities for the young people who go there, especially those with emotional distress and similar issues. It is really important that we see all of this in the round and make sure that there is quality in all our services—whether that is AP, education in a local mainstream school or getting access to diagnoses, which are so important for so many young people. I must not forget SALTs, or speech and language therapists; otherwise, I will get in trouble with them. I will draw my remarks to a close. I am pleased to see the good signals and directions that we have had so far. The new approach will treat people as people, and start from the premise that whatever their need or disability, they are entitled to the same quality of education and opportunities as everyone else. I look forward to hearing from the Government what further plans they will be bringing forward to make that a reality.

• 24 Jul 2024 · Education and Opportunity · Hansard source

  More

  It is great to see you in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker—a strong Yorkshirewoman, no less, which is exactly what we need in the Chair. I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for his excellent maiden speech. He has done his constituents proud, and it was great to hear from him, and, indeed, from all who have made maiden speeches today. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) mentioned the literacy hour. As a child, I was locked out of education. I had dyslexia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyspraxia, and a host of different medical needs that make it very difficult and challenging to lead a normal life. I remember not being able to read or write legibly—some may say that I still do not write legibly—and I remember the great influence that the literacy hour had on me when I was seven and eight years old. The changing model of education, involving 15 minutes of carrying out different tasks, suited me to a T, and gave me a lifelong love of literature. It meant that by the time I took my GCSEs, instead of failing and being locked out of education, I got an A in English literature. I am still proud of that today, because it happened against all the odds. I have been chairing the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities because I think it important for us to give young people that opportunity. The narrowing of the curriculum that we have seen over the last 14 years horrifies me. I am a scientist, and I loved drama and art at school. They unlocked creativity, which allowed me to go on to become the scientist who is creative, thinks outside the box and does great things. I want all children who are experiencing the struggles that I have faced to have the opportunities that I had, under a Labour Government—but I am going on about myself too much, because what we are here to talk about are the opportunities for our young people and our communities. It may sound like a cliché, but it is still true to say that education is one of the main ways to create opportunity in our communities, so it is excellent that we are having this debate so early in the new Parliament, and it is good to hear from my colleagues on the Government Front Bench about the positive steps that they are taking to create an education system that is fit for all. I want to focus my comments on provision for special educational needs and disabilities, and on how we can create opportunities for everyone in the education system. It is no secret that the new Government have inherited a SEND system in crisis, underfunded, under-resourced and understaffed. Estimates from f40 suggest that the total level of underfunding in the last Parliament was £4.6 billion, with the last Government promising only a fraction of the expenditure needed to bridge the gap. When that is combined with the chronic underfunding of local authorities, it is easy to see why there are so many stories about authorities that have been unable to meet their statutory obligations. It is also no wonder that parents who rightly want to fight for what is best for their child have ended up going to tribunals, and more often than not they win. In only 1.7% of cases has a tribunal found in a local authority’s favour. That is a damning statistic, in two senses. First, it demonstrates the tenacity that parents need in order to secure the basic right to education for their children. It was not me but the former Education Secretary who was mentioned by the Secretary of State earlier who said that the system was “lose, lose, lose” for families, and she was right. A tribunal decision in your favour is a bitter victory when all you ask is that your child has the same opportunities as everyone else. Secondly, the extent of the skew in the tribunal figures shows that the problems are endemic and need a systemic response. Unfortunately, that was not the approach taken by the last Government: too often we saw a massaging of statistics, rather than a serious approach to tackling the underlying realities facing too many young people. We saw the same with the target to cut the number of education, health and care plans, which was rather skirted around. It is right that we aim to reduce the reliance on EHCPs. All children should have the opportunities that they need, whether or not they have a formal diagnosis, and we also need action to ensure that people do receive the diagnoses that are so important, especially for young girls and women who often have to wait, as I did, until their late 20s or 30s, or in some cases their 50s or 60s, to receive a diagnosis to explain why they have been struggling throughout their lives. A key task for the new Government will be to rebuild the infrastructure for early years intervention that we lost over the last 14 years. The cuts to Sure Start have been dramatic, but we also need more health visitors out in the community. The Institute of Health Visiting estimates that there is a shortfall of 5,000 in England, with 48% of health visitors saying they will leave the profession in the next five years. Shockingly, over a quarter of those surveyed said that they were servicing the needs of 750 children—three times the recommended ratio for health visitors. It is simply not good enough. Early interventions are so important, because they can change the life course of a child. They can open opportunities that can be cut off if the right support is not in place. Early years staff with the right training can be the passionate people who spot something in a child that no others have noticed.

• 17 Jul 2024 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) has just made about Hillsborough. I am pleased to see this incredibly important legislation being brought forward by this Government, after a long journey for justice. I congratulate everyone who made their maiden speech today—those speeches have been absolutely fantastic, and show the calibre of the people who have been elected to this place. I also welcome back my fellow returning MPs, some with a larger break than others; it is great to see those people back in this place, with all their depth of experience. We stand at a pivotal moment. I could talk in great depth about all the wonderful Bills that are in this King’s Speech, from the new deal for working people to the English devolution Bill, the education Bill, the children’s wellbeing Bill, rights for renters and the updating of the Mental Health Act 1983, which is desperately needed. But the climate and nature crisis is already impacting our lives, so I will focus my remarks mainly on that, and slightly on transport. Particularly in the global south, but increasingly in the UK, we are living through the consequences of climate catastrophe, and it is the poorest in society who are often suffering the worst of its effects. The new agenda for this Government is a key opportunity to get back on track and prove, as we did once previously with the Climate Change Act 2008, that the UK can be a true climate leader. The measures outlined in the King’s Speech underscore the Government’s commitment to tackling the climate emergency. They are not only words, but the green shoots of change, ending 14 years of Conservative-led indifference and even hostility to environmental policy—14 years that saw an effective ban on onshore wind, a standstill on solar and little to nothing on tidal or green hydrogen. While other countries around the world have been racing ahead to capitalise on the jobs and wealth that the clean energy transition offers, Britain has been missing out, but today marks a new chapter. The Government’s plan to make Britain a green energy superpower, achieving clean power by 2030, is ambitious and represents a clear commitment to reducing carbon emissions and embracing renewable energy sources. It presents a significant opportunity to stimulate economic growth, address the cost of living crisis and make Britain energy independent, with Great British Energy, owned by the British people, ensuring that families and businesses benefit from permanently lower bills through a zero-carbon energy system. It is right that that will be funded by closing loopholes in the windfall tax on oil and gas companies. They have reaped enormous profits not because of their innovation or investments, but because of the energy shock that has burdened families across the country with higher prices. The Great British Energy Bill will end the Conservative dash for oil and gas, deliver real energy security and put the UK on a path to being a clean energy superpower, with a just transition for workers. However, we also need to look beyond our energy system. After 30 years of privatisation, Britain’s railways are in crisis, with passengers facing late, overcrowded and cancelled services, pushing many commuters on to our roads instead. For many communities, the buses are no better. In Sheffield Hallam, this was one of the issues raised with me in almost all the canvassing sessions I did. There are often reductions in bus services. They are cancelled because the bus fleet is not fit for purpose, or the routes are closed and there are no alternatives. It could not get any worse, really, and that is why the Government’s passenger railway services Bill and better buses Bill are vital. I will be pleased to champion them from the Back Benches. The plan to take train operating companies back into public ownership will end a decade of Conservative chaos, develop the infrastructure we need to green our society and make the transition to net zero, and give people a real alternative to getting into their cars. New powers to allow communities to take back control of their buses will put decision making back into their hands, where it belongs—not with the private companies, but with the people the transport system should be serving. Greening our transport and energy infrastructure is central to meeting our climate ambitions, but we cannot effectively combat the climate crisis without simultaneously protecting our vital ecosystems, restoring habitats and safeguarding our species. The climate crisis has accelerated the nature crisis, with the UK now one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. We must and can do better. Protecting nature must take equal priority to cutting emissions. For too long, Britain’s coasts, rivers and lakes have been polluted by illegal sewage dumping, and it is therefore right that this Government are committed to placing failing water companies under special measures, withholding bonuses from executives who pollute our waterways and bringing criminal charges against persistent lawbreakers. I am very pleased to see that there will be strengthened regulation, which is very welcome to many in my constituency who have campaigned on this issue. I also look forward to seeing plans to empower local government and communities through the English devolution Bill, especially on how they can play their part in tackling both the climate and nature emergencies, and what local government needs to fully tap into the potential of the green economy and green jobs for our region. Tackling the climate and nature emergencies is not an issue for the future; we are already facing the effects in the here and now. Our role is to act immediately to prevent the most damaging effects, and I welcome the measures set out in this King’s Speech. They must be the springboard for a wider debate on greening our communities, revitalising our ecology and building a greener, cleaner and nature-positive economy that works for everyone. I have one final plea to my Front Benchers on an unrelated topic, which is care for people who have undergone miscarriage. I campaigned very hard on that in the last Parliament, and I will continue to raise it in this place to make sure that there is proper provision for women’s health and that everyone gets the support they need.