Richard Quigley MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Listening to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), is quite something—one would think that the recipients of this benefit were spending the money on soft furnishings for their second homes. They are not; they are spending it on food, rent and clothing for their children. The rise in child poverty under the previous Tory Government has been a shameful stain on this country, and I am proud to be part of a Government who are taking action, not only to provide food and basic necessities but to give children the opportunity to escape cycles of poverty and build secure, independent futures. In the months since this policy was announced, we have heard some truly shameful language from Opposition Members, including describing this Budget as a “Budget for ‘Benefits Street’”. In doing so, they completely denigrate the 450,000 children who never chose to be born into poverty, and who for the most part have simply had the misfortune of growing up during years of successive Conservative Governments. It is telling that using taxpayers’ money to lift children out of poverty is framed by the Conservatives as an irresponsible use of public funds, while the £10 billion lost to covid fraud is something we are apparently expected to forget and move on from without consequence. I would genuinely welcome the shadow Secretary of State and the Leader of the Opposition to my constituency, so that they can explain directly to the nearly 1,600 children who will be lifted out of poverty by the removal of the two-child cap why the Leader of the Opposition so routinely denigrates people like them and their parents—parents who themselves are paying the price for a Government she was part of, who sent mortgages soaring and allowed inflation to reach 11%. Sadly, I will not hold my breath. When she is not using the Isle of Wight as a punchline for one of her poor, laugh-less jokes, she treats it as a photo opportunity, without having the basic respect to engage with local people, local media or, indeed, the local MP. Perhaps we should not be surprised. The Conservative party has consistently failed to understand the real, tangible difference that such policies make to people’s lives. Instead of reckoning with the impact of their poverty-accelerating decisions, they choose to vilify those who stand to benefit from the Bill. As I understand it, Reform would now reverse the two-child cap to find money to pay for a cheaper pint at the local pub. Presumably Reform’s next policies would increase the drunk-driving limit to whatever people think they can get away with and lower the age of buying cigarettes to 12, because daddy will be too busy down the pub saving money to buy his own cigs. As a small business owner, I know too well the damaging legacy of austerity, and the removal of the two-child cap represents the clearing away of one of the most shameful legacies of the austerity years. I know from first-hand experience the impact that Government decisions have on local economies. Austerity was not just a line in a Budget; it was a decade of under-investment that hit businesses such as mine hard. It hollowed out our high streets, weakened consumer confidence and squeezed the incomes of working families. This policy is about more than tackling poverty and the intergenerational damage it causes; it is about giving hard-working families the chance to feel that they are a part of their high street again, and supporting those who have lost a wage earner or whose wages have simply failed to keep pace with the cost of living. It is called social security for a reason, and it is the solemn responsibility of any Government to provide a safety net to those who, through no fault of their own, have fallen on hard times. This policy is not just about the removal of the benefits cap; it is an investment in our greatest asset—the British people—and in our future. It is about ensuring that the next generation do not go to school hungry or without the basic necessities and about putting our country on a stronger footing by giving every child a fair start in life.

• 26 Jan 2026 · PIP Review: Cancer Patients · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his response. Many cancer patients receiving PIP and universal credit were alarmed by proposals put forward last summer suggesting that individuals undergoing active cancer treatment might be required to complete a work capability assessment before accessing those benefits. What assurances can the Department give that people in the midst of cancer treatment will not be burdened with these assessments at such a vulnerable and challenging time?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s pride in place programme presents a welcome opportunity for communities across the country to once again feel proud of where they live, especially after years of austerity and neglect under successive Conservative Governments. However, the Isle of Wight received none of that funding, which feels like an oversight, given the challenges our island faces, not least with cross-Solent transport. Will the Chancellor assure me that she is doing everything possible to ensure that islanders are not left behind and that they, too, can benefit from this programme and feel pride in our island once again?

• 30 Oct 2025 · Moles: Histological Testing · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered histological testing of excised moles. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. Many of those present may not yet be familiar with the name Zoe Panayi. If they are, it is likely to be because of my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), who spoke about Zoe at Prime Minister’s questions two weeks ago. For Zoe’s family, the five years since her tragic death have meant that their daughter, sister, mother and friend has come to represent something far greater—a legacy that continues to grow and touch lives beyond their own. I welcome Charlie, Zoe’s brother, to Westminster Hall today. Zoe was like so many other 26-year-olds. She was a devoted mother to her two boys, a loyal friend to many across the island and a young woman full of promise. Despite her age, Zoe made a remarkable impact on our community. She volunteered as a carer, and later trained to become a radiologist at St Mary’s hospital. That is what makes Zoe’s story so heartbreaking. While she was dedicating herself to caring for others, her own health concerns were repeatedly dismissed. On the morning of Zoe’s eventual diagnosis, she woke up in pain, but brushed off her concerns, telling her mum that she had been teaching her boys how to do roly-polies—which many Members will know is, as an adult, no mean feat—and must have hurt herself that way. But that evening Zoe was in such excruciating pain that she was taken to hospital where, upon being tested by her boss at St Mary’s, she was told that her liver was full of cancer. Doctors asked Zoe whether any moles on her body had been causing her concern. She then realised that the small mole on her back was the root of her cancer. Zoe died just 55 days after that diagnosis, and in those 55 days she had to try to explain to a five-year-old and a seven-year-old that mummy would soon not be coming home, and would instead become an angel. I do not bring that up purely to cause upset, but to emphasise Zoe’s outstanding bravery at such a young age in ensuring her boys were prepared for the unthinkable. Zoe had not ignored her symptoms; she did everything right. She visited her GP on three separate occasions asking that her mole be tested, yet she was told that her pain was caused by the mole rubbing against her jeans, and that she was too young for it to be clinically concerning. On her third visit, Zoe was told that if it bothered her that much, she should get her mole removed cosmetically. Zoe even paid for her mole to be tested after removal at the beauticians, yet it never was. There is no doubt that Zoe was failed by her GP, who sent her a letter of apology after learning of her diagnosis, and that Zoe was failed deeply by her beautician, who failed to recognise her cancer or even to send her mole for testing. Zoe’s concerns should never have been dismissed, she should never have been referred out of the NHS, and the mole, which was actually a melanoma, should never have been removed. I welcome the fact that the Minister has enacted Jess’s rule, meaning that on the third time of asking, Zoe’s concerns may have brought about a different outcome. We are not here today because Zoe’s family want to cast blame; we are here because Zoe’s family want to make sure that what happened to their daughter, their sister and their mother will never have to happen to anyone else again. The safeguard we are asking for is simple: that all healthcare providers must test the lesions they remove. This extra check—a “Zoe check”—would prevent tragedies like Zoe’s from occurring. Over the past months I have spoken with a range of doctors across the NHS and in the private sector, and reassuringly—although it is not mandated—what we are asking for is already standard practice in the NHS for GPs and dermatologists. To avoid that one in a 1,000 case, removed skintags, moles or blemishes, however harmless they look, are almost always sent for testing. NHS doctors order these tests as a matter of routine, and many good private dermatologists insist on including a biopsy before agreeing to treatment in the first place. The tests are relatively cheap, with lab fees around £100. To put that into perspective, the cost of Zoe’s cancer treatment could have funded over 650 biopsies. Using state-of-the-art technology, we could go further. Trials are under way for handheld equipment that can test for melanoma by using artificial intelligence systems to analyse high-definition photographs of skin lesions. If those trials prove successful, the cost of Zoe’s treatment could have funded thousands of pre-treatment checks. The checks are cheap, immediate and, with proper training, could easily be deployed in beauty clinics and other non-medical environments. If we combine them with specific melanoma training for all professionals who encounter skin lesions, and encourage GPs and others to take up that training, that approach could significantly improve early detection and reduce the need for costly and often unsuccessful late-stage cancer interventions. Cancer is not a place to cut corners. Although they are not mandatory, histology tests are already routine practice for benign moles and other lesions in both NHS and private dermatology alike. Zoe’s law would ensure that a similar safeguard is applied across the board, from NHS hospitals to private dermatologists and beauty clinics. That would demand more from the clinics that are currently the least regulated. But we should demand more, because this is about protecting the NHS, which will ultimately pick up the bill when those clinics fail, and it is about protecting families like Zoe’s from the grief of a tragic and unnecessary death. I thank the Minister for her engagement, and I am genuinely encouraged by the seriousness with which her Department has adopted the issue. Zoe’s family has said that they feel they have got further than ever before over the past weeks, and that they feel listened to. I thank the Minister very much for that, but this can only be the start, and whatever form Zoe’s law eventually takes, we must not stop until we get there.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Future of Terrestrial Television · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing this important debate and for the hard work that he has already put into this area. I am very pleased that broadband coverage in my Isle of Wight West constituency is improving—it was at 94.2% in 2022 and is projected to reach 99.4% by 2040—thanks to our very own fibre company, WightFibre. However, actual take-up tells a different story, and it is one that we cannot ignore. Only 63.5% of households were using high-speed broadband in 2022, and even by 2040 only 76.1% of households are expected to be using it. That means that in 15 years’ time, nearly a quarter of households still might not be online. For such households, terrestrial TV is not a back-up; it is their primary connection to news, entertainment and public service content—and not just reruns of “Mrs Brown’s Boys”. That is especially true for older residents, those in rural areas and families facing financial pressures. As hon. Members have already said today, terrestrial TV is free, reliable and accessible. It does not require expensive subscriptions or high-speed internet. It just works. At a time when loneliness and isolation are growing, it plays a vital role in promoting wellbeing, inclusion and a sense of community. Three quarters of people say that terrestrial TV has helped to reduce loneliness, and among those aged 65 and over the figure rises to 87%. Additionally, I worry that any decision to switch off terrestrial TV could further exacerbate the cost of living crisis and deepen existing inequalities in our communities. I know that not everyone on the Isle of Wight has the means to afford high-speed internet or multiple streaming subscriptions. For many households, especially those on fixed incomes or struggling with rising bills, terrestrial TV is not just a preference; it is a necessity. Asking such families to transition to online-only services could mean they face additional costs of hundreds of pounds a year, not only for subscriptions but for upgraded devices and internet packages. That is a burden that many of those families simply cannot bear, and it is imperative that we do not impose it on them. It is also important to realise that any imposed switch-off would not have a limited impact; it would be deeply felt across our communities. The reality is that some people would be left behind, and many people would feel a greater sense of entirely avoidable social isolation. This shift is not just a technical one, but a social one. If we move too quickly or without providing proper support, we risk entrenching inequality, whereby access to media and public service content becomes a privilege available only to those who can afford it. Terrestrial TV helps to level the playing field. It ensures that everyone, regardless of their income or their location, can stay connected to other people around the world—and that is worth protecting.