Tessa Munt MP: speeches

Speeches

• 18 Jun 2026 · Access to Music and Dance Training · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for her response. Wells Cathedral school is in my constituency, and it has 80 young people who are on the music and dance scheme. It is a fantastic scheme, and I pay tribute to the outgoing headteacher, Alastair Tighe, who has done his very best to ensure that the scheme reaches deep into the community and those from less advantaged backgrounds, including one of our local cleaners—she is able to pay just £200 a year for what is a £50,000 a year education. However, there has been a 10-year drift between inflation and the amount of the money that the scheme receives. Can the Secretary of State have another look at this issue and make it absolutely certain that pupils benefit from better funding—

• 18 Jun 2026 · Education and Engagement Outreach Team · Hansard source

  More

  I have to say, I am dismayed by the fact that there will not be humans in contact with young people. From my experience, I know that young people are really engaged when somebody turns up in their place, particularly in their school. At a time when we are trying to reduce the screen time of young people, I want to speak up in support of having people going into schools, especially when they are slightly more distant from London—it is something so very different. I shall certainly reply to the consultation when it comes along, if I have not missed the boat, and I will speak up for this particular scheme; it is fantastic.

• 15 Jun 2026 · NHS Dentistry · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot understand why we have to wait an extra year to introduce that provision. It will take three years, while those students are in college, for it to actually kick in, will it not? I am wondering why the Minister does not introduce the measure in September this year, with the new dental students.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Child Sexual Offender Data · Hansard source

  More

  This is absolutely not about me. All I would say is that I am an example of how you can come through and do something, but my God I have been frustrated watching the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which eventually turned into Professor Jay’s recommendations, about which absolutely nothing was done for some time. We need to proceed and make sure that all 20 of those recommendations, and Baroness Casey’s recommendations, are implemented. I am aware that the Government are doing stuff, but they are never fast enough, and this just needs to happen. I feel very strongly that we need to train all the people I mentioned, including the judges, the teachers and the police—crikey, the police!—so that they understand what coercive control is. They also need to recognise what can be done to challenge what is colloquially referred to as the “manosphere”. Two or three weeks ago, I met a young woman and two of her friends, and she complained about the fact that boys in her school—she was young—had said to her that she could not tell them what to do because she was a girl. This has to stop, because it just feeds this whole thing. Women have been down-trodden for many, many years. Now we are brave enough to speak out, and we have to make sure that those who are in authority have the ability to tell us because they understand, not ask us because we do. I want to make certain that we have that compulsory training in place. We need to challenge toxic masculinity. I recognise that it is triggering to everybody when this stuff comes up, but I hope above all hopes that you are able to sleep with a little more peace tonight.

• 21 May 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  My young constituent Alex is paralysed after a dreadful road accident a couple of months ago. He wants to return to Loughborough University for his third-year studies as soon as possible. He has been told by the wheelchair services team that he has to have a 27 kg wheelchair to start with, before he can get a different one, as “that’s what everyone gets”, even though he will never have the strength to operate it, as it is too heavy. The staff know this, Alex knows this and his parents know it, but there seems to be no way to stop the madness and waste, and to get a wheelchair that meets his needs. Will the Leader of the House please ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to review the NHS wheelchair policy, so that patients have appropriate equipment from the outset, rather than time and money being wasted and patients and their families being caused such unnecessary distress?

• 14 May 2026 · Supreme Court Dillon Judgment · Hansard source

  More

  Looking to the future, the troubles Bill makes no explicit link between legacy processes and long-term reconciliation initiatives, such as integrated education, sustained community dialogue and cross-community projects. Will the Secretary of State commit to developing a comprehensive reconciliation strategy that connects addressing the past with building a settled, shared future?

• 15 Apr 2026 · Regulation of the Marmalade Market · Hansard source

  More

  I partially agree with the hon. Gentleman, although if we were part of the EU, we might find ourselves in the position of being able to influence that a little more. He is right to recognise that our jams, spreads and marmalades have a distinctive characteristic. Indeed, they are one of our largest exports to countries such as Japan and Australia, because of the quality of our jams and marmalades. While the 60% requirement remains in law, the Breakfast Foods (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026 removed the requirement to display total sugar content as a percentage on labels. Instead, producers will have to display “energy value amounts of fat, carbohydrates, sugars, protein and salt.” Unfortunately, that does nothing to encourage marmalade to be made with 60% sugar content, although I understand the driver behind the regulations. This matters, because the rules governing marmalade are not arbitrary, but grounded in just over a century of scientific research and culinary practice. The requirement for 60% sugar content was not dreamed up by bureaucrats; it was developed through rigorous experimentation in the early 1920s at the University of Bristol’s Long Ashton research station. That facility is not in my patch, but I am proud to consider Bristol University one of my local universities. Long Ashton research station—now closed—is but 15 minutes’ drive from the boundary of my constituency, and I believe it is also famous for being where Ribena was developed. The scientists were interested not merely in taste but in consistency, preservation and reliability. Before their work, recipes varied wildly, yields were unpredictable and the shelf life of marmalade was uncertain. They established a standard that ensured that marmalade would set properly, taste balanced and keep for extended periods. That west country connection is not incidental; it is foundational. The work carried out in Long Ashton helped to define what we now recognise as traditional British marmalade. It brought together food science and domestic practice, producing recipes that became a benchmark for generations of home cooks and commercial producers. To depart from those standards is not to innovate; it is to move away from a carefully developed and distinctly British product. The 60% sugar threshold is critical. At that level, marmalade achieves the correct gelled consistency, a bright and appealing appearance, and a balanced flavour that is neither overly bitter nor cloyingly sweet. It also ensures a shelf life of up to a year when properly sealed. Drop below that threshold, and the product becomes fundamentally different: looser, duller, less stable and far more perishable. In my debate back in 2013, I described such products as “gloopy sludge”. I then had to apologise to the Americans and the French for describing their efforts as such, but I am not doing that this time, of course. These are not minor variations, but material differences that consumers have a right to understand. Under the new labelling rules, that understanding becomes hard to access. While full nutritional information will still be provided, the removal of a clear, single sugar percentage risks obscuring whether a product meets the long-established British standards. An obvious response might be that the reduction in sugar is a good thing, as we are rightly encouraged to reduce our sugar intake. However, lower-sugar marmalades tend to be boiled for longer, which lowers the water content and ultimately results in a higher sugar content following the boiling process. The right response for those who wish to reduce their sugar intake is to moderate the amount of marmalade we put on our toast in the morning.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Student Loans · Hansard source

  More

  Would the Minister consider doing something about the cost of accommodation in university towns and cities? Where I come from in north Somerset there is no university, and at the moment people do not really have the option to go anywhere except a city, which is incredibly expensive. Would she give some consideration to reducing those costs on ordinary working families?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Minister for Men and Boys · Hansard source

  More

  Talking about positive role models, in preparation for this debate I looked at the number of people in teacher training who were male. Although the numbers are going up, the proportion of men is going marginally down. I had the advantage—as did my children—of having teachers who were positive role models. What does the hon. Gentleman say about making sure that young people have teachers who are positive role models?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Minister for Men and Boys · Hansard source

  More

  It is good to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg, and I am sorry that I did not have the chance to say that in my earlier intervention. I commend the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing this debate. When I looked at it, I was amazed at how many different topics might come into scope of this debate, and many of them have been mentioned already. Following all I have heard today, I suspect that we probably do need a Minister for men and boys to make sure there is some focus, because when there is a Minister, people tend to sit up and pay attention to what is going on. I know the Prime Minister said, in response to the focus on “Adolescence”, that he did not want such a Minister, but I think it would not be a bad thing, even if for a trial period of three or five years. I will briefly summarise. I have already mentioned the data on teacher training, but there are all sorts of other areas that particularly concern men and boys. There is, as far as I can tell, no data on child arrangements orders, referred to by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), so we do not know what is happening. Shared parenting has to be a really good thing, with the requisite exclusions where it is not safe. Paternity leave was introduced in 1999 and paternity pay in 2003, but again there are very few public statistics, and the statistics that exist are not comparable, so we cannot see in which direction we are going. We have isolated islands of data that are not particularly helpful. From 2010 to 2015, I was part of the Administration that introduced shared parental leave and pay under the Children and Families Act 2014. I am glad that the Government reviewed parental leave and pay last year, but as far as I can see, it opened in July and closed in August, when loads of people are on holiday, so I do not know how much of a response there was. Is the Minister able to enlighten us on when the outcome of that consultation might be published? I cannot see any information on that, but she may correct me. Given my life experience, through the various groups I have worked with over time, I want to put a flag in the ground on another serious problem: men as victims of domestic violence perpetrated by women. It is definitely not cool and definitely difficult for men to report. They do not think they are going to be believed—there is that fear of not being believed.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. Earlier this month, I joined South Western Ambulance Service for a shift, which was an incredibly humbling experience. At the hospital, I met paramedic science students who told me that it is almost impossible for them to get a job: only eight of last year’s 120 paramedic science students got a job. The university has assured students that they can definitely get employment as a graduate, but the ambulance services have a massive pool—of 200, in my local area—to draw from and it has not advertised a single job in the past six months. What is the Minister going to do about that?

• 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?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I again seek clarity. Are non-executive directors of an NHS trust, for example—who might be party to all sorts of information—within the scope of the Bill? I would also like to check whether school governors—and schools that are academies sometimes use different names, such as “partners”—are also picked up in the list.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Myalgic Encephalomyelitis · Hansard source

  More

  Forgive me, but I am going to carry on. The final delivery plan rightly points to the need to build capacity in ME research, given the small UK research community and very few funded research projects. The University of Edinburgh’s DecodeME project has been a notable exception, recently reporting groundbreaking findings that revealed distinct genetic signals in people living with ME—medical, not psychological. This gives us a solid and compelling foundation for future research. Can the Minister explain what plans are in place for future funding to capitalise on this research? Again, the delivery plan is light on actions to build UK capacity in any research. A consensus recommendation for a post-infectious disease research hub was not funded. A joint showcase event was held earlier this month by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Medical Research Council, with the goal of stimulating research, yet it is not clear whether this will yield tangible results or how its outcomes will be monitored. Again, I ask the Minister what the plan is if, as seems possible, it is not a lack of information holding back capacity, but secure long-term finance to encourage researchers to build a career in the field. The final delivery plan gestured to HERITAGE and PRIME, which were effectively pre-existing funding announcements. The only genuinely new funding announced through the plan from the National Institute for Health and Care Research for research into repurposed therapies was capped to grants of £200,000. The Government’s response on this issue, including in the letter sent in response to concerns raised by the 72 Lib Dem MPs, tends to be that it is not usual practice to ringfence funds for specific conditions, and that researchers can apply for funding in open competition. Yet historical funding imbalances mean that it is not realistic to expect ME researchers to compete with researchers of diseases that benefit from more advanced research and much stronger institutional capacity. The UK Government do, in fact, set aside funding for specific conditions when they are considered a strategic priority. Just this June, £50 million of funding was announced for cardiovascular disease research to be awarded through open competition. In 2021, £50 million was committed to research into motor neurone disease. If we can award ringfenced funding through open competition for those conditions, why not ME? To echo a question asked at a recent research showcase event, why is ME not considered a strategic research priority? Can the Minister clarify that? The fourth and final point on which I would like the Government to go further is support from wider Departments, particularly the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions. Children and young people are uniquely affected by ME. The condition disrupts and can derail key life stages and developmental milestones. Among educational professions, poor understanding of ME contributes to a lack of adjustments, limiting access to education and increasing school absences. The final delivery plan acknowledges the need for access to education and improved life chances among children and young people with ME, but while this is in theory a cross-Government plan, engagement from the Department for Education seems to have been extremely limited. Can the Minister outline what engagement has taken place so far and commit to speaking with colleagues in the Department for Education to ensure that they will engage with the delivery plan moving forward and ensure that children and young people with ME receive appropriate accommodations? Meanwhile, welfare benefits are the most common issue that constituents with ME raise with me. Many have struggled for years to access the benefits they are entitled to, feeling that they are fighting a system that works against them. Like most people living with disabilities, my constituents are terrified at the prospect of future welfare reforms and losing the support that they have and rely on to meet their basic needs. Looking at the current situation, I am indebted to a benefits adviser focusing on ME for her summary. “People with ME face intersectional and compounding barriers when interacting with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). These include structural flaws in benefit design, widespread misunderstanding of their conditions, systemic disbelief, inaccessible systems, poor-quality assessment practices, and the cumulative harm of being required to repeatedly prove their illness. The current benefit system and emerging reform agenda both fail to reflect the fluctuating, energy-limiting multisystemic nature of these conditions. And then, the Universal Credit Act 2025, together with the proposed abolition of the Work Capacity Assessment (WCA) and on-going threats to PIP eligibility, signals a fundamental shift in how disabled people meet entitlement to financial support.” I am particularly concerned about the proposals to replace the new-style employment and support allowance with a time-limited unemployment insurance and to abolish the work capability assessment. Replacing the new-style ESA would disproportionately harm individuals who are not eligible for means-tested support, for example because their partner works. Among other harms, that would increase the risk of domestic abuse while heightening financial dependence—a particularly pressing concern, given that ME is considerably more prevalent in women. Abolishing the work capability assessment removes critical safeguards in regulations 29 and 35 of the Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2013 for those whose health would be seriously harmed by work or work-related activity. Those protections are vital for people with ME, who are at particular risk of harm and long-term health consequences if they push beyond their energy limits. Time prevents me from providing more detail, but I will conclude my observations by saying that, on the whole, what people with ME want most is to recover their capacity to contribute to their families, their community and wider society. They hate being ill. An appropriate benefits system must acknowledge that and treat them with dignity and fairness. The way to get people with ME and those caring for them back into work is not to take away crucial support, but to invest in helping them to get better. Many will be watching this debate from home, desperately hoping that we are doing everything we can to build them a better future. They deserve the assurance that the Government are committed to a clear, ambitious and, crucially, properly funded vision for change across healthcare, research and all forms of Government support. I ask the Minister for a meeting to discuss myalgic encephalomyelitis and the way forward for the 1.35 million people affected. I very much hope that today’s debate represents a big step forward in delivering that for them.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Myalgic Encephalomyelitis · Hansard source

  More

  Probably most of us have constituents in exactly the same situation. In just over a year, two prevention of future deaths reports have been issued related to severe ME. I have already referred to one of them, regarding the case of Maeve Boothby O’Neill; the other was on the case of Sarah Lewis. Neither report has yet resulted in satisfactory action. The risk of death, specifically from malnutrition, is real and ongoing. Earlier today I spoke with Dr Binita Kane, a private sector clinician with a special interest in ME and long covid. She told me about the case of a 25-year-old woman, a medical student, who developed severe ME after a viral infection in 2018. The young woman has been in an acute NHS hospital for 17 months with nutritional failure and has deteriorated to the point that palliative care is being instituted. Her family is being prepared for the worst—it is dreadful. She has been disadvantaged not because of the individual clinical decisions, but because she suffers from a condition for which there is no safe or established service model. There have been multiple missed opportunities to prevent her condition progressing to this stage. Sadly, that young woman is not alone. I have heard of many other cases today, and before today. What is being done to help patients like her? In the foreword to the final delivery plan, the Minister stated that “tragically avoidable deaths of people with ME/CFS, in England…must become never events.” However, the plan does not clearly set out what actions the Department will take to guarantee patient safety. No one is being held to account. The plan committed the DHSC and NHS England to “explore whether a specialised service should be prescribed by the Secretary of State for Health for very severe ME/CFS”. I hope that the Secretary of State will do the right thing and commission that service, but it is frankly astonishing that the option of leaving this group of patients without specialist NHS care, as they are now, is even on the table. I ask the Minister to clarify what progress has been made in commissioning such a service. That is not to mention that developing a new service from the ground up is, at best, a medium-term solution. It may take years. It is astonishing that no interim solution has been proposed to ensure that patients with very severe ME, whose lives are at risk right now across the country, do not become tomorrow’s mortality statistics. How many more preventable deaths will it take? I ask the Minister to commit to work with groups such as #ThereForME to rectify the situation immediately, for example by convening a national advisory group to advise in these cases and by undertaking a full review of the lessons learned from ME deaths. Will the Minister clarify what data is being collected to better understand the number of those with ME who are affected by life-threatening complications? The third area on which I would like to see the Government do much more is accelerating ME research. I spoke earlier about the need for investment in research and improving healthcare. For many patients, biomedical research represents their best hope of regaining their former life, yet the condition has historically received very low levels of research funding from the UK Government. Based on parliamentary answers and official announcements, I estimate that around £10 million has been invested in ME research over the past 12 years. To put that figure into context, on the current numbers that is about 60p per person living with ME per year. Four times as much was spent on a helicopter for the former Prime Minister as has been spent on ME. We spent £125 million—12 times as much—on a bat tunnel for HS2. We spent £10 billion—about 1,000 times as much—on personal protective equipment that turned out to be unusable. Money talks, and the record of the past decade makes it clear to people with ME that their collective futures have been valued by successive Governments at astonishingly little.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Extending the Ukraine Permission Extension Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Could we ask the Minister for clarity about the women who have dependent children or elderly relatives, who are often unable to meet the income thresholds required under settlement routes such as the skilled worker visa or the global talent visa? Could we also ask for clarity for their children, who have learned English so that they are so fluent and who have had their education here, as they cannot look forward to going to college or university because they do not have a visa that will see them through that course?