Sharon Hodgson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pornography and violence against women · Hansard source

  More

  On the eighth day of the UN’s 16 days of activism against gender-based violence, I rise to present a petition on pornography on behalf of Washington and Gateshead South constituents. Pornography has never been more accessible than it is today, and we know that what is viewed online does not stay online. We therefore must ensure that safeguards are in place, so that those participating are safe, and that we protect the influence that it has on the younger generation, who watch it and then go on to believe that the violence they see in pornography is normal. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to extend safeguards applied to pornography offline to pornography distributed online, to legally require all pornography websites accessed from the UK to verify the age and permission of every individual featured on their platform, and to give performers the right to withdraw their consent at any time to the continued publication of pornography in which they appear. Following is the full text of the petition: [ The petition of residents of the constituency of Washington and Gateshead South, Declares that pornography use is fuelling sexual violence; violence against women is prolific in mainstream pornography; and sexual coercion is inherent to the commercial production of pornography. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to extend safeguards applied to pornography offline to pornography distributed online; and to legally require all pornography websites accessed from the UK to verify the age and permission of every individual featured on their platform — and give performers the right to withdraw their consent at any time to the continued publication of pornography in which they appear. And the petitioners remain, etc. ] [P003139]

• 13 Oct 2025 · Baby Loss · Hansard source

  More

  I am very glad to be able to take part in this very moving debate and to follow so many excellent speeches as we once again mark Baby Loss Awareness Week, not least on behalf of myself and my story, and that of my beautiful baby Lucy, who I tragically lost back in 1998, but also on behalf of all the MPs in this place, women and men, who are not yet ready or able to stand and tell their story, as indeed I was not for so many years. For almost 20 years I never spoke of my loss, and I never told anyone who did not know me back when it had happened, until I helped to set up the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss back in 2016, 11 years after I was first elected. That was along with a cross-party group of MPs, all of whom are no longer in this House, although Baroness Prentis of Banbury is now in the other place. I told them my story in the Tea Room, and I could point to the table that we sat around to share our stories through floods of tears. It was the first time I had spoken about it in any detail since it had happened two decades earlier. Baby loss was, and I think it may still be to a certain extent, the last great taboo that a lot of parents have to navigate their way through. Not long thereafter, I was approached by one of the officers of the new all-party group regarding the private Member’s Bill introduced by the former Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, Tim Loughton. As those Members who were around at the time will remember, part of that Bill covered baby loss and the lack of any recognition for stillborn babies born before 24 weeks—what are, in law, still called late-term miscarriages. His private Member’s Bill tried to address this through what would become known as baby loss certificates. He had been approached by his constituents Hayley and Frazer, who gave birth to their son Samuel at 19 weeks. Tragically, he was stillborn, and they had been horrified to receive no official recognition and—even worse—to learn that their child was entered in the official records as a miscarriage, as indeed my Lucy was at 23 weeks and four days, just a few days short of the legal definition for recognition. Tim also cited another tragic case, that of twins born either side of that 24-week threshold. One thankfully survived and was given a birth certificate, but the other—born just a day or so earlier on the wrong side of 24 weeks—tragically did not survive, received no official recognition, and was entered in the official records as a miscarriage. This felt grossly wrong to all those parents and to Tim, as it did to me and my husband when it happened to us. Tim set about trying to change the law, hence approaching me to see whether I would be brave enough to stand here—on the Opposition Benches as I was then—and tell my story, as it was so relevant to the case he was trying to make. Somehow, I managed to do it—it is all down on record for anyone to read or watch, so I will not repeat it today—and it involved an awful lot of tears. Those who have spoken today have somehow managed not to be in floods of tears. I did it, as lots of Members have done today, and I commend them all for sharing their heartbreaking stories. We should remember, though, that for every Member who bears witness in this Chamber, there are no doubt many more who are not yet ready to do so. I was very proud of myself back in February 2018 to give mine and Lucy’s story in detail in that private Member’s Bill debate, and for my experience and Lucy’s all-too-brief life to perhaps have made a difference in helping to change the law and bring about the baby loss certificates, which are now much treasured by so many parents. It is something I am still very proud of. After that debate and all the publicity it garnered, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt)—who was Health Secretary at the time, and who I pay tribute to for everything he did—set up an official Department of Health expert working group, which Tim and I sat on, to consult on what a change in the law would look like and how the baby loss certificates would work. I was very glad when in February 2024, just before the election, the last Government announced the roll-out of the first ever baby loss certificates. As welcome as those certificates are, I worry that there are still some unintended consequences, as there often are when first enacting new policies. I have been contacted by Catherine, whose much-wanted baby died at 12 weeks. Through the grieving process, she found comfort in knowing that she would get a baby loss certificate for her son Matthew. However, when she applied for that certificate, she found that she was not able to add her partner’s name to it, as he was registered with a GP on the Scottish side of the border. While relationships across the English-Scottish border are not common, neither are they unheard of. Catherine asked me to ask the Secretary of State—I am very happy that he is in the Chamber in person tonight—what steps could be taken to enable both parents’ names to be included on baby loss certificates where those parents are registered with GPs in different countries in the UK. I am sure that what I have described is an anomaly, and I hope the Secretary of State will address it in his response. Due to time, I will leave my remarks there, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank you for your grace.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Stockton and Darlington Railway: 200th Anniversary Festival · Hansard source

  More

  It is always great to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this wonderful and very important debate, for which I must thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland), who secured it. We have heard some great speeches already. The Stockton and Darlington railway is an incredible part of our regional transport history. As we have heard, it was the world’s first public railway to use steam locomotives. I am thrilled that we are now celebrating 200 years since its first public journey. The international heritage festival taking place across County Durham and Tees Valley is an excellent opportunity to display our region’s contribution not just to the country, but worldwide.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Stockton and Darlington Railway: 200th Anniversary Festival · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. He raised very important points. Yes, while looking to the past, it is important to look to the future. He spoke also about the importance of volunteers in our heritage railways across the country. Without those volunteers, those railways would be long gone. He made a very important point in mentioning the volunteers. Last year in Great Britain, surface rail alone accounted for 9,848—just under 10,000—miles of track and more than 1.6 billion passenger rail journeys, showing its continued significance nationwide. The Government understand the importance of our railways, and they are working harder to create more journeys and to reduce delays. I support their plans to bring our railways finally back into public ownership. I would like to mention my own constituency of Washington and Gateshead South, which is home to the Bowes railway, which opened just four short months later on 17 January 1826. It will be celebrating its bicentennial next year. The earliest section of the Bowes railway was designed by George Stephenson, who, as we know, also helped to design the Stockton and Darlington railway. The Bowes railway is the world’s only operational preserved standard-gauge cable railway system, which used stationary steam engines and gravity to move coal wagons from the pits in Durham to the River Tyne. It is still there to this day, as the Bowes Railway Museum is proudly in Springwell village in my constituency. I also want to take this opportunity to discuss the Leamside line—you didn’t think you were going to get away without me mentioning that one, did you, Mr Stringer? It begins at Ferryhill in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor and passes through Washington, on to Gateshead and South Tyneside to Pelaw. The first section of the Leamside line opened in 1838 and served our communities until it was closed to passengers in 1964, under the Beeching cuts. It was mothballed in the 1990s. As chair of the Leamside line all-party parliamentary group, I have campaigned, with the help of my hon. Friend, to reopen the line and to bring trains to Washington, which is one of the largest towns in the UK without a direct rail link. I am delighted that, following our Government’s spending review in June, North East Mayor Kim McGuinness has announced that the first sections of the Leamside line will be reopened as part of the Tyne and Wear Metro, linking stations at Pelaw and South Hylton via Washington. That will include three new stations at Follingsby in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) and Washington North and Washington South in my constituency. I will continue to campaign to reopen the full 21-mile line connecting our constituencies, taking pressure off the east coast main line and helping commuters get to employers in my constituency, such as, to name a few, Nissan, BAE systems and Rolls-Royce. There are many more. Rail continues to be of vital importance as we seek to grow our local economy and look for solutions to climate change. The heritage festival is an incredible opportunity to celebrate our region’s history, as well as the future of our trains, as they continue to serve an essential part of our lives.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  In February, my constituent’s son, Paul Holborn, won the men’s section of the 777 world marathon challenge. That is seven marathons in seven continents in seven days. He topped that off by then running the north pole marathon in July, and achieving grand slam status. Paul is now preparing for his next challenge. He plans to climb Mount Kilimanjaro in January, and then to pull a sled for 293 miles across the Arctic frozen tundra in February. Throughout his journey, Paul has raised thousands for local charities, including £4,000 for Age UK in Sunderland. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Paul on his bravery and determination, and in wishing him the best of luck for his upcoming endeavours, where he will do not just the north-east proud, but the whole UK?

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

  More

  I am thrilled to follow the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), who I would like to call my right hon. Friend. We do a lot of work together on the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. He is a former leader of the British delegation—that role has now passed to me—and we still attend delegations together. He made a good opening speech in support of the Bill. As Members will know, since 2010 I have served as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse, which I also set up in 2010. As the right hon. Gentleman highlighted, I have also fought tirelessly against touts scalping tickets away from fans to sell at massively inflated prices online. I was therefore horrified when tickets for events at the Royal Albert Hall—one of our country’s most recognisable and cherished institutions—started appearing on sites such as Viagogo. That included, to name but one, Ed Sheeran tickets being listed online for just under £6,000 per ticket. I was even more horrified when I learned that those tickets belonged to seat holders, some of whom also sit on the council of trustees. As we have heard tonight, and all know well, the Royal Albert Hall was opened in 1871 by Queen Victoria in commemoration of her husband Prince Albert and the furtherment of arts and sciences. As a thank you, some of the wealthy benefactors who financed the hall’s construction were gifted seats in the hall on a 999-year lease to attend as many events as they wished. Those seats have passed down through the generations. Fast-forward to today and things are very different. Seat holders can sell their seats for huge amounts of money—I will come to that in a moment—and sell their tickets for events they receive as seat holders but do not wish to attend personally. They could give those tickets to friends and family to use at no charge, and I know that some do. Many choose to return their tickets to the box office via the hall’s ticket return scheme, receiving the face value of the ticket minus a small fee that goes towards the hall. That would obviously be the preferential option for the hall, because it would make a little bit of money from that. Increasingly, however, seat holders are choosing to sell their tickets through third party websites such as Viagogo and Hoorah Tickets—in some cases for sums that are many, many times their face value. This includes tickets for Roger Daltrey’s annual Teenage Cancer Trust fundraising concert being sold for seat holders’ personal gain. These seats therefore represent a massive investment, and the seats themselves have been bought and sold over the years, with some individuals or families now amassing over 50 seats. Again, that was not the original intention of those altruistic benefactors funding the hall. Most recently, one 10-seat box was listed online for £3 million. The advertisement claimed that there were 12 seats in the box—pre-empting this Bill, which originally contained proposals to increase the number of seats in a box from 10 to 12, which would boost the portfolio of the box owners. Those clauses have fortunately been removed in the other place. I understand that the Royal Albert Hall has said that it needs this Bill to pass in order to make necessary changes to its constitution and safeguard the future of the hall economically. The hall holds charitable status and received a £20 million loan out of public money as part of the covid-19 culture recovery fund, which I am aware it is paying back at the rate agreed. Part of this legislation would reasonably allow the hall to increase and formalise the number of exclusive events from which seat holders are excluded, which the right hon. Member for Maldon spoke about. The hall can then make that vital profit from all the seats, instead of the seat holders selling them on the open market. Obviously, I support that. However, the main reason I support this Bill is the common-sense amendment introduced in the other place by my very good friend and namesake—although no relation—Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, supported by a cross-party majority of Lords. As the right hon. Member for Maldon explained, the Royal Albert Hall is controlled primarily by a council of 25 trustees, a majority of 19—equivalent to 75%—of whom, including the chairman of the board of trustees, must be seat holders, according to the hall’s governance statutes. The council has a say over which acts are booked and decides how many and which events will be for the exclusive benefit of the hall. The seat holder majority of trustees, whether this has happened or not, can therefore prioritise booking and securing tickets to events that will maximise their income. Those in the other place have taken the reasoned view that charity trustees must not benefit, or be seen to benefit, from decisions they take as trustees. Lord Hodgson’s amendment first sets out that any power to exclude members from the hall can be exercised only when “approved by a sub-committee of the council of which the independent members of the council will form a majority”. Secondly, “any tickets for seats received from the exercise of the power to alter the number of events from which seat holders are excluded must only be sold by the trustee or relatives of the trustee through a ticket return scheme operated or approved by the Corporation.” I believe that this is a moderate change that still gives seat holders a lot of freedom to resell their tickets. However, those who wish to govern the hall will receive only the face value of their tickets. I genuinely believe that this is a vital step in bringing the hall into line with every other reputable charitable institution. There are obviously those at the hall who oppose this Bill, and it would be massively shameful if they took this opportunity to withdraw the Bill. Like many others, including the right hon. Member for Maldon, who spoke of it so fondly, I hold the hall in high esteem and have many fond memories of times enjoyed there. I really want it to survive and to thrive for future generations, so I hope that this serious conflict of interest in the running of this beloved charity comes to an end, and that the Bill is given safe passage.

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

  More

  While I recognise that a lot of the seats have been bequeathed down through the generations, a lot of them are now sold on the open market for much more than what that £100 would fetch in today’s money, keeping pace with inflation. They are now assets because of the amount of money that can be gained from reselling them on the open market.

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

  More

  On that basis, if it is not about making money off their assets, would they not therefore return the tickets to the hall for the hall to resell, which they can do? There is also a conflict of interest if they are a seat holder as well as a trustee of the hall. Would it not be better for the ticket to be returned to the hall for the hall to sell, which is what this Bill seeks? They would still get their face-value money back.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Anti-Stab and Anti-Slash Protective Gear in Prisons · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to present this petition in the light of recent horrific attacks on prison officers by inmates. Debate about whether prison officers should all be provided with anti-stab and anti-slash gear has been brought to the forefront of political discussion recently. We know that attacks can happen in any prison, as it did to my very brave constituent Claire Lewis, who as a result set up a Change.org petition calling for mandatory protective gear—it currently has 32,000 signatures. We must ensure that this is available to all officers, not just those working in high-security prisons. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to ensure that all prison officers are equipped with mandatory anti-stab and anti-slash protective gear to keep them safe from violent prisoners. And the petitioners remain, etc.” Following is the full text of the petition: [ The petition of residents of the constituency of Washington and Gat es head South Declares that the government and prison authorities should make anti-stab and anti-slash protective gear mandatory for all prison officers. There is also a separate online petition on this issue, which has generated over 32,000 signatures. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to ensure that all prison officers are equipped with mandatory anti-stab and anti-slash protective gear to keep them safe from violent prisoners. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003083]

• 10 Jun 2025 · Prostitution and Sex Trafficking: Demand · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I congratulate her on securing this debate, however short—we are all managing to squeeze little bits in. Does she agree that those who argue that outlawing pimping websites will just drive this all underground are absolutely wrong? Actually, the reverse is seen: prosecution rates go up, so the demand decreases.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Free School Meals · Hansard source

  More

  I have chaired the all-party parliamentary group on school food since setting it up in 2010, so I know all too well the many benefits of free school meals, from the economic to health benefits—it is why I have campaigned for more than 18 years to extend free school meal provision. Providing more children than ever with free, healthy, hot and nutritious meals can be truly life changing. In my constituency, the provision will extend to a further 5,460 children, which is very welcome indeed, so I thank the Minister and our Government. Does the Minister agree that this down payment on the child poverty strategy is only the start of this Government’s mission to lift as many children out of poverty as possible, just as the previous Labour Government did?

• 4 Jun 2025 · Regional Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Twenty years ago, when first standing for election, I was told to limit my ambitions with regard to campaigning to bring the Metro to Washington, but I persisted and now, thanks to this Labour Government and the new Mayor of the North East, my ambition is going to be realised. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree that that is the difference that Labour in government can make and that what we are seeing is promise made and promise delivered?

• 24 Apr 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Next week marks the beginning of Coeliac Awareness Month, a time dedicated to raising awareness about coeliac disease, a serious autoimmune disease for which the only treatment is a strict gluten-free diet for life—it is not a fad. While coeliac disease affects one in 100 people in the UK, just 36% are medically diagnosed, leaving an estimated half a million people potentially facing debilitating symptoms yet being in the dark as to their cause. So will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time to mark this important month and to help raise important awareness of this terrible disease?

• 27 Mar 2025 · Hughes Report: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I commend him on all the work he does to represent his constituents. Interim payments were provided to victims of the contaminated blood scandal, as we know. Henrietta Hughes, the Patient Safety Commissioner, has detailed how to do it in her report. I ask the Government to look at that in detail when considering their response. If the Government are not moved by the moral case in respect of these health scandals, surely they cannot deny the economic toll they have taken on our public and mental health services. Although compensation would require finding money in what we all appreciate is a very tough fiscal situation, if we do nothing we will still need to find money: one payment will be given directly to the women and children harmed; if we do not do that, another will be have to be made for the provision of mental health services, for the NHS and for out-of-work benefits. We have a decision to make and, for me and the thousands of women and campaigners, the answer could not be simpler. I know from conversations with campaigners and constituents that the Government’s recent announcement on personal independence payments and welfare reform have caused anxiety for mesh and valproate victims who rely on those payments to survive. It is vital that we understand that the physical complications and illness caused by mesh and valproate are going to be with them for life, so they should not be forced into work if they cannot work. I spoke to the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) recently, and he told me about his constituent, Julie Robinson, and her family’s experience of sodium valproate. Julie’s daughter Samantha has been severely impacted by the epilepsy drug that was prescribed during Julie’s pregnancy. They both live in Market Weighton, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. He sends his apologies and asked me to raise the case of his constituent. I hope Members will allow me to list the seven complications Samantha has following the damage done to her by valproate while in uterus. She has neurodevelopment issues, including autism; memory difficulties; speech and language impairments; hearing and vision problems; heart defects requiring major surgery; a cleft lip and palate that led to a year in hospital; dysmorphic facial features at birth; and fine and gross motor challenges. It is quite a list. These conditions have significantly affected Samantha’s health and education and will persist throughout her life. There are thousands just like Samantha who will require lifelong care, which will also affect her parents’ ability to work. If a person can never work again because of mesh or valproate, they deserve support and to be treated with dignity. If they want to try to work, they should never be penalised or forced to go through reassessments and put under excessive anxiety or fear if it does not work for them and their family. Even prior to the welfare announcements, I have long argued for better education and empathy from the Department for Work and Pensions when assessing mesh and valproate victims. I hear from constituents impacted by mesh, for example, who would rather struggle financially than go through the gruelling and dehumanising process of explaining their condition and trying to claim the benefits they are entitled to. There needs to be proper and effective education among DWP staff about these health scandals, so that assessments are humiliation-free and quick for these women. While the valproate and mesh scandals differ in the specifics of the cases, the crux of them and the flags that they raise remain the same. Both affect women; both exemplify what happens when there is a lack of honesty and communication about the risks of medical procedures; and both highlight the need for increased transparency on the payments made to health professionals. They show the damage that is done when profit is put before people, when big firms avoid accountability and transparency and when—I have to say it—medical misogyny is allowed to run rife. I intend to emphasise those points, which I imagine colleagues will also touch on. Let us consider the valproate scandal. If warnings had been given at licensing, or in 1987, when Sanofi asked for information to be added to the patient information leaflet, the women and children impacted by valproate would not be in this position. Likewise with mesh, if women had been properly informed about the risks of adverse effects rather than being fed a false image, as my mam was, of “In and out; a quick 20-minute procedure that will change your life”—boy, did it change her life, but not for the better—we would not have thousands of women harmed on an irreversible scale.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Hughes Report: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I agree. That is a huge part of the problem, especially with regard to medical devices. The Cumberlege report looked into the medications, but also medical devices, which is what mesh comes under. Often they are put into use for one thing and then used for something else without any further testing or investigation. I agree with the hon. Lady that that has got to stop. After all that these women, families and children have been through, compensation would help at the very least pay to their bills if they cannot work any longer, or help to ease the constant worry about how their child will be able to survive independently when they are gone. I have a constituent impacted by her mesh implant who is unable to work—like most of those affected—and therefore cannot afford the day-to-day necessities. She is in constant pain, suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and has lost all trust in medical professionals. Compensation would not reverse her physical or mental pain, but it would at least make her life easier. There are thousands just like her, including my very own mam, who is now aged 80. I have spoken in detail about her journey previously. The damage to her body and health from mesh is something she says she will regret to her dying day, which I hope is still many years off, even though mesh has ruined her long-awaited and hoped-for retirement by ruining her health.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Hughes Report: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I sincerely thank everyone who has made the time to come along and speak on this most vital issue. They have all made such valuable contributions to this debate, and it is really heartening for me to hear such a great degree of consensus across the House that there is a wrong to be righted and that this new Labour Government have the opportunity to do just that. There are so many hon. Members who would have liked to be here today. Indeed, while I was on my feet, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) messaged to send his apologies, so I said I would make sure that was on the record. I thank the Minister; the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans); and the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for listening and for their intelligent contributions. There is so much expertise on this issue across the House. If we cannot get this sorted, nobody can. I am particularly pleased that the Minister apologised on behalf of the Government again so fully and movingly. She actually moved me to tears—I do not know about anybody else—but I am a bit soft in that regard. I hope she will agree to meet campaigners to continue this conversation, as I know Baroness Merron has done in the other place. I am sure that everyone watching both from the Public Gallery and at home will have appreciated the empathy and the understanding that the Minister has shown in this debate. With a new Government, we have new opportunities and the chance to make a real difference to the thousands of women and children who were wronged through no fault of their own. We have all the information we need, thanks to the amazing Baroness Cumberlege and our fantastic Patient Safety Commissioner, to ensure that such scandals never happen again and that families are given compensation to help to rebuild their lives. We now have to act, as Members have said. I hope that this debate has highlighted to the Minister the urgency of that—I am sure that it has—and that she will have the conversations required to make this happen so that these wrongs can be righted at last and as soon as possible. If Members are willing, I ask that they gather at the bottom of the stairs outside this Chamber to join campaigners for a photo to mark this occasion, and to spend a few moments talking to them. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the first anniversary of the Hughes report on valproate and pelvic mesh.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Hughes Report: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which perhaps nobody else but him would have been able to make in this debate, so I thank him for it, and I do agree. The people harmed by mesh and valproate did nothing other than trust a medical professional’s judgment. The very least we should do is offer them compensation to help them navigate their now damaged lives, which they have had inflicted on them, most horrifyingly, by our very own NHS. The fact that the victims of these scandals are mainly women is no coincidence. I have recently spoken in this place about medical misogyny in our healthcare system, and some colleagues here were in that debate. I said then—and I say it again—that had the thousands of women impacted by these scandals been men, “I do not believe that dismissal on such a scale would have occurred.” —[ Official Report, 27 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 499WH.] We hear stories of women seeking advice from medical professionals, only to be told it is all in their head—that it is just their menstrual cycle or the menopause—or being gaslit into believing it must be anything other than the devices or medication they were prescribed. Women not being listened to by medical professionals not only perpetuates structural misogyny; it endangers lives. It is so heartening to see so many male colleagues in this debate, because it proves that we can change things and that it does not have to be this way. Issuing compensation to these women would, at least and at last, confirm that they were right to be concerned and that they were not being hysterical—we know why it is called a “hysterectomy”—which is something women have been accused of for many hundreds of years when it comes to our health. As well as medical misogyny, part of the defensiveness and dismissal stems from the huge sums given to the healthcare system by the industry, which creates bias. Knowing that that is the case is not enough: the UK needs to adopt sunshine legislation to ensure that this information is fully declared, in the same way that all of us in this room, as MPs, have to make declarations. That information should be presented via a centralised public database that is totally independent of industry. As we all know, sunlight is the best disinfectant, and we need to act now to prevent future scandals. I am conscious of time, and colleagues will have a lot to say and experiences to share, so I will end my remarks by leaving the Minister with a few quick questions—sorry, Minister. Will she provide Members and campaigners here today, and the no doubt many victims of these scandals watching at home on the internet, with a timeline for when we can expect a Government response to the excellent Hughes report? If she is unable to do that today, will she commit to writing to Baroness Merron to ask for a timeframe? Will the Minister explain what scope there is for the Government to implement a sunshine-style piece of legislation to ensure the transparency of payments made by industry to our healthcare sector? In the spirit of cross-departmental working, which I know the Government are committed to, will she write to the Work and Pensions Secretary for reassurance that victims of the valproate and mesh scandals will not be subject to reassessment and forced into work, given their physical and mental complications? Finally, in her new role, will she commit to meeting campaigners, many of whom are here today, to hear at first hand about the valproate and mesh scandals, if she did not do that in her previous role as a Back-Bench MP? I thank the Minister in advance for her consideration, and I look forward to her answers. I will end with this: we have rightly seen compensation for the infected blood scandal, which I mentioned at the start of my remarks, the Post Office scandal and the Grenfell disaster. Those all involved innocent people whose lives were turned upside down, whether physically, mentally or worse, through no fault of their own. I fail to see how the mesh and valproate scandals do not meet the same criteria, and I encourage anyone opposed to compensation to consider that.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Hughes Report: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the first anniversary of the Hughes report on valproate and pelvic mesh. It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. It is a delight to see such a well-attended debate and a packed Public Gallery, as this is a very important topic. Last month marked the one-year anniversary of the publication of the Hughes report. Thanks to that report, we now understand what the potential compensation schemes for women and children impacted by the mesh and valproate scandals could look like. I will briefly break convention to say how grateful I am for the passion and hard work of our Patient Safety Commissioner, Henrietta Hughes, who—gosh!—has not managed to get into the public Gallery. Somebody might want to tell her there is a spare chair. Can somebody make sure she is allowed in, because it is her report we are discussing? [ Interruption. ] There she is. I thank our wonderful Patient Safety Commissioner, who has thankfully now been let into the room. It is great to see so many campaigners, who have been a great help and source of expertise and support to me over many years. I particularly thank Kath Sansom from Sling the Mesh, and Janet Williams and Emma Murphy from the Independent Fetal Anti-convulsant Trust, or In-FACT, as well as many more—too many to name. I am also glad to see Charlie and Lesley Bethune, who have tirelessly campaigned on behalf of their daughter, Autumn. They have travelled all the way down from Scotland. Their MP, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), cannot be here today, but he sends his sincere apologies. They would welcome an undertaking from the Minister and the UK Government to engage with those affected in Scotland, recognising that this is a UK-wide issue. Like so many others, they would also welcome progress on a response. Every Member present will have a constituent who is affected by one of these health scandals. At least 7,000 children have been harmed by the drug valproate since it first came on to the market in 1973, with an estimated further 28 per month exposed to it, and at least 40,000 women across the country have been injured by mesh. It is important to note that the actual figures are likely to be much higher due to a lack of awareness and many parents being reluctant to label their children. Putting an exact number on these things can therefore be extremely convoluted and difficult. Regardless, these are not just statistics: behind each number is the story of a woman who trusted a healthcare professional and was horrifyingly let down, a woman or a child who has been damaged irreversibly, a woman who has had to alter her life to accommodate for the physical, mental and financial toll of these scandals.

• 14 Mar 2025 · Free School Meals (Automatic Registration of Eligible Children) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb). I am so happy that his name was drawn in the private Member’s Bill ballot, and that he has chosen this excellent subject and most important topic for his Bill. As my hon. Friend said, school food has been available for almost 120 years. That is thanks to an MP for Bradford —little known by most—called Fred Jowett, who introduced the concept in his private Member’s Bill in 1906. My hon. Friend follows in the footsteps of a great man, and I thank him for that. Free school meals have existed in one form or another for the best part of 80 years, meaning that countless generations of children have received a hot, nutritious meal at lunch time. They are life-changing for pupils—no one knows that better than I do. Growing up as a recipient of free school meals, from almost the day I started school to the day I left school, the knowledge that there would be food at lunch time gave my mam, me and my brothers the security that I would not be hungry going into the rest of the school day. I echo the feelings of stigma that my hon. Friends the Members for Crawley and for Telford (Shaun Davies) have spoken about. I also recall having a different dinner ticket and, even worse, having a different meal queue to stand in. Our queue was served after the paid-for children were served; it is horrifying, I know. I am glad to say that that does not happen any more—children are not separated in such an abhorrent way—but the stigma is still very real and alive today, no matter how hard schools try to alleviate it through cashless systems and so on. Ask any child in school, “Who are the children on free school meals?”, and they will look to them straightaway. They all know. I have been to many schools over 20 years; I always ask them, and they always nod sheepishly that they know—sometimes because they are that very child, but sometimes because they know who those other children are. That stigma never leaves you; it stays with you, and in the sixth richest economy in the world, we should not be subjecting our children in school to that stigma any longer. We are all aware of the countless, cross-cutting benefits of free school meals, so I will not waste the House’s time by relisting them all; I will only say that, from increased attendance to attainment and more, free school meals are a multifaceted policy with widespread benefits across society. I am proud to be the founder and current chair of the all-party parliamentary group on school food since 2010. The group was instrumental in shaping the universal infant free school meals scheme, along with the authors of the school food plan, Henry Dimbleby and John Vincent, and we are still in discussion on the best delivery of the universal primary breakfast club programme. We—I, the MPs involved and all the stakeholders, who I think number 300 now—all want the early adopter to be a huge success. The all-party parliamentary group met only yesterday, and the Wilson Room was packed. The group is always well attended by school food stakeholders: we had around 50 in attendance yesterday, but I have known us to fill Committee Room 14 with 80 to 100 attendees, and I hope the Minister knows he has an open invitation to attend when his diary allows. The early adopter scheme, due to roll out to the first 750 schools this April, will show us where lessons can be learned for a smooth introduction to all primary schools next year—but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley has already said, this Government can and should go further. We can make marginal, low-cost improvement to the statutory free school meals scheme that we already have by introducing an opt-out system, as outlined in the Bill. We will capture around 200,000 children who are eligible for this crucial support but are not currently receiving it. Admin barriers should not mean that one in 10 students whose household income is already below the £7,400 threshold before benefits, miss out on free school meals support when they need it most. This auto-enrolment Bill cannot be seen as extra spending. Government funding already exists for the children who are not claiming this statutory support, so it is the lowest of low-hanging fruit. Moreover, increased free school meals uptake unlocks, as we have heard, a whole host of other benefits, including vital pupil premium funding of up to £1,455 extra per child. If this House wants to talk about better education funding, surely unlocking funding that already exists is the most logical and economically efficient way of doing that? In closing, extending free school meals by automatic registration to these most needy 200,000 children should be a no-brainer for any Government and a moral imperative for this Labour Government. I hope to see this Government and this Minister rectify that at their earliest opportunity.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Israeli-Palestinian Peace: International Fund · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) on securing this important debate. Several decades ago, the conflicts in Northern Ireland and Israel-Palestine bore strong parallels to each another. They both faced large-scale terrorist insurgencies with urban warfare tactics that had never been seen before, deeply polarised populations and horrific damage wrought on innocent lives. Most importantly, they shared the fact that many sceptics painted the fighting as the product of ancient and intractable religious disputes, and thus hand-waved away any prospects of peace. But today they look very different. Opposed interests on the island of Ireland now have a legitimate political channel and dialogue through the provisions of the Good Friday agreement, while conflicts between those on the territory of Israel and Palestine arguably reached their highest intensity in over half a century prior to the recent ceasefires. Of course, each historical experience is unique, and it would be an oversimplification to take the comparison too far, but I believe we must always bear the Northern Irish example in mind in our approach to an international fund and wider peacebuilding in Israel and Palestine, especially considering our country’s first-hand experience of the disastrous consequences of unresolved conflict. In particular, I propose two major ways that we stand to gain from thinking about the troubles. First, we can learn the lessons of the Irish peacebuilding experience. Although negotiations over Israel and Palestine, such as those that led to the Oslo accords, have been largely top down and sometimes entirely secret projects of men in smoke-filled rooms, the Good Friday agreement was far more inclusive, paying attention to left-out voices, the unconvinced women and the international community. Much of the credit for getting civil society engaged in Ireland must go to the International Fund for Ireland, which our own Jonathan Powell has called “the great unsung hero of the peace process”. Fact-finding visits to Northern Ireland by Israeli and Palestinian non-governmental organisations found that the IFI’s strategic approach to funding—with an independent body, tight public-private donor co-ordination and field officers from the affected communities—made all the difference. Civil society was the glue that brought communities together and has continued to hold them together despite the increased uncertainty of recent years. Although I have to finish my speech due to the time limit, I want to acknowledge that, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, the new fund would have to be considerably greater.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Women’s Health · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for securing this important debate, and for her excellent opening speech. There are so many things that I want to talk about, but for time’s sake, I will focus my remarks around the importance of women being believed by healthcare professionals, and the detrimental effect on women when that is not the case. The UK has the largest female health gap in the G20, and that is attributed in part to the misdiagnosis of conditions in women. It is absolutely shocking that eight in 10 women in this country report not being listened to by healthcare professionals. [ Official Report, 4 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 4WC.] (Correction) Those discrepancies extend beyond the confinement of the consulting room; they actively reinforce beliefs among wider society that women’s symptoms, no matter how debilitating, are normal. That is likely to prevent so many women from seeking medical advice, ultimately putting them at risk. Therefore, that widespread problem does not just perpetuate systemic misogyny but directly impacts women’s health outcomes and endangers their lives. Published in August 2022, the 10-year women’s health strategy for England included a six-point plan on how to improve health outcomes and the way that the healthcare system listens to women. No. 1 on the list was to ensure that women’s voices are heard. In the month of the first anniversary of the publication of the excellent Hughes report, there is no better time to speak on an apt example of what happens when women’s voices are not heard. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on first do no harm, mesh, Primodos, valproate, I campaigned for justice and compensation on behalf of the thousands of women who live with the consequences every day of what happens when women’s voices are not listened to. The mesh scandal in particular exemplifies that perfectly. To set the scene, it is believed that 40,000 women in this country could be affected by mesh damage and complications, and 10,000 of those women have been left with disabilities, as the mesh has cut into their organs and nerves. I hear from mesh-impacted constituents who describe desperate situations of poverty, depression and isolation as a result. Many have lost their jobs, their marriages and their trust in a service that is supposed to be there for us when we are sick, not make us sick. Perhaps even worse was the treatment of those women when they realised that it was the mesh that was causing their health complications. The women then report being gaslit, undermined and ridiculed when trying to sort out a mess they had no part in making, or even consenting to in most cases. Among the thousands of mesh-injured women is my own mam. I personally sat next to her at our local hospital and watched her be gaslit and undermined by her original surgeon when she first sought help with her pain and symptoms. Despite now having had her mesh removed by the wonderful Dr Suzy Elneil in London, the complications sadly do not stop there. The way mesh attaches to our organs has been likened to the way that chewing gum gets caught in our hair, so it is almost impossible to fully remove it. As such, regardless of the removal, my mam, now 80, is still struggling and in her own words, will never be the same again. The important point is that had my mam and the thousands of others affected been men suffering horrendous pain as a result of a medical procedure, I do not believe that dismissal on such a scale would have occurred. Nor do I believe that compensation and recognition of the scandal would be such a painfully slow process. Before I finish, I put on record my gratitude to my friend who recently retired from the other place, Baroness Cumberlege, for all her work on this issue. I will leave it there, as I am out of time.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q14. A significant part of the dreadful legacy left by the previous Conservative Government is the chronic underfunding of transport infrastructure, especially in the north-east, as we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah). Does the Prime Minister agree with me and the North East Mayor, Kim McGuinness, that redevelopment of the disused Leamside line would reconnect Gateshead with north Durham, and that increasing the capacity on the east coast main line would help to bring the Metro to Washington in my constituency, bringing much-needed jobs, growth and opportunities to my region?

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent opening speech on a topic that is so important for all our communities. I am sure that he is as shocked as I am to learn of the severe health inequalities in coalfield communities; the average life expectancy is around a year less than the national average, and around three years less than that in the south-east. For the north-east, it is even worse. Does he agree that for these communities, these health inequalities are the long-term legacy, and that is why we need to ensure that coalfield communities are properly supported, even in this day?

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has mentioned commuting and infrastructure. Following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), those things are important in connecting people from Durham to jobs in Washington at Nissan, and at other great companies there, such as Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems. Does he agree that there has been under-investment for years in the infrastructure that he is talking about, and especially in transport infrastructure, which makes projects such as the Leamside line, which our Mayor of the North-East supports, so important for creating the connectivity that we need?

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?