Sir Gavin Williamson
MP for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I ask the Minister to look at new clause 104, which has been tabled in my name, with the support of 16 other Members from all parts of the House. The issue of people not being able to have children is growing. Male fertility has been collapsing over the past few decades.”
“We all often have a common memory that is so incredibly important and special: holding our child for the very first time. Sadly, so many people up and down this country cannot have that memory because of their difficulty in having children.”
“That is just not right, and I urge the Minister to be proactive in looking at how it can be addressed. We face a demographic issue in this country. We have a falling birth rate, with fewer than 600,000 babies born in this country last year. That will only get worse. It is sad that the NHS is not prioritising this issue.”
“As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will know, many of those Jaguar Land Rover employees live in my constituency, but they are across the whole midlands. In August, the Government committed to consulting on the zero emission vehicle mandate.”
“I thank the Prime Minister for articulating a desire to reach across the political divide on issues that are common among all our constituents. across all our constituencies, more and more people are struggling to have a family—to have children. This is a greater and greater issue all across the country.”
“The Leader of the House is usually a very thoughtful and considerate man, but my recollection is similar to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith); it is that once a date had been agreed through the usual channels, it was usually stuck to.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,798 lines we hold for Sir Gavin Williamson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 56.
“As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will know, many of those Jaguar Land Rover employees live in my constituency, but they are across the whole midlands. In August, the Government committed to consulting on the zero emission vehicle mandate. Will she undertake to ensure that the consultation is as quick as possible, so that we can give our car manufacturing firms the best chance to compete globally?”
“I urge the Minister to look at new clause 104 and give families the opportunity—the greatest blessing that they can have—to hold their own child. I urge her to take action, as opposed to ignoring something that is so important to so many.”
“That is just not right, and I urge the Minister to be proactive in looking at how it can be addressed. We face a demographic issue in this country. We have a falling birth rate, with fewer than 600,000 babies born in this country last year. That will only get worse. It is sad that the NHS is not prioritising this issue. I understand the pressures that ICBs operate under, and it may always be seen as an easy, no-cost option to deprive people of the ability to have a child, but for those people who desperately spend their whole life doing everything they can—remortgaging their homes, begging for money from family and friends—to have a cycle of IVF, it is destroying them. There is no humanity in this system.”
“I ask the Minister to look at new clause 104, which has been tabled in my name, with the support of 16 other Members from all parts of the House. The issue of people not being able to have children is growing. Male fertility has been collapsing over the past few decades. As people are dealing with greater pressures to buy their own home, they are having children later in life, rather than earlier. We have a postcode lottery. Only two ICBs across the country offer the NICE recommendation of three cycles. In fact, as we have already heard, the offer in Manchester has been decreased. That is also the case in Cheshire and Merseyside. In Staffordshire, which I represent, people are not even entitled to one full cycle of IVF, meaning that unless someone is incredibly rich, they are condemned to probably never being able to have children.”
“We all often have a common memory that is so incredibly important and special: holding our child for the very first time. Sadly, so many people up and down this country cannot have that memory because of their difficulty in having children. In 2004, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended a way forward on IVF, which was to give all a minimum three cycles of IVF treatment. That was set out 22 years ago, so we would hope that over time all ICBs would have moved towards delivering that. Sadly, it is something that people have moved away from, and that is not because the issue has got easier or better or is impacting fewer people. The reality is that the issue has got more difficult and is impacting more people, meaning that more people will not have that amazing joy of holding their own child.”
“Will the Prime Minister encourage his Health Secretary to look at the amendment and see whether there is a way to work across parties and have an impact on something that is so important to so many people?”
“I thank the Prime Minister for articulating a desire to reach across the political divide on issues that are common among all our constituents. across all our constituencies, more and more people are struggling to have a family—to have children. This is a greater and greater issue all across the country. In Staffordshire, for example, if a family need NHS IVF treatment, they are not even entitled to one round of treatment, despite the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence saying that they should be entitled to three. The Prime Minister has a Health Bill coming to this House next week. I have tabled an amendment that would ensure that across England all our constituents can have the basic minimum recommended by NICE, so that they can have a family.”
“The Leader of the House is usually a very thoughtful and considerate man, but my recollection is similar to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith); it is that once a date had been agreed through the usual channels, it was usually stuck to. It certainly was in all circumstances where it was agreed with me. Will the Leader of the House make contact with the office of the right hon. Member for Makerfield, and have a discussion with him, so that the Leader of the House can report back to the House on Thursday on whether a date will be made available next week for the right hon. Member for Makerfield to make a statement to this House about his plans and ambitions for the Government and this country?”
“In fact, we will act as a magnet for slave-produced goods from not just China, but so many other countries that turn a blind eye to slave labour. While there is much that I welcome in the Bill, I urge the Government to look at how they can work cross-party, so that they can have an improved Bill that protects some of the most vulnerable people in the poorest parts of the world from being exploited. If they do that, they will have made a much better Bill than the one currently in front of the House.”
“The Bill does many things, and I welcome many of them, but when it comes to combating modern slavery, which is mentioned in its long title, it does nothing more than offer meek and weak words. Members on both sides of the House have often worked together to make a difference—we led the world in tackling modern slavery—but we see the United States charging ahead and taking more action than we are. If we look across the channel, which we all talk so much about in this debate, we see that the European Union is doing more than we are doing in this House. What are we proposing to do? We are just asking for a little more reporting. We are not acting to stop goods produced by slavery coming to these shores.”
“I am conscious of the short time we have. I will concentrate most of my comments on clauses 44 to 49. This is a Bill about our border, who crosses it and on what terms, but a border policy that scrutinises every person while waving through products of slavery is really only half a border policy. The slavery that we see in the modern world impacts every part of the globe, and greatly impacts this country. One in five cotton garments worldwide is linked to forced labour in China, and Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights warned in July 2025 that the UK risked becoming “a dumping ground” for goods prohibited elsewhere. The International Labour Organisation estimates that forced labour generates roughly £176 billion in illegal profits every year.”
“I know, because we have all been in that situation when we have been in ministerial office, where we are sometimes sent out to make arguments we do not feel comfortable with or are not necessarily happy making. I urge the Minister not to ignore the victims and the people who have been impacted by this legislation, but to take action. She can utter mild and inconsequential words at the Dispatch Box, but this means that victims are going to spend not just another day and not just another week, but multiple weeks, not knowing what is going to happen. As we go into summer recess, it will be week upon week without clarity, and that will erode their confidence and make them worry about the person who has done them so much harm. I urge the Minister to do what is right by the victims, against what is right by her absentee boss.”
“Every single one of us has seen constituents who have been impacted by the 7,000 letters that went out, informing them that the people who have done them harm will be released early. I cannot imagine how crushing that must be. This is not something that we have to sit idly by and just accept; it is something that we can genuinely change. The statistics have already been covered by so many others, but I must say that there is something fundamentally wrong when 62% of rapists and 83% of child groomers will be let off early. This is not about party politics; this is just about good judgment and doing the right thing. I understand that the Minister has been sent out by her absentee boss to make the argument.”
“As Members of Parliament, we often go around our constituencies and talk to many of our constituents across the political spectrum, and the thing I always say is that the people who come to this House—not that we do not get things wrong, and not that we do not disagree—are doing so because they want to make a real difference to people’s lives. They want to make an impact. While we may sometimes disagree about how that is to be achieved, there are good intentions right across the political spectrum. When we face a situation such as the one we face today, it becomes so much more important that we do not act in a party political manner, but in a way that is in the best interests of those who have been hurt the most. We have all witnessed it.”
“I implore the Minister to be bold, to act and to show some leadership, which has been completely absent from the Secretary of State.”
“I would say to the Ministers that they must not sit there passively acting as a shield for their absentee Secretary of State, who does not seem to care or be interested in the victims who are being impacted by his legislation—not our legislation, but his. Action is required, and if Ministers sit there and do not take the action that is required, they will be as guilty as the Secretary of State is for bringing such flawed legislation to the Floor of this House in the first place. Do not sit by as victims suffer. Do not sit by as people worry, stress and fear about what will happen to them in the weeks ahead, while the Labour party is going through internal trauma and is not providing a clear and direct way to help these victims.”
“My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We have a moment of what I believe is cross-party unity, because behind the Minister, I believe that those on the Back Benches of the Labour party do not want the Government to go down this course. On the Opposition Benches, we do not want the Government to go down this course. We want to make sure that there is a solution that supports and protects victims—the people who Ministers said would be protected but who have not been as a result of the measures in the Sentencing Act. It is important to act. As has already been pointed out, there are acres of legislative time and opportunities. It is not as if the general debates that are pencilled in, as worthy, important and valuable as they are, could not be moved to facilitate the legislation and the votes in this House to get this corrected.”
“My hon. Friend had a very important UQ here in the Chamber, and Mr Speaker himself asked that Ministers respond to Members of Parliament when they make requests for information about their constituencies. I followed Mr Speaker’s guidance and tabled those questions to the Minister as named-day questions. None of those has been answered, and it has been quite a number of days since the named day passed. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister should address these points and answer these questions as quickly as possible?”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you advise me on whether the Minister, in summing up the debate, is meant to touch on the motion at hand? It seems to be being largely ignored at present.”
“I urge him to look at setting out a timetable for a review of extending the supercharger so that it can cover gas costs. If he is unable to do that and we are unable to get the support required, more British businesses will sadly go under; more British manufacturing businesses will no longer be manufacturing or exporting, and firms from across the sea will step into that gap. That is not something that anyone wants to see, whether in Staffordshire or across the United Kingdom.”
“The supercharger is important, but the reality is that only 10% of ceramics businesses are able to apply for that, for the simple reason that gas is not included, or not in the way that they are able to access it. Some 86% of the energy costs for ceramics manufacturers come from not electricity but gas. That is not through choice; it is necessary in order to make the product. They are not sat there thinking, “I don’t want to do the transition to electricity;” they cannot make that transition and, as the hon. Member for Lichfield rightly pointed out, hydrogen will not be able to come to the rescue and save those jobs. I am conscious that many people want to contribute, so I come to my ask of the Minister. I know that he is incredibly knowledgeable and passionate about this sector.”
“I have some amazing ceramics businesses in my constituency, whether that is Dunoon, Lucideon, AMRICC and, of course, Ibstock, which makes the iconic Staffordshire blue brick. It is crazy that we are in a situation where bricks are being imported into this country from India, Turkey and the Netherlands, and British manufacturers employing British people and providing British exports are being priced out of the market. The core issue here is energy costs—energy costs first, second and third. It would be disingenuous of me not to thank the Government for the action that they have taken to support the ceramics sector, but we will continue to see a decline in ceramics unless we address that core issue of energy. The Government have taken important steps to address it.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), on securing this debate. As one of probably a few Members of Parliament who have worked in the ceramics industry, this is not just about jobs for me; it is about who we are, identity and what it means to make something tangible and real that can make a difference to our economy. It contributes £2 billion to our economy, including £600 million worth of exports from a country that, sadly, exports too little. The situation we are in is a tragedy. Ceramics is not just cups and saucers, plates and bowls; it is the tiles on our homes and the bricks.”
“The Minister has heard quite clearly from Members on both sides of the House the real concern about what was said at the Dispatch Box about those who had committed the most serious and heinous crimes not actually being released under this scheme. That is where the biggest dispute is in relation to this. Could the Minister please pledge to the House that he will go back to the Department and review this, and ensure that all those who have committed rape or been convicted of child grooming and who look as if they are getting early release are excluded from this scheme?”
“The issues facing neonatal and maternity services are present not only in the areas that I mentioned, but they touch on many other corners of the country, and only a public inquiry can address that.”
“I was not that familiar with the issue of neonatal and maternity services until my constituent, Mr Thomas Hender, contacted me about the tragic loss of his son, Aubrey. He highlighted the battle that he and his family had gone through, and that so many others had been going through. Sadly, these issues have happened not just at the NHS trust in Nottingham, but at those in Morecambe Bay, East Kent, Shrewsbury and Telford, Leeds and Sussex. Some six further reviews and investigations have been carried out. I value the fact that the Secretary of State said that he had an open mind about a public inquiry; I think we need to move in that direction. It was not until the review of care at the Mid Staffordshire NHS trust became a public inquiry that we were able to address some of the issues.”
“I think Members on both sides of the House are deeply appreciative of the work of civil servants right across the country. To pick up the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), we have a real issue here. There are pensioners in my constituency who have dedicated their life to the civil service but are not in receipt of their pension from March. As a Member of Parliament who continuously writes to those administering the scheme to follow up these issues, I know that they do not have the courtesy to even respond and say what they are doing. Can the relevant Minister come to the House as a matter of urgency to make a statement on what is being done to support our civil servants who have retired?”
“I think we all very much welcomed the amazing work done by Lord Robertson, along with his team, including General Barrons and Fi Hill. How many of their 62 recommendations are the Government still committed to?”
“In my constituency, this issue is of real concern to parents as well as children. Some of the big tech companies seem to resemble the big tobacco companies of the 1960s. We have had a great deal of briefing from the Government, and we have had an announcement that was not made in the House. Will the Minister commit himself to coming to the House when the guidance is ready, to set out exactly and clearly the steps that the Government will continue to take to give real reassurance to the parents in my constituency who are so concerned about this matter?”
“I thank the Minister for the work he has done. It was a pleasure to work with him when I was at the Department for Education, and it is great to see the development of his findings and the effort that has been put into them. The Minister raised the important issue of kinship care and the extra support going to local authorities. My one slight concern is that we might start to see a real divergence in the level of support offered to kinship carers in different local authority areas. Could the Minister expand a little bit on how he will take action to ensure there is not too great a divergence?”
“Can the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister has not deleted any of the messages that he received electronically on any personal or Government devices in relation to Peter Mandelson?”
“In the Staffordshire county council area we have amazing community spaces, but they would benefit from additional investment, and Pride in Place would have been a great way to allocate it. Sadly, none of the local authorities in that county council area is eligible for Pride in Place, and the result feels a little like gerrymandering, but I am sure that that is not the case. Will the Secretary of State commit to looking afresh at whether there is any opportunity for Staffordshire not to be forgotten by this Government?”
“With the Government’s plans to regionalise police forces and the potential scrapping of Staffordshire constabulary, many involved in the care of vulnerable young people fear that there will be less focus on protecting children as fewer senior police officers will be working with local authorities to ensure that they are cared for. What actions will the Minister take to ensure that that does not happen?”
“I very much associate myself with the Minister’s words on the sad loss. She touched on the important issue of the vital role that court bailiffs play. Many small businesses are struggling to recover money because of a lack of court bailiffs. What actions are the Government looking to take to increase the number of court bailiffs, in order to help small businesses recover the money that they are owed?”
“I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Obviously, we are rapidly approaching the time when, right across the country, university students will be dispersing and heading away from halls of residence and their campuses. What actions is the Secretary of State taking—working not just with universities, but with health authorities and other bodies right around the country—to make sure that any cases that may be dispersed around the country are quickly acted on?”
“I remember that when I was Chief Whip, I would often be confronted with Members of Parliament who were quite willing to do a job without any pay as long as they were going to be called “Minister”. Admittedly, that was many years ago—maybe things have changed—but I worry about sending the message that we have found the time to pass legislation to pay more people to be Ministers. What the public want to hear is that the Government and this House are tackling the issues that impact their lives. They want to hear that this House is tackling the issues that will make a difference to their living standards, not those of Members of Parliament and Ministers.”
“Are they doing things that the public do not want? I do not think there is a great demand for more Ministers. I urge the Minister to look again at this legislation. I agree with one element of the Bill—that if a person is being asked to do a job, they should get a wage for it—but why not bring down the number of people who can be Ministers? Why not turn this Bill into a saving for the Government and the Treasury? That will earn the Minister great plaudits from No. 11. He will probably be hailed; he will probably be earmarked for promotion, so that he can get one of the reduced number of Secretary of State positions. I question why, at this time, the Government are bringing forward legislation enabling them to expand the Government payroll.”
“It has decided to do something completely different and expand the cost of doing government. That is not quite what the British public are asking for. Before this debate, I thought I had best check my emails, because I was wondering when I last had a deluge of emails—or even one email—calling for more Cabinet Ministers, more Ministers of State or more Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State. I searched my emails over the past month, and I could not find one. I searched over the past year, and I could not find one. I went all the way back over 16 years, desperately searching for an email calling for more Cabinet Ministers, more Ministers of State and more Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State, and I found none whatsoever. I am concerned for the health of this Government, who are having a few difficulties.”
“What a pleasure it is to speak in this debate. Speaking in a debate where there is no time limit attached to the speeches made is a rarity and an opportunity that we should all relish and take advantage of. I must confess that when I saw the title of this Bill, the radical in me was excited. I thought that the Government were going to do something bold, visionary and different, but sadly that opportunity to do something different seems to have passed them by. Instead of listening to what the Chancellor has said about some of the great challenges that this country faces in balancing the books and ensuring that we have the ability to pay our way and make savings in government all the way from the top to the bottom, the Cabinet Office seems to have gone on a little jolly of its own.”
“We will have a creep, creep, creep of patronage, with ever more people going on to the Government payroll. I feel, and I fear, that that may weaken this House.”
“I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is a disconnect between all the priorities and all the issues around the world and our wanting to pass legislation to create more ministerial offices. I also understand and appreciate the challenges that the Prime Minister will face. I am sympathetic to his position, because he will be constantly badgered to make more Ministers, with more people wanting patronage and elevation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) has pointed out, there is no upper limit to the number of Ministers, so if we are in this House in 10 years’ time, we will be having a debate about how there are another 15 Ministers who are unpaid. The Government Minister will be at the Dispatch Box, possibly trying to defend the idea of paying even more Ministers.”
“I thank the Minister for his generosity. He is right to say that the Government have moved to remove hereditaries, which is an important step forward, but they have failed to do a number of other things that were in their manifesto, including introducing an age limit and making rules about attendance. Can he give some clarity about when that legislation will come forward, and about whether he can also get rid of the bishops?”
“In this country, we have an immense wealth of talented young people who would love to train to be doctors, but over many decades we have not recruited enough. I appreciate that this is not just an issue for the Department of Health and that it spans the Department for Education and the Treasury, but what more could be done to increase the number of doctor placements so that we can train more and rely less on recruiting doctors from overseas who often come from countries much poorer than our own?”
“I am deeply concerned, as I am sure the Minister is, about the rising rate of youth unemployment, which is currently standing at 15%. One of the key employers of young people is the hospitality sector, as well as the retail sector. When I speak to businesses in my constituency of Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge, so many of them reference the fact that they have been hit by business rates and the impact of national insurance. That is discouraging investment and reducing job opportunities for young people. What action is the Minister taking to reverse that trend?”
“I very much welcome the Home Secretary’s decision. Iran has a track record of hostile activity in the United Kingdom. We have so many Iranians who have had to flee their home country for safety here in the UK, yet we still see charities effectively operating as proxies for the terrible regime in Tehran. What further action will the Home Secretary take to clamp down on organisations that masquerade as charities?”
“Before I purchase something at the supermarket, I want to know what the price is. The Minister seems to be lacking clarity on how much this is going to cost. Can he give that clarity?”
“I am sure that he has a good heart and was acting with the best of intentions, but the perception was different.”
“To me, it looks very vulnerable to challenge. It is important that the Secretary of State sets out clearly how the issue of boundaries will be dealt with, which will, of course, be addressed straight after the next general election. Of course, if we are to have auto-enrolment in certain parts of the country—which will be chosen, I presume, by the Secretary of State, as opposed to this House—then, hypothetically, he could select areas where auto-enrolment would be beneficial to the Labour party. I am sure the Secretary of State would never be so partisan as to do that.”
“There are areas on which there will probably be a great deal of agreement; on others, there may be some disagreement. What is required is a thoughtful conversation that involves all. I will pick up on a number of areas where there are deep vulnerabilities in the Bill. Automatic enrolment superficially sounds like a great idea—something that I think many in this House would happily support. However, there is no clarity about how it will be rolled out across the country. At the next general election, it will be available in some parts of the country, but not others. We will effectively have two distinct electoral rolls. I am not sure how that will go. I am not sure if it will even survive judicial review, but then I am not a lawyer, and the Secretary of State probably has considerably more recent experience of judicial review than I have.”
“There was much in what the Secretary of State said at the start of his opening remarks—about the threats to our democracy, and the challenges that we face—that I very much agree with. However, I worry that the Bill does not go in quite the right direction to deal with those threats, and with the challenges presented by Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. They are all nations that wish to undermine our democracy, and there is tentative evidence to show that all of them are already trying to do so by influencing our democratic structures. However, it feels as though the Bill is more about gestures than substantial change. Changing the architecture of democracy should be done incredibly thoughtfully and carefully, with proper consideration and consultation.”