Tessa Munt MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Feb 2026 · Standards in Public Life · Hansard source

  More

  I direct the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to whistleblowing. I am hopeful that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister knows that during the passage of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, I was promised a meeting with him about whistleblowers; I look forward to that. Is he aware that current legislation dealing with whistleblowers directs them to seek an employment tribunal, but that there are 47,000 employment tribunal cases waiting to be heard? We have to do something about whistleblowing, and we have to ensure that protections are in place. I look forward to meeting him with a number of my colleagues, so that we can discuss the matter in detail and in full.

• 5 Feb 2026 · National Cancer Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the statement and the plan, and salute the Minister’s bravery; I wish her very good health. My constituents do not get a particularly good deal: when measured against the 62-day target, 47% meet the target for radiotherapy, 62% for drugs and 73% for surgery. However, looking at just the first treatment masks the true picture, as a combination of treatments is often crucial to survival, and if people wait six months for their second treatment, it is really poor. Will the Minister consider bringing in measurement of secondary treatments? We know that radiotherapy can reduce a tumour and that surgery comes later, but if someone has to wait six months for surgery, they are in trouble.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  A young woman, Savannah Victora-May, is in a critical condition due to very severe ME, compounded by inadequate treatment in hospital, where she has been for 11 months, since March last year. One of the few and welcome commitments from the Government’s final delivery plan for ME was to explore whether a specialised service for very severe ME should be prescribed by the Secretary of State. The ministerial foreword acknowledged that avoidable deaths of people with ME should “become never events”, but in the continued absence of specialist provision, it is difficult to see how situations like Savannah’s can be prevented from recurring. Will the Leader of the House request an urgent update on any progress made in respect of this commitment and on when a recommendation will be made?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before I asked the Leader of the House my question this morning, I believe I should have declared that I am the new chair of the all-party parliamentary group on myalgic encephalomyelitis. I apologise to the House for omitting to say that—I was in a bit of a rush, because everyone was being hurried along.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Parole Board Hearings · Hansard source

  More

  There is an 82-year-old man who has been in prison for 38 years. He was convicted of murder, and the trial judge in 1989 said that this was “not a violent process” and gave him a life sentence with a 15-year tariff, which expired over 22 years ago. He is repeatedly described as an exemplary prisoner. Because he has maintained his innocence over the past 38 years, he has not attended the prerequisite courses that would require an acceptance of guilt, so the Parole Board assesses his risk to the public if he is released as “unmanageable”, which seems ludicrous. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the Parole Board’s repeated response to this situation and whether there should be some sort of system for those who maintain their innocence for a great number of years?

• 29 Jan 2026 · Prison Capacity: Annual Statement · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister’s statement. He has said that the number of extra prison places created since July 2024 is 2,900, but can he say how many cells have been temporarily or permanently closed due to fire safety concerns and other maintenance issues? Can he also state what his Department anticipates will be the result of the Leveson review? Will the Justice Committee—on which I sit—receive his updated modelling, which includes these reforms, and will he come and speak to the Committee about these things?

• 29 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  It has been raining hard in my constituency and across the west country generally. I pay tribute to Somerset council, North Somerset council, the internal drainage board and the Environment Agency for their work. The land, however, is saturated. If one were to put the water in Somerset and the little bit of North Somerset that I represent end to end, it would flow from mid Somerset to Singapore. It is 8,000 miles-worth of waterway. Will the Leader of the House please ask his colleague with responsibility for planning and housing to insist that new housing is not built on the floodplain, because when Flood Re finishes in a few years’ time residents will be left high and dry with their insurance but certainly not in their homes?

• 29 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The use of the toxic chemical paraquat was banned in the UK by the previous Labour Government in 2007. It is associated with the development of Parkinson’s and is deemed too dangerous for use on our own soil, but continues to be produced here and sent elsewhere, perpetuating harms that would not be tolerated at home. What is the policy on exporting UK-manufactured products such as paraquat to other countries?

• 29 Jan 2026 · Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report · Hansard source

  More

  The ombudsman’s ruling in March recommended that some women should get a payout and an apology. Now the WASPI women in my constituency have another apology, but they have not received a penny in compensation for the maladministration found by the ombudsman. Why have the Government chosen to accept one half of the recommendations—I think it is probably the easy half—but not the other? At £1,000 to £2,950 for each woman, it is hardly a high cost for justice in the grand scheme of Government funding considerations.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister’s announcement and I know that it will bring some joy, particularly with the further announcements he is going to make later in the Parliament, to many of the residents in my part of the west country. May I draw his attention to the housing with care sector? I am talking not about those gated communities that have a caretaker or somebody who cuts the grass, but about charities such as the St Monica Trust that provide some affordable rents and shared ownership but mostly provide leasehold purchase with a guaranteed buy-back and resale. This gives them a way of updating their contracts for residents and maintaining affordability. These organisations are really concerned that there will be an unnuanced ban on new leasehold care-led retirement living apartments. What consideration has the Minister given to the housing with care sector having some protection, and his attention?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Changes to income tax reporting from April mean that childminders need to claim tax relief on specific purchases, rather than the current 10% wear and tear allowance. Deanne, one of my local childminders, points out that wear and tear is a daily reality for the few professionals who face very young children in the stages of potty training, sickness, and learning to eat with a spoon and fork and drink with an open cup. Those clients can put carpets and furniture through their paces! Could the Leader of the House speak to his Treasury colleagues about reinstating the wear and tear allowance or introducing an alternative mechanism to recognise the real costs of providing home- based childcare?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her statement. I know that she is a woman on a mission, and let us hope that we get to the end of this before terribly long. We know that the Government are struggling with accepting the families’ wish that we should pick up amendment 23 and its consequential amendments. I am mystified about the business of a balance being struck between intelligence services personnel being transparent and the protection of national security, because my understanding was that we already had that balance; national security is safeguarded by the fact that in any inquiry, the release of sensitive information happens in closed session, via a High Court judge. Schedule 1 includes a carve-out for the intelligence and security services, who are proven not to have told the truth. That is a dreadful shame. I am told that we have to trust what is said, but that seems entirely inappropriate, as the heads of the security services have unfortunately shown themselves not to be trustworthy. People talk about our allies being able to trust us, but if the heads of the security services are lying, I do not know how our allies are meant to trust us. Will the Minister please tell us what the problem is with amendment 23? It has been put together by Pete Wetherby, Elkan and others, and the families support it. Why can we not just agree to it?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Disclosure and Barring Service · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 19 Jan 2026 · Disclosure and Barring Service · Hansard source

  More

  What my hon. Friend has said puts me in mind of another case in a village not far from where I live, where a cleaner was systematically thieving from elderly and vulnerable residents. This went on for years, and every time the person nearly got caught or was interviewed by the police, they just left their job and moved on. This is exactly why we need to do something to make the system far better, because elderly and vulnerable people have no way to be absolutely certain that when they give somebody their card to get some money so that they can pay the carer, something will not go desperately wrong and the rest of their money will not disappear.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Disclosure and Barring Service · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister refers to the fact that the DBS would be able to check whether somebody who was going to work abroad had a problem with their clearance. Will that work in reverse? For example, if someone is trying to employ an au pair from another country—I do not know if people can even do that any more—could the au pair be checked before they came in and worked with children?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Disclosure and Barring Service · Hansard source

  More

  Should DBS checks not have a start date and a finish date, so that people who are not particularly worldly are clear about the beginning and the end, and understand that when the end date comes, a new check will be needed?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Disclosure and Barring Service · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 19 Jan 2026 · Disclosure and Barring Service · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister greatly for giving way. I want to pick up again the point I made about whether these checks will have a clear end date on them. I also have a second question, if I am allowed to ask it. I do not expect an answer now, but it would be nice to have an answer—one of the problems one finds constantly with police forces is that they are required to do checks, but they have no ability to recover the full costs through the charging system. Such a number of checks—7.2 million—will be very expensive. Do we know the cost of a single DBS check?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Disclosure and Barring Service · Hansard source

  More

  Madam Deputy Speaker, can you confirm that we can witter on until 10 o’clock? I believe that we are not limited.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I served on the Bill Committee for the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—better known as the Hillsborough law—and was very grateful to the Minister for agreeing to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and me to discuss 11 amendments, two new clauses and general points that came up in the line-by-line scrutiny. The Minister was very clear that she is a woman on a mission and that she wants the Bill to be on the statute book as soon as possible. May I seek an assurance that she will meet my colleague and me before the Bill is considered on Report?

• 11 Dec 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent Ben has a friend who is in HMP Stocken, and he tells me that family and friends have been banned from sending books into the prison for several months. Can the Leader of the House ask his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice about the guidelines? I understand that they say that friends and families can send or hand in books—which are checked by security staff—irrespective of whether or not there are exceptional circumstances. Will he ensure that the rules are followed in all prisons, particularly when prisoners want to occupy themselves in a peaceable way and want to learn?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to the Minister for that assurance. Question put and agreed to. Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 6 Conduct of public authorities at inquiries and inquests Amendments made: 14, in schedule 6, page 54, line 2, leave out from “paragraph” to “and” in line 3 and insert “(d) insert— ‘(e) the matters reported under paragraph 7A of that Schedule’”. This amendment is consequential on amendments 16 and 17. Amendment 15, in schedule 6, page 55, line 24, leave out “2A and 7” and insert “7 and 7A”. This amendment is consequential on amendments 16 and 17. Amendment 16, in schedule 6, page 56, line 1, leave out “2” and insert “7”. This amendment, together with amendment 17, relocates the position in which a new paragraph of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 is inserted. Amendment 17, in schedule 6, page 56, line 3, leave out “2A” and insert “7A”.— (Alex Davies-Jones.) See the explanatory statement for amendment 16. Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to. New Clause 1 Post-legislative assessment of the legal duty of candour for public authorities and public officials “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report into— (a) the impact of the Act’s provisions on increasing public confidence that public authorities’ internal processes are fit for purpose in identifying and investigating failures when they first arise following a major incident. (b) the role of the standing public advocate in assessing public authorities’ responses to affected individuals and relatives of bereaved victims following a major incident or where there is a major public concern that public authorities may not be acting in the best interests of those affected by a major incident. (2) The report must assess— (a) extending the public advocate’s powers to facilitate the gathering of information from those people affected by a major incident to support official inquiries and investigations to help ensure that all public authorities and officials are acting in accordance with the duty of candour set out in this Act. (b) the case for facilitating a mechanism whereby the public advocate can instigate an independent panel to collate evidence and information following a major incident to support the oversight of public authorities and officials’ responses to major incidents. (c) the costs of establishing independent panels as compared to non-statutory inquiries, or statutory inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005 in line with paragraph (b). (3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the Report before Parliament.”— (Ian Byrne.) Brought up, and read the First time.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The amendment seeks to clarify that the Act should come into force straight away, except for clauses 9, 10 and 18, which require the provision of codes or guidance. I seek purely to ensure that the Hillsborough law comes into force as soon as possible, as families have been waiting so many years for justice.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Sir Roger. I have not a clue where I am—have I missed amendment 41?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you as Chair, Sir Roger. Amendment 30 removes the exemption for journalism from the offence of misleading the public, showing that no one, including journalists or public officials writing in a journalistic capacity—including in internal newsletters—can avoid accountability for knowingly or recklessly providing false or misleading information. The purpose of tabling the amendment is to close the loophole that might allow public officials to evade that accountability by presenting misleading information under the guise of journalism. The rationale is to strengthen public trust in Government communications, ensure consistency in applying the law regardless of the medium used, and prevent deliberate attempts to mislead the public through media channels. The amendment responds to various concerns raised by accountability campaigners, transparency advocates and parliamentary scrutiny bodies that the exemption could be exploited, undermining the effectiveness and credibility of the offence. We have seen with cases that we heard about last Thursday when the Committee took evidence, and with some cases that we discussed on Tuesday, that we cannot ignore the damaging role the media has played in many situations. Some of those examples shed light on public servants using the media to set the narrative, with some of the most awful and damaging consequences for people’s lives and for shedding light on the truth. We know that—appallingly—the media has been used to set the narrative. With amendment 30, we are thinking about the public and how they perceive this place in particular, and the power structures that move around it. The sense is that legitimacy is key.