Sean Woodcock MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  Banbury is heavily affected by the failings of Thames Water; we have had thousands of sewage spills, leading to hundreds of thousands of hours of sewage being discharged into local rivers and streams, which is probably why so many of my constituents signed the petition. I had prepared a longer speech for the debate, but given the number of speakers and time available, I will keep my remarks much briefer. In March, I wrote for LabourList that the water scandal had become a test of whether a Government elected on a promise of change were prepared to confront vested interests. Across England and Wales, water bills rose by 26% last year, but for Thames Water customers, including my constituents, they rose by 31%—and this year the bills have risen again. During the Makerfield campaign, the Prime Minister said that Britain’s water industry had become a system where “the shareholders always win and the billpayers always lose”. He was right. On Thames Water specifically, the Prime Minister argued that public ownership was ultimately something that should happen. Although I welcome the steps that this Government have taken to address the water industry, the fact that so many people have signed the petition would suggest—as would a glance at my mailbox, and probably that of every other Member of Parliament—that most people feel that, despite what those measures are intended to do, none of them quite goes far enough. My simple question to the Minister is this. What more are the Government prepared to do to demonstrate that they understand the scale of public anger, that they hear the public’s frustration and that they are prepared to act with greater urgency in response?

• 10 Sept 2026 · Social Housing Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I had a much longer speech prepared for this debate, but with the constraints on time I do not think I will be able to make it. Let me reflect on the fact that for the majority of this debate, the Conservative Benches have been next to empty, with almost no contributions from Conservative Members other than those on the Front Bench. I posit that that may be because of an element of shame on the part of Conservative Back Benchers regarding the contribution that we heard from those on their Front Bench. This is a Tory party—that, not too long ago, was led by somebody born on the upper east side of New York—deciding that it will start defining the value of people as British citizens based on whether they were born here. For shame! I am more than happy to get fully behind this legislation.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Jaguar Land Rover: Redundancies · Hansard source

  More

  The automotive sector is hugely important to Banbury, with numerous companies supporting hundreds of jobs, including in the supply chain for Jaguar Land Rover. People there will be nervous about the news over recent days. Can the Minister provide them and me with reassurance about the support that the Government will provide the company and others in the supply chain?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  I have to say that I am really disappointed by this decision. Councils have spent months working on proposals; resources and precious time have been spent—or, I would say, wasted—on them. Growth is meant to be a priority for this Government, and Oxfordshire is a high growth delivery area, yet we have no devolution, no local government reorganisation and no timescale for either. Will the Secretary of State or one of her Ministers meet me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) to discuss the shortcomings in this high-value growth area?

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Public faith in our democratic system has been steadily eroded. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) provided some statistics on public opinion, and I will provide a few more. More than half of the public believe that politicians almost always lie, while only one in eight believe that we put the national interest above party advantage. That level of disillusionment did not emerge overnight. Broken promises, diminished opportunity and a growing distance from decision makers have left many people feeling unheard. Money and politics have deepened that divide and fuelled the perception that access to power is available to those who can afford it, creating a suspicion that influence can be bought rather than earned. This is no longer simply a question of public confidence; it is a question of democratic resilience. Hostile states and malign actors seek to weaken institutions and corrode trust. Disinformation poisons debate, blurs the line between fact and fiction, and encourages citizens to doubt what they see and hear. Every loophole in our political finance system is a potential point of entry for those who wish our democracy harm. Questions are also raised when voters see Members earning substantial sums from outside interests: public duty traded for private gain. Taken together, these issues foster a growing belief that politics is something done to people rather than with or for them. That belief has consequences. Where trust weakens, democracy weakens; where democracy weakens, those who seek to exploit division find opportunity. I welcome the measures in the Bill that seek to address much of the public concern around many of these issues, but rebuilding democratic legitimacy requires more than just tightening a few rules. It requires us to ask deep questions about whether our institutions still deliver the representation and accountability that people expect, and whether, if so many no longer trust the system, the system itself needs to change. For that reason, I hope that the Government will reconsider and commit to establishing a commission on electoral reform, not to pursue a predetermined outcome but to ask whether our political system is working as well as it should, whether it remains capable of rebuilding public confidence and whether it is worthy of the trust that is placed in it. The cure for public disillusionment is not less democracy; it is better democracy. The answer to distrust is not disengagement; it is accountability. The answer to frustration is not to retreat; it is to reform. That is not optional; it is necessary and urgent, and I urge the Minister to take that into consideration.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  Every week in my surgeries I hear about the consequences of Thames Water’s failures. An elderly widowed constituent was left without running water after it failed and botched the installation of a water meter, and she was forced to shell out hundreds of pounds on an emergency plumber to remedy the situation. Will the Minister confirm that she understands the anger of constituents like mine with regard to Thames Water and its continued failing? Will she confirm that she will keep all measures under review?

• 13 Jul 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister believe, as I do, that if local government reorganisation is done correctly, it has the potential not just to reshape local government so that it is fit for the 21st century, but to help us secure much-needed economic growth?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Summer Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  I was in two minds about joining this debate on summer jobs, to be frank, because my first job was stacking shelves in Marks & Spencer over Christmas, but I hope the House will forgive me for joining in anyway. I thank the Opposition for bringing forward this debate, because it is really important. Labour Members should embrace, not shy away from, the opportunity to debate the hopes and aspirations of young people. Listening to Opposition Members, one would think the challenges facing young people in the labour market materialised out of thin air or started on 4 July 2024, but the number of young people not in education, employment or training rose starkly in the years up to the general election and, yes, it has continued to go up. It is right for the Opposition to look at what this Government have done in this sphere, and they should absolutely provide such scrutiny, but they have missed a few things that this Government are doing. Our youth hubs will give young people the localised support they need to get into their local labour market. This Government have offered new incentives of £2,000 for those hiring aged 16 to 21 for foundation apprenticeships. That comes on top of a complete NICs exemption for employees under 21 and apprentices under 25. Ultimately, where we are now, with the under-employment and stagnant wages that young workers face today, is directly linked to the 14 years of the Conservative party, because for over a decade it oversaw an economy built on precarious and insecure work. A strong package of workers’ rights and protections goes hand in hand with a strong economy. The Employment Rights Act has been vital to modernising protections and making work pay, because when we give people certainty over their hours and their wages, we give them the confidence to spend on our high streets, to go into their local pubs and to support their local corner shop, which benefits all of us through growth in the economy. Throughout the passage of that Bill, the Government listened carefully to stakeholders to ensure that these reforms are balanced and fair, pro-worker and pro-business. I note that the amendments to people’s rights on the first day of employment were made because the Government showed that they were willing to listen. Despite what the Opposition may claim, this Government appreciate that work fluctuates seasonally, which is why the Act explicitly provides powers for zero-hours measures to cater for seasonal work, and the Government are continuing to consult employers and trade unions to inform future changes. The legislation maintains flexibility, allowing businesses to use contracts offering variable hours at different times of the year, with offers of guaranteed hours taking the form of limited-term contracts where reasonable. Some of the key changes in the Employment Rights Act were those made to statutory sick pay, which ensured that a safety net is available for those who need it most. The Opposition have tried to paint that as a devastating blow to business, but to be clear, the regulatory impact assessment published last October concluded that the additional cost of these reforms would be £15 per employee.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Summer Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  I meet businesses in my constituency all the time. As I stated at the beginning of my speech, they raise a number of the issues that the Opposition have raised, and I do not pretend that none of those come up in my conversations. Yes, the Opposition talk about how they want to get rid of the worst aspects of the Employment Rights Act, but I have yet to hear them name what they are and which bits they would get rid of. They just mention it without any clear proposals of what they plan to do, as with their continuing false promises on business rates, NICs and various other things. To return to my speech, removing the three-day waiting period for SSP means employees can recover from short-term illness without spreading infectious diseases in the workplace, which reduces the risk of more employees needing time off. It is about protecting the firm, the other employees and the productivity of the business as much as it is about protecting the employee. This debate exposes a fundamental difference in vision. The Opposition believe in and want an unstable, low-growth economy built on a race to the bottom. Labour Members believe working people need an economy that values their contribution, secures their rights and delivers genuine economic growth and good job creation. I am proud that that is what this Government are seeking to do. I want to conclude by mentioning that last month I had the opportunity to sit down with young people, in the heart of Banbury in my constituency, to discuss these issues face to face. They were very clear that a multitude of different things are blocking them in the labour market. They talked about AI, and how it is coming up in interviews and being used to filter out job applicants. They talked about failings in the school system and in careers advice. They talked about fears about their mental health, and whether they would have appropriate support if they enter the labour market. They brought up those issues when I spoke to them, and unlike this motion, they want us to tackle this. They did mention the costs that employers say come with employing people, but they did so alongside raising those issues. Like my hon. Friends, I do not pretend that has no impact whatsoever, but in those conversations they asked me to take away and bring to this place the point that we should look at all these issues in the round—

• 7 Jul 2026 · Summer Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  I am nearing the end of my speech, so I will not give way. Those young people want us to tackle these issues in the round and in a systemic way, rather than through party political point scoring and throwing statistics across the Chamber, as we heard from the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), because this is too important, and it is important for us to get this right.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Summer Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman is right. I had a zero-hours contract as a student and it worked for me because, crucially, I was able to say, “No, I can’t come in today.” Surely he understands that there is a difference between that situation and when often huge companies—but not only huge companies—say, “You have a zero-hours contract and that is it, there is no alternative, but you are expected to come in for these hours.” Does he not understand that zero-hours contracts can be exploited? It is not about getting rid of zero-hours contracts that work for individual students.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Foreign Interference in UK Politics · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her statement. I have notified the relevant Member that I am about to name them. Over the weekend, The Telegraph ran a study about the Iranian-born property magnate Sasan Ghandehari pledging to donate millions of pounds to Reform UK. He described the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) as an “honest politician”. Does the Minister agree?

• 17 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending · Hansard source

  More

  12. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of increases in defence spending on Wales.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending · Hansard source

  More

  This Government have a NATO-first approach, meaning that our strength is reinforced by global allies, so that, in an increasingly dangerous world, the UK will not stand alone. It is vital that colleagues from across the House and Governments across the UK remain united in that approach. Will the Secretary of State provide an update on any discussions she has had with the new Welsh Government regarding their contribution to the UK’s national security?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his decision about the continued and ongoing failings by Cherwell district council regarding a major planning application. Given that Banbury has a huge and desperate housing need, will he agree to meet me to discuss how we can fix that, despite the council?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q10. Maternity care in north Oxfordshire declined under the previous Government, with the loss of consultant-led services at the Horton hospital—where I was born—and serious failings by the trust, which is now part of Baroness Amos’s inquiry. However, last week, the Care Quality Commission upgraded the Horton maternity unit to good. Will the Prime Minister visit the Horton hospital in Banbury to see the change that this Government’s £3.3 million investment has delivered since July 2024?

• 4 Jun 2026 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  6. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of levels of Crown Prosecution Service prosecutions of cases involving violence against women and girls.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  We know that 60% of victims drop out of rape cases before they go to trial. I would appreciate it if the Solicitor General could set out what she is doing to ensure that victims remain central to the work of the Crown Prosecution Service.

• 21 May 2026 · Middle East: Economic Response · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement, especially the measures to support farmers and hauliers. Banbury has a thriving logistics sector, with brilliant businesses like TWE Haulage; I visited that company last month, and I know it will really welcome the measures that she has announced. Will she and her colleagues continue to keep under review the particular pressures on the logistics sector and be open to any further measures that may be needed?

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  You were very clear about taking interventions, Madam Deputy Speaker. Although I do normally appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s contributions, this time I will not— [ Interruption. ] As he asked so nicely, I will let him.

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  I will start by addressing comments made by Members on the Opposition Benches, in particular the hon. Members for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), who decried Government policy on energy as ideological. I hold my hands up and say that, for me, it is ideological: making the UK more secure and making people better off is at the very core of my ideology. I would class that as ideological.

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  I think the right hon. Gentleman unintentionally misrepresents Government policy, as it is my understanding that we will continue to use oil and gas, and it will play a key part in the just transition. Events in the middle east have made it very clear and have reminded us that national security and energy security go hand in hand. When global events destabilise supply, it is families here at home who feel the impact on their energy bills. We must therefore prioritise energy independence, which is why I welcome the ambition set out in the King’s Speech to do exactly that. This is not just some abstract idea; in my constituency, we are seeing what that can look like in practice. I refer to Southill solar farm in the town of Charlbury, which is not a corporation but a co-operative set up by local volunteers who wanted to make a difference. Since 2016, they have been generating enough clean energy to power around 1,500 homes. Then there is Hook Norton Low Carbon, which is doing brilliant work to keep household energy bills below the price cap, which it does by teaming up with another local solar farm and an anaerobic digestion plant—another practical, community-led solution to a national and international challenge. What these projects show is Britain at its best. It is people stepping up when they are given the opportunity to do so because they want not just greener energy, but control, stability and the sense that they are no longer at the mercy of global markets. If we want to see more of that across the country, we have to address the barriers that are holding progress back. Too many brilliant community energy projects are stuck in limbo, not because they lack ambition or funding but because they simply cannot get connected to the grid. In some cases, they are waiting years just for a connection. Not only is that frustrating, but it is holding back our entire transition to cleaner energy. We need to modernise our grid infrastructure and streamline the planning system. If we do that, we can unlock a huge wave of locally generated renewable power. However, that is only part of the picture. If we want a truly secure energy system, we also need reliable, consistent power. That is why I welcome the nuclear regulation Bill. By making the process more efficient without compromising safety, we can finally start moving at the pace we need and usher in a new chapter for British nuclear energy. Energy security is not just about how much power we generate; it must also have a positive impact on people’s lives. That is why the energy independence Bill and the £15 billion warm homes plan are so important. Helping people to insulate their homes properly is one of the most effective ways that we can cut their bills, because when families save money on energy, that money does not disappear; it gets spent in local shops, cafés and businesses, supporting jobs and strengthening local economies. That is why it is not just good environmental policy, but good economic policy. That is how we build a system that is more secure, more resilient and fairer for the people we represent. That is why I am so pleased to support the King’s Speech.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Is it not the reality that this is about a Leader of the Opposition who called for us to join the US in the war in Iran, and who called the Prime Minister a liar when the evidence has shown that there is absolutely no basis for it? Is this not just the Leader of the Opposition once again shooting from the hip?

• 27 Apr 2026 · Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update · Hansard source

  More

  This has been a very damaging issue. Peter Mandelson should clearly never have been made ambassador, and I am pleased that the Prime Minister has rightly apologised. There are, however, lessons to be learned already before the end of this Humble Address process. Can the Minister confirm that his Department has already started learning and implementing those lessons?