Mike Wood
MP for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire · Conservative · United Kingdom
“The overwhelming cytokine storms, microvascular clotting and rapid progression to acute respiratory distress syndrome and multi-organ failure seen in covid intensive care units are classic manifestations of viral sepsis.”
“Up to 50% of sepsis survivors suffer prolonged physical, cognitive and psychological impairments from debilitating fatigue and cognitive brain fog to severe muscle weakness and post-traumatic stress disorder.”
“That makes it so difficult to have a meaningful figure for the number of cases, deaths and serious disabilities as a result of sepsis. We really need more consistency in the way that is coded, as well as a guide to best practice. I join the Minister in offering my condolences to the hon.”
“Absolutely. Of course, some infections are almost unavoidable, but where infections such as UTIs can clearly be reduced with the right care and precautions, we must do everything we can to reduce those risks. Every Member in this Chamber has constituents whose lives have been permanently transformed by sepsis.”
“Like many in politics, my behaviour can at times appear to some people to be a little idiosyncratic; fortunately, Laura realised that, even for a Member of Parliament, that was not entirely normal behaviour.”
“The international theme for this year could not be more apt: “Invest in Sepsis—Save Lives.” The World Health Organisation recognises sepsis as one of the leading causes of death and disability globally, estimating that sepsis-related illnesses account for one in every five deaths worldwide.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Mike Wood, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 12.
“As I have said, I did not see the details of the bid. Obviously, with any bid, it is right to look at previous performance. There will be some causes for concern with any of the bidders for large Government contracts because of the complexity of those contracts.”
“Can the Minister guarantee that no one affected will face further disruption beyond the end of this month? Can she guarantee that pension payments will be stabilised fully and permanently? The warning signs were there for months, and the failure to act decisively after the publication of the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee reports is stark. Although it is deeply disappointing that the Government failed to prevent this from happening, we can all agree that it is now in everyone’s interest—”
“The Public Accounts Committee was clear that Capita had missed seven out of its eight key transitional milestones to deliver its IT system and said: “The Cabinet Office needs to fully develop contingency plans”. If the Minister is right that he was only made aware of these problems in recent weeks, should the Government not have known far sooner and acted far sooner? Although it is welcome that interest-free hardship loans are now available, this action has clearly come too late. Those loans should have been made available on an emergency basis from 1 December—the same day that Capita took over administration—so that people were not left in financial limbo. Instead, some pensioners have reported being forced to take out costly commercial loans or to borrow from friends and family simply to cover basic living costs. That is unacceptable.”
“On 14 November 2025, the Cabinet Office wrote to trade unions confirming that Capita would indeed take over from 1 December, stating that it was satisfied—this Government, this permanent secretary and this Minister’s Department were satisfied—that Capita had taken on board the findings of those reports. Serious questions have to be answered. What assurances were provided by Capita to Ministers before that final decision was taken at the end of last year? What scrutiny was applied to those assurances and by whom? Why, in his letter to colleagues, did the Minister for the Cabinet Office claim that these issues had only come to his attention “in recent weeks” when both the National Audit Office report in June and the Public Accounts Committee report in October warned of a “clear risk” that Capita would not be ready?”
“I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has not always been an uncritical friend of the current Government, but he has to recognise that his party has been in government for more than a year and a half, during which there were opportunities to take action if they were unhappy with our contract. As I said, the warning signs were there in black and white. Ministers were on notice of the potential for problems and their consequences. Despite that, on 7 July last year—a full year into this Government—the permanent secretary told the Public Accounts Committee that the Cabinet Office would decide in December whether Capita should take over administration.”
“I have given way four times; I really ought to conclude. We can all agree that it is now in everyone’s interest for operational stability to be restored as quickly as possible, for the Government to ensure rigorously and transparently that Capita meets its contractual obligations consistently and that any penalty clauses in the contract that can be enforced are enforced to allow for compensation to be paid to those affected. Above all, we owe it to those affected—public servants who did everything asked of them—to put this right and ensure that such a failure does not happen again.”
“This U-turn delivers some much-needed temporary relief for a lot of pubs, but it does not deliver the permanently lower bills that the Prime Minister promised. It also does nothing at all for the other hospitality firms in our constituencies—the cafés, restaurants, clubs and guest houses that are facing crippling rate rises because of this Government’s choices. Mr Speaker, is it not a sign of the incompetence of this Government that they cannot even get their U-turns right?”
“The Minister did not answer the question that the shadow Foreign Secretary asked, but it is inconceivable that Foreign Office Ministers will not have had discussions with their American counterparts about this issue over the last week. Can the Minister tell us whether it is still the Government’s position that US opposition to the treaty is purely about Greenland?”
“In his statement last month, the Paymaster General promised us that he had secured a great deal for the first year of the Erasmus programme. It is a technique that will be familiar to mobile phone and satellite TV customers around the country. Can the Minister tell us what the Paymaster General could not tell us in that statement: what will it cost in the second and subsequent years?”
“I think the Minister has given the game away: he has just said that it would be wrong to walk away from that. He will know, as the whole House knows, that any negotiation is successful only if you know, and more importantly your negotiating partners know, that there is an alternative to a negotiated agreement. Can the Minister assure the House that, if the European Union is not able to offer similar terms and similar cost for second and subsequent years, he would be prepared to walk away from the negotiations?”
“The tables to which the Minister refers show that the median rateable value for pubs and wine bars is increasing by a third. He visited the Prince of Wales, a pub in his constituency, to help it reopen last spring. Its rateable value is going up from £49,200 to £62,500, which will push it into the higher band and higher bills. When we have the inevitable U-turn, will he ensure that it genuinely delivers lower business rates, and not just for the Prince of Wales in his constituency but for all hospitality venues across the country?”
“Is it going to be mandatory or not? What on earth does the taxpayer get for that money if people do not even have to have it? Above all, when is he going to finally face facts, stop spending billions on this zombie boondoggle that is wandering aimlessly in search of a problem to solve, and save taxpayers’ money? This is a dead policy.”
“Gentleman on his appointment to his new position last Friday, but I suspect he is quickly learning that the price of his red box is to have to go out on a very thin limb and put his own credibility on the line, only for those higher up in Government to rev the chainsaw, leaving him exposed, with only the flimsiest of pretences to protect his dignity—the pretence that this policy is still a going concern. In less than four months, the policy has gone from dead cat to dead parrot. Like Monty Python’s pet shop owner, the Minister is asking us all to deny what we can see clearly with our own eyes. He does everything short of inviting us to admire its beautiful plumage, but this policy has passed on. My questions for the Minister are: do the Government still expect digital ID, in this new form, to cost £1.8 billion?”
“The Minister read his speech beautifully, and with a straight face. In September, the Prime Minister tossed this mandatory digital ID on to the table as a classic dead cat distraction, purely to keep Andy Burnham off the front pages as the Labour party conference started. Now it is left to a junior Minister to come to Parliament to explain why the policy that the Prime Minister spent months saying was absolutely vital is being hollowed out. I congratulate the hon.”
“I am proud that my father was a West Midlands police constable for 29 years, policing football matches during some of the darkest days of English football, but the Home Secretary is clearly right that there has been a failure in the leadership of West Midlands police over recent months. The Prime Minister rightly said that oversight for the police ultimately lies with the police and crime commissioner, which does not seem to have been the case here. The police and crime commissioner also has a specific responsibility for improving local relationships by building confidence and restoring trust in local communities, but both confidence and trust in West Midlands police have clearly collapsed. The Home Secretary is right to say that the chief constable needs to go, but should the police and crime commissioner not also consider his position?”
“Storm Goretti has led to significant rainfall in many parts of the country. What assessment have the Government made of localised flooding, and will support be made available to those affected by the storm through the flood recovery network? I understand that the floods resilience taskforce met on 8 September. I should be grateful if the Minister could outline what actions were taken following that meeting to prepare for eventualities such as this.”
“Does the Minister agree that the latest mass power outages in the south-west show that the Government should reconsider their drive for more electricity pylons and instead back faster undergrounding of cables, particularly in high-wind zones? As we heard from the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), many people reported that when the power failed, mobile signal followed shortly after. What are the Government doing to ensure that telecommunications masts have enough battery or generator back-up to remain operative during 48 or 72-hour storm cycles? What assessment has the Minister made of the implementation and operation of the severe weather emergency protocol to support the most vulnerable, particularly those sleeping rough, in rural areas such as Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly?”
“I join the Minister in thanking the emergency services, local authority and Environment Agency staff and volunteers, who have worked tirelessly to recover from the storm and to keep the public safe. I also join him in sending our condolences to those families who are grieving and whose lives have been upended by the storm. Given the severity of this and earlier extreme weather events, what further preparations will the Government make for future storms and for adverse weather? Do they plan to carry out further storm preparedness exercises, and to implement lessons learnt from the previous test of the emergency alert system in response to these extreme weather events? What further discussions have they had, internally and with local authorities, utility providers and emergency services, to co-ordinate the continued response to this storm?”
“The Minister rightly refers to draught beer and cider relief, and she said earlier that her concern about freezing alcohol duties was that most of the benefit would be going to supermarkets and other places that sell beer cheaply. Surely she recognises that what the Chancellor should have done is reduce the draught rate, as happened last year, so that the full benefit would have gone to licensed premises, as they are the only venues that can sell the draught drinks covered by that rate.”
“Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) suggested that this measure is somehow in keeping with the policy of successive Governments, but nothing could be further from the truth. In just 19 months, the Government will have increased beer duty by more than it went up in the 12 years running up to the last general election. This is a massive increase in duty in a short period. Indeed, the duty paid on a pint in a pub was actually lower in July 2024 than it had been 12 years earlier because of policy decisions made by Conservative chancellors.”
“The Chancellor could have built on a success of the previous Conservative Government—in fairness to her, she actually did so last year—by reducing that draught duty rate so that duty on beer and cider sold on draught in pubs was paid at a lower rate, perhaps at the same time as extending the differential with supermarkets and off-sales that might be sold at or below cost price. But she chose not to do that; she chose to increase duty on top of all the extra burdens that are threatening the survival of our community pubs, bars and other hospitality venues. By increasing duty by RPI rather than the lower rate of CPI, the Chancellor is threatening to return us to the bad old days of the previous Labour Government’s hated beer duty escalator, under which the duty rate increased year after year. I think the hon.”
“Many things are causing so many pubs to struggle and to question whether they can survive beyond the very short term—the enormous increases in business rates, the increases in employer national insurance that particularly hit those who employ part-time workers, and the ever-growing burden of regulation, not least in the Employment Rights Act 2025, that affects many pubs and hospitality venues—but I think that this clause in the Bill really sums it up, The Government did have a choice.”
“It is a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier), who made some excellent points. Before I begin, I will disclose that although I do not have any relevant interests to the debate in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I have received hospitality below the threshold from UKHospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association, CAMRA and the British Institute of Innkeeping; there may be others. People up and down the country may be justified in asking what the Government have against pubs.”
“It is yet another burden that our overstretched pubs and hospitality venues simply cannot afford. It is the wrong thing to do and that is why, as well as supporting our own new clause and opposing the clause, I will certainly support the new clauses tabled by the Liberal Democrats. There is a better alternative.”
“My hon. Friend is right, although that is not really a choice that many pubs are able to make, because it is taken for them. We saw the same thing when the previous Labour Government’s beer duty escalator was in force. We know that increases in alcohol duties have a minimal impact on overall alcohol consumption, but they do have an impact on how people drink and what they drink. Higher alcohol duties lead to a shift from people consuming alcohol in well regulated, licensed premises like a community pub—where they will typically drink medium-strength beer and cider—to people drinking more stronger alcohol at home without the protective framework of a licensed pub. That makes no sense on either a social and health or an economic and community basis. It is the wrong thing to do yet again.”
“The tragic case of Deborah Samuel Yakubu is a reminder of the culture of impunity that has been allowed to develop in too many parts of Nigeria. Can the Minister assure the House that the UK Government do everything and take every opportunity to stress the need for improved security in particularly vulnerable parts of Nigeria to ensure that people are safe to exercise their religious beliefs?”
“The Minister says that pensioners who only receive the new state pension will not have to pay income tax. Can he say whether pensioners paid the old basic state pension, but who were contracted out and have alternative provision that brings them up to the same level as the new state pension, will have to pay income tax?”
“Happy new year, Mr Speaker. Policing numbers in Northern Ireland are at their lowest ever level. Both the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Policy Exchange have warned that reopening cases from the troubles will place a huge additional financial burden on the police, which would mean risks for both policing numbers and national security. Is the Minister happy with that situation? Will he let it happen, or will the Secretary of State be compensating the PSNI for the decisions made by his Department?”
“claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36). Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put. Question agreed to. Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.”
“Can the Minister explain to our hard-working fishing industry why they will not be getting their fish back, even though that deal has fallen through? The British people made a clear decision to take back control in 2016. Despite the Government’s protestations, their approach shows an increasing disregard for that democratic decision.”
“That is particularly important given his complete failure, when asked multiple times, to set out what size of cap he thinks would be appropriate for youth mobility. Rejoining Erasmus is the Government’s latest attempt to undo Brexit by stealth. That was clear from the outset of these negotiations, when the Government agreed to surrender UK fishing rights to the EU for 12 years, under the pretence that that would “pave the way for the UK defence industry to participate in the EU’s proposed new…defence fund”. Yet six months later that deal has collapsed after the EU’s extortionate demands for billions of pounds to join the fund, with no guarantee of any return on investment in the form of procurement.”
“The Minister spoke about a fair contribution being a 30% discount. Of course, it is only a matter of weeks since the Government were briefing that a fair contribution would be a 50% discount. They clearly failed in those negotiations. Can the Minister assure us that while he says that he has a discount for the first year, a discount will be available in subsequent years? If those assurances have not yet been received and the EU does not offer a similar deal in future years, is he prepared to walk away? The Opposition have set out clear tests to ensure that the Government do not roll back on Brexit, including no backsliding on free movement. Can the Minister outline what protections will be put in place to ensure that rejoining Erasmus does not simply mean a return to free movement by the back door for young people?”
“Can the Minister confirm that his statement in no way undermines the future of the Turing scheme? Is that scheme guaranteed, or are those opportunities being sacrificed for a smaller number of opportunities available under Erasmus+? The Minister has confirmed that the UK will pay £570 million to rejoin Erasmus+. We understand that will be paid from existing budgets, but can he tell us where the money is coming from? Is that £570 million being added to the £6 billion special educational needs and disabilities black hole that the Office for Budget Responsibility identified in the education budget? Does the Minister expect more students to take part in the new scheme than the 10,000 previous participants in Erasmus+, or are we paying £570 million for essentially 10,000 placements a year?”
“We on the Opposition side of the House recognise the importance of giving young people educational opportunities, but it is vital— [ Interruption. ] Government Members clearly do not recognise the need for schemes to offer genuine value for money. The UK already had the opportunity to remain a member of Erasmus, but it was precisely because the Conservative Government recognised that the scheme did not offer value for money to the taxpayer that we chose not to. That is why the Conservative Government created the Turing scheme instead—a global programme for young people in the UK that did not require us, one-sidedly, to hand a blank cheque to Brussels. The Turing scheme delivered 43,000 placements around the world last year, 23,000 of which were to learners from disadvantaged backgrounds, at a cost of just over £100 million.”
“T4. The Minister knows the Westgate pub in her constituency well. It has seen its rateable value go up from £10,500 to £20,000, which means a rates rise of £2,400 once the temporary transitional relief expires. We know that Harrods is getting a £1 million business rate cut, so will the pubs and hospitality Minister stand up not only for her pubs, but for pubs across the country that have been hammered by these rises, by challenging the Chancellor to deliver on her claim of permanently lower business rate bills?”
“We have seen reports that the Government are likely to approve China’s super-embassy spy hub. Will the Minister confirm whether the US has expressed a concern to the Government about the potential approval of that application? On Ukraine, all of us want the war to end—it is an unjust and illegal war started by Putin—but an end to the conflict, or any potential settlement, has to involve the Ukrainian people, and secure justice and lasting peace for them. A lasting peace is not about ceding territory. Will the Minister therefore update the House on what specifically the UK Government are doing to leverage British influence, in Ukraine’s interests, at this critical time?”
“The US strategy makes it even more important that the UK remains a cornerstone of European and global defence. With threats to us and our allies only growing, the Conservative party is clear that it would hit 3% of GDP on defence spending by the end of this Parliament. As it is abundantly clear that we need to step up against the threat posed by Russia, and that we need a Government who are serious about spending 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament, will the Minister confirm whether it is only the Government's ambition to reach 3%, or whether the Treasury has a funded plan to do so? The US strategy is particularly clear about the nature of the Chinese Communist party regime, whereas our Government seem to be going cap in hand to Beijing, asking it to bail out their failed economic policies.”
“In October, the Prime Minister called a Downing Street press conference rather than come to this House so that he could tell the nation that digital ID will not be mandatory; it is just that people will not be able to get a job without one. What else will they not be able to do without this apparently voluntary digital ID? If people will not be allowed to get a job without digital ID, can the Minister confirm that they will also be unable to receive any benefits without it?”
“The Minister’s answer makes it clear that this announcement was not a policy—it was a late party conference stunt. The Government obviously have not thought it through; it is clear that the Prime Minister lacks the backbone to push back against officials who have taken this awful idea off the shelf once again. The truth is that this is a £1.8 billion solution in search of a problem. The Minister talks about illegal migration, but there is already a legal responsibility to carry out these checks, and the Home Office offers a reliable service. Can he tell us how many people who have passed the Home Office right-to-work check are later found to not have the right to work?”
“The Minister will be aware of the representations of those who were deliberately infected with haemophilia as a result of studies and their anger over the levels of compensation for deliberate infection. Will the Minister, alongside Sir Brian, review whether the component for deliberate infection is appropriate? Finally, as we have said a number of times over the last year or so, many victims and their families still feel that they are in the dark, as was identified in the latest report from Sir Brian Langstaff. Will the Minister commit to a clear communication plan and work with IBCA to make sure that there are regular updates—that accessible guidance is provided, in plain English, so that those who ought to be eligible for compensation and their families can access the compensation that they need?”
“I am fairly sure I know the answer to this, but can the Minister confirm that this is also the case for people who may have discovered or been informed at a much later date that they were infected, but for whom it is likely that the infection relates to blood products before the relevant date? Similarly, can the Minister confirm that no one who should be eligible will fall through the cracks because of earlier failures in record keeping? This is particularly relevant for those infected as children, whose medical records at that point might have been incomplete. We need to make sure that they do not miss out on the compensation that they need and deserve.”
“Does the Minister have any updates on the likely timetable for compensation for affected people and the estates of those who sadly died before they were able to receive compensation? Has there been any change in that? In terms of the changes these regulations make, as I said at the end of October, we support the five recommendations that the Government are accepting and legislating on today. We welcome the Minister’s clarification that lifting the HIV start date means it will not matter at which point a victim was infected by HIV, if it was the result of treatment with infected blood or blood products that took place before 1 November 1985.”
“I rise to speak in support of these regulations, as we set out when the Paymaster General made his statement at the end of October. There are, of course, many things on which we disagree, but this is not one of them. The Opposition will not be confecting differences purely for political benefit when the reality is that there are no real differences of substance between the Government’s position and that of the Opposition, or indeed the previous Government, in this regard. We welcome the progress made by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority in processing the payments. Victims were told that compensation must be in place without delay, and that is starting to become a reality for those who were infected.”
“As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will know, the “Ministerial Code” requires Ministers to be “as open as possible with Parliament and the public”. Exactly when did the Chief Secretary learn that the Chancellor did not face the shortfall that the Treasury was briefing to the press?”
“I look forward to working across the House to strengthen the measures that will be brought before us and ensure that our child protection system meets the standards that the public expect and that our children deserve.”
“We would be grateful if the Government could confirm what measures they will put in place to ensure that the abolition of PCCs does not disrupt or weaken the support available to child victims of domestic abuse, and that existing services can continue to work seamlessly throughout the period of change. We must ensure that no child can disappear from view, and that known risks are managed effectively across agencies. Protecting children from domestic abuse requires consistent professional curiosity, coherent information sharing and reliable oversight mechanisms. The cases of Sara Sharif and Tony Hudgell illustrate different aspects of system failure—failure that Parliament has a duty to address.”
“The priority must be to ensure that children are visible to the systems designed to protect them and that professionals have the tools, information and statutory backing they need to intervene early and effectively. We therefore support improved information-sharing duties with clear accountability. We support enhanced multi-agency working, including consistent national standards, and we argue for the introduction of a child cruelty register. The Government recently announced that police and crime commissioner roles in England and Wales will be scrapped. That raises important questions about how continuity of support for victims, including children affected by domestic abuse, will be delivered during and after the transition.”
“That would allow that information to be retained and used to manage ongoing risk after the end of the formal sentence. It would operate in a similar way to the sex offenders register, and would ensure that offenders cannot evade oversight by changing identity, relocating or avoiding engagement with services. Evidence from police and practitioners shows that those who commit serious abuse often move across local authority boundaries or deliberately avoid contact with health and social care. A targeted, proportionate register could help to close a clear loophole in the system, and could increase our ability to protect and safeguard children’s welfare. We support reforms that are practical, evidence-based and focused squarely on preventing harm.”
“Although the amendment did not pass in the Commons, the concerns that it highlighted remain pressing, so the proposal must be examined again during the Bill’s Committee stage in the other place. The case of Tony Hudgell is a clear example of why such a mechanism continues to require serious consideration. Tony was just 41 days old when he was so severely abused by his birth parents that both his legs were later required to be amputated. His abusers received sentences of 10 years, of which they will serve eight. Once their licence period ends, there will be no ongoing monitoring or reporting requirements, despite the seriousness of their offence. We need a register to require individuals convicted of specified child cruelty offences, as well as those within the domestic abuse framework, to provide information to the police.”
“Members have referred to, demonstrates the consequence of the disconnect between law and practice. Despite children being recognised as victims in their own right, the review shows how gaps in co-ordination, oversight and early intervention can still leave a child without the protection that they need. The recent child safeguarding practice review into that murder exposed a series of systemic failings. The findings underline issues that were not isolated to one local authority, but reinforce the need for wider action. A child cruelty register was first proposed by the Opposition during the Commons Committee stage of the Sentencing Bill. I thank the shadow Solicitor General, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), for championing this issue so consistently and effectively.”