Johanna Baxter MP: speeches

Speeches

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  Before I start, let me pay tribute to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, because their views have been heard far too little in these debates. Let me address some of the quite patronising comments made to Back-Bench Labour MPs today. Nobody has asked me to speak today, and nobody has put any pressure on me. In fact, colleagues on the Government Benches know that I have my own mind and will express it as I see fit. At a moment of genuine challenge for families across the country, when households are concerned about rising prices, instability abroad and pressure on living standards, the Opposition have tabled a motion that is ultimately more concerned with political point scoring than practical solutions. That is deeply regrettable, because the British public expect and deserve better than Westminster at its most performative. They expect seriousness, and they rightly expect scrutiny where scrutiny is due, but they also expect Parliament to focus on the issues that shape their daily lives: the bills landing on their doormats, the cost of food in the supermarkets, the price of fuel at the pumps and the strength of the economy in uncertain times. Let me be absolutely clear: Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed as our ambassador. The Prime Minister has recognised that, and he has apologised for that. He did so properly, repeatedly, with transparency and accountability, and with respect to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. That was the right course of action, and I would not have expected anything less from the Prime Minister, because I have known him for many years. I worked with him as he sought to rid our party of the stain of antisemitism, which has now infected others. I have seen him stand up to Putin when others have taken bribes from his allies. Given that the processes of transparency are in place and under way, it has to be asked: why are the Opposition parties working to ride roughshod over investigation processes that they all agreed to? We heard the answer earlier in the debate: it is for social media clicks and cheap headlines ahead of significant elections. The fact is that the Government have agreed to and are complying with the Humble Address to allow scrutiny of the Mandelson appointment in this place and to allow us to see the facts and the advice that was available to the Prime Minister at the time Mandelson was appointed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) is chairing a Foreign Affairs Committee inquiry to which key figures involved in the Mandelson appointment have rightly been summoned, and the Prime Minister has come to this House repeatedly to answer questions about that appointment. As has been expressed by others, politically motivated use of the Privileges Committee procedures risks undermining those procedures. It is clear that the circumstances the Opposition hoped would come to light and might bring down a successful Labour Government have been nothing more than conspiracy. First, they said that the Prime Minister must have known that UK Security Vetting’s recommendation was to reject vetting for Peter Mandelson, yet Olly Robbins confirmed to the Select Committee last week that he had chosen not to share that crucial information with the Prime Minister. They were wrong. They said that the Prime Minister was wrong to say that due process was followed, yet Chris Wormald has confirmed in a letter to the Prime Minister that the process was followed. In his own words, he said: “The evidence I have reviewed leads me to conclude that appropriate processes were followed in both the appointment and withdrawal” of the former ambassador to Washington. Again, they were wrong. How could the Prime Minister have made any other assessment than that due process was followed, when that was spelled out to him in black and white by his own officials? Those are not rumours or talking points; they are facts, and facts matter in this place. Many good colleagues on the Government Benches and, indeed, some on the Opposition Benches know deep down that the No. 1 issue facing our constituents is the cost of living fallout from Trump’s war in Iran—a war that was egged on by parties on the Opposition Benches. We know that, because that is what voters have been telling every one of us when we have been out on the doors in the lead-up to the elections in May. They are worried about their bills, the prices at the pump and the prices in the supermarkets. While some in this House want to engage in political stunts, this very afternoon the Prime Minister is convening a committee on the response to the conflict in the middle east and on how we support the British economy, our services and, most importantly, our constituents. What is clear is that only one party is focused on the job of delivering for the British people, and it is the one that the country voted for in the last election. It is galling that the Conservative party, after 14 years of chaos, scandal and economic recklessness, now wants to lecture anyone else on standards in public life. It is the party that gave us partygate, revolving-door Prime Ministers, cronyism, collapsing public services and Liz Truss’s catastrophic experiment that sent mortgages soaring and punished working families for the Conservatives’ failures. Meanwhile, the Conservatives collude with the SNP—

• 9 Feb 2026 · Standards in Public Life · Hansard source

  More

  Could my hon. Friend confirm the actions that the Government have taken to ensure that direct ministerial appointments, including political appointments, must pass the appropriate security vetting processes prior to being announced or confirmed?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Animal Rescue Centres · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for securing this debate. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cats. Across the United Kingdom, nearly 60% of households own a pet, and around 10.2 million of those pets are cats. They bring comfort, companionship and a great deal of amusement to millions of families. I know that personally, because I am owned by two rescue cats, Clement Cattlee and Mo Meowlam. Vital to the welfare of those pets and their future are our rescue and rehoming centres, such as Johnstone Cat Rescue in my constituency. Those organisations carry out extraordinary work, but beyond the duty of care established in the Animal Welfare Act, there are no specific statutory requirements governing how those services operate. As a result standards vary wildly across the sector. That is deeply unfair to the many outstanding providers that deliver a genuine and professional service through the dedication and compassion of their staff and volunteers. Sadly, as so often is the case, it is the few that fall short that cast a shadow over the many, and it is because of such cases that we are debating this issue today. Too often, lack of training, resources or proper oversight means that even well-intentioned providers fail to meet the standard of care that our cats deserve. In more troubling cases, animals are placed in foster or rehoming centres where due care and attention are simply not given. I will give one example. Linda, a volunteer at her local cat protection charity, saw a photograph of a kitten advertised by a local rescue centre and wanted to offer it a loving home. She completed an online form and later received a brief telephone call. During that call, she was not asked about her lifestyle, her living arrangements or whether she had any other pets, and she was given no meaningful information about the kitten’s health, background or needs; she was told only that it was three months old. She paid an adoption fee over the phone and was given an address from which to collect the kitten a few days later. When Linda arrived, she was not allowed into the property. Instead, the fosterer came outside, closed the door behind them, took the cat carrier from Linda’s hands, pushed the cat inside and handed the carrier back to her. There was no opportunity to see the kitten’s living conditions, to see its mother and assess its health, or have any conversation about its needs or care. She was then told, almost as an afterthought, that the kitten had not been neutered or vaccinated. That is why regulation matters. We need clear, enforceable, baseline minimum standards that protect animals, support responsible rescue centres and give the public confidence in the system. That must be backed by properly trained inspectors and meaningful oversight. As has been mentioned, the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes has standards that could provide a good basis for the licensing of rescue and rehoming centres and help local authorities to enforce any licensing regime. The Association of Dogs and Cats Homes has 153 rescue centres already following those standards, which have been enforceable since 2015 and are self and externally audited. They cover the management and governance of centres, as well as the health and welfare of the cats and dogs in those centres and transported to them. The Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (Scotland) Regulations 2021 should also be considered when looking at existing standards, as they also cover wildlife. I welcome the Government’s recent animal welfare strategy, but I confess that I was disappointed to see no clear detail on how they intend to consult on the licensing of animal welfare establishments. Through my work as chair of the APPG on cats, I know that the sector is ready and willing to engage; the Government should be equally willing to listen. If new legislation is to genuinely improve standards, we must also learn from the experience in Scotland, where it has become clear that without effective enforcement, adequate funding and properly trained inspectors, legislation alone does little to improve the lives of animals in substandard establishments. Scotland’s two-tier licensing system has also caused confusion for both rescue centres and local authorities. That is a lesson that we should take seriously, so that any system introduced in England is clear, workable and accessible for those who operate within it. Our rescue centres do remarkable work; our cats deserve the highest standards of care, and the public deserve to have confidence that, when they open their homes and their hearts to animals in need, the system behind that decision is worthy of their trust.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Electoral Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and thank him for mentioning the forcible deportation of Ukrainian children by Russia. I recently co-ordinated a cross-party letter to the Minister of State at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), asking him to ensure that the human rights of those children are protected in peace negotiations. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that, although that letter was supported by almost every party across this House, not a single representative from one particular party sought to sign it, and that was the Reform party?

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this important debate. The last Labour Government had many remarkable achievements, including Sure Start, the national minimum wage and the Human Rights Act 1998, but right up there among our proudest was delivering devolution to Scotland. That was our vision, rooted in the belief that communities are best placed to make local decisions that shape their lives. I know this might age me somewhat, but I was proud to be active in the campaign for the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and campaign for a Parliament that had tax-varying powers. Indeed, I still have my “Yes-Yes” t-shirt to prove it. We have seen the success of devolution in London, Manchester and Liverpool, with better transport, more house building and more investment in grassroots sports. When power is put in the hands of those who know their communities best, devolution delivers. Yet I fear that the obsession of the SNP Government in Holyrood with seeking to rerun referendum after referendum has paralysed Government north of the border. Their endless fixation on independence has come at the expense of delivery. They promised more homes but built a housing crisis; they pledged to strengthen our NHS but put party politics over patients; and instead of serving Scotland they have sunk to sleaze and scandal. Councils across our country are on their knees after funding cuts year after year. Local government funding in Scotland over the last 18 years has fallen by 42%, which is less than it would have been had it kept up with inflation. In a summer interview promoting her catalogue of career failures, Nicola Sturgeon admitted that she might leave Scotland “for a wee while”—the great champion for independence now fleeing the wreck her party has created. While London, Manchester and Liverpool reap the rewards of devolution done properly, for the last 18 years Scotland has been left with a Government more interested in constitutional games than the real business of governing. Although that might be a game to some of those on the Opposition Benches, the consequences for my constituents are very real, and I will speak to one example. While the Scottish Government have been handed the largest funding settlement in the history of devolution by this Labour Government, in my constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire South, the SNP-run health and social care partnership is swinging the axe on vital frontline services to plug a £19 million black hole in its budget that it created. Right now, it is holding voluntary severance talks across the partnership, cutting jobs and gutting and hollowing out services that have already been stripped to the bone. Users of the Disability Resource Centre, which is a lifeline for people living with physical disabilities, many of whom reside in my constituency, now face a review of their fees and transport costs backdated to April. That potentially means bills of more than £1,000 hitting the doorsteps of some of the most vulnerable people in our community, driving them out the back door and slamming it shut on the vital services that they rely on across Renfrewshire. Last year, the SNP locally was humiliated into a U-turn on a proposed merger of the Mirin and Milldale day centres after brave campaigners stood up to say no to cuts to the vital services their families rely on. Yet last month, the SNP dragged back the same cruel proposal, putting the same families through the same anguish all over again. It is cynical, it is calculated and it is downright cruel. Hon. Members need not just take my word for it. These are the words of Linda Murray, a member of the Renfrewshire Learning Disability Carers Group, who said last month: “We knew it wasn’t a done deal last year. We basically got a stay of execution…We’re tired, we’re exhausted, it took a lot out of all of us and we expected to at least get a couple of years’ grace”. We have seen it all before. Just like its endless independence obsession, the SNP ignores the will of the people and grinds our communities down until exhaustion delivers it the outcome it demands. That is not democracy; it is harassment of vulnerable families. The result is that the most vulnerable people in my community are robbed of the care that they rely on. That is not just a failure of leadership; it is a disgrace. The SNP lead for the local integrated joint board said: “The IJB’s financial challenges have been well documented”. I rarely say this of the SNP, but I happen to agree with her. Those financial challenges have been well documented, so why have the local SNP representatives not challenged their own Government in Holyrood to get them the money that they rely on, especially when the Government have been given such a generous financial settlement from this Labour Government? In truth, it has been 18 wasted years—years of scandal, years of sleaze and years of division—while schools in my communities have been subject to decline, our hospitals struggle and our services face collapse. This is not about money, because the Scottish Government have the money. This is not about powers, because they have the powers. This is about excuses, and for the SNP Government in Holyrood, they have no excuses left. Scotland deserves better, our NHS deserves better, our local people deserve better, and next year, the people of Scotland can choose a new and fresh direction with a Scottish Labour Government led by Anas Sarwar.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cats. As an animal owner myself—I have two cats—I rise to give voice to the many concerns expressed to me by pet owners across the country. Their concerns relate specifically to Lords amendment 11, which would allow landlords to request a pet deposit equivalent to three weeks’ rent. The amendment was narrowly agreed to on Report in the House of Lords in July, in response to the Government’s decision to remove the right for landlords to require tenants to take out pet damage insurance. Cats Protection has argued that the Government’s decision to remove the provision allowing landlords to request pet-related damage insurance was the right one, as the insurance sector was not ready to meet demand competitively. The Minister in the Lords outlined many arguments against the pet deposit amendment, including that an extra three weeks’ deposit is unaffordable for many tenants. She also referred to a report commissioned by Battersea Cats & Dogs Home and the University of Huddersfield, which found that 76% of landlords reported that they did not encounter any damage caused by dogs or cats in their rental properties. She noted that the Government were “content that landlords would be suitably protected against the cost of pet damage through existing tenancy deposits”, and I wholly agree. Cats Protection is also strongly of the view that charging an additional pet deposit is neither necessary nor proportionate. Measures already exist for landlords to seek additional compensation from the tenant in the very rare circumstances in which damage caused by a pet may exceed the value of the existing security deposit. The amendment could see tenants forced to find up to £1,500 extra for a one-bedroom flat in high-rent areas. That would mean that those without additional ready funds are priced out of having a pet. Another problem with the addition of a pet deposit is the potential lack of transparency in landlord decisions on what constitutes pet damage and what constitutes the type of damage that would otherwise be funded by the standard security deposit. Some landlords may just see the extra fund as an option to withhold more money for standard wear and tear. Damage can be avoided with the use of throws and rugs, for example. I know that Cats Protection and Dogs Trust adopters are always given information on how to provide enrichment activities to keep pets happy. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) would like to take advantage of those to ensure that his terriers do not tear up his carpet. I am concerned that the amendment will reintroduce the very inequity that the pet provision was designed to remove, putting the price of pet ownership out of reach for many tenants and entrenching geographical inequality. We all know how beneficial pet ownership is not just for the welfare of the animals, but for our wellbeing. “Cats and their stats”, a 2024 Cats Protection report, found that over half a million households who would like a cat do not have one simply because their rental agreement forbids it. I strongly believe that the additional pet deposit should be withdrawn from the Bill; the standard security deposit is more than adequate to cover any damage caused by a pet. I will oppose Lords amendment 11, and I encourage colleagues from across the House to do likewise.