Sean Woodcock MP: speeches

109 published records · newest first.

Speeches

12 Jun 2025 · Gibraltar · Hansard source
More
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his statement. Can he confirm that it is his expectation that this deal will provide new opportunities for growth in trade and for businesses in Gibraltar?
9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source
More
Will my hon. Friend give way?
9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source
More
We have heard a lot about the failure of developers to build infrastructure, protect nature and provide enough social housing. Does that not just show that the status quo is broken, and why the Bill is so important and heading in the right direction?
5 Jun 2025 · Free School Meals · Hansard source
More
I am absolutely delighted that this announcement will see more than 2,000 extra children qualify for free school meals in my Banbury constituency. Can the Minister explain how this announcement will improve the educational attainment and behaviour of children in my constituency?
2 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source
More
My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech in defence of buses and the importance of the Bill. Does he share my disappointment that just like they missed the statement earlier on the strategic defence review, not a single Reform MP is here for this important debate? Does he take it in the same way that I do: that, just like defence, they just do not care about buses?
19 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source
More
The war in Ukraine has shown the importance of drones on the modern battlefield. The previous Government published a drone strategy that was only 12 pages long, and half of that was pictures. They failed to fund UK companies that are investing in, and making, world-leading drone tech here at home. Will the strategic defence review correct that wrong, and support drone development in the UK? [ Interruption. ]
15 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source
More
Every week on my journey to and from this place I join constituents on overcrowded Chiltern Railways trains that are often advertised as standing room only. The oldest class of carriages operating on that network has an average age of 47 years. In the light of this, can Ministers tell me what action the Department is taking to support the replacement and refurbishment of these carriages to improve capacity, service reliability, and passenger experience and comfort?
15 May 2025 · Youth Services · Hansard source
More
My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech about the importance of youth centre provision. Does he agree that the Conservatives’ dismantling of Oxfordshire county council youth services by closing 19 of the 25 youth centres that existed prior to 2010 did irreparable damage to young people in Oxfordshire?
28 Apr 2025 · Child Rape Gangs · Hansard source
More
I thank my hon. Friend for her continued hard work on this issue. I welcome the commitment to introduce mandatory reporting for suspected sexual abuse, which was recommended 11 years ago by the current Prime Minister when he was the outgoing Director of Public Prosecutions, and accepted by the then Prime Minister, David Cameron. However, we had to go through four more Tory Prime Ministers and seven more Tory Home Secretaries before this Labour Government could implement it. I assure my hon. Friend that she has my full support on this matter, and I urge her to continue her good work.
25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source
More
It seems to me, to be fair, that this Bill is about creating jobs in Scotland—but jobs for form checkers and passport checkers at the border between England and Scotland, rather than anything particularly useful. Does my right hon. Friend agree?
25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source
More
If this Bill passed, does my hon. Friend imagine that the talk of making it harder for people to get between England and Scotland would have a beneficial or negative impact on growth prospects in Scotland? Does she imagine that there would be an impact on investment in public services in Scotland?
25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source
More
Is what my hon. Friend just mentioned not another example of the incompetence and failings of the SNP? Frankly, motions and Bills like this are simply a disguise and designed to pull the wool over the eyes of people in Scotland.
25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source
More
The hon. Member has spoken at great length about the benefits of immigration. I am married to an eastern European immigrant, so I am well aware of the massive benefits of immigration to this country. What I am bit confused about, though, is how adding an extra layer of red tape and a potential border between England and Scotland would improve or make a difference to what he has just talked about.
25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source
More
We all benefit from my hon. Friend’s long experience in the House. She was around during the discussions after the referendum in 2016. Does she recall that a Division on remaining in the customs union was lost by six votes when all 48 SNP MPs abstained?
23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source
More
Like me, my hon. Friend will receive hundreds of emails and bits of correspondence on the performance of Thames Water. Does he agree that that company in particular should take the Act as if they were being put on notice and that further action may follow if necessary to improve standards?
23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source
More
We heard the shadow Secretary of State bemoaning the laughter from Labour Members. I think the laughter was at the idea that people in this country should be grateful to the Conservatives for the condition in which they left our waterways. Does my hon. Friend share our amusement at that ridiculous thought?
23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source
More
My constituency is served by Thames Water, which is the largest provider in the country. Every week in my surgery, it is fair to say that I have people who have frankly given up on this issue ever being fixed. Will the Secretary of State provide my constituents and the rest of the country with the reassurance that this Labour Government will fix the issues left by the Conservatives?
23 Apr 2025 · Hospitals · Hansard source
More
I know the John Radcliffe hospital, which serves some of my constituents. The hon. Lady has made a powerful case about the amount of money that has potentially been lost through this process. Would she, however, reflect on the role played by her party, particularly the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), and the amount of money wasted on the disastrous top-down reorganisation of the NHS under the coalition Government?
23 Apr 2025 · Hospitals · Hansard source
More
I suggest that our decade of national renewal will ensure that the hospitals that we have promised will be delivered. I am confident about that because things are changing. The new hospital programme has been put back on a firm footing, with every project backed by real funding and a realistic plan, which is equally important. Crucially, this Government are not stopping there. Labour’s 10-year health plan is about improving how the whole system works with patients. That means better co-ordination between GPs, hospitals, mental health services and social care, and ensuring that wherever people live, even if that is on the border between counties, which is an issue close to the hearts of people in my constituents, they are not passed from one part of the system to another without support. It also means doing more locally, with more care available close to home, so fewer people have to travel longer distances to get basic treatment, and earlier invention, so that problems are picked up before they become emergencies. We have already seen progress. We have cut waiting lists by over 200,000, delivered over 3 million extra appointments, recruited more GPs and invested £26 million in mental health crisis centres to alleviate the pressures on A&E services. Some £2 billion will be spent on technology and digital improvements to increase productivity and ensure patients are seen faster. We are starting to turn things around and doing so in a way that puts patients first, without making undeliverable, unrealistic promises that damage trust in politics and the power of politics under our democratic system. For too long, people in Banbury have been left wondering if their NHS would be there when they needed it. After 14 years, they can see that help is finally on the way. With this Labour Government, things are changing practically and with purpose.
23 Apr 2025 · Hospitals · Hansard source
More
For years, my constituents in Banbury have lived with the consequences of a health system that has been allowed to fall apart bit by bit, service by service. Our mental health services, especially for children and adolescents, are severely under-resourced. Families are waiting far too long for help, even in the most serious cases. Our maternity unit in Banbury was downgraded under the Conservatives, so those having complex or emergency births have to travel to Oxford or Warwick, with all the risk that that brings, especially when delays are caused by our inadequate transport infrastructure. There is no overnight surgery or day-care surgery available locally, and patients fall through the cracks because of poorly co-ordinated services between Oxfordshire, Warwickshire and Northamptonshire. Under the Conservatives, and with the support of the Liberal Democrats in coalition, money was diverted away from vital health services into a disastrous and unnecessary reorganisation of our national health service. The result is what we are seeing now: fragmented care, overstretched services and communities like Banbury being left behind. My constituents are not going to be pleased by Governments making promises that they cannot keep and when they have no realistic plan or funds to deliver them.
7 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source
More
Next month marks 80 years since victory in Europe, and I look forward to attending many VE Day events in my constituency to thank our service personnel of yesteryear. Homelessness is an issue that affects many veterans, so while I welcome the Prime Minister’s pledge to guarantee a roof over the head of every veteran, can the Minister confirm what extra support there is with homelessness for the veteran community in Banbury?
2 Apr 2025 · School-based Nursery Capital Grants · Hansard source
More
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), I actually think there are fewer Conservative Members present than there are pages in the book “The Very Hungry Caterpillar”, which says everything about where they are coming from. I am really grateful to the Secretary of State for her statement and for the fact that the town of Chipping Norton in my constituency will get one of the first 300 school-based nurseries announced today. Does she find it hard, as I do, to take lectures from the Conservative party when it comes to the provision of childcare?
1 Apr 2025 · Trail Hunting · Hansard source
More
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this important debate. In my constituency several hunts, including the Heythrop hunt and the Warwickshire hunt which crosses the county border, have been caught red-handed hunting live foxes. Does he agree that such incidents show how urgent it is for the Government to honour their manifesto commitment to ban trail hunting?
25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I rise to speak to amendment (b) to new clause 36, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon). The amendment states: “Regulations under subsection (1) may not amend, modify or repeal section 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006.” For clarity, I will read out the relevant part of section 1 of the 2006 Act: “The Secretary of State must continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement— (a)in the physical and mental health of the people of England, and (b)in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of physical and mental illness.” Those core principles have remained the same since the National Health Service Act 1946. As the hon. Member for East Wiltshire stated, in a Britian that was devasted by war, Clement Attlee and Nye Bevan together promised a better future, one where healthcare should be available to all, regardless of wealth. It enshrined a principle that as a society we will care for the ill and we will do that together. No one’s health should be left behind, especially that of the vulnerable. The NHS stands as the greatest legacy of a Labour Government—despite the input of Opposition parties referred to by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire—and perhaps of any Government since the second world war. The establishment of the NHS lives on in section 1 of the NHS Act. It is why at the height of the pandemic NHS staff courageously put themselves on the frontline to protect us. It is their mission to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of all, free at the point of service. As we consider assisted dying, we must not lose the values at the heart of the NHS. Section 1 of the 2006 Act has changed little from the corresponding first section of the 1946 Act. It is not just a line in legislation; it has become part of our national story and our national identity, and amendment (b) to new clause 36 is about continuing that. It seeks to preserve the legacy of Attlee and Bevan, and that of Labour Governments committed to the betterment of the people. Twenty-five senior doctors and pharmacists from Shetland and Orkney spoke of that legacy in their written evidence: “We note with pride the founding principles of the NHS, with the 1946 National Health Service Act stating, ‘It shall be the duty of the Minister of Health…to promote the establishment in England and Wales of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of England and Wales and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness.’ We believe that Parliament must reflect the lasting ethos of our founding document.” There are very few lines in legislation that come to represent an institution in this way. It is a testament to the ideal of those founding principles in section 1 that they guide doctors to this very day. This is the thread that runs through the 1946 Act to the 2006 Act—two Labour Governments, 60 years apart, united by this mission to improve the physical and mental health of the people. This Committee should continue the thread of those principles. Of course, I understand that previous legislation may need to be amended to provide assisted dying services, and that may include the 2006 Act. New clause 36(4) clarifies that specified references to commission voluntary dying services may be included in that Act. I note with regret that the new clause gives us so little information elsewhere about the use of these powers, which are commonly known as Henry VIII powers or clauses. This is not a term that I was familiar with until very recently. I am sure other Members are much more familiar with it than I am, but on the off-chance that there are one or two Members who need a reminder, I will read Parliament’s own official definition of the term: “‘Henry VIII clauses’ are clauses in a bill that enable ministers to amend or repeal provisions in an Act of Parliament using secondary legislation, which is subject to varying degrees of parliamentary scrutiny.” Helpfully, it adds: “The expression is a reference to King Henry VIII’s supposed preference for legislating directly by proclamation rather than through Parliament.” I accept that it might be rather odd to talk about Henry VIII in this debate, but we should not let that distract us from the serious question of this new clause, which could result in a significant transfer of power from Members of this House to the Secretary of State, and it is not clear what that power will be used for. The Hansard Society has noted that there is little indication about what role or nature these powers will take, saying: “A key principle that the House of Lords Constitution Committee has applied to delegated powers is that they ‘should not be framed in such a way that gives little indication of how they should be used.’ The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s guidance to Departments states that the Delegated Powers Memorandum should set out how it is proposed that a power should be exercised.” I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley and Ministers could provide clarity on those questions. New clause 36(1) does not specify that voluntary assisted dying be provided on the NHS, but subsection (4) allows for the National Health Service Act 2006 to be amended. What is the intention of these powers? What will the structure of the voluntary assisted dying service be? How will it be funded and who will be responsible for the provision of the services? The answer to those questions will inform which legislation needs to be amended, and that information should be in the Bill. To be clear, as I have said, I accept that changes to previous legislation may be required. However, the provision of assisted dying should not amend the foundational principles of the national health service. It should not break with the legacy of Attlee, of Bevan and of Labour. That is why I support amendment (b) to new clause 36.
25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I accept that it could work, but my view is that it is far less likely to work and that it is more likely to be successful if it is wholly the responsibility of public authorities. I will vote in favour of amendment (d) to new clause 36. It would remove subsection (6), which says: “Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament; but they may not amend this Act.” It strikes me as dangerous to provide in the Bill for the Secretary of State to amend primary legislation, and we should vote to remove that power. It is surely a weakening of the Bill’s safeguards. Assisted dying must remain firmly in the control of the democratically elected Parliament. I urge Members to join me in voting to remove subsection (6). If we fail to rule out the possibility of private provision and allow the Secretary of State the power to amend primary legislation, we will fail to implement the necessary safeguards. Amendments (c) and (d) to new clause 36 would go some way to addressing that, by ensuring that the state that sanctions assisted dying is also the body that provides it. Assisted dying services need strong reporting and accountability; otherwise, we risk inequality, or the abuse of assisted dying going unchecked. The provision of assisted dying through public authorities is essential to proper accountability, reporting and best practice, so I urge the Committee to support the amendments.

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →