Sean Woodcock MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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?

• 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?

• 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.