Sharon Hodgson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 6 Feb 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Tomorrow is the one-year anniversary of the publication of the Hughes report, which found that the children left disabled by valproate and the women injured by pelvic mesh implants for life should be given urgent financial compensation. One year on, we are yet to see an official Government response to that report. The Leader of the House will know how important it is that women are listened to by healthcare professionals. Surely she agrees that when they are dismissed and left physically damaged by those who were supposed to have protected them, financial redress is deserved. Will she grant a debate in Government time to allow MPs from across this House—we all have constituents who have raised this with us—to discuss the recommendations of the all-important Hughes report to mark this significant occasion?

• 4 Feb 2025 · National Cancer Plan · Hansard source

  More

  On this World Cancer Day, will my hon. Friend the public health Minister tell me what efforts he is making to raise awareness of the signs and symptoms of ovarian cancer, such as a bloated tummy, lack of appetite or feeling full, tummy pain or needing to pee more often, in order to increase lifesaving early diagnosis?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Defence Procurement: Small and Medium-sized Enterprises · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. To simplify the point he is making, we should all remember that from small acorns great oaks grow, and even big companies in my constituency such as Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems will have started at some point as an SME. What he is suggesting today would help those SMEs that we all have in our constituencies maybe one day to grow into those grand great oaks.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Competition and Markets Authority Chairman · Hansard source

  More

  Having spent 15 years dealing with the CMA in my campaign to end the abuse of the secondary ticketing market, I have long felt that the CMA is in desperate need of much stronger and clearer ministerial oversight. Can the Minister confirm today which Minister will have oversight of the CMA, and that it will be an active role, not a role in name only?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Auditory Verbal Therapy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank everyone who has taken the time to come along and made such excellent contributions on this vital issue. I thank the Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who spoke for the Opposition, and the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), who spoke for the Lib Dems, for listening. I was happy to hear that the Minister will meet AVUK and explore the potential of a pilot. That is great news. I hope that he might also get a chance to speak to Sam today—that would be wonderful. I also hope that, if NICE deems—as we all have—that this therapy is both clinically and economically valuable, he will update the guidance to ICBs. The Minister also mentioned the NHS 10-year plan. I hope he recognises that it has already been nine years since the guidance was updated and that the issue needs urgent attention, perhaps towards the start of the 10-year plan rather than the end of it; otherwise, we will be getting on for 20 years. Today, we have the opportunity—the Minister especially—to change the fate of deaf children in this country. They deserve the same opportunities and outcomes as their hearing peers. That surely cannot be a controversial position. These children are the future. We must invest in them, not only because it is the right thing to do morally, but because any financial investment will produce economic returns in abundance. Mainly, we should invest in them because our children deserve it.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Auditory Verbal Therapy · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the provision of auditory verbal therapy. It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship this fine morning, Mr Western. I thank all hon. Members, especially the new Members, who have come along to speak in this all-important debate, which I have the privilege of opening. I thank the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for attending. I am delighted to see in the Gallery Sam and his parents, whom I met when I sponsored Auditory Verbal UK’s parliamentary drop-in back in October last year—how time flies! At that reception, I was talking to Sam and some of the other young people there, and I asked whether any deaf children had come along, only to be told that all the children I had been talking to were actually deaf, including Sam. That is the difference this therapy can make, and why I am so passionately supporting and making this case today. Sam was diagnosed as being profoundly deaf at five weeks old. It was not until Auditory Verbal UK was recommended to Sam’s parents by a friend of a friend, by chance, that his fate changed forever. With the help of auditory verbal therapy, Sam learned to listen and talk just like his peers. Now 13 years old, Sam can speak and do anything he puts his mind to. He is doing really well at school, I am told, and will enjoy the same opportunities as his hearing friends. For children like Sam, Auditory Verbal UK has been life-changing. Its specialist work and support provided to deaf children and their families is truly remarkable. I am therefore glad to also see representatives from AVUK here today. They will always have my support and should be very proud of the work they do. Sam stands today as living proof that when deaf children and their families have access to early, effective support to develop language and communication, opportunities are transformed. If the Government, or anyone here or watching at home, need convincing of the clear, compelling and existing evidence of the benefits of auditory verbal therapy, they have only to look to children like Sam. Although all deaf children would benefit extraordinarily from auditory verbal therapy, the truth is that they will not all be as lucky as Sam. The current reality is that more than 90% of deaf children under the age of five in the UK are unable to access auditory verbal therapy, because there is little to no provision through publicly funded services. Currently, there are a mere 33 certified auditory verbal therapists in the UK. It is clear that these wonderful therapists, who hold the potential to transform the lives of our deaf children, are sadly few and far between. In the whole of the north-east, there are no qualified auditory verbal therapists. Deaf children in my constituency of Washington and Gateshead South, for example, are unable to access this support through publicly funded services. This postcode-lottery approach to healthcare is simply unacceptable. This is the situation in spite of public research that shows that a huge 83% of adults from the north-east believe that auditory verbal therapy should be available to all deaf children via publicly funded services. We know the therapy works and that there is public support for its roll-out throughout the country, so what are we waiting for? Raising awareness that support is out there is just the first hurdle, because if impacted families are aware of the therapy but have no qualified therapists in their area, their challenges persist. Even Sam’s journey from discovering auditory verbal therapy to completing it was far from smooth sailing. With no access to the therapy via public services local to him, he and his family had to travel weekly to Oxfordshire from Eastbourne so that they could access this life-changing therapy. Not all deaf children and their families can afford the privilege of time or money to go to such lengths every week, as much as they may want to. Certainly, not all deaf children have the privilege of having a qualified therapist in their area, which is a clear problem. We absolutely need to address that inequality of access. To extend access, we need to train more specialist practitioners in auditory verbal therapy. By equipping a small proportion of the speech and language therapists, audiologists and teachers of the deaf who are currently working in the public sector with additional skills in this approach, we can enable every family who wants their deaf child to learn to listen and talk to access auditory verbal therapy through publicly funded services close to where they live. Training is already happening, with UK professionals already qualified and others on their training journey. This is possible only thanks to the fundraising efforts of the charity Auditory Verbal UK, including two teachers of the deaf in the north-east who remain in training. There is a clear route for professionals to become trained in auditory verbal therapy, as well as a cohort of public sector professionals who can then share their experience of training and how it has enhanced their practice. Research points towards the fact that as a result of pursuing the training and qualifying as listening and spoken language specialists, professionals recognise significant growth in their knowledge and skills, equipping them to train others who can then do the same—the “train the trainers” model. There are around 50,000 deaf children in the UK, and 7,200 of them are under the age of five. They currently face the prospect of lower academic achievement and employment, and they are at a higher risk of poor mental health, bullying and social exclusion. Deaf children are almost twice as likely as all children to complete their first year of school without having achieved a good level of development in relation to the early years foundation. The statistics clearly highlight a stark difference between hearing and non-hearing peers in quality of life, educational attainment, employment rates and mental wellbeing. If the moral argument is not convincing enough, surely no one can deny the huge economic returns. Economic analysis based on His Majesty’s Treasury guidelines shows that an investment of just £2 million per year for the next 10 years for training a proportion of the existing public sector workforce could deliver a whopping £152 million of economic benefit to the UK. That is a massive £11.7 billion over a 50-year period. The economic savings are huge, including £3.4 billion through less need for one-to-one support throughout primary school; £1 billion of increased employment; £4 billion due to increased quality of life; a £7.5 million decrease in Government support; and £30.5 million saved through avoided injury. It is a small economic investment that will transform the lives of some of the most vulnerable children in this country, while also bringing us huge economic returns. Surely this is a no-brainer. So long as the UK remains unconvinced, we are falling behind as other countries trailblaze the way. Auditory verbal therapy is already state-funded in countries including Australia, New Zealand and Denmark, and the success rates speak volumes. In 2022, following a successful Government-funded pilot in Denmark that showed that 84% of children acquired age-equivalent spoken language after just three years of AVT, compared with 30% previously, auditory verbal therapy became part of the standard healthcare system there. The irony is that here in the UK we are now training many Danish professionals in AV therapy to deliver it to children in Denmark, despite being unable to support our own workforce to enhance their skills to get those outcomes for children here in the UK. That cannot be right. I thank the Minister for his time and leave him with three questions. First, what scope is there for the UK to implement a pilot scheme, in the same way that Denmark did, at least to prove the transformation potential of this therapy in a couple of areas, for those who remain unconvinced? Secondly, will he commit to supporting the need to increase access to auditory verbal therapy, and provide the investment needed when the funding allows? Thirdly, will he meet the deaf children and families charity Auditory Verbal UK, from which representatives are here today, to hear at first hand about the impact of early support, and the charity’s tangible plans to enable families to access the therapy wherever they live in the UK? I thank the Minister in advance and look forward to hearing the other speakers. I look forward to the Minister’s response after he has listened to colleagues’ perspectives in this very important debate.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Auditory Verbal Therapy · Hansard source

  More

  Am I right in thinking, from what the Minister has just said, that he will issue revised guidance following today’s debate? Am I right that the Government, having given an extra £26 billion to local areas, will give them guidance that they should be looking to commission these services on a much bigger scale, so that we have more than 33 AVT therapists?

• 20 Jan 2025 · Obesity: Food and Diet · Hansard source

  More

  This has been an excellent and wide-ranging debate, and I am so happy to have the opportunity to speak in it. I commend the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), who I have worked with over a number of years, for his excellent speech. It is always really hard to talk about oneself, but he did it with grace. Listening to his really thoughtful contribution today will have helped a lot of people—it has definitely helped me. As hon. Members know, I am a huge supporter of school food. I make lots of contributions about it in this place; I believe that it should be universal, for all the reasons that I will go on to discuss. It is not only about stigma, poverty alleviation and all of that, but about the health benefits that all children eating healthy school food would bring, especially in regard to their diet and obesity. Looking at schools up and down the country, the food that they serve is far too inconsistent. We have seen some brilliant examples across the country—we have all visited schools in our constituencies that serve a variety of salads and nutritious hot meals—but others are serving things like pizzas, burgers or chips far more often than they should be doing under the school food standards. That is damaging the health of a generation. The report by the House of Lords Food, Diet and Obesity Committee, chaired by the wonderful Baroness Walmsley, discussed the fact that too many secondary schools in particular were serving up food that was not preparing students for the rest of their school day. As Members across the House know, this is where the school food standards should come in. However, a study by Impact on Urban Health shows significant differences between what is mandated by the school food standards, what appears on menus, and what actually ends up on plates. In fact, 60% of secondary schools have been found not to follow the school food standards at all. In other words, the school food standards exist on paper, but not on plates. That is why, across the sector and in this House, we have been calling for proper enforcement of the school food standards. This Government must end the postcode lottery in what children get to eat at lunchtime. There is no greater priority for this Government than raising the healthiest generation of children ever. This is a matter of health: one in three children are already at risk of future food-related ill health, such as type 2 diabetes or heart disease, by the age of 10. Existing Government initiatives are already going above and beyond to combat that, and providing a free breakfast to every primary school child will ensure that pupils are starting their day nourished and ready to learn, but there is more to be done. The Department for Education has reported that 11% of families nationally who are entitled to claim free school meals have not applied to receive them. This means that between 240,000 and 470,000 children in England—the figure seems to vary depending on who you talk to, but it is a large number—are missing out on their statutory right to a free school meal. This is due to barriers such as complex applications, language or literacy challenges, stigma and low awareness. An auto-enrolment plan, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) in his private Member’s Bill—the Free School Meals (Automatic Registration of Eligible Children) Bill—and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) in his opening speech, would solve the problem. Many local authorities have already had massive success, but data-sharing challenges or bureaucracy should not prevent children from eating at school, especially when they are entitled to a free school meal. Because free school meals are a statutory scheme, Government funding should already exist to provide the up to 470,000 missing children with a school lunch, so this should not be seen as a spending commitment. That funding also unlocks vital pupil premium funding. Since 2016, Sheffield city council has unlocked £3.8 million of extra pupil premium funding every single year to support 5,400 children. Small tweaks like auto-enrolment really can have huge impacts on thousands of children’s lives. Another concern that must be addressed is the scarily low eligibility criteria for free school meals. Households must be earning less than £7,400 a year before benefits to be entitled. That leaves out up to 900,000 children who are living in poverty by any measure but are not in receipt of that crucial support. We have heard examples of children pretending to eat from empty lunchboxes, hiding in the playground because they do not want others to know that they do not have any food or money for lunch, or asking their friends for an extra sandwich for their friend who never has any food for lunch. We must bring the eligibility criteria in line with universal credit, which would provide those 900,000 children with a hot, nutritious meal at lunchtime. Surely that is the least we should be doing in one of the richest countries in the world. In an ideal world, we would follow the example of the London Mayor and extend free school meals to all primary-age children, with the ambition of a universal offer. This would level the playing field and eliminate inequality at lunchtime, while also ensuring that all children eat healthy, nutritious meals, setting them up for a healthier life as adults with lower rates of obesity. As we have heard, that would save up to £35 billion a year. It is a win-win, surely. These progressive steps, empowered by the new breakfast club programme, should be taken when funding allows. The results would speak for themselves, delivering on our ambitious manifesto commitment for the UK to be raising the healthiest generation of children ever. Surely they deserve no less. They are our future, after all.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for securing this important debate, and I am very happy to be called to speak on such an important issue. As chair of the First Do No Harm all-party parliamentary group, I am very interested in the need for MHRA reform in the context of the mesh, Primodos and valproate scandals. However, for time’s sake, I will focus my remarks on MHRA reform and the mesh scandal in particular, not least because the right hon. Lady opened the debate so well, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) will speak about the Primodos scandal and I do not want to steal any of her thunder. I want to start by paying tribute to all the campaigners we have worked with over so many years on the “First Do No Harm” report scandal, especially Kath Sanson from Sling the Mesh, Marie Lyon, who has been mentioned, from the Primodos campaign, and Janet Williams and Emma Murphy from the valproate campaign. I also must pay tribute to Baroness Cumberlege, who recently retired from the other place, who was the author of the independent medicines and medical devices safety review and the former co-chair of the First Do No Harm all-party parliamentary group. She has been a great support to me over the years. Thanks to her invaluable hard work highlighting key recommendations to prevent future health scandals, including vital MHRA reform, we know what we need to do. Now we must get on with the job. As we have heard, colleagues here today are in agreement that the MHRA is in need of urgent and substantial reform. One area in particular is the need for mandatory reporting of adverse events to the yellow card by healthcare professionals. Contrary to responses I received when I asked questions on the topic in the House, which argue that the current system works, it does not. It is broken. Let me be clear: the current voluntary system, which doctors enjoy, enabling them to choose whether to log side effects and complications to the MHRA yellow card, is simply unacceptable. This voluntary system has led to many adverse events going unreported. The system must be made mandatory, but that fix alone will not work if the data is there but is not used. The information must be tracked and assessed in real time by the MHRA, to spot trends of harm so that treatments can be stopped immediately if needed, to prevent the repetition of mistakes and, in turn, to prevent their escalation into further health scandals, as we have seen with mesh, valproate and Primodos. Comparison of datasets conducted by Sling the Mesh found that a whopping two thirds of mesh complications —some as serious as slicing into bladders, bowels or through vaginal walls—were not logged by healthcare professionals to the MHRA yellow card. If these excruciating examples are not interpreted by healthcare professionals as worthy of reporting, what reason do we have to trust that healthcare treatments are safe? We need to see the MHRA at the heart of patient safety, properly and efficiently regulating and recording and not just nodding treatments through like a tick-box exercise. Mesh, for example, was allowed from the 1990s onwards on the basis that it was equivalent to hernia mesh. Without any post-market surveillance by the MHRA, it was allowed to be aggressively sold, free rein, in the UK. This ultimately led to thousands of women, including my very own mam, being irreversibly harmed. Had reporting been mandatory, the sheer scale of women impacted could have at least been reduced through spotting a clear pattern of harm and putting a stop to it. It is clear that we need to change the current system, and fast. Most of the scandals we are talking about today affect women, so women’s voices must be taken seriously. We should not have to wait until media coverage publicly shames health scandals or documentaries force account-ability and answers upon us. The MHRA needs to be functioning and not just responding to treatments causing harm, but regulating and preventing them in the first place. Surely this is the absolute least we should expect from a regulation agency that is supposed to ensure the safety and effectiveness of patients and the medicines and medical devices that they receive—hence: first do no harm.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Health and Social Care: Winter Update · Hansard source

  More

  Under the last Conservative Government, strikes cost the taxpayer millions of pounds and 1.5 million appointments were cancelled, so may I thank the Secretary of State sincerely for making it his day one priority to sort that out? He called the junior doctors and found a deal within three weeks, ending the strikes. All of us across the House thank him for sorting that out. For the first winter in three years, staff will be on the frontline, not the picket line, as the Secretary of State so rightly said. Does he agree that that is just one example of what Labour Governments do in office? We always have a laser focus on making the NHS better, unlike the Conservatives, who seem to have a laser focus on making it fail.

• 13 Jan 2025 · Live Events Ticketing: Resale and Pricing Practices · Hansard source

  More

  Having campaigned on this issue for over 15 years, I have reached three main conclusions. First, the cap on resale should be set as low as possible—for example, face value plus 5% or 10%—to take the incentive out of scalping, or else we should simply follow the Irish model and prohibit resale for profit altogether. Secondly, many touts and resale sites are based overseas, so legislation must be supranational. Finally, any crackdown on the black market must be fully enforced, unlike in the current situation where prosecutions are few and far between: there have been a handful—six at most. Does the Minister agree?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Impact of Conflict on Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  I place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) for securing this important debate. We know that conflict is on the rise across the world, and that with each conflict comes an increased level of vulnerability and violence for women and girls. Any discussion around conflict must therefore be conducted through a gendered lens, and today provides the opportunity for that. I thank my hon. Friend again for giving us the opportunity to shine a light on this ongoing issue. Conflict has an array of impacts on women and girls, many of which have been covered by colleagues already. I will focus my remarks on one hugely important yet understudied problem: the impact of sexual violence in conflict on women and girls. Too often, sexual violence against women and girls is swept under the rug, and its victims are forgotten, ignored or denied. Today is an opportunity to recognise and acknowledge that it is real, it is a problem and we need to take it seriously across the world in order to end it. It is an area that I have campaigned on for a number of years, and I want to recognise how encouraging it is that so many new colleagues are in the Chamber today—the new colleagues are in the majority, which is great to see. We have already heard today about the impact of violence on women and girls in so many countries, including Congo, Sudan, the middle east, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Myanmar, Ukraine, Iraq and probably many more that I have either missed or will be talked about following my remarks. I will focus on the terrible war in Israel and Gaza, the sexual violence against Israeli women and girls committed by Hamas on 7 October 2023, and the sexual violence against Palestinian women and girls since then. As many of the victims on 7 October were murdered or died from their wounds, we may never have an exact picture of what happened in that murderous attack. What we do know is that Hamas’s violence against Israeli women was a well-documented case of mass, organised sexual violence, not least because the perpetrators proudly filmed, advertised and celebrated their crimes. One account from a first responder at Kibbutz Be’eri reported “piles and piles” of dead women who were “completely naked” from the waist down as well as horrific sexual mutilation. Rami Shmuel, an organiser of the Supernova music festival and a witness of the massacre, in which 360 people—mostly Israelis—were murdered, saw female victims with no clothes as he escaped. He said: “Their legs were spread out and some of them were butchered.” Another Supernova survivor, Yoni Saadon, reported seeing “eight or 10 of the fighters beating and raping” one woman. She also said: “When they finished they were laughing, and the last one shot her in the head.” These were not random acts, but a systematic effort that the women’s rights campaigner Professor Ruth Halperin-Kaddari has characterised as a “premeditated plan to use sexual violence as a weapon of war.” We must also take a moment to recognise that Hamas’s sexual violence may even be ongoing. Around 100 Israelis —the figure may be just under that, according to last night’s news—remain held hostage in Gaza, of whom we know 12 are women and girls. Reports have indicated and survivors have confirmed that both female and male hostages have been subjected to sexual assault in their 424 days in captivity. Likewise, I remain gravely concerned about the sexual violence that Palestinian women and girls have endured and continue to endure in this ongoing conflict. Credible reports from UN experts highlight that Palestinian women and girls in detention have been subject to multiple forms of sexual assault, including being stripped naked and searched by male Israeli officers. Photos of these vulnerable Palestinian women in degrading circumstances have also reportedly been taken and uploaded online by members of the Israeli army. Reem Alsalem, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, argued that all those numbers are, in fact, likely to be even higher due to the secrecy with which the assaults take place and the stigma around reporting sexual violence and rape, which discourages women from speaking out—something that exists wherever they are in the world. Wherever the victims are, we as both parliamentarians and human beings should be saying, “If you are a victim of sexual violence, we believe you,” but all too often they face scepticism and even outright denial. The Israeli women and girls subjected to sexual violence on 7 October 2023 were met with deafening silence from many agencies and organisations founded to support victims. Many organisations initially ignored or minimised Hamas’s crimes of sexual violence, or even doubted that they had even taken place. UN Women issued multiple statements following 7 October, none of which made reference to the sexual violence of that day. The UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls blandly expressed concern about “reports of sexual violence that may have occurred since 7 October committed by State and non-State actors against Israelis and Palestinians.” Worse, many supposed feminists dismissed discussion of Hamas’s rape as colonial feminism and unverified accusations; the latter will be all too familiar to those victims brave enough to report their experiences, whether in conflict zones or non-conflict zones. We know that this is sadly all too true for most victims of sexual violence. We know that sexual violence is perpetuated by stigma, silence, victim blaming and denial. All those prevent women and girls from getting the justice that they deserve. When we deny the reality of sexual violence, we perpetuate it, so it is incumbent on us all to ensure that we treat all victims of sexual violence with the respect and compassion that they deserve. Wherever you are and whoever you are, we believe you.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  After decades of campaigning for the health of children and better school food, I am so pleased that universal primary breakfast club provision is being put on a statutory footing in the Bill. There is no greater priority for this Government than raising the healthiest generation of children ever. The fact that the Conservative party is trying to play politics with the wellbeing of children when it comes to this Bill is a true reflection of where its priorities lie. Providing a free breakfast to all primary school pupils is yet another manifesto commitment fulfilled, and it will transform the lives of children across the country. The Education Endowment Foundation found that school breakfasts can help deliver two months-worth of extra attainment at key stage 1. There will also be huge health outcomes. One in three children are already at risk of future food-related ill health, such as type 2 diabetes or heart disease, by the age of 10. By providing a nutritious breakfast, we can ensure that children start their day at school ready to learn. However, I am concerned that the Bill does not include any kind of nationwide system of monitoring the food served in breakfast clubs. The school food standards set out over 10 years ago are still not being enforced. Children will be at risk—though it will not necessarily happen—of being served poor-quality breakfasts under the scheme. Alongside the roll-out, we need to put in place the recommendations in the excellent 2013 school food plan about Ofsted and the enforcement of standards. I hope that will be considered in later stages and iterations of the Bill. Speaking of health outcomes, it is a missed opportunity not to include auto-enrolment for free school meals in the Bill, as others have said today. The Department for Education has reported that nationally, 11% of families who are entitled to claim free school meals have not applied to receive them. That means that 470,000 children in England are missing out on their statutory right to a free school meal. That is due to barriers such as complex application processes, language or literacy challenges, stigma and low awareness. The FixOurFood research programme has worked with 66 local authorities, with huge success, but the burden must be taken off local authorities. Data-sharing challenges should not prevent children from eating the free school meal to which they are entitled. As the free school meal scheme is a statutory scheme, Government funding for providing those 470,000 children with a school lunch should already exist, so auto-enrolment should not be seen as extra spending. Importantly, auto-enrolment also unlocks vital extra pupil premium funding. For example, since 2016, Sheffield city council has unlocked £3.8 million in extra pupil premium funding every single year to support 5,400 children. That is just one example of many available. Including provision in the Bill to provide those children with a free lunch would have a very low cost, but an extremely high impact. Free school meals, enabled by the new breakfast programme, have been shown to be beneficial for both attainment and attendance at school. In fact, the case for universal free school meals is also a no-brainer. Impact on Urban Health found that every £1 invested in universal free schools meals returns £1.71 in core benefits. That includes massive savings for the NHS through reduction in childhood obesity rates. The London Mayor’s groundbreaking scheme to expand free school meals to all primary-aged pupils has also had unprecedented impact: 84% of parents said that the scheme had “helped” or “significantly helped” their household finances. An evaluation report was recently released; I encourage the Minister for School Standards and the Secretary of State to read that report, if they have not done so already. It contains significant findings that more than make the case for universal free school meals to be rolled out. I look forward to seeing the success of the breakfast club programme as it is rolled out—alongside, hopefully, more quality school lunches. I hope that creates further appetite for better and expanded school food provision in the future.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Cumberlege Review: Pelvic Mesh · Hansard source

  More

  Do you want to give some guidance on how long is left, Mr Stringer, so I can cut my speech accordingly?

• 5 Dec 2024 · Cumberlege Review: Pelvic Mesh · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Lady for covering the recommendations, which I was not able to do. That has relieved me somewhat. We have at last seen some compensation for the victims of Windrush, the infected blood scandal and the Horizon scandal. Does she agree that it is incumbent on the Government to treat this scandal with the same seriousness, fully accept recommendation 4 and put the redress scheme in place?

• 5 Dec 2024 · Cumberlege Review: Pelvic Mesh · Hansard source

  More

  In the short time I have available, I will try to make some important points. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for first do no harm—along with Baroness Cumberlege, who it is a pleasure to see in the Public Gallery—it is a pleasure to speak in this important debate. I also point out how many officers of the all-party group are here in the Chamber, on a Thursday and on a one-line Whip. That speaks for itself as to how important the issue is to the House and to all of us. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for securing this important debate to shed further light on this still under-discussed scandal. Members present, campaigners watching at home, and especially patients, will all be aware of the extent of the injustice. I have had the privilege of working with wonderful campaigners over many years, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Kath Sansom from Sling the Mesh, who is a key campaigner for mesh victims and has been a great support to me and to colleagues over the years. I am glad that she is in the Public Gallery to watch the debate, alongside Debbie, who is the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow, and who brought this scandal to his attention. My first contribution in this House on surgical mesh was in 2017, during my time as shadow Minister for Public Health, and I am glad to see the actual Minister for Public Health and Prevention in his place to hear this debate. I have continued to campaign tirelessly on the issue through debates and my work with the all-party group ever since. The issue is not only of political importance to me; it matters to me on a profoundly personal level. As I am sure some in the Chamber will know, among the thousands of women affected by mesh complications is my mam, who was one of the 617 mesh-damaged women who met, or made submissions to, Baroness Cumberlege for her review. I took my mam along to an evidence session in Gateshead, and she was able to meet Baroness Cumberlege and tell her story personally. She still talks about that to this day—she is very grateful. After suffering mild stress incontinence, as we have heard from a number of people who went through the procedure, my mam had SUI surgery to have some tension-free vaginal tape inserted, which was a quick and common treatment offered to women for incontinence. However, had she known the life-limiting complications she was about to suffer as a result, dealing with slight stress incontinence would not have seemed very bad at all. Two to three years post-surgery, my mam had one health complication after another. She suffered all sorts of autoimmune reactions, recurrent urinary tract infections, and was in constant pain in her groin, arms and legs. She became a shadow of her former self, and it took us quite a few years to work out what was causing the symptoms and pain. It was only through my research for that debate back in 2017 as the shadow Minister that I was able to join the dots together, and from that moment on we both wished constantly that she had never had the operation. My mam will be 80 in January, and she would say that she is one of the lucky ones. Since I first spoke on the topic, she has been able to get the mesh surgically removed. It was a long delicate operation, thankfully carried out by the amazing Suzy Elneil, which she had to undertake in London in order to avoid the surgeon who put it in her in the first place—something that the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and others have spoken about. That is something that many mesh-damaged women will understand. With the removal of the mesh, many of her health complications vanished immediately. The road to recovery is far from smooth for many mesh-damage victims, however, and my mam is no exception. She is still recovering to this day and, in her words, “will never be the same again.” I sat next to my mam at her local hospital and watched her be gaslit and undermined by her original surgeon when she first sought help with her pain and symptoms. Our doctors, surgeons and healthcare providers are meant to protect us, not harm us. Hence, “first do no harm”—an unwritten contract between patients and healthcare providers that rightly makes us feel that when we seek medical help, we trust that we will be made better, not worse. Surely the least we can expect in cases where harm does happen is accountability and for wrongs to be righted. Instead, we see a culture of defensiveness and a lack of accountability. It is therefore shocking that the surgeons responsible for the implantation of this life-shattering mesh are the very same people tasked with removing it. I was going to talk about Baroness Cumberlege’s recommendations—which we have had success with and which we have not—but sadly the right hon. Member for New Forest East used up all the time, so I cannot.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Pimping websites and paying for sex · Hansard source

  More

  On the third day of the UN’s 16 days of activism against gender-based violence, I rise to present a petition on behalf of my Washington and Gateshead South constituents on commercial sexual exploitation. The trafficking and exploitation of women is actively facilitated by pimping websites that advertise these women, free for anyone to view. The sex trade has never been more accessible or more centralised than it is now. Following is the full text of the petition: [ The petition of residents of the constituency of Washington and Gateshead South, Declares that demand from the minority of men who pay for sex is driving the prostitution and sex trafficking trade, and this sexual exploitation is being facilitated by pimping websites that operate with impunity. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to outlaw pimping websites and paying for sex, and provide support, not sanctions, to victims of sexual exploitation. And the petitioners remain, etc. ] [P003023]

• 24 Oct 2024 · Secondary Ticketing Market · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 24 Oct 2024 · Secondary Ticketing Market · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister—sorry. He pointed out that with dynamic pricing the price can go up but also come down. That might happen when it is Uber, airline prices or hotel rooms, but at yesterday’s meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse we heard from experts in the room, FanFair Alliance and Reg Walker, that that never happens with regard to ticketing. They never come down. The only way is up.

• 24 Oct 2024 · Secondary Ticketing Market · Hansard source

  More

  I do not want this debate to end without mentioning Ed Sheeran and how much he has done to try to tackle the scourge of ticket touting. Lots of other artists, such as Iron Maiden, Arctic Monkeys, Mumford & Sons and many others have tried, but Ed Sheeran went above and beyond by cancelling tickets when they had been resold. Taylor Swift never did that because she did not want to break the hearts of all her fans, but Ed Sheeran has been a real warrior in that regard.

• 24 Oct 2024 · Secondary Ticketing Market · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. When fans are forced to pay way over the odds, they are not able to then go to 10, 20 or 30 other concerts or sporting events, because they may have spent their budget for the year on that one special event that they really wanted to go to. Does he recognise that this issue robs the fans of those multiple opportunities?

• 24 Oct 2024 · Secondary Ticketing Market · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) for securing this important debate. I am glad to hear that she is as passionate as I am about sorting out this broken market. I am happy to see the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism in his place. We have been on quite a journey together to get to this point and I very much look forward to him fixing all these wrongs in due course. A lot has happened in the campaign to regulate the secondary ticketing market since I first introduced my private Member’s Bill on the topic back in 2010, which was before the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) suffered the problems she did in 2012. The problem would have been sorted if the then Member for Shipley had not talked out my private Member’s Bill. However, because of constant lobbying by yours truly and the growing scourge of parasitic touts becoming increasingly sophisticated and ruthless, the new Labour Government have decided to act, as we promised we would in our manifesto. We now have the watershed opportunity to create the change we desperately need. Over many years in this place we have tried to regulate the market. We have tweaked legislation, first with the Consumer Rights Act 2015, to bring in more transparency because it was said that that was what was needed. But that did not work. Then, with the successful Ban the Bots campaign, we secured an amendment to the Digital Economy Bill in 2017. However, that did not work either: we know that the use of bots and the profits of those using bots for sales are exploding. For a recent Sabrina Carpenter ticket pre-sale of just 10,000 tickets, there were 380,000 bots in the queue attempting to harvest them. Research published last month by O2, which sells 1 million tickets per year through its priority scheme, estimates that touts cost British music fans an extra £145 million a year, but I suspect that is just the tip of the iceberg. That money is taken from the back pockets of UK audiences and deposited into the bank accounts of offshore retail platforms and the touts who supply their inventory. Despite uncontrolled touting taking place on an industrial scale, with tickets resold through sites such as Viagogo—there is that name on my lips again—prosecutions were few and far between under the last Government. Led by National Trading Standards, the precedent-setting convictions of just two groups of ticket touts worth millions of pounds each should have opened the floodgates to more action against those who flout the law and use platforms like Viagogo to put profits before fans, but sadly they have not, because resources have run dry. There has not been a single prosecution under the Breaching of Limits on Ticket Sales Regulations 2018 and nor have there been any prosecutions for using bots under the Digital Economy Act 2017, despite our securing the Ban the Bots amendment. The details of the prosecutions are extraordinary, with touts fraudulently acquiring tens of thousands of tickets and then reselling them through websites such as Viagogo and GetMeIn—which does not exist any more—that were not compliant with UK consumer law. In both cases, it was strongly suggested that the resale platforms were complicit in the touts’ illegal activities. Incredibly, although the touts were prosecuted and jailed, the resale platforms faced no such sanctions. They kept their cumulative 25% service fees from the illegal transactions—if we do the numbers, we see that means millions of pounds—and they continue to profit from further illicit trading. Where are all the illegal proceeds of crime? Why have they never been recovered? As the CMA highlighted in 2021, this remains an unregulated market where stronger laws are desperately needed to protect audiences. As stated in the 2016 Waterson review, changes must include properly funding National Trading Standards, which, despite having a budget of only just under £15 million and so much more than just ticket abuse to look at, is the only body to have successfully prosecuted touts. Sadly, despite the mountains of evidence that campaigners such as Adam from FanFair Alliance and myself have provided the CMA with, it has carried out no such prosecutions and is in desperate need of clearer ministerial oversight. I hope that the Minister takes note of that point in particular. We can see that legislation to outlaw resale for profit or to cap resale prices works in other countries. This is a golden opportunity to ensure that UK audiences receive similar protections and enjoy a capped, consumer-friendly and ethical resale market that works in their interests. Companies such as Viagogo pretend to be legitimate businesses, but the resales are not from fan to fan: they are absolutely dependent on touts committing criminal offences to harvest tickets on an industrial scale then resell them through the website. Citing research from FanFair Alliance just last month, which looked at all the Viagogo listings for 28 shows over the past year at Liverpool’s main mid-size venue, the 1,200-capacity O2 Academy, I can tell hon. Members that only one ticket was listed by a consumer. This very morning, Sam Fender shows went on sale —we all know him from my region—including a gig in Newcastle’s Utilita arena. Coming from the north-east, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth and I do, we know that Sam’s shows are highly sought after. It is a balloted event, with four tickets per person and only for local postcodes, to try to restrict it and ensure that north-eastern fans get to go. But guess what? There is already a Dubai-based business selling 54 tickets in a single listing. On what site? Viagogo. As I have stressed time and again, Viagogo has never been penalised in the UK, despite regularly flouting UK legislation, and it has shown repeatedly that it cannot be trusted to mark its own homework. Listen to this: it was fined 7 million Australian dollars for misleading consumers, €20 million for breaking the law in Italy and €400,000 in France for breaking the law around rugby world cup tickets, but it has never been fined a penny here. Capping ticket resales is a common-sense, cost-free benefit for fans across the country. In fact, cracking down on fraud, which is the most common crime in the UK, could be a net benefit for the country through the proceeds of crime. Although the two cannot be linked precisely, Ireland saw a large drop in fraud after it implemented a version of—guess what?—my private Member’s Bill. For the upcoming Oasis world tour, the only shows for which tickets are not being touted on Viagogo, StubHub and Gigsberg are the two at Croke Park in Dublin. Although long-term impact reports are still under way, the Irish Government’s official post-enactment report on the Sale of Tickets (Cultural, Entertainment, Recreational and Sporting Events) Act 2021—essentially my private Member’s Bill—concludes: “This is a positive endorsement of the operation of the Act and means that the objectives of the Act are being met whereby genuine fans can attend events at affordable prices.” That is what we all seek and what artists and sporting events want to happen when they price their tickets. They know that tickets are worth more, but they do not want to rip off their own fans: they want grassroots sport and the players of the future to be able to attend. My private Member’s Bill argued for capping resales at face value plus 10%. The 10% exists to account for booking and postage fees. I have never wanted any fans to be out of pocket, not even for the booking fees. I have only ever believed that we need to take out of the reselling of tickets any opportunity to profit, to stop them becoming a commodity that is sold to the highest bidder. I was happy to see, therefore, Michael Rapino, the chief executive officer of Live Nation, which owns Ticketmaster, urge Governments in a recent interview with Bloomberg to regulate the business by capping resale. He said that resale prices are 20% above face value, and: “You shouldn’t have a middleman that has nothing invested in the business make any money from it”— hallelujah! I have been saying that for years. A 20% cap, though, is still too high, because it leaves room for touts to operate by still harvesting large numbers of tickets to make large amounts of money. That extra 10%, if someone buys enough tickets, will make them a lot of money, especially if dynamic pricing is used as well. But that is recognition from the top of the industry that change is desperately needed—Michael Rapino never said anything like that before we got into government three short months ago. Furthermore, disagreement over what constitutes face value must also be addressed, given Ticketmaster’s roll-out of dynamic pricing. In February, which was before the recent Oasis debacle, Live Nation unveiled a 36% increase in its annual revenues, to £22.7 billion, and Rapino said: “Outside of the US, we’re in the first inning…We’re just rolling this out around the world. So that’s the great growth opportunity, obviously.” Remember, where did they get their money? Fans—off the back of fans, regular people just wanting to see their favourite artist and to take part in the culture. I am so pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth made all those points about what it is that makes our heart glad and what it is we want to do in our spare time. We want to see our favourite artist or attend our favourite sporting event, which is why people are so willing to press “Buy” when they see that crazy price. Something within us drives us to that, but culture and enjoyment should be accessible to all of us, no matter how deep or not deep our pockets are. I am so glad that the Government immediately agreed to include dynamic pricing in their autumn review of ticket resales. I will continue to engage actively with them on this issue and the wider issues in the secondary ticketing market. We must take action to protect fans, venues, artists and athletes. Existing legislation is not good enough. For years we have said, “If we could only enforce what we have,” but we have tried that and it is just not working. I have been campaigning on this issue for more than 15 years. I have worked closely with industry experts and I presented Parliament with the solution back in 2010, with my private Member’s Bill—it is still the only solution. I therefore look forward to this Government making it, or a revision of it, law very soon.

• 7 Oct 2024 · Hamas Attacks: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I also visited Kfar Aza just a few weeks before the horrific attacks by Hamas on 7 October. The visit had a profound impact on me, especially in the light of what followed just a few short weeks later. I listened to Emily Damari’s mum Mandy at the memorial in Hyde park yesterday, pleading with us all who were present to do something to help her daughter. As a mum to an Emily, who is exactly the same age as her Emily will be now, I am here tonight to ask if my hon. Friend will join me in pleading with the Minister and our Government to work night and day to ensure that Emily and the other 100 hostages still being held in unimaginable horror in Gaza are released as soon as humanly possible.

• 5 Sept 2024 · SEND Provision · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing this very important debate. It has been widely noted that SEND provision came up significantly on the doorsteps during the general election. The statement from the then Conservative Education Secretary earlier this year that SEND provision had reached a crisis point only further reinforced what we already knew—but it was under their watch. No one wants to say, “I told you so,” but as the shadow Minister during the passage of the Bill that became the Children and Families Act 2014—the Act that brought in education, health and care plans—I did, many times. This crisis is exactly what I, as shadow Minister, along with many from the education, voluntary and charity sectors who supported me with many amendments, all predicted. The crisis we are in now was entirely predictable. It is a damning indictment that, after 14 years in power, this is the state that the Conservatives left SEND provision in. Between 2019 and 2023, the number of EHCPs issued rose by 72%, but shockingly, dedicated SEND funding only rose by 42%. That is just one stat of many that I could give. The lack of funding, the delays and the de-prioritisation of children with SEND is a stain on our society. I know from the challenges I face in my own family that the impact on children’s self-confidence, self-esteem and education can be life-changing. I, like many here, have had first-hand experience of the impact that underfunded and disjointed SEND support can have, because my son Joseph is severely dyslexic. His experience opened my eyes and has given me a lifelong passion, throughout my 19 years as an MP, to do something about the challenges that children with SEND experience in accessing support, and the variation in the quality of support that children experience across the country. It really is a postcode lottery. Joseph was eventually statemented aged 10. I will not go into his journey, but two decades on, children who are now entering the education system are having the same experiences as he did. Nothing has improved. I have had many conversations with the British Dyslexia Association recently—I was chair of the all-party parliamentary group for dyslexia and other specific learning difficulties. One of the reasons that teachers struggle is the lack of training. Due to time I cannot expand on that, but I am sure others will.

• 4 Sept 2024 · Preventable Baby Loss · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for securing this important debate and for his moving opening speech. My thanks also go to Bliss for the briefing that it provided. This is an incredibly important debate for me and, I have no doubt, for all of us here today. As some Members will know, I—like many others here today, sadly—have experienced the devastation of baby loss. Having not spoken about my experience of baby loss until 2016, 11 years after I became an MP, I know how difficult this can be to talk about openly. I want to thank all colleagues for being here, some of whom have personal motivations, as we have heard. I want to tell you a little bit about my daughter Lucy and about my experience of baby loss. My daughter Lucy was born at 23 and a half weeks, and sadly she was stillborn. Her heart beat throughout my labour until just minutes before she was born. The experience of giving birth to a stillborn child is incredibly traumatic, as we have heard and as I have spoken about previously. It feels weird that the world around you is not responding as it would if you had given birth to a live baby. I felt that I made everyone around me, or anyone I met, feel very uncomfortable: it is one of the last taboos, as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) spoke about. No one knows what to say to you when you have lost a baby or given birth to a stillborn baby—it is everyone’s worst nightmare—so I did not talk about it, and I certainly did not tell anyone new to my life who had not known me before I lost Lucy. When I became an MP in 2005, it took me until 2016 to actually talk about it in this place, or to anyone from my post-baby-loss life. What compounded this grief was the fact that Lucy did not receive a birth or death certificate. Even more upsettingly, in my records it was not recorded as a stillbirth; it was recorded as a miscarriage. Because she was just days away from being 24 weeks, she was three or four days short of the required legal age to be eligible for a death certificate. Because of that, she does not officially exist in any official records other than our own family records. We did name Lucy during a blessing in a private room, which I was moved to after she was born, when I had to give birth in the maternity ward among all the live babies. She was then taken to the chapel of rest and we held a very small funeral service for her, organised by the chaplain at the hospital and the Co-op, which funded everything. I will be forever grateful for that: it meant a lot at the time and still does. The acknowledgment of Lucy’s existence that they provided us with was truly invaluable, particularly when it had been denied to us by the lack of a death or a birth certificate. After my experience, I knew things had to change, even though I could not talk about it for a long time. Alongside the former Members Will Quince, Antoinette Sandbach and Victoria Prentis—some of us here will remember Victoria, who left the House at the last election—I became one of the founding members of the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss in 2016. I am pleased that the APPG is still going; I hope it gets reformed. It has become a vehicle for making great progress with regard to baby loss, in particular for securing bereavement suites across the country, improved patient pathways and better recording of data, among many more improvements. Still more are needed, sadly. I then became one of only two MPs on the pregnancy loss review, alongside our former colleague Tim Loughton, following his private Member’s Bill. The review’s work resulted in significant changes—not least the decision, announced just earlier this year, that parents who lose a baby before 24 weeks of pregnancy in England can now receive a certificate in recognition of their loss. I know that this has been a great source of comfort for many who now feel they can finally get a formal recognition and acknowledgment that their baby existed. I am certain that it would have made a huge difference to me and my family.