Aphra Brandreth MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have seen examples where regulators have not intervened quickly or robustly enough, and where systemic issues went unnoticed or unaddressed for far too long. We need to strengthen the remit and ensure that the CQC is properly equipped and held to the high standards that we expect of it. I am an economist by background, so evaluation is something I think about a great deal. Reform, however well intentioned, must be followed by evidence, scrutiny and a willingness to learn and improve. The new clause ensures that we do not just set change in motion, but that we stop to ask whether it is working, whether the right things are being done, and if not, how we can improve. The review required by the new clause would look not only backwards at whether the regulator has effectively carried out its existing duties under the Act, but, crucially, forwards, assessing whether it is ready to meet the responsibilities placed on it by the new reforms. I particularly welcome the requirement for the review to be published and laid before Parliament. Transparency is essential. It would allow Parliament to scrutinise but also gives patients, families, professionals and the public confidence that those questions are being asked seriously and answered publicly. Ultimately, the new clause is about improving outcomes. When regulation works well it safeguards dignity, prevents harm, identifies and spreads good practice, develops trust and helps us build a system where the principles of this Bill—choice, autonomy, less restriction and greater therapeutic benefit—are not just written in statute, but visible in practice. That is especially important in mental health care, where so often the people subject to the Act are among the most vulnerable. Those in in-patient settings, particularly those who are detained, are often not in a position to advocate for themselves. They rely on a system that is vigilant, takes its safeguarding responsibilities seriously and puts patients’ rights first. I hope that all members of this Committee will support the new clause. It is collaborative in its intent, constructive in its purpose and essential to delivering the meaningful reform that we all want to see. It reinforces the importance of accountability, transparency and listening to those most affected by this legislation. We owe it to those individuals and their families to make sure that we not only change the law, but also the culture and oversight that surrounds it. This review would help us do exactly that.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I rise to speak in strong support of new clause 13, tabled by the shadow Minister. The new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to review the functions and effectiveness of the regulatory authority, which is currently the Care Quality Commission, within one year of the passage of the Bill. The new clause is a timely, necessary and constructive addition to the Bill. As colleagues will know, the Care Quality Commission plays a dual role in relation to the Mental Health Act. First, as the regulator of services, it ensures that providers meet fundamental standards of care and safety. Secondly, through its specific responsibilities in visiting and speaking to those detained under the Act, it ensures that people’s rights are protected and that the law is used appropriately and humanely. That is no small task. It is a balance that requires the CQC to be not only reactive but proactive, and not only independent but responsive to the lived experiences of patients—especially to the voices of the most vulnerable. That is why the new clause matters. As we bring forward significant reforms to the Mental Health Act through the Bill, and rightly modernise and improve safeguards and place greater emphasis on autonomy, dignity and therapeutic benefit, we must also ensure that our system of oversight and regulation is fit for purpose. I welcome the direction that the Bill sets. Its four core principles are rightly placed at the heart of the legislation: choice and autonomy, least restriction, therapeutic benefit, and seeing the person as an individual. Those principles must shape the way that care is delivered on the ground. That means they must also shape the way that care is monitored, inspected and held to account. A review of the regulator’s role is not about criticism for its own sake; it is about ensuring that the regulatory framework supports and reinforces the ambitions of the Bill and that it can respond to emerging challenges, shine a light where services are falling short and, crucially, act to protect patient rights.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I rise to speak in support of amendment 46, tabled by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, which seeks to strengthen clause 45, an already welcome and progressive clause, by creating a statutory right for all eligible patients to create advance choice documents if they so wish. Let me begin by saying that I think everyone on the Committee recognises the importance of advance choice documents. They are an excellent initiative, and I am glad that the Bill introduces a framework to support their use. I hope we can all agree that they represent a constructive and compassionate shift in how we think about mental health care—one that puts the patient’s voice at the centre. ACDs are fundamentally about empowerment. They allow individuals, while they are well and have full capacity, to record their wishes, preferences and concerns regarding their treatment, so that during future periods of unwellness, when they may lack capacity, their past self can still be heard and respected. As Bipolar UK has rightly put it: “The idea behind an ACD is that you use your past to plan your future.” That simple principle holds immense power. Individuals with lived experience of severe mental illness like bipolar disorder are often experts in their own care. They know what works, what does not and what signs to look out for. An ACD allows that hard-earned knowledge to be recorded, shared and used to guide clinical decisions. By identifying early warning signs and outlining preferred treatments, ACDs can enable families, friends and professionals to intervene earlier, potentially avoiding a crisis or reducing the severity of an episode. This is not just about better care; it is about safer care and, crucially, more timely care. The research is persuasive. Studies suggest that ACDs can reduce rates of compulsory detention under the Mental Health Act by up to 25%. That is not a small statistic; it is a significant reduction in trauma for patients, in the use of force and in resource pressures on services. It is hard to think of a better example of a policy that both improves outcomes and reduces system strain. ACDs can also play a vital role in reducing inequalities, especially among racial minority groups, who, as we have all said, are statistically more likely to be detained under the Act. Ensuring that those patients can express their wishes in advance gives them greater agency and helps to address long-standing disparities in the system. ACDs are not just a useful administrative tool; they are, as Earl Howe put it in the House of Lords, “are a major component part of one of the Bill’s key strands, which is to give mental health patients better control over their own care—which, of itself, carries a therapeutic value.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 27 January 2025; Vol. 843, c. 79.] I absolutely agree, which brings me to amendment 46. The clause as drafted places duties on NHS England and integrated care boards to consider making information about ACDs available, and to help those people whom they consider “appropriate” to create one. That is a start, but it falls short of what is needed. The shadow Minister’s amendment would take us further and create a statutory right for eligible patients to create an advance choice document. It would define clearly who is eligible—for example, those previously detained under the Act, those diagnosed with a condition that may require future detention and qualifying informal patients—and would put a clear duty on NHS bodies to inform these patients of their right and to help them to exercise it. This is not about placing a burden on services; it is about ensuring that everyone who stands to benefit from an ACD knows that they can make one and is supported to do so if they wish. I appreciate that the Government have tabled amendments 32 and 33 to clause 45, and I welcome the intention behind them. Amendment 32 requires that NHS England and integrated care boards must bring the availability of this information and help to the attention of such people “as it considers appropriate.” Amendment 33 expands on how that might be delivered, including through conversations with qualified individuals and by having specific regard to the benefits of ACDs in the 12 months following discharge from hospital. Although these are improvements, I must respectfully say that they stop short of what is needed. They continue to frame the duty in terms of who the board considers appropriate, yet the very point of ACDs is that we should not be gatekeeping access. We should not be making assumptions about who would or would not benefit from having one. Every eligible patient should be offered the choice, not just those whom the system deems suitable. We are dealing here with people’s autonomy and right to shape their future care, and if we start from a place of selective provision, we immediately disempower many of the very individuals we claim to support.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to continue to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I rise to speak in support of new clause 12, which has been tabled by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, and to comment on clause 54, which has been grouped for this debate alongside it. Those two provisions both deal with the care and treatment of children and young people admitted to hospital for mental health reasons. In doing so, they touch on one of the most sensitive and critical responsibilities we have as legislators: safeguarding vulnerable children at a moment of profound crisis in their lives. Clause 54, as introduced in the Lords, will place a duty on the Secretary of State to review whether the current requirement to notify the Care Quality Commission should be extended. Currently, notifications are required only when a child or young person is placed in an adult ward for more than 48 hours. The clause asks whether that threshold remains appropriate, and whether other scenarios—for example, where a child is admitted for assessment or placed in an adult setting even for less than 48 hours—should also trigger notification. That is a welcome first step, and I support the clause. However, I also recognise the limitations of a clause that asks the Secretary of State only to review existing safeguards, rather than requiring that those safeguards be strengthened. That is why I also support the aims of new clause 12, which sets out a more detailed and practical framework to ensure that children are admitted to adult wards only when there are truly exceptional circumstances, and always with appropriate scrutiny and documentation. The issue has been a consistent concern across multiple reviews, including the independent review of the Mental Health Act, the Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Each has made clear that existing protections are insufficient and that too often, vulnerable children are still being placed in inappropriate settings. That concern was echoed in evidence submitted to this Bill Committee by the Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition. Their written submission sets out the risks in stark terms. In 2023-24, the CQC was notified of 120 instances in which a child or young person was placed on an adult ward. We also know that between December 2023 and November 2024, 319 children were sent out of area to receive treatment, often far from their families, schools and local support networks—that is nearly one child every single day. Those are not just numbers; they are children and teenagers, many already facing significant trauma, mental health challenges or adverse life experiences. They are often the most vulnerable young people in our society. How they are treated in the days and weeks following a mental health crisis may have lifelong consequences for their wellbeing, development and future. The Mental Health Act and the code of practice are already clear: children should not be admitted to adult wards except in emergency situations, and even then, only if it is in their best interests. But as the Committee heard in written evidence, that standard is not always met in practice. Young people have reported feeling terrified on adult wards, with an expectation that they behave like adults in environments that were never designed for their needs. That is why new clause 12 is so important: it would give legal weight to existing guidance by requiring that any such admission was explicitly justified in writing, with clear reasons why no other options were available or suitable. The new clause would also ensure that steps were taken to protect the young person during their time on the ward and, crucially, to transfer them to a more appropriate setting as soon as possible. It would also require immediate notification to the regulator when a child was placed on an adult ward or was out of area for more than 24 hours. Those are simple procedural safeguards, but they really matter. Requiring decisions to be explained and recorded helps ensure they are properly thought through, and provides transparency, oversight and a route to accountability. I appreciate that the Government are seeking to address the issue through updates to the Mental Health Act code of practice. I welcome that intention and I recognise the role that the code can play in setting out professional guidance, but, with respect, I do not believe that is sufficient on its own. When children are being placed in adult psychiatric wards, potentially for weeks at a time, or being sent far from home in moments of crisis, we must do more than issue guidance—we must provide clear legal safeguards. This is not about placing unrealistic constraints on the NHS or criticising frontline professionals, who we know are working under significant pressure with limited resources. It is about ensuring that when difficult decisions are made, they are made transparently, in the best interests of the child and only when absolutely necessary. We have a rare opportunity in the Bill to put those protections in place. I hope the Minister will consider the evidence submitted to the Committee, the recommendations of previous reviews and the cross-party consensus on the importance of getting this right. Let us not miss this opportunity to ensure that our mental health system treats every child with the care, dignity and protection they deserve, and to set out clearly and transparently the standards we expect when they are at their most vulnerable.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. Government amendments 26 to 29 risk undoing some of the good work done in the other place, where careful improvements were made to strengthen the Bill and ensure a more compassionate and effective response to mental health crises. I am concerned that by removing the words “by a constable or other authorised person” and deleting clause 5(7), which provides a clear definition of who the authorised persons are, we will open up ambiguity about who is permitted to detain someone under the Mental Health Act. This is not just a technical or drafting issue; it has very real consequences for the people involved. I understand and support the principle of enabling more flexible and clinically led responses to mental health incidents. We all recognise that the police should not be the default option in every case. The amendments made in the Lords acknowledged that and broadened the group of people who could respond to mental health crises beyond police officers to trained and equipped professionals: mental health nurses, approved mental health professionals, paramedics and, crucially, someone trained and equipped to carry out detentions under the Act and who would not be put at unnecessary risk by doing so. “Trained and equipped”—that is the key point. The definition of “authorised person” in the Bill as it stands makes it clear that those given such a serious responsibility must have the appropriate training and experience and must not be “put at unnecessary risk” when carrying out that role. That wording is important. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, said, it provides a framework of accountability, not a free-for-all. By removing that structure, the Government’s amendments will leave a legal vacuum. The law will say that someone must be detained, but not by whom. That uncertainty will create a risk that services will simply revert to defaulting to the police. I stress again that that is not fair on the police, who are already under immense pressure. Yes, they are used to seeing people at their most vulnerable, but dealing with someone in a mental health crisis is a very particular challenge, and one that they might not be fully trained to manage. The College of Policing’s 2019 mental health snapshot found that almost 95% of police call-outs flagged as involving mental health did not actually require a police response, yet police officers continue to be sent out because the system lacks clarity and capacity elsewhere. Baroness May, speaking from real experience as a former Home Secretary, made that very point in the other place. She said that police officers were being sent to mental health incidents for which they had no training or clinical expertise, and were being asked to make judgments that they simply were not equipped to make. She went on to say that “the very essence of a police presence—somebody in the uniform coming to deal with them—could actually exacerbate their mental health situation”. —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 2025; Vol. 842, c. 1525.] I would add that, for the individual experiencing a mental health crisis, being approached by the police may feel criminalising rather than supportive. It reinforces a justice-led response rather than a health-led one. That is not the direction in which we should be going. Although I welcome the Government’s intention to offer more flexibility in emergency and clinical settings, we have to be careful about how we achieve that. Removing the wording inserted into the Bill will not create clarity; it will create confusion. In a system already under pressure, confusion tends to mean delay, risk aversion and inappropriate responses. Removing the specification will not free professionals; it will expose them, and it will expose patients to the possibility of being handled by someone without the right qualifications, which may worsen their condition or create a longer-term distrust of mental health services. I hope that the Minister can offer some reassurances, both about who will be expected to carry out these detentions and about how we can ensure that they have the proper training, resourcing and protection. Without a clear definition of “authorised person”, we cannot be confident that those involved will have the right expertise to support extremely vulnerable individuals at times of acute need. I want to touch briefly on the importance of early intervention and de-escalation. Situations involving mental health crises can often be tense, and support in the early moments can be critical. De-escalation is a vital skill; the presence of a calm, trained mental health nurse, for example, in those early moments can change the outcome of a person’s crisis. Having the right professional present—someone who can act without waiting for the police to attend—can be the difference between escalation and calm. The identity of the responder matters. This is not just about outcomes, but about the experience of the individual. Removing the criminal justice framing from the outset is essential to delivering dignity and the right kind of care.

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member, who is my neighbour in Cheshire, for giving way. I note his views on the last Government’s record, but can he explain how Labour’s decision, just 20 days after the election, to suspend the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which would rightly have prevented illegal migrants from claiming asylum or gaining British citizenship, sends anything other than completely the wrong message and undermines public confidence in the immigration system?

• 21 May 2025 · Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. Before I start, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a director of a veterinary business. I thank hon. Members for joining the Committee to consider this important Bill, which will do so much for animal welfare and supporting our farming communities. The Bill was initially introduced in the last Parliament. I am grateful to those who have worked so hard to see it progress, and I welcome the new Government’s continuing the support for the legislation. I have spoken to farmers in Chester South and Eddisbury who have seen their livestock brutally attacked. I have heard at first hand the very real impacts, both emotionally and financially, so I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today. I will set out why the Bill is vital to help better protect livestock, support farmers and enable more effective enforcement and efficient use of police time. The financial impacts of livestock attacks are substantial. The National Farmers Union estimates that UK farm animals worth approximately £1.8 million were severely injured or killed by dogs in 2024. But it is not just the financial cost to which I wish to draw attention; there is also an animal welfare cost to livestock worrying. I represent a largely rural constituency, where the predominant mode of farming is beef and dairy. I met a farmer from Kelsall, a rural village in my constituency, who showed me pictures of his cattle following a livestock attack. A dog had broken into a barn where calves were resting and had attacked them in their pens. I am sure the Committee does not need me to go into detail about the extent to which the calves were injured. Needless to say, it was a horrific attack. That is just one example, but there can be other horrific consequences. If attacked, pregnant livestock often miscarry, and there are instances of mothers being separated from their young, leading to hypothermia and starvation. Let us also not forget the human toll of a livestock attack. I have only seen pictures of the aftermath—thankfully, I have never seen an attack unfold before my eyes—but for farmers witnessing it, it can be extremely emotionally distressing. Of course, we want and need to see dog owners behaving responsibly in the countryside, but we must recognise that there is a gap in existing legislation to support a more effective and efficient collection of evidence following an attack, and to implement the necessary deterrents to better encourage responsible ownership and handling of dogs around livestock. It is for those reasons that I have introduced the Bill, and why we must pass it. I will now set out the Bill’s clauses and explain why they are necessary. Clause 1 gives effect to the schedule, which sets out amendments to the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, relating to scope and the consequences of an offence. Times have changed since the 1953 Act came into force. The number of livestock farmed in England and Wales has doubled, bringing agriculture closer to those of us who use the countryside recreationally. The Bill is intended to tackle the issue of livestock worrying in a way that constructively strengthens existing legislation to decrease incidents of livestock worrying and attacks. In doing so, the Bill focuses on three key areas. First, it will modernise the definitions and scope of the 1953 Act and extend the locations and species in scope—to include roads and paths, and to cover species such as camelids. Secondly, important changes will be made to strengthen police powers, including powers of entry, the seizure and detention of dogs and the collection of evidence where samples and impressions can be taken from dogs and injured livestock. Finally, the Bill will increase the maximum penalty from a fine of £1,000 to an unlimited fine to act as a deterrent. Clause 2 will amend existing powers available to the police to seize and detain dogs suspected of having attacked or worried livestock. Existing legislation allows the police to seize an unaccompanied dog that is believed to have attacked or worried livestock, to identify the owner of the dog and to detain it until the owner has claimed it and paid any associated expenses. The Bill will go further, providing greater clarity and confidence to farmers. The proposed reforms extend the powers so that the police can seize and detain a dog that they have reasonable grounds to believe has attacked or worried livestock and may attack or worry livestock again, for the purpose of preventing repeat incidents. Extending the police powers is crucial, and it is appropriate that the deterrent properly reflects the significant consequences of an attack. Clause 2 addresses the limited scope of current powers at the disposal of the police and strengthens deterrence, helping to address the issue of reoffending. Subsections (1) and (2) of proposed new section 2 of the 1953 Act explain that a police constable may seize and detain a dog that they believe to have “attacked or worried livestock on agricultural land or on a road or path, and nobody present…admits to being the dog’s owner or in charge of it.” Building on the current power in section 2(2) of the 1953 Act, proposed new subsection (2) sets out for how long a dog seized under subsection (1) may be detained, namely “until the owner has claimed it and paid all expenses incurred by reason of its seizure and detention.” To give greater clarity, subsections (3) and (4) are necessary to explain that seized dogs may be disposed of if the owner does not claim the dog and pay the associated expenses of seizure and detention within seven days. They clarify that if the police gift or sell the unclaimed dog to someone, that person becomes the dog’s owner. Subsections (5) and (6) explain what kind of register is to be kept of seized dogs. The register must include a brief description of the dog, the date of seizure and, if the dog is disposed of, how. The register must be available for inspection by the public and free of charge. Subsection (7) explains that the disposing of a dog under proposed new section 2 of the 1953 Act includes: “causing it to be disposed of, and destroying it or causing it to be destroyed, but does not include disposing of it for the purposes of vivisection.” Subsections (8) and (9) explain that a dog may be seized and detained until the end of court proceedings if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the dog may otherwise pose a risk of attacking or worrying livestock again. Quite often, the dog owner has shown no signs of taking preventive measures against attacks or worrying following previous incidents, such as by putting their dog on a lead near livestock when the dog has previously shown signs of being dangerously out of control or has attacked or worried livestock. Both those factors could be considered relevant to a constable’s assessment of whether they believe that a dog suspected of attacking or worrying livestock could do so again. Finally, section 3 of the Dogs Act 1906—so far as still in force by virtue of section 68(2) of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005—will be repealed, as it is no longer needed in consequence of the provision made by clause 2. Clause 3 will introduce new powers to improve the police’s ability to investigate incidents of dogs attacking or worrying livestock by enabling the collection of samples and impressions. This concern was raised directly with me by farmers in my constituency. Farms are businesses, so when a livestock attack takes place, it is understandable that farmers should seek justice. If there was an arson attack on a shop, for instance, I am sure we would all agree that the perpetrator should be held to account for their actions. Attacks on livestock too often go unprosecuted because collecting evidence takes too long and the powers afforded to the police to do so are limited. Subsections (1) to (4) of proposed new section 2ZA of the 1953 Act will enable a police constable to take samples or impressions from a dog believed to have attacked or worried livestock, or from livestock, where this might provide evidence of an offence having been committed under section 1 of that Act. Crucially, subsection (5) explains: “If taking a sample or impression…would amount to veterinary surgery, it must be done by a veterinary surgeon.” Subsection (6) explains how long samples or impressions may be retained: “A sample or impression taken…may be retained until an investigation has been carried out into whether an offence under section 1 has been committed…or if proceedings are brought…until those proceedings have been determined or withdrawn.” Veterinary bodies, forensic specialists and the police have been consulted on this new provision, affording them the opportunity to feed into its development. Lastly, subsection (7) defines the meaning of the words “sample”, “veterinary surgeon” and “veterinary surgery” for the purpose of clause 3. These are all important steps to increase the effective collection of evidence following an attack. Clause 4 will enable a justice of the peace, also known as a magistrate, to authorise the police to enter and search premises where they believe there is a dog that has attacked or worried livestock. Currently, the police can enter and search premises with a warrant from a justice of the peace to identify a dog that is believed to have worried livestock. It is proposed to extend this to allow the police also to obtain a warrant to enter premises to seize and detain the dog, as outlined in clause 2; to take a sample or impression, as outlined in clause 3; or to search for and seize evidence of an offence. Specifically, subsections (1) and (2) of proposed new section 2A of the 1953 Act will allow the police to apply for a warrant to enter and search premises to identify, seize and detain, or to take samples or impressions from, a dog that is believed to have attacked or worried livestock. Subsections (3) and (4) will allow the police to apply for a warrant to enter and search premises to seize any evidence of an offence under section 1 of the 1953 Act. Examples of such evidence could include a bloody collar or towel. Subsection (5) sets out that the warrant may authorise the police to use reasonable force, if necessary. These new powers are needed to allow the police to gather evidence to investigate these crimes effectively. I have already touched on the frustration that farmers feel when an attack goes unprosecuted, and this Bill will help to increase the chances of a just outcome. Clause 5 includes a standard provision on the extent, commencement and short title of the Act, once it receives Royal Assent. The Act will extend to England and Wales. I felt it was important to speak to people on both sides of the border to better understand the situation in Wales; I put on record my thanks to Rob Taylor, the Welsh wildlife and rural police and crime co-ordinator, for his work in this field over many years, and for taking the time to meet me to talk through livestock worrying in Wales and offer his support for the Bill. The Bill will come into force three months after it is passed. Clause 5 also includes transitional provision to clarify the availability of the new powers in clauses 2 to 4 in relation to any, or any alleged, incident of livestock worrying or attack that takes place before the Bill comes into force. The Act’s short title will be the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025. The schedule to the Bill will make several amendments to the 1953 Act to extend its scope. It also provides clarity on offences, the applicable penalty and court powers. Specifically, paragraph 1 brings incidents of dogs attacking or worrying livestock on roads or paths within the scope of the offence in section 1 of the Act. This will provide greater protection for livestock in instances where they are moved along a road or path to another field or a milking parlour, for example. For clarity, paragraph 1 also updates the terminology used in relation to attacks. “Attacking” livestock is dealt with separately from “worrying” livestock. The term “worrying” may dismiss the severity of some offences. Adding the word “attacking” better highlights the violent nature of incidents involving attacks on livestock. The provision will not create a new offence, but will clarify the language throughout the 1953 Act. Both attacking and worrying are already covered in that Act; however, that is not clear throughout. Paragraph 1 also sets out the penalty for the offence in section 1 of the 1953 Act. It is currently set at a maximum fine of £1,000. The maximum penalty will be increased to an unlimited fine to act as a deterrent. It is worth noting that the level of fines will not affect the level of compensation a farmer may receive, and farmers can still seek compensation through civil claims. Paragraph 1 will amend the 1953 Act to exempt a dog owner from liability for an offence under section 1 where they can prove that the dog was in the charge of another person at the time without the owner’s consent, such as if the dog had been stolen. Paragraph 1 will also empower a court to order a convicted offender to pay expenses associated with the seizure and detention of a dog, irrespective of whether the court imposes a fine for the offence. Any sum that a person is ordered to pay will be treated for the purposes of enforcement as if it were compensation payable under a compensation order. Paragraph 2 expands the definition of “livestock” in the 1953 Act to include camelids, such as llamas and alpacas, as they are commonly farmed. I will take a moment to address the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin. She is very knowledgeable on these matters, and I thank her for agreeing to sit on this Committee and for her support. We are often in rural affairs debates in the Chamber or Westminster Hall together, and her contributions are always well informed. As a farmer herself, I am sure she will agree that the Bill is necessary and welcome. The hon. Lady’s amendment would require that a dog be kept on a lead of 1.8 metres or less in a field or enclosure containing sheep, or in sight of the person in charge, who should be confident that the dog will recall on command. Although I understand why she tabled the amendment, it is worth noting that the 1953 Act already makes it clear that a dog is “at large” if it is “not on a lead or otherwise under close control”. That approach places certain requirements on dog walkers to behave responsibly, and it provides sufficient flexibility for a court to assess whether, on the facts before it, there is evidence that the dog was under close control. Such evidence does not need to be limited to proving specific elements. Setting out the meaning of “close control” also risks inadvertently narrowing the circumstances in which a court would naturally conclude that a dog was not under close control. Furthermore, the countryside code highlights that it is best practice “to keep your dog on a lead around livestock”, including sheep. Because there are existing provisions and guidance, and because there is flexibility for judgment in the courts, I urge the hon. Lady not to press her amendment. I hope I have laid out clearly why the Bill is necessary to support our farmers, reduce livestock attacks and better equip the police with the powers they need to investigate, prosecute and deter livestock attacks. I hope the Committee will support the progress of this important Bill.

• 15 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The UK is a free trading nation. The fact that we are an island has meant that for centuries we have looked to the world for trade, and new clause 3 is an important safeguard that would ensure the Secretary of State does not act in a way that undermines our existing trade agreements, a number of which were negotiated by the previous Conservative Government, as we have heard. Our trading relationship with Europe remains vital and highly valued, but this is also a moment to embrace the wider world and build on the strong partnerships that we have developed across global markets. Many emerging economies present exciting opportunities, and we are already fostering trade links with some of the world’s fastest-growing global trade blocs. This is about maintaining our commitment to Europe while continuing to be outward looking and globally engaged. When the UK signed up to the European common market, Europe accounted for one third of global trade. In 2019, it accounted for 16% of global trade. By 2050, according to the OECD, it will account for only 9% of global trade. It is simply good business, forward looking and proactive to seek out the emerging markets on which the future global economy will be built. Progress in doing so was made under the previous Government, and the trade deals listed in new clause 3 are some of the most important. I will speak to a few of the trade treaties that are listed, to underline their importance and the benefit they bring to the United Kingdom’s economy. The deal that the previous Government agreed with Australia was historic. It eliminated tariffs on UK imports from and exports to Australia, making it cheaper for some of our best-loved and most iconic brands to sell on Australian shelves, and it gave us the opportunity to have better and cheaper access to Australian favourites such as Vegemite and Tim Tams—although for the record I have to stress that I am definitely a Marmite fan. The Australia trade deal was bespoke. It allowed us to play to our strengths, with a focus on our world-leading service, digital and tech sectors. It put our service industry on an equal footing in Australia and maximised the possibilities and opportunities for digital trade—it was a forward-looking deal. Thanks to that deal, UK businesses are guaranteed access to bid for an additional £10 billion-worth of Australian public sector contracts per year. Inward investment from the UK into Australia no longer needs to be reviewed by the Australian Foreign Investment Review Board, making it easier for British businesses to gain access to the Australian market and, crucially, cutting red tape. We are market leaders in so many areas, and the world looks to us as the high bar for standards and products. We lead the way in the tech and digital sectors, and that deal delivered for businesses and consumers alike, including high personal data protection standards for British consumers. The UK services industry benefited to the tune of £5.4 billion in 2020 as a result of that free trade agreement. It slashed red tape and removed bureaucratic hurdles for small and medium-sized enterprises and unlocked new opportunities for them to grow and develop in a new market. The UK gained access to procurement contracts worth billions of pounds, which is the most substantial level of access that Australia has granted in a free trade agreement. We benefited from more flexible rules of origin when exporting goods that are better suited to modern supply chains. Importantly, that deal was negotiated on our terms by our Government. The New Zealand trade deal was also a success and again highlights the importance of new clause 3. Like the Australian deal, all tariffs on UK exports to New Zealand have been eliminated, delivering a boost for British business and increasing its competitiveness. The now Leader of the Opposition, when she was Secretary of State for International Trade, wrote to the International Trade Committee outlining the benefits of that deal and how it was expected to boost trade with New Zealand by almost 60%, benefiting the economy by £800 million. Finally, I want to mention the UK-Canada continuity agreement and why it is important and right to list in new clause 3. When we left the European Union, we rolled over 65 trade deals immediately and bolstered them with a further seven. For the Canadian continuity agreement, the previous Conservative Government secured continued access for UK products, such as cars, beef, fish and gin. In the previous Government’s strategic outline for an FTA with Canada, published in 2022, it was noted that Canada provided a great opportunity for UK SMEs, building a digital economy and bolstering innovation for the future—exactly the sort of opportunity that the UK should be looking for. The crucial factor of that deal, and the others that I have referred to, is that they were negotiated on our terms. New clause 3 is important for ensuring that the progress we have made is not lost. It is about maintaining our competitiveness as a trading nation and not regressing to the bureaucratic red tape of the EU that we have moved away from. I hope that Government Members will demonstrate that they are forward looking by supporting the new clause. In doing so, they would reaffirm our shared commitment to a truly global Britain that is ambitious, outward facing and confident in shaping its own future on the world stage.

• 15 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. These are real concerns that were raised in the other place, and I will explain why we need to make sure that the new clause is accepted. It would put the principle on the face of the Bill that we should make these decisions transparently and with proper oversight. The new clause says clearly that the Secretary of State must exercise these powers in a way that strengthens, not weakens, our autonomy and competitive standing. Surely we can all agree that is what our constituents understandably want. The new clause would also set a standard for the quality of regulation. It would make it clear that Ministers must consider how to maintain a high-quality regulatory framework, rather than acting hastily or in a piecemeal way. That would be good not only for consumers but for businesses, which need clarity, certainty and consistency. The new clause would not block progress or prevent co-operation with our international partners. It would simply ensure that major decisions are guided by the core principles of autonomy, competitiveness and quality, and that they are not taken behind closed doors with minimal oversight, so I am sure that Government Members will want to support it. After all, if they believe in transparency, parliamentary sovereignty and maintaining high standards, why would they not support putting those principles clearly on the face of the Bill? If not, we are left to ask whether there is a deliberate ambiguity. Do they not wish to say where they stand on automatic EU alignment or on Parliament’s proper role in scrutinising decisions? In a previous sitting, I raised concerns about the ambiguity that runs through the Bill. That ambiguity does little to build trust, whether among businesses, consumers or the wider public. If Government Members support alignment by default, let us have that debate—let us hear the case for it in full view, with the transparency that our constituents expect—but if that is not their intention, and if they share our concerns about decisions being made behind closed doors without clear checks, they should back the new clause. It provides a clear, reasonable and proportionate safeguard. New clause 2 would not create obstacles; it would create accountability. It sets out guiding principles where—let us be clear—they are needed. That is why I believe it deserves the Committee’s support.

• 15 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to make a few points in support of the new clause, because I strongly believe that the Bill must uphold and not undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom and the strength of our internal market. First and foremost, we voted as a country—as the United Kingdom—to leave the European Union. Of course, the unique situation of Northern Ireland, sharing a land border with the EU, has added complexities to that process, but through the hard work of the previous Conservative Government, we secured the Windsor framework, an agreement that represents a careful balance. The framework upholds free-flowing trade within the UK while, crucially, protecting Northern Ireland’s position in the Union, safeguarding its sovereignty and upholding the Good Friday agreement, which remains the foundation of peace and stability. Before addressing the specifics of the new clause, I will briefly reflect on the importance of the UK internal market, which is the economic spine of our Union, supporting the free movement of goods, services, capital and people across all four nations. Intra-UK trade has been worth up to £200 billion a year, which represents nearly 6% of our GDP. For Northern Ireland alone, it is up to £14 billion annually—twice its trade with Ireland and the wider EU combined. That should serve as a reminder of just how critical it is that we preserve and strengthen Northern Ireland’s place in our internal market. The new clause is a small but significant step toward doing just that. Northern Ireland is an equal member of the Union. It is only right that its representatives have a meaningful say in decisions that affect them, and that we treat their concerns with the same seriousness that we would those of any other part of the UK. The new clause reflects that principle. It would not tie the Government’s hands unnecessarily, but it would ensure that any action taken respects the processes of the Windsor framework and honours the spirit of consent. We have spent a good deal of time in Committee debating the balance of powers between Parliament and Ministers. In that context, the new clause is not a radical demand. It simply asks the Government to pause and consider the democratic expression of the legislature of Northern Ireland before acting. It may be that the provision need not be used, but if the Government cannot support it, that would be another indication of their willingness to listen to Brussels over Belfast. I urge Government Members to join the Opposition in supporting this reasonable suggestion. It would make the Bill stronger, more balanced and more in keeping with our shared commitment to the Union. As Conservatives, we have a proud record of championing the Union, and it was a Conservative Government that delivered the Windsor framework. I did think that Labour was supposed to be Unionist party, not a European Unionist party. This is a chance for Labour to make its position clear.

• 14 May 2025 · Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I rise to speak briefly in support of this important Bill, which addresses some long-standing and deeply concerning issues around the welfare of animals brought into the UK. As someone who has run a veterinary business and is married to a vet, I have seen at first hand, and heard about from colleagues over the years, the serious impact on animal health and welfare—and, indeed, the risks to human health—of puppy smuggling. Sadly, we have seen too many cases in which puppies and cats arrive in the UK from countries with lower welfare standards, often in very poor condition. Many suffer from diseases and parasites, and some have been bred irresponsibly, resulting in painful and lifelong conditions—orthopaedic problems, breathing difficulties and eye defects, to name just a few. It is not just animals that are at risk. As the hon. Member for Winchester said, diseases such as Brucella canis, which is endemic in countries such as Romania and Ukraine, pose a real threat to humans—especially those caring for the dogs, including veterinary surgeons and nurses. In the most serious cases, the infection can cause miscarriage. While responsible breeders may carry out appropriate testing, those involved in illegal smuggling often do not. That makes the Bill not only a matter of animal welfare, but one of public health. Irresponsible and illegal breeders have exploited loopholes in existing legislation to treat animals with complete disregard and reduce them to mere commodities. It is absolutely right that we seek to close those gaps through the Bill. I therefore welcome the provisions in clause 1(3) and (4) to prohibit the importation of dogs and cats under six months of age. That is particularly important in the case of very young puppies, whose age can be difficulty to verify. As a result, they may be taken from their mothers too soon and imported at far too young an age, before receiving essential vaccinations, such as for rabies, putting both animals and humans at risk. I also welcome the vital prohibition on importing heavily pregnant dogs and cats—those more than 42 days pregnant. The stress of a long journey can impact the health of both the mother and her unborn young. Heavily pregnant animals require more frequent toilet breaks and are at higher risk of overheating, and the physical stress can compromise their respiratory health. I fully welcome the prohibition on importing animals that have been subject to mutilations such as cropped ears, docked tails or declawing, which are harmful and unnecessary practices. We should not allow our high UK welfare standards to be undermined by those who seek to profit through cruelty. This is no way to treat animals. As a country that is rightly proud of our standards in animal welfare and biosecurity, we must continue to lead by example, so the Bill is both necessary and welcome. I also acknowledge the important work of charities including the RSPCA, Dogs Trust and Cats Protection, which have consistently championed these issues and called for stronger protections.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his remarks. If he says that these things will be done if they are in the country’s interest, what is the problem with bringing that back to the House to be debated and agreed? The problem we have, Ms Vaz, is that Ministers are to have discretion to decide what is in the country’s interest, when we think that should be for Parliament to decide.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course we need to think about the EU, but we also need to think more widely and broadly, and look at the opportunities across the globe. A good example of that is, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire rightly pointed out, our accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. That is a major economic partnership with Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. To join the CPTPP, the UK underwent a comprehensive review to ensure that our domestic regulations were compatible with those of its members. That progress was possible because we were no longer locked into EU rules. We need to be careful here. If the Bill’s powers allowed us to simply fall back into alignment with EU laws through dynamic alignment, we would end up undoing the very advantages that regulatory independence has given us. That is why amendment 6 is so important: it would make sure that if we chose to align with any foreign law, EU or otherwise, it would be to the version of that law as it exists on a specific date, not as it may evolve in the future. In other words, we keep control: we know exactly what we are aligning with and we do so deliberately. As the Opposition continue to stress, the Bill clearly indicates a move towards dynamic alignment with the EU without oversight. It is clear that the intention is to see our regulations automatically change every time the EU updates its regulations. Dynamic alignment would bring businesses uncertainty by requiring continuous adjustments, and such changes might require businesses to adapt and potentially bear the costs of the changes. As was pointed out in debates in the other place, EU rules are not always made with our economy in mind. They are sometimes protectionist, or designed to benefit specific interests in the single market. We must be sure that the Bill does not jeopardise any progress we have made with new partners, or tie us to a regulatory environment that is not in our best interests. Dynamic alignment would effectively mean outsourcing decisions about UK product standards to a foreign body. That does not sit well with the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and, frankly, does not give British businesses the clarity or stability that they need. Finally, amendment 22 would add a simple but important safeguard: it would require the Secretary of State to publish an explanatory statement if the Government plan to base regulations on the law of just one foreign market. It is a transparency measure. If we are going to align UK rules with those of another country or bloc, the public and Parliament deserve to know why that is the right course of action. The amendment would help to ensure that decisions are made in the national interest and, importantly, that they are properly scrutinised. I ask again why Ministers are so unwilling to explain their decisions. Why would they not want transparency? If their decisions are in the public interest, they surely would not have any issue with supporting amendment 22 and agreeing to publish an explanatory statement in relevant cases. The Government have argued that clause 2 provides flexibility and continuity. I understand that perspective, but flexibility should not come at the expense of democratic oversight, and continuity should not mean quietly reverting to rules that we have worked hard to move beyond. The amendments in this group would not prevent alignment where it is helpful; they would ensure that alignment is clear, accountable and firmly in our control. That is a balanced approach that recognises the opportunities of global trade while respecting the sovereignty of this House. I hope the Committee will support the amendments.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in support of amendments 23 to 25 on the enforcement of product regulations. Let me be clear: no one here is arguing against the need for robust enforcement of product safety or regulatory compliance. However, we must consider the broader context. Clause 3—indeed much of the Bill—is a classic example of what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place has rightly criticised as “skeleton legislation”. The Bill delegates sweeping powers to Ministers to create regulatory frameworks entirely through secondary legislation, with little to no detail included in the Bill itself, yet here in clause 3, we are being asked to give authorities that have not yet been named real and potentially intrusive enforcement powers for regulations that have not yet been written. That should give us all pause for thought. Subsection (1) allows Ministers to designate anyone as a “relevant authority”, and subsection (3) gives those authorities the power to investigate, monitor and even mitigate non-compliance. We then come to subsection (4), which grants those authorities the ability to appoint inspectors armed with powers to enter premises, seize goods, demand information and even order the destruction of products. These are serious powers. They may well be appropriate in specific, proportionate contexts but the point is that we do not know what those contexts will be because the Bill does not tell us. How can we, in good conscience, grant enforcement powers for rules that have not been set to people we have not identified in a system that Parliament will have very limited opportunity to scrutinise? This is not a narrow, technical concern; this is a constitutional one. As the DPRRC in the other place said in its report: “Skeleton legislation signifies an exceptional shift in power from Parliament to the executive”. This is not something that this House should hand over lightly. Our amendments do not reject the need for enforcement powers in principle, but as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire said, the wording of clause 3 needs to be clarified. Who are these authorities and what are their functions? In our amendments, we seek clear information, which is vital. There will be significant costs to businesses, so the powers must be clear. We all support product safety, but I urge the Committee to support the amendments and, in doing so, uphold the role of the House in setting the law, not just rubber-stamping it once the details have been decided behind closed doors.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to make a few brief points in support of the Opposition amendments. Taken together, they serve a simple but essential purpose: they seek to ensure that the powers granted under the Bill are used transparently, responsibly and with full parliamentary oversight. Let me be clear: this is not about rehashing the debates of the past. It is about making sure that future decisions, especially those that could have profound consequences for British industry, trade and product standards, are subject to democratic scrutiny. As it stands, the Bill gives sweeping discretion to Ministers to align domestic product regulations with European law. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire said, it enables the potential for dynamic alignment, which the impact assessment essentially spells out as the aim, without any binding requirement for parliamentary approval, debate or even explanation. Amendment 5 would change that by requiring the Secretary of State to explain the rationale for alignment and seek Parliament’s consent before any such decision takes effect. This is not obstructionism; it is good governance. As has been noted, the Bill also risks undoing the progress made by the previous Government in removing excessive red tape and regaining regulatory autonomy. Through sovereign decision making the UK has created trading opportunities on the world stage. That is why amendments 3 and 4, to remove automatic mechanisms to treat compliance with EU rules as equivalent to UK compliance by default and without justification, are vital. This is not about rejecting co-operation where it is in our interest; it is about avoiding automatic alignment without accountability. As was raised in the other place, the powers are not just technical; they are significant policy decisions that deserve primary legislation. The democratic will of the British people, expressed in the referendum when we decided to leave the European Union and in elections since, was to restore British sovereignty. It is only right that no authority based outside the UK, whether it be the European Commission or the Court of Justice of the European Union, can unilaterally shape the enforcement or interpretation of our rules. Amendment 21, in particular, would ensure that any EU-derived product standards must first be brought into UK law by regulation before they can be treated as equivalent. That would both protect sovereignty and provide certainty. Ultimately, there must be proper scrutiny, and if Ministers are confident in their decisions, they should have no concern about being asked to report back to Parliament on any regulations aligning with EU law and to ask Parliament to approve their continuation. That would enable proper oversight while guarding against regulatory drift.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Let me begin by drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As other Conservative Members have already pointed out, the flaws in this Bill are numerous. It will damage businesses and, ultimately, employment opportunities, and I am deeply concerned about its consequences for our economy both nationally and in my constituency. The Government have said that they want to grow the economy, but the Bill will penalise and stifle those who do just that. Businesses of all sizes, investors and entrepreneurs—these are the people who grow our economy. Only if we grow our economy can we invest in our much-needed public services, and only then can we provide the significant increases in defence investment that are needed more than ever at this time. We ought to be empowering businesses to deliver growth, but the Bill adds burdens on business to such an extent that, by the Government’s own admission, it will cost the economy up to £5 billion a year. In fact, I believe that that is a fairly conservative estimate and that it will probably cost much more. Survey after survey has shown that business confidence has gone through the floor, although I do not need a survey to tell me that, because my inbox has received a steady stream of messages from local businesses reaching out to share the detrimental impacts of the Budget and their concern about the impact of measures in the Bill. Every week I visit and meet business owners across my constituency, and the message is consistent and clear: how can the Government expect the economy to grow when it penalises the growth creators? Amendment 289, tabled by the Opposition, offers a reasonable and pragmatic compromise to mitigate the unintended consequences of placing a duty on employers to prevent third-party harassment in the hospitality sector. I have listened closely to the debate on that issue, so let me say strongly that harassment of any sort is absolutely wrong. I do not for one moment condone or excuse any kind of harassment, in the hospitality sector or, indeed, in any other area. The reality is, however, that in a pub, a restaurant, a social setting or a hospitality setting, things may be said that are not acceptable. As has already been made clear, this is not condoning sexual harassment; it is making clear that we simply cannot legislate for people’s words or language in every context. We must have free speech. Surely it is reasonable to protect our landlords and restaurant owners in the hospitality sector, and to include provisions exempting them in the Bill, if it has to be passed at all. It cannot be fair to expect landlords to be responsible for every conversation that takes place on their premises. It has been made clear to me by the many landlords and restaurant owners across my constituency whom I have met since my election—whether it be Woody who runs the Swan in Tarporley and the Lion at Malpas, or Jarina at the Rasoi and the Bulls Head—that employee welfare is a top priority for them. I know that they do everything they can to treat staff exceptionally well, and to protect them from third-party harassment. They want their staff to be safe and secure, but making such businesses liable for other people’s behaviour and language is a step too far, and will have a detrimental impact on our hospitality sector. Let me end by reiterating my deep and fundamental concerns about the Bill as a whole. I will not be supporting it today. There are Opposition amendments that would improve it, and I hope that they will be supported, because they are pragmatic and give a glimmer of hope to businesses faced with what is otherwise very damaging legislation. I also hope that when Labour Members vote this evening they will consider the consequences of the Bill and the ways in which it is detrimental to growth, something that the Government have sought to pursue.

• 6 Mar 2025 · International Women’s Day · Hansard source

  More

  There is a saying that has always resonated with me: “When you get to the top, send the lift back down”, and those of us privileged to sit on these Green Benches bear a responsibility to speak up for and support women. I am proud to be an honorary vice-president of the Conservative Women’s Organisation—the oldest women’s political organisation in the world, which does so much to inspire, encourage and mentor women as they progress in roles in politics and public life. Time is short, but I want to take a few moments to share with the House some examples of inspiring women in Chester South and Eddisbury. They are women such as Dianne Worby, an entrepreneur who owns and runs her company, Global Air Training, near Tattenhall, and an industry leader who is putting Chester South and Eddisbury on the aviation map; and women such as Helen Bebington, a dairy farmer near Tarvin, who gets up every morning at 4 am to attend to her stock, and who works from dawn till dusk to keep her farm going. According to a recent survey by the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution, women in farming, particularly young women, have the worst mental health scores. I have spoken on numerous occasions in this House about the importance of our family farms and mental health, and women are the backbone of the rural community and they deserve to be celebrated today. There are women such as Councillor Rachel Williams from Malpas, who every month cooks a community lunch, bringing people together, combating loneliness and isolation, and supporting others. International Women’s Day is a chance not just to celebrate women, but to highlight where there is still vital work to be done. Too many women face domestic violence, and it is important that women know that we in this House are here for them. I very much welcome the Government’s commitment to halve violence against women and girls. I was pleased to support the Institute for Addressing Strangulation at the end of last year by writing to the Minister to emphasise the vital work that it is doing. Two thirds of cases of domestic violence will at some point include a woman being strangled, and it is a red line in the escalation of violence. If a woman has been subject to strangling, the probability that she will go to be murdered in the future increases sevenfold. I am grateful to the Minister who has committed to funding the Institute for Addressing Strangulation for another year, to ensure that the vital work it does can continue. Together, we must speak up and deliver change on behalf of all women on matters such as these. It is the honour and privilege of my life to be the 575th female Member of Parliament to be elected to this House. I am committed to using the time I have here to do what I can to inspire, support, champion and speak up for women and girls. Together, we can accelerate action.

• 20 Jan 2025 · Obesity: Food and Diet · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this debate on the important subject of the impact of food and diet on obesity. Over the past 30 years, as has been noted, obesity has been the subject of over 700 food-related health policies in England. Yet, while successive Governments have recognised the immense challenge of obesity and have sought to tackle it through various strategies, schemes and mandates, obesity rates have remained excessively high. Although, over the past five years we have seen adult obesity rates stabilise and the number of children who are overweight or obese fall to the lowest level since 2000, there is so much more work to do to address this issue, which is having an alarming impact on people’s health. In the UK today, more than one in 20 cancer cases are linked to excess weight, and obesity is predicted to overtake smoking as the leading preventable cause of cancer in women by 2043. It is estimated that, by 2035, the cost of treating type 2 diabetes will exceed that of treating all cancers today. Alongside this health crisis comes a phenomenal financial cost. The NHS currently spends £6.5 billion a year on obesity-related illnesses. Indeed, the independent national food strategy cited an even larger figure of £18 billion, with diabetes care alone already accounting for nearly 10% of the NHS budget. We must act now to address this issue. We do not have another 30 years to get this right; nor can we afford another 700 policies. We cannot just look for easy wins on this subject. Rather, we should look for a meaningful, transformative policy shift and not fall foul of previous mistakes. In the past, approaches by Governments have not always been joined up in understanding the whole food cycle, from supplier to shop shelf. Political and economic decisions have contributed to that. If we are serious about reforming the food system, the Government will have to implement a strategy that engages producers of all sizes, from small businesses to large corporations, across the supply chain, to give consumers a choice when they make their weekly shop. Although it may seem in some respects that we now have access to more food options and choices than ever before, for many people those choices are often limited by cost. Too often the cost of healthy options is increasing while the cost of ultra-processed foods decreases. In the UK, the majority of our diets are now made up of ultra-processed foods. Growing evidence links UPFs and adverse health outcomes, so it is vital that more research is done to ensure we are making informed policy decisions. We need to ensure that it is not just the large food manufacturers that are dominating the discussion and leading the market, and that we are creating opportunities and spaces for smaller, innovative food producers to contribute to the debate and help to provide solutions to some of the challenges we face. Part of the solution means working with our farmers, who already produce some of freshest, healthiest food to high animal welfare standards of anywhere in the world. The produce of the farmers in my constituency is second to none: Cheshire beef and dairy products are some of the most nutritious, natural and tasty on the market. We need to ensure our farmers and food producers are part of the solution, and that we strive to connect people to where our food comes from. Just as we need a joined-up approach across the supply chain, we need a joined-up approach across Government. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Health and Social Care can publish a strong food strategy, but it will need involvement from the Treasury to ensure the path from farm to fork or supplier to shelf is supported. I have talked about choice and the impact of food prices for families who are trying their best to make healthy choices, but alongside cost limitations are the limitations on people’s time. My husband and I both work full time and, as a mum, I know from experience that after a long day at work, all too often the easy option is to pick up some food on the way home that is convenient but perhaps not that healthy for us and our family. I know there are thousands of hard-working parents across Chester South and Eddisbury—indeed, the country—who will know what I am talking about. We as legislators, and supermarkets as the gateway where people buy their food, can take steps to improve choice for consumers, both financially and in relation to convenience, that will help us to become a healthier nation. For instance, supermarkets could have a section with ingredients next to healthy recipes, shortening the time the consumer would need to be in the shop and encouraging them to try new and nutritious meals. We can and must do more to address this issue. We must connect people with where their food comes from, have a frank conversation about the impacts of ultra-processed foods and deliver research to ensure we have evidence to make meaningful change. We need to support smaller businesses, working with them as they develop innovative ways to produce and market their products, and ensuring they have a voice at the table, alongside the large suppliers and supermarkets. We need to understand the challenges that families face with the costs and time constraints of busy family life, and ensure we are doing all we can to help them navigate a path to healthy, nutritious and tasty food. In conclusion, I hope the Government will look at delivering a food strategy based on cross-party consultation that will address the food system from supplier to shelf, because the cost of obesity for individuals and for society as a whole is unsustainable and is a health crisis we cannot ignore.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Government have indicated that they would arrest the democratically elected Prime Minister of Israel. Doing so would contradict an Act of Parliament and breach state and diplomatic immunity. Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether he believes compliance with the ICC’s decision sets a precedent for future decisions of a similar nature? Is he not concerned that he is contradicting international norms?

• 24 Jul 2024 · Education and Opportunity · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) on his maiden speech. This is my maiden speech, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I must tell you that I arrive in this place fired with enthusiasm—so much so that my Whip has warned me that I need to be careful that that is not how I end up leaving this place: fired, with enthusiasm. I am a new woman representing a new constituency: Chester South and Eddisbury. It is without doubt one of the most beautiful, extraordinary and inspiring parts of the United Kingdom, encompassing the southern wards of the great city of Chester, those below the River Dee, and many and varied villages in the heart of Cheshire. Audlem, Bunbury, Wybunbury, Wrenbury, Weaverham, Lache, Handbridge, Christleton and Huntington, Tarporley, Tattenhall, Tarvin, Kelsall, Cuddington, Farndon, Malpas—those are just some of the very special places with which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and this House are going to become quite familiar in the coming years, I hope. Much of my constituency is rural, which is one reason why I found the King’s Speech so disappointing. This Government profess an ambition for growth; if so, it is simply extraordinary that there was no mention of the contribution of farming to our national economy. Food is fundamental: the contribution of the countryside to our country is incalculable, and a Government who are so metropolitan in their outlook that they fail to understand that and reflect it in their agenda are, to use the context of today’s debate, both missing an opportunity and in need of an education. My constituency is both urban and rural, as is our country. Understanding the importance of both, and the necessary balance between the two, is key to our country’s future economic and societal success. The joy of my constituency is that it includes a rich range of dynamic village communities and a swathe of one of the greatest historic cities in Europe, the matchless city of Chester. It is a business and tourism hub that faces challenges, of course—from basic connectivity to burdensome business rates—yet boasts many successes, among them the major employers in the Chester business park and the University of Chester, whose business school falls within my constituency and at which no fewer than 27 Commonwealth countries are represented among its staff and students. In the 2023 international barometer survey, the university was named in the top 10 nationally in 20 categories, including a top three placing and four top five category placings. Chester’s potential is unlimited, and I shall seek to ensure that this Government give it the fullest chance to bloom. There are also fantastic schools in Chester South and Eddisbury, some of which I have already had the pleasure of visiting and many more that I look forward to going to over the coming months. Alongside our excellent state schools, we have two independent schools educating over 1,600 pupils, including nearly 400 students with SEND support who do not have education, health and care plans. Those students will face VAT under the Government’s current plans—plans that will reduce choice for parents and increase pressure on the state school system, with no clear benefit to any of our young people. Chester South and Eddisbury has much to offer, from the glories of Delamere forest—which welcomes more than 750,000 visitors each year—to the excitement of Oulton Park racetrack and Peckforton castle, the home of civil weddings in England. I say that advisedly, because it was the then owner of Peckforton castle who inspired a former Member of Parliament for the City of Chester to introduce a private Member’s Bill that became the Marriage Act 1994. For the first time, that Act allowed civil weddings in this country to take place in venues other than registry offices, including castles, historic houses, hotels and Chester zoo. Some might argue that that single piece of legislation has contributed more to happiness in England than any other legislation of its type. The former Member who introduced that legislation, who I know quite well—in fact, I have known him since I was born—reminds me regularly that his 1994 Act illustrates how, in this place, an ordinary Back Bencher can make a difference. I hope to make a difference in the years to come, not only by badgering the Government about delivering local bus services and improving mobile phone and broadband connectivity, and demanding that they back our farmers and ensure the investment and infrastructure our villages and city need to thrive, but perhaps by introducing legislation of my own in the fullness of time. I draw inspiration from my constituency and from my predecessors: not only my father, who was the Member for City of Chester in the 1990s—Mr Speaker will know both how marvellous and, sometimes, how irritating it can be to have a parent who was themselves a Member—but the newly elected hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), who sits on the Government Benches and who previously represented the City of Chester. I look forward to working with her on matters of mutual benefit to our constituents. I particularly share with my predecessor in Eddisbury, Edward Timpson, his inspiring passion for education and his concern for the care and development of young people. Another of my distinguished predecessors from whom I have learned is Stephen O’Brien. In his maiden speech a quarter of a century ago, he said something that I, as someone who served in the civil service for more than a decade and went on to run a small business, can wholeheartedly echo as I visit the many small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency: “The prosperity of those businesses is primarily dependent on less government, less tax, less interference and, above all, a release from the stranglehold of regulations, choking as they do a business’s ability to compete and an entrepreneur’s incentive to take the risk”. —[ Official Report , 28 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 1159.] With such a constituency and such predecessors, I know that I stand on the shoulders of giants, with much to do and prove. The House of Commons Library, which I have to say I am already finding invaluable, has advised me that I am the first Member of Parliament in its entire history to have the forename Aphra. I am named after Aphra Behn, the 17th-century playwright, poet and author, who was the first British woman to earn her living as a writer. The great 20th-century novelist Virginia Woolf said of her: “All women together ought to let flowers fall upon the tomb of Aphra Behn…for it was she who earned them the right to speak their minds.” What a privilege it is to be in this place, in the 21st century, able to speak my mind on behalf of my constituents across Chester South and Eddisbury.