Stuart Andrew MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 Nov 2025 · Unpaid Carers: Inequalities · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Vaz. I am pleased to respond to this important debate on behalf of the Opposition, and I thank the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for securing it and for her long-standing leadership on carers’ rights. I acknowledge the contributions made by hon. Members across the House this afternoon. They have spoken very openly about their personal experiences, which helps to bring alive this debate and these issues. I am conscious that the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) talked about how much work he has to do before he even gets to work, which reflects what so many people across the country feel. As has just been said, unpaid carers are the backbone of our care system. They provide vital support to loved ones, often around the clock and with little recognition, and at great personal cost. This debate is therefore not just timely, but probably overdue. Before entering Parliament, I spent over 15 years working mainly in palliative care, and much of that in children’s hospices—lastly at Martin House children’s hospice up in Yorkshire. I saw the extraordinary compassion, amazing resilience and sacrifice from unpaid carers every single day, whether from parents caring for their terminally ill children, many of whom had very complex needs, or relatives supporting someone at the end of their life—people managing both care and grief at the same time. I will always remember one parent saying they would consider it a good night’s sleep if they got up only eight times in the night to help their daughter, which gives an indication of how much work they do. As the hon. Member for Shipley said, so many carers end up giving up work because they have to provide that care. Sadly, so many relationships break down because of the pressures. I now find myself having to care for my elderly father. I had to move him into my home, and I am now seeing at first hand the things people have to do. When I am here, I always worry, “Is he okay? Is there enough food and milk in the fridge?” I also watch every single move he makes. I once turned my back, for literally a minute, and he fell flat on his face. I realise that it was not my fault, but I cannot help but have those feelings of guilt. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for her amazing work on the Carer’s Leave Act. That really is important, and the cross-party support for it showed Parliament at its best. It is great that carer’s leave is now a day one right and that it can be taken flexibly, because that is what unpaid carers need. They need to be able to take that half-day, or full day, if they need it because, as we have heard, one in seven are juggling work and caring responsibilities. I thank the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), who I know would like to have been here today—she gave quite a bit of support during the Act’s passage—for encouraging the previous Government.

• 20 Nov 2025 · Unpaid Carers: Inequalities · Hansard source

  More

  It just shows how, when Parliament works well, it works exceptionally well. I want to repeat some of the comments that have been made. The Government have launched a review of the potential benefits of paid carer’s leave, with the conclusions coming at the end of the year, I believe. As others have said, that is welcome, but I am sure that carers would hope that there will be clarity and no delays. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to some of the issues that have been raised in this debate, and to hearing whether the Government are genuinely open to acting on the review’s findings. A fair point has been made about the length of time that people have to contribute to that consultation, given the responsibilities that they have. We must ensure that the consultation is accessible. I was a critic of this when we were in government, but doing just online consultations means that those who are not digitally savvy can be excluded. It is important we make sure that is not happening. As other hon. Members have said, the financial pressures on carers remain severe, with one in four unpaid carers living in poverty. The employment rate among carers is just 50%, compared with 75% across the general population, but with the right support an estimated half a million carers could return to work. That would not only strengthen their security but contribute to the economy, which is what we all want to see. In fairness, it is not just the Government who have to act; there is a responsibility on employers, too. I saw in the hospices that some businesses took on our young adults despite their life-limiting conditions. The employers told us that what they got from those individuals was utterly amazing, and that they were really dedicated to their work. The recent increase to the carer’s allowance earnings limit is a step in the right direction, for which I thank the Government. However, the Carers Trust has rightly called for a full review of carer’s allowance and the wider support system. I am keen to hear whether that is something the Government are considering. I am also concerned that the level of respite support has been falling, and has dropped by 6% in local authorities in the last year alone. I am concerned about, and pay tribute to, the charities that offer so much respite support. I know, from my consultations with charities, that the rise in national insurance contributions has had an impact, and that they have had to reduce and scale back their staffing. That is a concern, and I hope we recognise the size of their contribution. At the hospices at which I worked, it was not just about end-of-life care. Some of the most important care they provided was respite stays. Either the child came on their own so that the family might go on holiday, or the whole family came together, which gave them the opportunity to be a family again. The child who needed care was being looked after by the care team, which meant the parents could be parents again to the siblings, who often miss out in such situations.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Draft Health and Care Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am sure it will delight the Committee to know that I do not intend to detain us for too long. [ Interruption. ] I always get a cheer when I say that. I would like to begin by saying that I do not see anything particularly contentious in this. The Minister rightly points out that these are technical changes that bring the Down Syndrome Act into line with the reforms introduced by the Health and Care Act 2022, in particular the replacement of CCGs with ICBs and the renaming of the NHS Commissioning Board as NHS England. However, it is worth questioning the Government on the longer-term stability of these changes. As hon. Members will know, the Government have stated their intention to abolish NHS England by April 2027. That process has already been delayed, reportedly due to uncertainty over who will meet the redundancy costs for staff within those organisations. If that abolishment proceeds, a new health Bill will be required. At present, we do not know when that Bill will be brought forward or what it will contain. It is therefore entirely possible that the statutory references being updated today will need to be amended again in the near future. I also note that there is no statutory review clause in this instrument. While that may be understandable given the technical nature of the changes, it adds to concerns that further legislative changes may not be properly anticipated or subject to adequate scrutiny in good time. While I support these draft regulations, I urge the Minister to clarify what transitional arrangements are being considered for the functions currently held by NHS England and the integrated care boards. That is especially important, as he rightly pointed out, for the consistency of support that we all want to see in the context of the Down Syndrome Act. We must ensure that people with Down’s syndrome are not adversely affected by any ongoing organisational changes within the health system. The Minister mentioned some of the updates to the Down Syndrome Act. Perhaps he could update us further on any other actions that are ongoing. How many still need to be done? In addition, I note that the Act seems to require the Secretary of State to publish guidance, on which the Government have just launched a consultation. One of the criticisms of the Act at the time was that it is specific to Down’s syndrome. Although I obviously welcome that focus, others face similar disabilities and challenges. How might the Government support them? Finally, it looks like people can respond to the guidance only online. Can the Minister assure the Committee that he is confident that those who are digitally excluded will not be prevented from taking part in this important consultation?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Again, the Secretary of State cannot answer. His answers are too vague. He is very good at making promises, but the facts are that he is presiding over a reorganisation that has stalled, creating uncertainty for staff. Waiting lists are up 50,000 in the past three months, hospices are in crisis because of national insurance contribution rises, and we have had strikes again—despite big pay rises—with the threat of more. If the Secretary of State wants the leadership in the future, perhaps he should show leadership in the NHS now, and tell us not just the plans, but when he will give the details and how he will deliver on his promises to patients.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  First, it is great to be in this new role. I genuinely want to be part of a constructive Opposition, but equally I want to do my role in holding this Government to account. I note the lack of detail in the Secretary of State’s answers on reorganisation, so can I ask the basics again? How many people will be made redundant, what will it cost and who is paying?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before beginning my questions, I meant to pay tribute to our former colleague Oliver Colvile, who sadly passed away last night. He served as the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport between 2010 and 2017 and was named by Conservative Home as one of a minority of Conservative MPs not to have voted against the Government, which, as a previous Whip, I thought was exceptional. He was a true gentleman whose eccentricities endeared him to many. I am sure the thoughts of the whole House are with his family.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I want first to recognise and thank everyone for the constructive debates we have heard here and in the other place throughout the Bill’s passage. In particular, I thank the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), for everything he has done on the Bill, especially in Committee. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) for his expertise, whose involvement with the Bill began before he was elected to this place. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for their thoughtful contributions. This is clearly an important and emotive issue, and the respect and sensitivity that have been shown by all sides is a testament to this House. Since the election, we have said that we would not oppose for the sake of opposition. While we have rightly asked tough questions of the Government, we have done so with the best interests of patients at heart, because everybody here wants to help and support vulnerable people better—those patients with the most severe and complex mental health needs. This Bill, which started under the previous Government—I pay tribute to former Prime Minister Baroness May for that—and continued under this Government, will achieve that. We welcome efforts to improve the patient’s voice and involvement in their own care, to ensure that patients receive effective and appropriate treatments, to minimise restrictions on liberty so far as is consistent with patient and public safety, and to treat patients with dignity and respect. Although we are disappointed that opportunities to strengthen the Bill further have been missed, especially in public safety and the protection of vulnerable children, we listened closely to what the Minister said and to his assurances on action, for which we thank him. We will of course continue to push on these matters, not on party political grounds, but because doing so is the right thing for patients. We are very disappointed that the proportion of health spending on mental health has been reduced. We welcome the Government’s continuation of our work looking again at how we treat and protect people with the most severe mental health illnesses, so that we can improve the safety, treatment and dignity of patients and the wider public, and ensure that our laws remain relevant and proportionate in the modern world. The Government must now turn their words into action and deliver on the commitments that they have made. I thank everybody again for the constructive way in which they have dealt with the Bill. We are pleased to support its Third Reading. We hope that it will bring improvements for those we all care about: the patients.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Nothing—it’s you!

• 14 Jul 2025 · Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Go on, then—sing.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Marking its 150th anniversary in 2021, the Royal Albert Hall continues not only to host world-class performances but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) mentioned, to do a tremendous amount of outreach work and to do so, crucially, without drawing on public funding for its operational costs—other than in the covid situation, which of course was exceptional. That is something for which it should certainly be commended and celebrated. This Bill seems to have been going round and round for some time. I know that I was trying to deal with it when we were in government. It has been promoted by the hall, as we have heard, and seeks to provide legal clarity to an existing arrangement in which members, who own rights to approximately one quarter of the hall’s seats, forgo their right to attend events and, when not attending, make those seats available for sale. As we have heard, the hall argues that without statutory backing, this arrangement remains vulnerable to legal challenge, which could have acute impacts on its financial stability. During its consideration in the other place, the Bill attracted extensive scrutiny and was amended, as we heard. Concerns were raised by a number of Members, including Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, particularly in relation to the governance of the hall and the role of seat-holding trustees. He noted that although the hall has held charitable status since 1967, the current arrangements may allow some trustees to benefit financially from the reselling of tickets on the open market—sometimes at significant profits, as the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) said. In response to the concerns, an amendment was passed that provides that any power to exclude members from the hall under the Bill’s provisions can only be exercised by a sub-committee with a majority of independent members. It also requires that tickets made available under those provisions be sold through the hall’s ticket return scheme, thereby seeking to address concerns over potential personal financial gains by trustees. I also note that Lord Harrington of Watford, a trustee of the hall, expressed the hall’s position, stating that the Bill’s primary objective is to formalise existing practices and mitigate legal uncertainty, rather than to reform governance structures. He also raised concerns that the amendment may place undue limitations on members, including financial disadvantages and restrictions on charitable donations of tickets. In the light of these developments, it is evident that the Bill faces significant challenges in its current form. It also raises a broader issue relevant to many historic charitable institutions: the difficulty of updating foundational documents and governance arrangements under existing legislative mechanisms, which often require the introduction of private Bills. It may also beg the wider question of how many of our great establishments, which were founded in the Victorian era, can operate in a more modern era, but I accept that these are not easy issues to address. In conclusion, although His Majesty’s Opposition absolutely support the aim of securing operational clarity for the Royal Albert Hall, the concerns raised about governance and potential conflicts of interest are of some significance. We will therefore be abstaining on Second Reading. I know that this will certainly be an interesting Bill in Committee. I look forward to following it with great interest, and I hope that some of the concerns that are legitimately being raised can be ironed out.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Definition of Newspaper) Order 2025 Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I welcome these orders, and I hope it will please the Committee to hear that I do not intend to detain us I do, however, want to raise a few issues. As the Minister said, a statutory review in 2021 conducted by Ofcom recommended that the Secretary of State should broaden the scope of public interest considerations beyond print newspapers and broadcasters to capture a broader range of news creators to reflect changes in consumption. As many colleagues will be aware, the 2024 news consumption report found that 71% of UK adults consume news via online sources. It is therefore right that action is taken to future-proof our media regimes. The Government admit that their measures are narrower than Ofcom’s recommendations. Will the Minister report on any issues Ofcom may have raised with her about this approach, given that it does not cover the full recommendations? The Government’s press release noted that they did not want to put any “undue pressure on businesses”. Is the Minister confident that the right balance has been struck? I accept that this is quite a narrow tightrope to walk, but it is important that we get this right. I also note that some respondents to the Government’s consultation shared the view that broadening the scope of the public interest consideration to apply to mergers involving enterprises involved in newspapers or broadcasting was unnecessary. The responses suggested that this could have a “chilling effect on investment and consolidation”. Will the Minister please reassure the Committee that this will not be the case, as we want to see as much investment as possible, especially given the current media landscape? Can the Minister update us on the secondary legislation to further bolster the foreign state influence regime, to prevent multiple states acquiring 15% of newspapers? When will it be laid? We had to alert the Government to this seemingly a significant oversight in the drafting of the legislation. There is clearly a lot of concern out there, and while we want to see investment, we must safeguard against any state ownership of our free media. More broadly, the Opposition will always support accurate news reporting, freedom of expression and the plurality of voices within the newspaper market, so I welcome the speech the Minister made and the action the Government have taken. None the less, I would be grateful for answers to those questions.