Sean Woodcock MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 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.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid I just do not agree. My view is that if we are going to do this, it should be done via the NHS. As somebody who stood on a Labour election platform not too long ago, that is something I stand by. We know that geography and socioeconomic factors render access to healthcare, especially private healthcare, unequal. In oral evidence, Baroness Kishwer Falkner, head of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, and Fazilet Hadi of Disability Rights UK both explained how the impact of the Bill on an unequal society might cause problems. Baroness Falkner said that “from what one understands, GP provision and general access to healthcare are poorer where demographics are poorer than it is in the better performing parts of the country. One other factor to consider in terms of a postcode lottery is that people in wealthier parts of the country tend to be more highly represented in private healthcare than in public healthcare and use of the NHS. That also impacts their choices and the care they get.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 181, Q235.] The system must not only be fair, but be seen to be fair. If we had such a system of private provision in place, public trust would almost certainly fall. We do not have to look far to see what happens if these matters go unaddressed. When we have a lack of oversight and accountability, it is the public who suffer. There have been too many scandals in recent history for us not to recognise that reality. One of the big factors in the Post Office Horizon scandal was that Fujitsu, the supplier of specialist computer software, did not admit when it knew that things were going wrong. I have spent much of my working life in the public sector and I am not saying it is perfect—far from it—but the Horizon scandal is an example that teaches an important lesson. Sometimes private companies will not share information that could mean they lose a lucrative contract. They do not have the same oversight as public authorities, which are ultimately accountable to the Government, to Parliament and, through them, to the public. We must give the public reason to trust that assisted dying services will have proper oversight; otherwise, the consequences will be felt not just in the provision of assisted dying but in healthcare more generally. Amendment (c) to new clause 36 addresses some of the risks by establishing that voluntary assisted dying services must be provided by a public authority. Furthermore, a body contracted by a public authority to provide the service must be a public authority. A public authority is defined as: “A body substantially publicly funded which performs statutory duties, objectives and other activities consistent with central or local governmental functions.” It is clear that public authorities have stronger mechanisms for transparency and reporting. Requiring assisted dying provision to be through such authorities also places the responsibility firmly with the state. It allows the direct implementation of regulations and guidelines on the provision of assisted dying. Best practice is easier to establish when the regulations apply to the same types of organisations.

• 24 Mar 2025 · European Union: UK Membership · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Banbury has a proud history as a hub for industry and manufacturing, from the aluminium works, which were crucial to the construction of aircraft during world war two, and which my grandfather later worked at, to the automotive supply chains, green tech start-ups and Formula 1 teams that call my constituency home today. Those companies and many others rely on smooth, efficient trade with the European Union. The psychodrama of the final eight years of the last Conservative Government culminated in a botched Brexit deal that put up barriers to trade, soured relations with our closest allies and ultimately left our constituents out of pocket, so I welcome the reset in relations between the United Kingdom and the European Union that has taken place since the general election. We have a real opportunity to forge a new, more constructive relationship with our European friends. Hundreds of constituents have written to me, signed petitions—including this one—and spoken to me on the doorstep about the damage that Brexit has caused. I have also had the privilege of hearing from and meeting business owners across Banbury who once enjoyed seamless access to European markets but now feel buried under the very paperwork and bureaucracy that Brexiteers once promised to eliminate. Take, for example, Electric Assisted Vehicles Ltd, an exciting Banbury-based company manufacturing electric-assisted bikes. Those bikes represent the future of urban green transport, a sector in which the UK could be leading. However, instead of expanding easily across Europe, as EAV once could, it now faces an avalanche of paperwork. It has told me that what was once a single-page document is now 20 pages. That is a clear and direct demonstration of the previous Government’s failure to deliver a Brexit deal that works for British business. Consider the BMW plant down the road in Oxford, a cornerstone of the UK automotive industry. When I spoke to workers alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) a few weeks ago, it became clear that Brexit was a key factor in BMW shifting production away from the UK and towards the EU and China. The reality is that multinational manufacturers now find it cheaper and easier to downsize their workforces in the UK than in European counterparts. That is not a situation we should accept. Banbury is home to a network of key automotive suppliers, including Magna Exteriors, Faurecia, HBPO and Borg & Beck, all of which rely on just-in-time supply chains in Europe. When delays at borders increase costs, additional import-export paperwork slows down deliveries, and rules of origin requirements limit market access, it is British workers who suffer. Under the current UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement, goods must comply with certain rules of origin regulations to qualify for tariff-free trade. That is creating new challenges for businesses, particularly manufacturers, that previously enjoyed seamless trade with the European Union. For example, a UK-based bus manufacturer exporting to the EU must ensure that at least 55% of the vehicle’s value is derived from UK or EU components, but many manufacturers rely on parts from outside the UK and the EU, making it harder to meet that requirement. Rejoining the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention would ease those constraints, keeping manufacturers in European and global markets. If we rejoined the PEM, components sourced from all 51 PEM countries would count as local content, making it easier for British businesses to qualify for tariff-free trade. That would be particularly beneficial for the automotive, chemical, pharmaceutical and machinery sectors. Although rejoining the PEM will not solve all the post-Brexit trade issues, it is a practical and immediate step towards restoring smoother trade flows. It would signal to the EU that the UK is serious about improving trade relations while staying outside the customs union and the single market, which were referred to earlier.

• 24 Mar 2025 · European Union: UK Membership · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. As I said, we have an opportunity to reduce barriers to trade, support manufacturing, attract investment and rebuild a closer relationship with Europe. The Government have rightly set a mission of making the UK the fastest-growing economy in the G7 by the end of this Parliament, and I believe that joining the PEM would be a logical step towards achieving that goal.

• 24 Mar 2025 · European Union: UK Membership · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I do not accept that they are not relevant to this clause, I am afraid, but I take on board my hon. Friend’s point. If I may finish my quote, the review continued: “There is some difficulty in determining which coma inducing mixture has the most evidence, based on the lack of comparative data between each drug regime and different dose trials.” In their evidence, the pharmacologists wrote: “Monitoring of drug efficacy and safety should be compulsory in order to assure good clinical care and comply with regulations.” I agree with that sentiment, and I hope that all hon. Members would too. The right institutions to approve drugs before use and then monitor their safety during use are those that are named in amendment 443. All substances used for assisted dying must be approved through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and either the National Institute for Clinical Excellence or the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group processes. There are significant risks if this rigorous process is not undertaken. The drugs used for assisted dying must be tested to ensure that they are safe and effective for use in assisted death.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair for the rest of our proceedings today, Mrs Harris. I rise to speak to amendment 443, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), which would ensure that the drugs used for assisted death are approved by established regulatory bodies. We know from evidence from other countries with assisted dying laws that the lethal drugs used can result in uncomfortable complications, even if in only a minority of cases. None of us would wish for that to be the case should this legislation be introduced. Unfortunately, the data on assisted dying recipients who suffer complications is nowhere near as thorough as we would like it to be, but it stills show us some important facts about what some people go through during the assisted dying process. For example, the latest annual report on assisted dying from the state government of Western Australia states: “No data on length of time to death, administration location or complications is collected by the Voluntary Assisted Dying Board regarding deaths occurring via self-administration of the voluntary assisted dying substance.” The Western Australia authorities do gather data on the rate of complications among assisted dying recipients who receive practitioner assisted death, where a doctor administers the drug. They found that in 4.3% of those assisted deaths in 2023, the patient suffered complications, which included “worsening of pain or discomfort…and regurgitation/vomiting…Complications reported as other included coughing and/or burning of the throat following assisted oral ingestion, hiccups with gastric reflux, involuntary muscular contractions, and delayed loss of consciousness. All patients with reported complications died after administration of the voluntary assisted dying substance.” I understand that the Bill does not propose that a doctor would administer the substance themselves, but I do not think that means that the Western Australia data is irrelevant. Whatever drugs are administered under the Bill will likely be similar to, or the same as, those administered in Western Australia. If the Bill passes, some of the people who undergo assisted dying in England and Wales are likely to suffer the same kinds of complications. For that reason, we cannot allow drugs to be prescribed in order to end people’s lives without first undertaking the most rigorous tests. In particular, we need to investigate how likely they are to give the patient a prolonged death or to worsen the patient’s pain.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I understand. I have said what I need to say on the amendment. I believe that it is relevant. I take your advice, Mrs Harris, but I commend it to the Committee.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  In response to the point that the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire made—

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I would suggest—

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 442, in clause 28, page 17, line 3, leave out “may” and insert “must”. This amendment will make it an obligation for the Secretary of State to make regulations on the prescribing and dispensing of approved substances, their transportation, storage, handling and disposal and the associated records with this.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Okay. I would suggest that part of the bureaucracy—

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is making a really powerful speech, and I am minded to support the amendment on the basis that there will be a small but significant group of people who, having gone through the whole process, will feel they have been a burden on the people who have gone to all the effort, through every stage, to get to the end, so if they have doubts at the end, they may be reluctant to change their mind. It will be a very small group, but I do think it is significant. I see it as the re-establishment of autonomy for the patient, which we all believe in; does the hon. Gentleman agree?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is making an important point about the lack of coherence that amendment 429 is trying to sort out. Throughout these weeks of debate in Committee, we have heard about the importance of clarity for practitioners. This provision introduces severe doubt as to exactly what a practitioner is meant to do. I understand that we do not want to say, “You have to do this and this, and in this order”, and that amendments have been rejected on that basis, but this clause opens a massive loophole in the law and practice, which concerns me. Does the hon. Lady share my concern?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I understand where the hon. Lady is trying to come from with this, but I am not convinced that management of employee behaviour, such as going against policy set out by a hospice or an institution, should be in the Bill. I am struggling to get my head around the idea that that is what we should be policing. Will she explain why that should be included compared with the standard way a hospice would manage staff who had gone against their policy on any other aspect of their daily duties?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  One rule for one!

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to amendment 440, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. It concerns what the doctor must do when they are supervising an assisted dying procedure. It would add a requirement for the medical records to include “(a) any interventions made by a medical practitioner in response to the procedure failing, and (b) the timing of those interventions.” Should the procedure fail and the person start to suffer complications, record keeping will be vital. That is particularly true because the Bill does not provide clear guidance on what doctors should do if a person starts to suffer complications during the assisted dying process; it states that a doctor and the applicant should discuss before the procedure what the applicant’s wishes would be if they suffer complications. We have heard from the Minister that doctors should use their clinical judgment when that happens to a person undergoing assisted dying. Some doctors may commence lifesaving treatment; others may decide to wait and watch while the patient suffers complications in the hope that those complications do not last too long. Collecting accurate records will enable the authorities, including the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, to compile information on people suffering complications during assisted dying procedures, however few they are. That in turn would allow for several things. It might allow doctors to compile data on which drug combinations and methods are most likely to bring about complications. It could help doctors and medical authorities to write procedures for responding to patients who suffer such complications. That information could also be used to inform patients about the likelihood of suffering complications if they go ahead with assisted dying. We have heard from several hon. Members that good record taking is essential to monitoring and safeguarding assisted dying. Unfortunately, in other jurisdictions there are significant gaps in the data on when patients have suffered complications. In Oregon, records are destroyed the year after each annual report, and physicians are not required to be present when lethal drugs are taken, so the reports of complications depend on information provided by whoever was present at the time. Complications are recorded via a form, but in 2023, 72% of complications in cases were listed as unknown. Simply recording the fact of a procedure failing will not provide enough information for monitoring, review and improvement. We should aim to do considerably better in the data we collect on patients who suffer complications, and that is why I urge Members to support the amendment.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?