Cat Eccles MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Feb 2026 · Energy Bills: Small Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Small businesses across my constituency have been mis-sold commercial energy contracts by brokers. A business in Lye was recently locked into a three-year contract in which it found itself paying more than double the market rate. An independent café in the Merry Hill centre recently had to close due to the £1,500 a month in energy bills that it was forced to pay. Will the Government strengthen the law to protect small businesses against unscrupulous energy brokers and consider introducing a cap on business tariffs?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Energy Bills: Small Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  14. What steps his Department is taking to help ensure the accuracy of small businesses’ energy bills.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. The proposals to retroactively extend the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain create considerable insecurity and disruption for migrants living in the UK. Contrary to what many believe, the process of getting ILR is difficult and costly, so there is no need to make it even more difficult by increasing the eligibility period. We are not talking about new arrivals. These changes will impact those who have lived in the UK and contributed to our economy for at least half a decade. They are nurses, doctors, train drivers, construction workers, cleaners, carers and others who keep our economy working. Thousands of migrant workers in these sectors are now being told that we do not value their contribution. We risk losing those skilled workers, which would undermine our public services and our economy. I declare my interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for healthcare workers. The NHS and social care sector employ thousands of people on work visas to cover workforce shortages, including one of my constituents, who is a healthcare assistant living in limbo due to these proposals, with a salary just £60 a year under the arbitrary threshold. Although we do not have robust data in that area, conservative estimates suggest that about 25,000 doctors and 50,000 nurses will be impacted. As others have asked today, will the Minister confirm what data modelling or impact assessment has been conducted to assess how these changes will affect the health and social care sectors? After many years of failing to provide enough medical school places, apprenticeships or other appropriate career training, we face labour shortages in many industries across the country. We rely on immigration to fill those gaps. These changes make the UK a far less desirable and fair place to live and work. To those who have made their home here, these changes say, “You’re not welcome.” Let us show those who have built their lives among us that they are supported, they are valued and they are truly welcome in the country they also call home.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Animal Welfare Strategy for England · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) for securing this important debate. The Government’s animal welfare strategy, published last month, is welcome. It makes important commitments to improving animal welfare, but it will come as no surprise that I want to raise some issues around cats in particular. I will declare an interest as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cats. I am also owned by three furry felines. There are roughly 12.5 million cat owners in the UK, with around a third of households owning at least one cat, but there are significant inconsistencies in animal welfare protections between cats and dogs. In July 2025, I presented a petition to No. 10 Downing Street with the charity CatsMatter, which called for cats to receive the same legal protections as dogs when involved in road traffic collisions. Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, drivers are required to report hitting a dog but not a cat. CatsMatter has another petition calling on Parliament to legislate, which has already reached 11,000 signatures. The animal welfare strategy should include a commitment to providing that protection for cats. The strategy needs to go further to address breeding practices, as has already been mentioned today. Over the last 200 years, cats have been increasingly bred for distinctive characteristics to make them look a certain way. Unfortunately, those characteristics become increasingly extreme and over-exaggerated, and they cause serious health and welfare issues. In the Netherlands, new ownership of Scottish Fold and hairless Sphynx cats was recently banned to prevent unnecessary suffering; that followed a breeding ban of those species in the same country in 2014. The UK Government should consider similar moves to prevent cats suffering. Extreme cat breeds such as the Bully cat are bred in ways that predispose them to skin disease and respiratory issues. Breeding Munchkin cats with short legs can lead to joint abnormalities that result in arthritis. There needs to be far greater parity between cats and dogs in breeding regulations to prevent the exploitation of cats for commercial gain. Another significant concern, which other Members have mentioned, is that we have only committed to a future consultation on electric-shock collars. There was already a consultation in 2018, which was fairly conclusive. We do not need another consultation: we need an immediate ban on cruel electric-shock collars. We also need to go further with microchipping and create a single point of information rather than 23 separate databases. At the start of this week, many colleagues were here debating fireworks yet again; that is another missed opportunity in the animal welfare strategy. We have an opportunity before us to deliver a strategy that does more than just gesture at compassion, and one that genuinely protects millions of cats—and other animals—who share our homes and lives. Cats deserve the same consideration, protections and commitment to welfare that we already extend to dogs. I urge the Minister: let us be bold, let us listen to experts and the public, and let us implement meaningful change that cat owners and cats have waited far too long to see.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Domestic Abuse-related Deaths: NHS Prevention · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) on securing this important debate. Too often, domestic abuse is framed solely as a criminal justice issue when, in reality, it is one of the most urgent public health crises that we face. The NHS encounters victims and perpetrators far more frequently than any other service, yet the system consistently misses opportunities to save lives. As the British Medical Journal highlighted, fewer than 24% of domestic abuse crimes are reported to the police, meaning that the health service—not law enforcement—is the front line. A recent review of domestic abuse-related deaths revealed that 89% of domestic homicide reviews contained at least one recommendation for the NHS—recommendations that occur again and again across cases, showing a pattern of missed signs, inconsistent responses and staff who suspect something is wrong but lack the training, systems or confidence to act on that. NHS staff are uniquely placed to intervene in suspected domestic abuse. In my own career as an operating department practitioner working in theatres, I can recall many instances when we treated patients with what looked like run-of-the-mill injuries, but all was not as it seemed. A young woman came in for manipulation under anaesthesia of her nose after breaking it in a fall, but she became inconsolable when we told her that she could go home after the operation. “Can I not stay overnight?” she cried. As I talked to her more, we discovered that she was being abused at home by her partner. I also want to highlight honour-based abuse; sadly, I encountered that many times in my career—from extreme female genital mutilation, to the woman undergoing an endoscopy for severe oesophageal pain, which turned out to be from her family poisoning her with battery acid, stripping the lining of her oesophagus and stomach. Those suspicions are not always explored, despite clinical teams being highly skilled, compassionate professionals. The opportunity to intervene can easily be lost. Mandatory standardised domestic abuse training is essential. Experts estimate that delivering consistent training across the NHS would cost just £2.6 million per year, which is a tiny fraction of the entire NHS budget but has the big potential to save lives. We also know that poor co-ordination between agencies is repeatedly cited in death reviews, with 35% of them calling for multi-agency working. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has stressed that domestic abuse deaths require accountability across entire systems—particularly the NHS, which must implement lessons from domestic abuse-related death reviews and participate fully in the new national oversight mechanism. Preventing domestic abuse deaths also means understanding the complexities of coercive control—something that survivors, including the domestic abuse campaigner from my constituency, Samantha Billingham, have worked tirelessly to highlight. Coercive control is often invisible, yet it is one of the clearest predictors of escalation to serious harm and homicide. If professionals do not understand coercive control they cannot identify the danger. That is why social workers must receive mandatory specialist training in coercive control: they are often the first professionals to see patterns emerging across family, mental health, housing and safeguarding contexts, but too often their training does not equip them to recognise or challenge the dynamics of manipulation, isolation, surveillance or financial control that underpin domestic homicide. The NHS must also embed specialist domestic abuse support directly into clinical settings. The Government’s upcoming measures, including the Steps to Safety initiative, aim to ensure that every part of England has dedicated NHS referral services for victims and specialist support workers linked to GP practices. These reforms are welcome, but they must be implemented at pace and be fully resourced if they are to prevent future deaths. Domestic abuse deaths are preventable when we train our workforce properly, when agencies work together, when we treat domestic abuse as a health issue, not just a crime issue, and when we equip professionals to understand the controlling patterns that escalate into lethal danger. It is the responsibility of all of us and the NHS to ensure that no victim is left unseen, unsupported and unheard.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome noises from the Department about additional support for pubs, but this is not just about pubs; it is about all hospitality businesses, including music venues such as Claptrap the venue and Katie Fitzgerald’s in my constituency. They have been massively impacted by a perfect storm of new valuations by the Valuation Office Agency, the end of covid-related reliefs and rising energy costs. I also want to mention service-based industries, such as hair and beauty salons and indoor play centres. These businesses have limited opportunities to claim back VAT, as labour is their highest cost. When the Government consider additional support measures for hospitality, please can they ensure that all businesses are included?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing this important debate and speaking so passionately on the issue. Every year in the weeks leading up to bonfire night on 5 November people suffer life-changing injuries and animals and people suffer stress and fear, which continues throughout the winter. Guy Fawkes night celebrates a failed terrorist attack on the very building we are sitting in. Had it succeeded, the Palace of Westminster would have been destroyed and hundreds of lives would have been lost. Is that really a tradition that we should continue to celebrate in the 21st century? More than 600 of my constituents have signed the two petitions to reduce firework noise and limit sales. I wholeheartedly support those measures, but I would go further, as the Government in the Netherlands have recently done. As of 1 January, the sale and detonation of fireworks is illegal in the Netherlands, due to the large amount of deaths and serious injuries they cause. One physician spoke of treating a patient in Amsterdam who was “clutching their own eyeball” after a firework injury. The Government there rightly decided that that could not continue. Germany, the Republic of Ireland and many Spanish cities have also implemented heavy restrictions on the sale and use of fireworks. It is time that Britain caught up. In previous debates on this subject I have spoken of my 20-year career in the NHS, where I saw many, mostly young, people coming into hospital with life-changing injuries, including loss of fingers, limbs or sight. Fireworks are putting increased pressure on our already overstretched NHS, while causing long-term harm to people who have suffered those injuries. The impact on pets and livestock is both horrendous and heartbreaking. Animals have much more acute hearing than people and are sensitive to high-pitched and sudden loud noises. According to the British Veterinary Association and other surveys, more than 60% of dog and cat owners say their pets are negatively impacted by fireworks and, as a cat owner, I can relate to that. Local charities and pet rescues such as Stourbridge RSPCA, Stour Valley Cat Rescue and CatsMatter have told me of heartbreaking cases of pets suffering from firework noise. Since 2021, as least 26 horses have died and hundreds more have been injured in the UK as a result of firework-related incidents. There are many cases of cows, chicken, deer and other animals facing awful injuries due to fireworks. Sadly, the Animal Welfare Act has failed to provide sufficient protection against such appalling acts of animal cruelty. It is often difficult to compile enough evidence that the use of fireworks is causing significant suffering, or to prove who set off a firework in a busy urban neighbourhood or where there is a crowd involved. The petitions highlight the growing support for stronger restrictions on the sale and use of fireworks. A recent YouGov poll found that 91% of those surveyed were open to replacing fireworks with drones or light shows. We cannot keep pretending that fireworks are just harmless fun. Our constituents have spoken, the evidence is overwhelming and the suffering is undeniable. Other nations have acted with courage and compassion; Britain should not be the outlier that shrugs its shoulders while people are maimed and animals are terrified just for the sake of a few minutes of noise and light. Let us build a future where celebration does not come at the cost of people’s wellbeing or animal welfare. Let us ban the public sale and detonation of fireworks, and save them for public organised displays.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As a long-time supporter of our railways and rail workers, I am proud to speak on a key Labour Government manifesto commitment. The Bill is about putting passengers, workers and the national interest back at the heart of our railways. For too long, a fragmented model has left the public with a patchwork quilt of competing interests, with tracks separated from trains, timetables misaligned and confusing incentives. Great British Railways offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to stitch the network back together, with a single, publicly owned guiding mind with a 30-year horizon, stability in planning and clarity in purpose. In 2023 I organised the country’s biggest campaign of its type to save the ticket office at Stourbridge Junction, alongside local rail users and Stourbridge’s favourite feline: George, the station cat. I heard at first hand how much our communities value an accessible, staffed railway. Passengers are not abstractions; they are neighbours, carers, shift workers and pensioners. They expect and deserve service, safety and support. The Bill’s promise will be realised only by the people who deliver it: our railway workers. Our drivers, guards, signallers, engineers, station teams and cleaners are not a cost to be cut; they are an asset to be invested in.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for his valuable intervention. He makes the really important point that there is currently no mention of staff in the Bill. As I have said, there will be no Great British Railways without those staff and all the protections and assurances they need. I welcome the move to bring track and train together, but we must also bring the workforce together with clear pathways on employment, pensions and facilities, as well as a strong voice for staff and their unions in governance. When passengers say they want confidence and care on the network, they are asking for people—present, trained and empowered. Let us ensure that the transition to GBR provides clarity and security for staff, underwrites safe staffing levels on trains and at stations, and ends the false economy of fragmented outsourcing that undermines both service quality and value for money. Let us not forget that nothing moves without logistics. Rail freight is the green backbone of that system, moving goods predictably and efficiently with about three quarters fewer emissions per tonne-kilometre than road. The Bill’s statutory freight growth target is the right signal, but that signal must be backed up with a firm plan. We need safeguards so that GBR’s capacity duty does not allow passenger services to squeeze freight off the network, and that means transparency, fair charging and protection of strategic freight corridors. To unlock genuinely transformative growth, we must match governance with infrastructure. We need targeted electrification, including infill schemes on freight critical routes, which will cut costs, carbon and journey times. In some corridors, dozens of miles of electrification have already unlocked thousands of net tonne-kilometres of cleaner freight every single day, and each additional electrically-hauled train means congestion avoided, carbon reduced and reliability improved. Put simply, the freight target and electrification must work together. For more than three decades, the leasing model has extracted hundreds of millions from the railways in dividends and charges, which is money that could and should be reinvested in the frontline. If we believe in long-term public stewardship, we should procure rolling stock directly where it delivers better value, using public finance to reduce lifetime costs, standardise fleets and support the UK supply chain. Let us be ambitious about green technologies. Electric traction is the gold standard, and battery and hydrogen can play targeted roles. GBR should set a whole-system rolling stock strategy that is modern, modular and interoperable, as well as cleaner, so that when we renew fleets, we do so with purpose rather than with piecemeal leasing at a premium. Open access has sometimes brought welcome competition, but it has also cherry-picked the most profitable flows, complicating timetables and undermining network planning. In an integrated system, capacity should be allocated to maximise public value, not private extraction. To conclude, this Bill is about integration, not ideology; about service, not shareholder return. Backed by a long-term strategy, safeguards for freight, a workforce treated as an asset and a modern plan for electrification, we can build a railway that is cleaner, simpler, fairer and proudly public. If we do so, we will deliver a railway for Britain that we can rely on and be proud of for the next 30 years.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q5. At the moment, everyone is being bombarded with adverts and emails for Black Friday encouraging them to spend money on so-called time-limited deals, leading to panic buying and increasing debt and buyer regret—not to mention the impact on the planet, with delivery and returns of goods responsible for millions of tonnes of CO 2 emissions. Does the Prime Minister agree that instead of rushing to buy online, people should look to their high streets to support local businesses and keep money in the local economy this Christmas?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policy · Hansard source

  More

  As a delegate to the Council of Europe, I will always defend the European convention on human rights and its institution and treaties, and that is why it is important to talk about it in the correct context. In the last 45 years, the Strasbourg Court has ruled against the UK on immigration rules only three times, and in the latest year for which figures are available, the number of successful human rights-based appeals represented 0.73% of all sentenced foreign national offenders. The last time article 8 was successfully applied to block a deportation was in 2020, so why does the Home Secretary believe that articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR are blocking the UK from controlling its borders, when the data simply does not back that up?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Children and adults across Stourbridge and the wider Black Country are being prevented from accessing vital care and support because all new shared care agreements have been stopped since the start of September. The Black Country integrated care board has placed the blame on GP surgeries, but I have since discovered that this was at the instruction of the ICB. With some children out of school and some adults out of work without further support, does the Leader of the House agree that ICBs need to prioritise funding for these patients, not leave them waiting any longer?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Police Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her statement. I pay tribute to the West Midlands police and crime commissioner, Simon Foster, who has served diligently and ably since 2021. He has always been community focused; he worked with me to secure a police hub in Stourbridge and helped me to negotiate with police estates to retain the old Brierley Hill police station for community use. I am proud to call him not just a colleague, but a friend. He has also reformed victim services, championed youth commissioners and overseen a reduction in all types of crime across the region. Will the Minister join me in thanking Simon for all his work and assure me that good work already established will continue?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Point of Order: Rectification Procedure · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to apologise to the House for failing adequately to declare an interest when speaking in the House on 10 June this year during the debate on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Although I referred to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I inadvertently failed to declare that the visit had been funded by Labour Friends of Israel and that it had not yet been processed to appear on the register. That was in breach of the rules and I wish to apologise to the House for the error.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is absolutely right—we need to be around that table. We were there at the start, and we need to see it through and ensure that we maintain our place in that conversation. Why not replace the ECHR with a British Bill of Rights? Well, we have one—the Human Rights Act 1998. The ECHR was drafted by British lawyers based on Britain’s common law and Magna Carta. In fact, during the negotiations on the Good Friday agreement, a British Bill of Rights was drafted and later rejected by right-wing politicians, to prevent a difference of rights across the Irish border. It is because of the ECHR that a ban on gay people serving in the armed forces could be challenged and overturned by a young barrister whom we now know as the Prime Minister. A memorial was unveiled this week to commemorate those who served during that historical ban from 1967 to 2000. It is because of the ECHR that we got justice for the Hillsborough victims and were able to present the Hillsborough law, the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill, in Parliament this week. The ECHR allows us to hold Governments to account and seek justice when those in power try to cover things up or overstep their remit. We must ask ourselves, “Why would anyone want to remove a mechanism to prevent those in power from abusing that power?” How dark our future could be if that were allowed to happen.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) is one of the longest-serving delegates. She sits on the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, fighting for gender equality, combating violence against women and girls and defending the rights of the LGBTQ+ community. She is a rapporteur for the committee and has overseen a report on the ban of so-called conversion practices, which will hopefully be passed at the next plenary in January. That report will provide model legislation for all 46 member states to pass and end that awful practice. Let us hope that this House is ready to enact those recommendations, as promised in our manifesto and the King’s Speech. As a member of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, I have worked with colleagues on youth democracy, artificial intelligence, ethics in sport and media freedom. The Council of Europe develops recommendations on issues affecting all member states, including the UK. We may be an island, but sharing best practice and developing common conventions strengthens rights, freedoms and democratic values across the continent. The Council of Europe continues to lead globally, abolishing the death penalty in Europe, supporting democratic transitions and exposing human rights abuses. It expelled Russia from the Council, declaring it a terrorist state, and Belarus for its support for Russian aggression. This summer, I witnessed history being made in Strasbourg as President Zelensky signed a bilateral agreement with the Council of Europe to bring a trial against Russia for crimes of aggression against Ukraine. But what has the ECHR ever done for us? Well, it has ensured that the Good Friday agreement has lasted this long. The incorporation of the ECHR into Northern Irish law means that the people of Northern Ireland have an independent arbiter to trust in disputes over fault during the troubles, and that is no small thing. It is vital to peace, societal rebuilding and the end of sectarianism. Maintained rights can create faith in people and shine light out of darkness.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all hon. Members who have participated in this interesting and lively debate. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), the hon. Members for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) and for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), and my hon. Friends the Members for Mansfield (Steve Yemm), for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), and for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) for their contributions. I am sure that my hon. Friends who have not been able to contribute to the debate also had excellent points to make. It is clear that this discussion must continue. In marking the 75th anniversary of the ECHR, we are reminded of its founding purpose: to safeguard dignity, freedom and justice. That remains as vital today as it was at the start. Far from being outdated, the ECHR has evolved into a cornerstone of European democracy, promoting equality, accountability and the rule of law across all 46 member states. Yet misinformation, false narratives and political opportunism now threaten to erode that legacy. Sovereignty gives us the right to be party to international treaties. The facts are clear: the ECHR does not hinder deportation or weaken our sovereignty. If we were to leave, it would be short-term gain for long-term pain. As pressures mount to dilute or abandon our commitments, we must stand firm. Britain helped to build the ECHR, and we must continue to defend it.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is difficult to see which of those rights needs to be updated, replaced or taken away.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. Earlier this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton and Winchmore Hill (Kate Osamor) reported on Europe’s demographic ageing and the decline in youth and working-age populations, highlighting the impact on the elderly, public services, labour markets and pensions. PACE adopted a resolution urging greater support for older people and called on member states to develop effective policies to ensure their wellbeing and quality of life. It also recommended improving policies to promote migrant integration and social cohesion.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered UK participation in the Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. Yesterday marked 75 years since the United Kingdom, a founding member of the Council of Europe, was one of 12 states to ratify the European convention on human rights. At the time, the world was emerging from the ruin of war and the defeat of Nazism, but new threats were emerging: a belligerent and confident Russia under the rule of a bloody dictator with his eyes on the west; proxy wars in south-east Asia; and mass population movements in the aftermath of war. The idea was to prevent these atrocities and abuses from ever being repeated. Is the convention really so out of date and out of time, as its critics argue? Over the following 75 years, the Council of Europe and the ECHR have grown to encompass 46 member states in Europe, with only Belarus and Russia excluded. The Council of Europe has succeeded in bringing together a universal understanding of human rights, namely that human rights belong to everyone by virtue of their inherent dignity and worth as human beings. As we head into Remembrance Week, it is important to note that the convention is a cornerstone of why we say, “Lest we forget.” I am proud to be a delegate to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, or PACE. The UK is represented by a formidable team of cross-party MPs and peers. I was inspired to run for the Council of Europe by former Stourbridge Labour party member, and former MP for Bromsgrove and later Birmingham Hodge Hill, the right hon. Terry Davis. In 2004, he was elected secretary-general of the Council of Europe and served until 2009. The UK delegation in Strasbourg is incredibly active, and several Members have acted as rapporteurs, presenting reports and recommendations for adoption by all member states. In the most recent plenary session, in September, Lord German led an urgent debate calling for an end to the devastating humanitarian catastrophe and the killing of journalists in Gaza. Lord Keen of Elie presented a draft convention to establish an international claims commission for Ukraine, and to create a compensation mechanism, with a damage register and claims body, to fund the reconstruction following Russian aggression.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has made a really important point. The convention covers so many parts of our life and we must maintain it. Currently, our politics is consumed by the issue of small boats. Despite representing less than 2% of all immigration into the UK, the boats are suddenly the reason why we must abandon the convention and place our collective human rights at the mercy of Government. In many ways, the attempted attacks on our freedoms under the guise of liberation remind me of George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”. They say that truth is stranger than fiction, but I do not want to find myself looking from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again, and finding that I cannot tell which is which. Of course, even the conflation of small boat arrivals with the ECHR is a lie. Mr Mundell, did you know that the ECHR has nothing written down relating to immigration or asylum? There is no right to asylum in the ECHR. Did you also know that, since the Human Rights Act 1998, the European Court’s rulings against the UK have fallen dramatically? It used to average 17 a year; now it is fewer than four. Indeed, it ruled against the UK only once in 2024—when, in a very nice piece of irony, the ECHR protected the rights of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday to freedom of expression. Even the convention’s harshest critics come running to it for protection when they are under threat from big government. The University of Oxford recently published a Bonavero report titled “The European Convention on Human Rights and Immigration Control in the UK: Informing the Public Debate”, which centres on misinformation, over-reporting and outright lies in the press that poison the debate around the ECHR. I highly recommend it to all Members who are wavering on whether the UK should stay in the convention or leave it because of immigration. There are two articles of the ECHR that have been tied to immigration. Article 3 is applied so that we do not send individuals back to torture or death—I would like to believe that we can all agree on that. Article 8, the right to family life, is projected by the ECHR’s critics as the real villain of the piece. They argue that it stops deportations of foreign criminals, sex offenders and individuals who arrived in the UK via small boats. There really is a lot of rubbish written in the papers and online relating to article 8, using examples of how the ECHR is being used to stop deportations and erode national security and identity. The most notorious example was in February this year, when an Albanian criminal was apparently granted appeal to deportation because his son would not eat foreign chicken nuggets. The ruling was made because the criminal’s younger child had sensory issues, food sensitivities and emotional difficulties, but the upper tribunal rejected the appeal as not strong enough to be considered unduly harsh, and the case is still under review. For the record, article 8 is primarily used for reunification of British citizens with family members who are foreign nationals. Let us step away from that story and look at some statistics. From 2015 to 2021, the Home Office removed 31,400 foreign national offenders from the UK, and in that period 1,000 foreign criminals managed to halt deportation on ECHR grounds, roughly 3% of the overall figure. Less than 1% of those cases were ultimately successful, so the ECHR is hardly the immovable object blocking the UK’s will in removing offenders from its shores. Furthermore, the Court has ruled only three times that the UK’s immigration rules have violated the ECHR in the past 45 years, but political and media pressure appears to be bearing down on our relationship with the ECHR. There have been noises about tweaking the convention and about opening discussions, the thought of which fills me with dread. Why concede the argument that the ECHR is to blame for our impotence, when that squarely does not match the reality? Why put the EHCR directly in the limelight of the political will of the day? Why cost businesses an estimated £1.6 billion at a time when they are already struggling? Why abandon the soft power that our place in the convention and institution affords us? If I may say so, this reminds me of David Cameron’s renegotiation with the EU prior to the referendum. He put Britain’s relationship with the EU at the forefront of the agenda and worked tirelessly to get a better deal for Britain, believing that if he could show that Britain can renegotiate, the crocodiles in his party and on the fringes would let up—but in the end he lost it all. I make a plea to the Minister and to the Government: “Let’s draw a line in the sand. Stand up and fight for the convention and our place in it. Do not concede. Do not think that you can find a middle course that will satisfy all parties and stem the anti-politics sentiment that is so prevalent in the UK today. Let’s be bold and argue for the UK’s role in the Council of Europe and the ECHR.”

• 3 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. Welin Lambie in Brierley Hill in my constituency designs, builds and manufactures davits for marine applications. It employs about 45 local people, uses local supply chains for its products and is really keen to win a Government contract, but sadly under the previous Government it lost out to a Spanish cruise ship company. What is the Minister doing to support British defence businesses? Will he visit Welin Lambie with me to help it work further with the Government?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T4. In 2022, Tory-run Dudley council entered an agreement with a social housing developer but later pulled the plug and sold off the land, so we may not get those much-needed homes. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that councils maximise opportunities to build affordable and social homes on land owned by councils?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Bovine Tuberculosis Control and Badger Culling · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart, and a privilege to speak in this important debate. I pay tribute to those who signed the petition, and to the campaigners, experts and local groups who continue to fight for evidence-based policy on bovine tuberculosis and badger culling. I do not support the continuation of the badger cull. The evidence on whether it works is at best deeply flawed and at worst deliberately ignored. In June this year, Sir Brian May and vet Dick Sibley from the Save Me Trust visited Parliament to highlight the science. They showed us—as many independent scientists have—that the link between badgers and the spread of bovine TB has been overstated and misrepresented for years. Crucial facts often get ignored. The Government themselves recognised in a previous debate that slurry spreading is a major cause of bovine TB transmission. Yet instead of tackling that problem head-on, we persist with killing badgers. It has been more than a decade since general testing of all animals was undertaken. The last large-scale testing found that sheep, deer and alpacas showed far higher incidence of bovine TB than badgers, with sheep at about 28%, deer at 22% and alpacas topping the list, at 30%. Badgers, however, came in at only around 7%. That really matters. Even in areas with no badgers present, bovine TB persists, yet we continue to scapegoat this single species. The science also tells us that badgers become fully infectious with tuberculosis only after about five years, but the average lifespan of a badger in the wild is three to four years. Those badgers that are killed are often too young to have developed TB. It simply does not add up. Fewer than one in 10 badgers tests positive for TB. As one campaigner noted to me, TB is primarily spread by aerosol. So I ask colleagues in more rural constituencies, when was the last time they saw a badger sneeze on a cow? The economics of the policy are just as indefensible. Policing the cull costs over £1 million per zone. The official badger cull trials cost millions, but the results were then ignored. Meanwhile, alternative methods, such as the Gatcombe strategy or improved skin testing, offer more effective, humane and cost-effective options. Let us not overlook the perverse incentives in the current system. Farmers receive far more in compensation for TB-affected cattle than they would receive from selling the animals at market. That does not drive good practice, and nor does it support the long-term health of the herd. A fairer and more robust approach would be regular MOT-style health checks for farms. Stronger badger culling is not the answer. It is scientifically unsound, economically wasteful and morally wrong. We should invest in real solutions such as biosecurity, testing, farm management and ending practices such as slurry spreading on grazing fields. I am pleased the Government are working towards a new national strategy to bring down bovine TB, and I am proud to be part of a party that has a manifesto pledge to end the badger cull by the end of this Parliament. Although the focus on non-lethal culls for badgers is a definite improvement to the status quo, I urge the new strategy to take into account new science and evidence that calls into question the link between badgers and livestock. It is time that we stopped this failed and cruel policy, and focused instead on tackling bovine tuberculosis at its true sources. Let us not wait until the end of this Parliament to do the right thing: let us end this barbaric practice now.