Josh Newbury MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Jan 2026 · NHS Urgent Care: Staffordshire · Hansard source

  More

  I saw a post from my hon. Friend on Facebook earlier today about this very matter. I know that he is fighting very hard on that on behalf of his constituents. I hope that my integrated care board listens to the concerns of my constituents, and I hope that that is reflected in Coventry and Warwickshire and that he can get some progress on a doctor-led unit. For the past six years, people in Cannock Chase have had to travel to Stafford, Lichfield, Walsall or Wolverhampton for care that they would once have accessed locally. That is not simply an inconvenience; it undermines the objectives of urgent care reform, increases pressure on neighbouring hospitals and pushes more people into A&E. That is exactly the opposite of what the urgent care review is supposed to achieve. Most worrying of all are those who are not seeking care at all. Not everybody can drive and not everyone has access to reliable public transport, particularly in places such as Staffordshire. When patients are faced with long, complicated journeys for what should be straightforward local treatment, many simply put it off; conditions then worsen, complications develop and people ultimately end up needing an ambulance for something that could have been treated earlier, more cheaply and closer to home. At the engagement events and in conversations with me since, constituents have told me that the MIU was a lifeline when they did not need A&E but their GP felt they needed to go to hospital. Cannock Chase hospital is very close to a bus station, and most people locally can catch a single bus to reach it; in contrast, travelling by bus to MIUs in Lichfield, Stafford, Walsall or Wolverhampton can be difficult, often involving multiple changes and long journey times. As a result, many of my constituents are paying for taxis instead, which is a significant financial burden. The issue becomes even clearer when we look at the demographics of my constituency. It has a slightly older population than the national average, with more than 19,500 residents aged 65 and over—around a fifth of our population. Almost half of those older residents—more than 9,300 people—are living with a long-term health condition, a higher proportion than we see nationally. These are the residents who are most likely to need timely urgent care, who are more vulnerable to deterioration if treatment is delayed, and who often face the greatest barriers when services are not available locally. The NHS’s own data shows higher attendances at both surrounding MIUs since ours closed, but not by the total amount of previous activity at Cannock Chase hospital, backing up what residents have been telling us about not always seeking care. We can also see how these pressures play out in practice at nearby hospitals that many of my constituents rely on when local urgent care is not available. Although Royal Stoke University hospital is not in my constituency, it is a key part of the wider system and serves residents right across our county. In the final quarter of last year alone, that hospital saw more than 33,000 A&E attendances, and over 6,800 patients waited more than 12 hours to be admitted or discharged. That is more than one in five attendances—double the national average—placing the hospital among the most pressured in the country.

• 26 Jan 2026 · NHS Urgent Care: Staffordshire · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend and fellow Staffordshire MP for his intervention. He has highlighted a critical point: every part of our NHS can have a knock-on effect on the others, so the system needs to work as a whole. We cannot just focus on individual services; we have to see how it works in the round. That is what the review is trying to do, but of course, many of us feel it is not hitting on what it needs to. I do not raise these figures to criticise staff, who are working under immense strain, or the Government, who are making strong progress on addressing the pressures I have described. I raise them to underline a simple point: as we have heard, when local urgent care is unavailable, demand does not disappear, it is concentrated elsewhere. Making sure patients get the right care in the right place is critical—too many people end up in A&E not because they need to be there, but because there is nowhere else for them to go. Perhaps in the past, our MIU was not always used for its intended purpose, but even that was often a symptom of failings in community care. Urgent treatment centres will be a vital part of the fabric of our NHS, sitting between primary care and emergency departments. Not having that service for a population of over 100,000 people is a real challenge, and it weakens the wider system. In the 17 months since the review of urgent care was unveiled, I have had many conversations with our ICB about urgent care more broadly, as have GPs, councillors and campaigners. I know that they are putting in place services that make good on the Government’s commitment to shift care from hospitals out into the community. I welcome the introduction of a wound care local enhanced service, which recognises that wound care was previously a key reason for patients to access the MIU, even though their homes are a better place for that care to take place. This shows that sustained conversations about our local health needs and inequalities are starting to translate into results. I hope that building on this, Cannock Chase can be a forerunner in the roll-out of multidisciplinary neighbourhood teams. The health inequalities we sadly have locally, coupled with the distance to many secondary care services that I have referred to, means that we would benefit hugely from that model of supercharged community care. Better than having to catch a bus to Lichfield or Stafford would be heading to Cannock Chase hospital, but better still would be getting that care at home. That is what I am calling for, and will continue to fight for, on behalf of my constituents. There are areas where Staffordshire is performing strongly. Urgent community response services are exceeding national targets, winter planning has helped to stabilise hospital stays during periods of peak demand, and vaccination programmes are having an impact on admissions. This is not an argument against reform; it is an argument for consistency and fairness. If urgent care reform is about reducing avoidable A&E attendance, improving patient flow and ensuring equitable access across the system, then Cannock Chase cannot continue to remain an outlier. Crucially, this is not just about rhetoric. The Government are making huge strides in the NHS nationally, backed by reform, investment and a determination to ensure that people get the right care in the right place at the right time. That is why I welcome the investment already being made in the Chadsmoor medical practice, the Rawnsley surgery and the Red Lion surgery in my constituency. That will make a huge difference to people’s everyday experience of the NHS that they can see and feel. Strengthening primary care does not remove the need for local urgent care—one cannot simply replace the other. My ask today is simple and constructive. I am not asking the Minister to pre-empt the outcome of the ICB’s review—I know that she cannot do that—and I am certainly not arguing against the reform of urgent care that prompted this review. I am calling for clarity, fairness and alignment between national ambition and local delivery. If we believe in shifting care out of hospitals and into communities, if we believe in reducing avoidable A&E attendance and if we believe in equitable access to urgent care, then Cannock Chase must have that as part of its future. I hope that 2026 can be the year that sees an expansion of urgent care back into my part of the world, and I urge the Royal Wolverhampton NHS trust to make better use of Cannock Chase hospital, which many residents feel remains underutilised compared with how things were under the former Mid Staffordshire NHS trust. I would welcome the Minister’s assurance that local voices will continue to be properly heard, that decisions will be communicated clearly and promptly, and that the Government will work with the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent ICB to ensure that communities such as mine are not left without urgent care provision. Urgent care, at its simplest, is about whether someone with a broken wrist, a deep cut or a worsening infection knows where to go and can actually get there. I look forward to continuing to work constructively with the ICB, the Minister and colleagues across the House to ensure that urgent care in Staffordshire truly works for the communities that we all serve.

• 26 Jan 2026 · NHS Urgent Care: Staffordshire · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this debate on NHS urgent care in my brilliant county of Staffordshire, and particularly on what that means for my constituents in the towns and villages of Cannock Chase. I start by paying immense tribute to the dedicated staff who work in our NHS and in social care. From district nurses and general practice, through to care homes and A&E departments, the passion and expertise that they bring enriches and saves lives. When I was elected, I knew that there were many local issues that I would need to get to grips with quickly, but among many priorities, I knew that I had to campaign on urgent healthcare first. It is a subject that my constituents have raised with me frequently, on doorsteps, in emails, at surgeries and in conversations with local clinicians. It goes right to the heart of whether people feel confident that our NHS will be there for them when they need it, and that our area is well served. Before being elected to serve Cannock Chase, I worked in the NHS, not in a clinical role but in communications, and that experience has very much stayed with me. It means that I approach debates like this with a great deal of respect for the people working in the system, and with an understanding of just how complex it is. I know how difficult decisions can be, how stretched staff are and how long it can take to move from strategy to delivery, but I also know that delay and uncertainty have consequences for patients, staff morale and public trust. For my constituents, uncertainty around access to urgent care has become an all too familiar experience. The minor injuries unit at Cannock Chase hospital was temporarily closed in March 2020, so that staff could be redeployed to the covid wards at New Cross hospital. At the time that decision was entirely understandable and widely supported locally. The NHS was facing an unprecedented emergency and staff stepped up in extraordinary ways to protect lives. At the same time, it was said that the closure was temporary and that the Royal Wolverhampton NHS trust planned to reopen the MIU once pandemic-related workforce pressures eased, but, nearly six years on, that temporary closure feels anything but temporary. In fact, two years after the closure, in March 2022, there was significant fanfare around the possibility of a reopening that summer. Many residents understandably took that as a sign of progress, but ultimately nothing came of it. After more than two years of radio silence, in August 2024 the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent integrated care board announced a wholesale review of urgent care services across the county, in the light of new national standards for urgent treatment centres. Although the proposals are to upgrade urgent care facilities in other hospitals in Stafford, Burton-upon-Trent, Lichfield, Tamworth and Stoke-on-Trent to meet those UTC standards, they included the permanent closure of Cannock’s minor injuries unit, which would effectively end the remaining hope among my constituents and others in neighbouring constituencies that urgent care will come back to our area. The reasons given included a belief that need from the Cannock Chase area was already being met by other nearby hospitals and, above all, a refusal from the Royal Wolverhampton NHS trust to support urgent care provision at Cannock Chase hospital. A comment made to me by a member of the ICB’s staff was, “They just aren’t interested”. The way that these proposals were communicated locally was very poor, and I have been very frank with the ICB about that. The reaction of the people who saw the ICB’s document was understandably one of huge concern, particularly among older residents, people with chronic conditions and those who cannot drive. The ICB planned only one public engagement event in my constituency, which was in the afternoon on a weekday, and even that attracted far more people than it had planned for. Although many did not get to hear about the event, the room was still packed, and very frank views were given. At my request, the ICB held a second event, which was on an evening, and I am told that that was well attended too. We were told that the ICB expected to take its final proposals to health scrutiny at Staffordshire county council in the spring of last year, with a full public consultation in the summer if the committee deemed it necessary, yet months passed without any update, adding to the uncertainty and frustration locally. Let me be clear that I am not standing here to criticise the ICB for the sake of it; I meet it regularly, and at those meetings we have serious, detailed discussions about patient flow, demand, workforce and outcomes. I understand that good decision making in the NHS takes time, but I believe that prolonged uncertainty comes at a cost. Every month that passes without clarity leaves patients unsure where to go when they need care, staff unsure what the future holds for their workplace, and communities feeling that decisions are being made far away, rather than with an understanding of local reality.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Transport Connectivity: Midlands and North Wales · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my colleague from Staffordshire for backing up my point. We all have examples in our constituencies of where powers are urgently needed and where they could make a massive difference if the council gets its act together, as my hon. Friend says, and gets on with it. He knows that rural parts of our constituencies are often the areas that are the worst served and therefore the most isolated. My constituents see every day the impact of regional transport inequality, whether it is a bus that never comes or a platform that cannot be reached. I welcome the Government’s determination to put fairness and accessibility at the heart of transport policy, and I will continue to work constructively to ensure that Cannock Chase receives the investment it needs. Looking ahead, I hope the Department for Transport ensures that accessibility is key to funding decisions, so that towns like mine do not continue to be left behind. I would also welcome clarity from the Minister on what short-term measures could be introduced while longer-term solutions are delivered, so that passengers are not forced to choose between safety and independence and making essential journeys. By working together I am confident that all residents in Cannock Chase and across the midlands can access a public transport network that is safe, reliable and inclusive.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Transport Connectivity: Midlands and North Wales · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak with you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I will focus most of my speech on Rugeley Trent Valley station, which is of interest to my constituents, particularly those in Rugeley and Brereton, even though it is technically just over the border in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson)—a neighbour constituency-wise and in the Chamber today. As we know, transport connectivity does not stop at constituency or council boundaries, and neither does the impact of stations where the facilities are not adequate for everybody. Rugeley Trent Valley is a striking example. The station has three platforms, yet only platform 3, serving trains towards Lichfield and London, is step-free. Platforms 1 and 2, serving far-distant locations like Birmingham, Stafford and Crewe, can be reached only via a steep footbridge. In practice, wheelchair users, parents with prams, older people and those with limited mobility are effectively barred from using two thirds of the station. With the delays that often characterise Avanti West Coast services and short connection times, running across from one platform to the next is simply not an option for many of my constituents. Let me give some real-life, human examples. One constituent in her 80s told me that she can no longer visit her family because she cannot carry a suitcase up and down the steep staircases safely. That highlights how the barriers are not limited to wheelchair users. Another constituent recounted travelling with a friend who has serious mobility issues from the waist down. He arrived at the station to discover that the only way for him to catch their connecting train was to physically haul himself up and down the stairs. Station staff did what they could, but goodwill alone cannot overcome infrastructure that excludes so many people in our communities. People are desperate to make journeys for work, healthcare, or family reasons, and they will often attempt unsafe routes if no accessible alternatives exist. While the British Transport police and station operators do what they can to manage risks, long detours or temporary measures are no substitute for basic dignity and safety. Using the database of the Office of Rail and Road, I noticed that more than 200,000 people exited and entered Rugeley Trent Valley station in 2024-25. A constituent highlighted that other stations on the network, even ones with fairly similar footfall or electrified lines, such as Kidsgrove station near Stoke-on-Trent, have been upgraded with lifts, waiting rooms, and toilets. Clearly, it is not a question of engineering impossibility, but of prioritisation. West Midlands Trains and London Northwestern Railway have told me that they fully support installing lifts at Rugeley Trent Valley. They acknowledge the station’s accessibility issues and the impact on passengers, but as many hon. Members will know, major upgrades such as this fall under Network Rail’s Access for All programme, which is always heavily oversubscribed. Over 2,500 stations in the country require upgrades, and Network Rail applies strict criteria, prioritising stations by passenger numbers and the proximity of the next accessible station. For Rugeley, nearby stations such as Stafford or Lichfield Trent Valley score higher under that system. Although Rugeley has been discussed and even shortlisted in the past, the next allocation of funding is still several years away. In the meantime passengers are offered so-called mitigations, such as being carried to the next accessible station and sent back again or provided with discretionary road transport. For many of my constituents those are simply not viable or dignified solutions. They are workarounds for systemic failure, showing exactly what regional inequality looks like, with smaller towns often having to wait endlessly at the back of the queue while people with the greatest need are left to navigate shortcomings in the system.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Transport Connectivity: Midlands and North Wales · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the plethora of issues we have at Rugeley Trent Valley, which are not restricted to the footbridge. Coming in and out of the station, travellers are met with a national speed limit rural road with very poor visibility from both sides, so the problems at the station are plentiful. Even though it provides a fantastic facility for people to be able to get to destinations as far away as London, it really is not set up very well to handle that level of traffic. On a more positive note I would like to highlight progress on the midlands rail hub, which will strengthen connections across the west midlands and help more people to get around quicker and easier. I hope and expect that the rail hub will have a positive knock-on effect on the whole region, including on the Chase line that serves my constituency. The project is an example of how investment can make a tangible difference to everyday travel and I welcome the Government’s commitment to progressing the project and delivering improvements, as confirmed in the Budget. It should also be said that the vast majority of public transport journeys in Cannock Chase are made on buses, and it is buses that often feature heavily in my postbag. I was immensely proud to serve on the Bill Committee for the Bus Services Act 2025 and to support legislation that begins to address the long-term decline in our bus services. Under the previous Government, not only were more than half of all routes in my constituency lost, but the frequency and reliability of services were eroded. I very much welcome the unshackling of councils when it comes to setting up publicly owned bus companies and seizing the opportunities to take back control of fares, routes and timetables, for which my constituents have been calling for many years. The Act is on the statute book, so now the ball is in the court of Reform-led Staffordshire county council, which so far seems to be showing the same lack of interest in boosting bus routes and taking advantage of franchising as the previous Conservative administration. For residents in parts of my constituency that need reliable buses the most and yet do not live on a route at all, such as those in the Norton East area of Norton Canes, Slitting Mill and Etchinghill in Rugeley to name a few, action is urgently needed.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Agricultural Sector: Import Standards · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend, but I also point out that there will inevitably be some producers who want to produce to higher standards than the minimum, particularly in this country. They should be fairly recognised and rewarded for that, so there will always be the need for a clear and transparent labelling system. Getting that right will be tricky, but it is important that farmers who are producing to higher standards get fair recompense for that. I hope the Minister can update the House on where work on labelling has got to, so that consumers can make informed choices for themselves and their families. Ultimately, this issue is about more than import and export figures on a screen; it is about fairness for our farmers, transparency for consumers, and the sustainability of our whole food system. As this House debates the impact of import standards, I urge the Government to continue their firm commitment to core standards and to ensure that free trade agreements work for farmers, for consumers and for British values alike.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Agricultural Sector: Import Standards · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) for securing this vital debate and for his thoughtful speech, and I extend that to other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, too. It is an important opportunity for us to consider an issue that sits at the intersection of the food we eat, trade, animal welfare and the sustainability of our rural economy. The UK’s post-Brexit free trade agreements have rightly opened up new opportunities for British exporters, but they have also raised concerns about how imports are produced, particularly as we look to increase our welfare ambitions. By cutting tariffs on agricultural products from partner countries, those deals can unintentionally allow products to enter the UK that are produced to far lower animal welfare or environmental standards than those expected of our farmers. These are not minor issues; they go to the heart of how we support our brilliant domestic producers and how we maintain public confidence in the food we eat. Practices that are banned or tightly regulated in the UK—conventional battery cages for hens, sow stalls, tail docking of pigs, and certain pesticides—remain permitted elsewhere, and those products inevitably end up on our supermarket shelves. Without clear protections, imports produced in that way risk undercutting our farmers, and they undermine the principle that high welfare production should be the norm, not just for British producers. The Trade and Agriculture Commission, which advises the Government on trade deals, has highlighted those differences and warned that they have both ethical and economic consequences. British farmers investing in high-welfare sustainable production should not be left competing on an uneven playing field against imports produced more cheaply by cutting corners. That applies to raw materials as well as finished products. On Tuesday, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that I sit on heard from the formidable Baroness Batters about her profitability review. She mentioned a comment made by Sir Liam Fox, who, as Trade Secretary, argued that the UK should shift post Brexit to importing cheaply produced raw materials and then add value to them under the Union flag. I agree with Baroness Batters that we should reject that reductive view of the value of the excellent raw materials that our British farmers produce. We should be proud of and protect them. Many organisations, including the National Farmers Union and the National Pig Association, have called for core standards for imported agrifood products. These standards would ensure that all food sold in the UK, whether domestic or imported, meets the welfare, environmental and production standards expected by the British public. It is entirely reasonable for consumers to expect that pork, beef, eggs or poultry produced abroad meet very similar, or the same, requirements as those produced here. Two other realities that we have to confront in this debate and which the all-party parliamentary group on UK food security, which I chair, has discussed at length are the cost of food and keeping our shelves stocked. As someone who represents a constituency with pockets of deep deprivation, including neighbourhoods that are among the 5% most deprived in the country, I am concerned that a rapid move to equalise all import standards could have a knock-on effect on food prices, which, as I am sure hon. Members right across the House will be aware, have been very high, particularly over the last five years. Equally, we do not want to see a repeat of the empty shelves that we all remember from the pandemic, which brought home the fragility of just-in-time food supply chains when unexpected disruption hits. As my hon. Friend said, these issues are interlinked, and the more we undermine our domestic supply, the more prices will go up and the more reliant we will become on overseas imports. The Government have recognised these varied concerns. In the trade strategy published last June, it was clear that the Government will uphold high animal welfare standards and will not lower food standards to accommodate imports. It explicitly acknowledged practices that are not allowed domestically, such as sow stalls and battery cages, and committed to assessing whether those imports have an unfair advantage. I hope it will find that they do. Where necessary, powers such as quotas, exclusions and safeguards will be used to protect domestic sectors that are most at risk. That approach is welcome. It strikes a balance between maintaining the benefits of free trade and ensuring that British farmers are not undermined. But as we have seen in previous trade deals, including in discussions with the United States, it is vital that those protections are clear, enforceable and applied consistently. Without them, we risk creating a market where the lowest welfare products set the price and not the highest standards. Equally important is transparency for consumers. Recent polling by Opinium for Humane World for Animals shows that the British public often misunderstand what products labelled as, for example, “welfare assured” or that carry the Red Tractor logo actually guarantee. For example, 65% of people incorrectly believe that “welfare assured” prohibits keeping pigs and chickens in cages and 67% believe it prohibits the use of CO 2 for slaughter. If consumers discovered that labelling does not match the reality they think it does, nearly half would feel misled, angry or disappointed. Mandatory labelling is vital. It will protect consumers, support domestic producers and ensure that imported products adhere to the same high standards—or at least that we can see if they do not. Public support for stronger labelling measures is overwhelming, with 77% backing a new animal welfare labelling law and three quarters supporting stricter enforcement by trading standards and the Advertising Standards Authority to prevent misleading claims. I acknowledge that getting labelling right will require many tricky balances, and that there is only so much space on a packet. I do not downplay those issues, but by combining robust import standards with transparent labelling, the Government could ensure that trade works for farmers, for animals and for consumers alike, reinforcing confidence in the British food system while maintaining fairness and ethical standards.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Agricultural Sector: Import Standards · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is absolutely right that we need to be careful how labelling will affect imported goods and therefore what the consumer sees in the supermarket. My take is that, if we educate consumers on the labelling for our standards and, if those labels are absent, what the implications might be for imported products, we can better inform them and protect our domestic producers. That will inevitably have to go along- side any improved labelling for our products.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Fishing Industry · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is speaking with real expertise and personal experience. As the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee mentioned, we had the chance to visit Brixham, where we heard at first hand that Government funding for fleets has often been focused on keeping old vessels in service, some of which are 60 years old. They may have upgraded equipment that can boost catch values, but then the crew are stuck with outdated and substandard living quarters. Those we met are calling for the growth fund to pay towards new vessels that could massively improve both profitability and quality of life for crews. Cannock Chase is about as far from the sea as a constituency can be, but even I can see the logic of that. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be far more efficient and impactful for us to use the funding in that way?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Water White Paper · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the White Paper because customers right across the country have been failed by their water company, and all too often, when turning to Ofwat for support and to hold executives to account, they have been met with bureaucracy and a weak response. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the creation of a new combined, powerful water ombudsman, set out in the White Paper, will finally give customers a route to resolve complaints quickly when companies fail to deliver this most basic of public services?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Water (Special Measures) Act 2025: Enforcement · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech on behalf of his constituents. Last year, it emerged that Thames Water was planning an enormous additional compensation package under the guise of a management retention plan. After being grilled by those of us on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and an understandable public outcry, it announced that it would no longer go ahead with that. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that any water company setting its moral bar lower than Thames Water should take a long, hard look in the mirror?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Water (Special Measures) Act 2025: Enforcement · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for securing this debate and giving those in positions of power in our water industry a chance to hear hard truths and take accountability. Although the state of the industry and the morally questionable behaviour of many companies is a talking point for some, I know that he has been a dogged campaigner on this for many years. In fact, I am sure I saw a photo somewhere of him wading in the River Nidd, such is his commitment to getting up close and personal with the issues. Speaking of getting up close and personal, those of us who are members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have had—I hesitate to say the pleasure—the task of grilling the bosses of nine water companies as part of our inquiry into reforming the water sector. We have dived into many of the issues that we are hearing about, such as sewage overflows, compliance with environmental laws, support for vulnerable customers, the impact of flooding and outages, and, of course, the atrocious corporate culture and disconnection from the principles of delivering an essential public service that has taken hold in much of the water industry. That work has reinforced for me just how bad things have got, how far public confidence in the water industry has been damaged and how necessary robust reform has become. What I have heard from my constituents is echoed across the country: a sense that accountability is an afterthought, that communities are left to pick up the pieces when things go wrong, and that bosses can get additional compensation regardless of how their company performs. That is precisely why the Water (Special Measures) Act is so important. It rightly strengthens the powers available to regulators and makes it clear that persistent failure—environmental, operational or corporate—must carry real consequences. It reflects a clear Labour principle that essential public services must work in the public interest and not simply for shareholder return. Crucially, the Act marks a decisive shift away from the regulatory complacency of the past. In the year from July 2024, criminal prosecutions of water companies rose by 145%—a clear sign of meaningful progress. However, enforcement needs to be felt not just at operational level, but at the top. It is impossible to justify the need for customers to tolerate sewage in our waterways, botched responses during outages and poor communication, while senior executives still receive substantial payouts with impunity. That disconnect is corrosive. It undermines confidence not only in individual companies, but in the whole system, regulators included. That is why I believe that the true test of the Act and the newly released water White Paper will be whether they drive a genuine shift in the industry—one in which transparency and consumer trust are central to how success is measured. Some companies, as we have heard, have sought to repackage rewards under labels such as “retention payments”. The public do not distinguish between a bonus and a retention payment. They see only failing senior execs continuing to be rewarded. The boss of South East Water is set to receive a £400k bonus just for staying in his job, despite, as we have heard, the company leaving thousands of households in Kent and Sussex without water for days and issuing some of the worst crisis communications I have ever seen. Last month, the BBC picked up on the comment I made on social media that David Hinton should do his job or go. Having heard him in front of the EFRA Committee, I absolutely stand by that. Ofwat is currently responsible for enforcing the Act. Enforcement has often been too slow and remote from customers’ lives, and that cannot be separated from how the regulator has operated. The Committee took a long, hard look at Ofwat and found a regulator that was too cosy in dealing with water companies and too bureaucratic in dealing with customers. A regulator that is slow to act, overly procedural and reluctant to challenge company behaviour will never deliver the cultural change that the Government are determined to secure. It is important to recognise that not all regulators have failed. During a recent Committee session with South East Water and the drinking water inspectorate, the response from the DWI was, as the Chair of the Committee has said, incredibly useful. It was clear that it is doing very effective work, despite having fewer than 60 staff. As we move towards a new single regulator, we have to preserve the DWI’s culture, expertise and robustness. I hope that, in responding to the debate, the Minister can set out what the Department will do to make sure that the few examples of where the current regulatory system is working well are preserved rather than thrown out with the bathwater. I welcome the measures set out in the new water White Paper, such as an end to companies marking their own homework. An MOT-style regime for water assets will finally move us from crisis response to prevention. The new water ombudsman, with its legally binding powers, will be customers’ advocate when things go wrong. Our communities want action. They want to know that when rules are broken, consequences will follow. The only way to change behaviour in a broken system is to change the law, and I am confident that we will continue to see tough action from this Government where the last failed so miserably.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. As all hon. Members here will know, throughout October and November our inboxes and DMs fill up with messages from constituents sharing their concerns about fireworks and to what extent they should be controlled, so I welcome the chance to discuss that today. I thank the hundreds of my Cannock Chase constituents and the thousands of people across the country who lit the fuse on the two petitions. They include pet owners, parents, farmers, veterans and people with disabilities. They all ask a very simple question: why, when the harms caused by fireworks are so well evidenced, do we continue to allow their widespread sale with few meaningful restrictions? My experience of the issue is perhaps different from that of many people who would pose that question; growing up, I enjoyed many professional displays at council-run bonfire nights, and I married into a family that considers a small fireworks display in the back garden to be a closely guarded new year’s eve tradition. I do not have any pets, and my two children are about as heavy sleepers as it is possible to be. But I am also an animal welfare advocate, so I very much understand the concerns. The Kennel Club has reported an 81% increase in dogs going missing during periods when fireworks are used. Animal rescue centres continue to document animals fleeing in panic, and farmers talk of miscarriages and even deaths among livestock. And we know that wildlife disruption is very significant. We also have to acknowledge the impact on people. Parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities have told me how distressing it can be when fireworks are set off late at night, especially without warning; how difficult it can be to calm a child in sensory overload; and the effects that can be felt for days and days afterwards. For many veterans and survivors of trauma living with PTSD, fireworks season means the exact opposite of celebration. The organisation Combat Stress has extensive research on how certain bangs, flashes, whistles, smoke and smells can replicate the sights and sounds of warfare. It is telling that polling shows that 74% of veterans support further restrictions on when fireworks can be set off. If we had concrete nationwide statistics on the amount of time and money our police and firefighters spend dealing with accidental and criminal fireworks-related incidents, that would also add strength to the arguments for action on this issue. Most people, it must be said, use fireworks responsibly, and there are restrictions on what they can buy and who can buy. Yet the fact that we hear the same concerns raised consistently year after year tells us that doing nothing is no longer an option. Members of the public can buy fireworks as loud as 120 dB, roughly the equivalent to a jet engine taking off. As anyone who has been a councillor will know, noise limits are difficult to enforce unless the disruption is repeated, and with sales increasingly happening online information and advice is more and more difficult to give. Having once been confined to a few days of the year, many of my constituents have noted, the fireworks season is getting longer and longer every year, so I agree with calls to limit firework sales and use to specific periods of the year. I also wholeheartedly support the e-petition that calls for a 90 dB limit on fireworks. The petitions we are debating reflect a shift in public opinion. People are not calling for the end of celebration, but a more balanced approach. Before I conclude, I acknowledge the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who, as we have heard, has introduced a Fireworks Bill that I think makes sensible, proportionate proposals. I welcome the fact that Ministers are listening and reviewing the evidence from animal welfare organisations, veterans’ charities, parents, local authorities and the public, which I believe is clear. My ask of the Government is this: commit to meaningful reform. We should reduce permitted noise levels, tackle the ballooning length of fireworks season and tighten controls on sales. Our understanding of animal welfare has evolved. Our awareness of trauma and neurodiversity has grown. Technology has moved on and public expectations have changed. It is entirely reasonable and in fact necessary for the law to evolve, too.

• 15 Jan 2026 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents are sick to the back teeth of people getting away with working illegally while they play by the rules. The previous Government, despite the incredible hindsight the Conservatives now seem to have about their time in office, utterly failed to put in place a robust system of right-to-work checks, which was a gift to rogue employers and criminal gangs. Does the Minister agree that it is high time we brought in digital right-to-work checks to crack down on the scourge of illegal working that the Conservative party left to fester?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Call for General Election · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady rightly refers to the steaming piles of rubbish that this Government were left, but many of us believe that the rot really set in in 2010, when the austerity programme was initiated with her party’s involvement. How many of those steaming piles of rubbish does she lay at her own party’s door?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Call for General Election · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. I could not agree more. Knocking on doors during the general election campaign I was struck by my constituents who, contrary to what we might think when we see opinion polls that, particularly these days, waver quite dramatically, really wanted us to knuckle down and focus on tackling in a four or five-year term the long-term issues that we know are there in our country and need to be tackled. When I was preparing for this debate I wondered where Prime Ministers of yesteryear were after 18 months into their tenure, so I had a look. Margaret Thatcher, who I will never praise but who it is fair to say did make decisions with a belief in doing the right thing rather than the popular thing, was 13% behind in the polls in December 1980. John Major was 22% behind. Tony Blair was 28% ahead, happily undermining my point, but Gordon Brown was 7% behind and David Cameron a few per cent behind. The right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) was 23% behind, and just a month later decided to call a general election. Few Governments enjoy widespread support 18 months into their time in office, but few have addressed as rapidly an inheritance like the one this Government were left just 18 months ago. I do not know about other hon. Members, but I quite enjoy a bit of positivity. Blue Monday is just around the corner, but anyone listening to some of the contributions in this debate might be mistaken in thinking that it is today. The reality is that after a year of Labour, our NHS has received a £29 billion boost in funding. That translated into more than 5 million additional appointments, which, contrary to the talk of broken promises, was more than double what we promised in our manifesto. We secured a £400 million investment to boost clinical trials, improving NHS services and driving growth, and we brought 1,000 GPs into the workforce. I worked in a supporting role in general practice before I came into this place, and I know the difference that that investment is already making. One thousand practices are being modernised, including Chadsmoor medical practice, Rawnsley surgery and Red Lion surgery in my constituency. In the Budget, the Chancellor also froze prescription charges, and we are opening 250 new neighbourhood health centres so that our constituents can get treated closer to home. Perhaps more than anything else, the NHS is a prime example of the cost of short termism and the lack of investment in our public services that we saw under the previous Government, and the progress that this Government are making in short order. NHS satisfaction figures, much like opinion polls, reflect the fact that we have a long way to go, but we have made rapid progress towards rebuilding. In my part of the world and in many other coalfield communities, our retired mineworkers who powered this country and did one of the most dangerous jobs anyone can do were ignored for 14 years. But within 18 months of this Labour Government, members of both the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme won the pension justice that they had fought so long for. With the transfer of £2.3 billion to members of the BCSSS and £1.5 billion to the MPS, another historic injustice so dismissively overlooked under the previous Government has been righted under this Government. On transport, for the first time since the 1990s we have frozen rail fares, which will help millions of our constituents save money. Last year, the Government confirmed backing for the improved M54-M6 link road, which will directly benefit commuters in Cannock Chase. The Bus Services Act 2025 will give transport authorities the ability to seize the opportunities of franchising and council-owned bus companies. On education, a quarter of children in my constituency are on free school meals—significantly above the national average—so I am proud that we are rolling out free breakfast clubs across the country, making sure children go to school nourished and ready to learn. The Government also announced funding for 300 new nurseries, including Heath Hayes primary academy in my constituency, which opened the doors of its new nursery back in September. Recently, we scrapped the two-child benefit cap. Although Opposition Members might disagree with lifting thousands of children in my towns and villages, and 550,000 children across the country, out of poverty, I think it solves another stain on our country and is an investment in the future long-term success of our country. We have announced homes for heroes, which will ensure that our veterans, as well as domestic abuse survivors and care leavers, get a roof over their heads—something that we have acted quickly on when nothing of the sort was done under the previous Government in 14 years, let alone 18 months. Hon. Members will be pleased to learn that I do not plan to list all of this Government’s achievements—time is far too short for that—but I am sure many of my colleagues will be able to expand. Looking into this year, by March we will have more police on our streets, and by April more health hubs and an average of £150 off energy bills, with much more to come. Positive change takes time. We know that from many decades of history in this House and in town halls up and down this country. Labour was elected with a resounding victory, a large majority and a mandate to make decisions that turn this country around. Anybody looking at our manifesto can see a vision of what Britain will look like by the time we get to the next general election. That is how our political system works. That is how British Governments have always been judged; they get four or five years and then the public have their say. That is true of our activities as individual MPs—the only people who can speak up for the communities that we represent in this place. In my first 18 months, I am proud to have spoken more than 110 times on a huge range of topics. That is more than seven times what my predecessor managed in her final 18 months representing the people of Cannock Chase. I have held surgeries in villages that have never had an MP offer face-to-face appointments, and I hope to be able to continue that for many years to come.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Call for General Election · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I am very much an advocate of these e-petition debates, because they enable our constituents to set the agenda here in Westminster Hall. I thank the Petitions Committee for its hard work, as always. E-petition debates are an excellent example of our democracy in action, and their importance should never be underestimated. Wherever possible, I have taken the chance to speak in each petition debate where Cannock Chase has been a top signatory, to make sure that I am present in discussions that my constituents so clearly want me to be a part of. That has included debates on animal slaughter, immigration and paternity pay—all topics more than deserving of time in this House. However, the reality of what we are here to debate this afternoon is that calling for a general election in this way is simply not how our democracy works. The people who signed this petition who feel that they are unhappy with the Government, or feel that things have not changed in the way they hoped—or perhaps as quickly as they expected—have every right to voice those frustrations. As an MP who lives in their constituency, who holds weekly surgeries and who goes out knocking on doors, I am not naive about the reasons why this petition has gathered more than a million signatures. I hear week in, week out about the difficulties and challenges that my constituents face. One of the criticisms that is levelled at politicians is that we are incapable of thinking in the long term, that we are bound by four or five-year terms—perhaps even less if this petition got its way—and that there is therefore not enough time to focus on tackling the systemic issues that lead to the things that many of our constituents want us to address. We only need to look across the Atlantic to see what having elections every two years does to political culture and the ability of leaders to get things done. So many Government Members talk about the last 14 years, not only because of the decline that we and a great majority of the public feel that Britain suffered during that time, but because of the short-term thinking during those four terms, which led to mammoth challenges such as a crisis in the public finances, crumbling infrastructure, prisons at bursting point, the NHS on its knees, net immigration of more than 1 million a year, small boats crossing the channel, asylum hotels—the list goes on. This Government are doing the unusual thing of rejecting the sticking-plaster politics of the short-term sugar rush, and instead going about the difficult job of fixing the big issues that Britain faces, some of which have been decades in the making.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Road Safety Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I very much welcome this strategy, and the Minister’s commitment to making the changes necessary to bring down the tragic and avoidable loss of life on our roads. I have launched a survey for Road Safety Week, and I have already heard from many constituents across Cannock Chase who do not feel safe on our roads, with speeding and dangerous junctions causing particular concern. Will the Minister join me in encouraging people in my towns and villages to fill out my survey so that I can take up their specific concerns, and does she agree that the knowledge of local people will be vital to achieving the Government’s mission of sharply reducing deaths on our roads?

• 8 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  After the chaos of their former leader being exposed as a fan of white supremacy, and with DOGE still nowhere in sight, Reform UK on Staffordshire county council are so desperate for savings that they are cutting £1 million from concessionary travel in their first budget. Does the Leader of the House agree that concessions can be a lifeline for vulnerable people who do not drive, and the fact that Reform looked there to make their cuts says a lot about their values? Can we have a debate on the importance of concessionary travel?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more with my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour. I would add that Rugeley Trent Valley also does not have disabled access, which is a big issue. The two of us are campaigning hard on that, and I hope to see some progress on it this year. Following the shameful revelation that Reform chose a supporter of white supremacy to lead our county council and the fact that the DOGE unit has yet to visit, Reform has just announced a cut of £1 million to concessionary fares in the coming financial year. Transparency clearly is not in its vocabulary, because Reform refuses to say who will be affected by these cuts. We cannot slash £1 million from the concessions relied on by thousands of residents without having an adverse effect on them, particularly in rural communities. While this Government are giving councils more money for road repairs and public transport, Reform-led Staffordshire county council is filling even fewer potholes than the Conservatives did, and bus services are not improving as they should. The rural communities that were let down by the old Conservative party are now being let down by the new turquoise conservative party. I would love to have said much more, including on mobile phone coverage and healthcare, but I will finish by saying that the clearest way to support our rural communities is by standing with the farmers who put food on our tables, and by ensuring that our constituents can get around on reliable buses and can access healthcare that is just as good as that enjoyed by people in big cities, because rural Britain is and will always be a vital part of our nation.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  We have had a bitterly cold start to 2026, but as always, farmers up and down the country have been out in all weathers, and at all hours, to help their neighbours and clear vital routes. I am delighted that just a fortnight ago we had the news that the threshold for agricultural property relief and business property relief, which is due to come into force in April, has been raised considerably to a total of £5 million for a couple, even if one of them has already passed away. I very much welcome the fact that this Labour Government have listened to the farming community. I pay tribute to my fellow Back-Bench Labour MPs who raised this issue privately and constructively for many months before feeling that they had to voice their concerns publicly, as well as to farmers’ unions in all four nations and many others for their steadfast and constructive campaigning. Above all, I thank the farmers in my constituency, who sat down with me and opened up about their very private family matters, as well as their businesses—two things that are uniquely intertwined in farming. I know the changes are a huge relief to them. One issue on our roads that farmers cannot solve is a lack of bus services. The fact that the services on which people rely are further away is often part of rural life, but when public transport is non-existent or inadequate, that physical distance becomes deprivation. Most of our villages in Cannock Chase have just an hourly service and, as I have mentioned many times in the House, Slitting Mill has none at all. I am very proud that the Bus Services Act 2025—I served on the Bill Committee—allows local transport authorities to seize the opportunities of franchising and of publicly owned bus companies.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I must confess that I am a little envious of her, because she has the Mayor of West Yorkshire backing up the Labour Government and using that investment wisely—and, I hope, making use of the powers introduced by that Act—whereas the Conservatives on Staffordshire county council took absolutely no interest in doing so during their time in power. The recent news of Reform UK’s cost-cutting review suggests that our bus services will continue to be neglected.

• 18 Dec 2025 · Animal Welfare Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  All I want for Christmas is a generational boost to animal welfare. That does not have the same ring to it as what the queen of Christmas sang, but given the widespread public support for animal welfare, maybe we could give her a run for her money with that one. Our British farmers lead the way globally on high standards of farmed animal welfare, and they deserve great credit for that. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the animal welfare strategy will continue that trend, and will work with farmers and their representatives, so that they can reap the rewards, and so that domestic production is safeguarded as we move towards higher standards?

• 18 Dec 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The excitement in the run-up to Christmas has been tempered this year by a particularly nasty outbreak of flu and respiratory syncytial virus. My one-year-old was very ill with RSV in recent weeks, and my husband and I had a real scare when our GP told us that he needed to be taken into hospital. After brilliant care in paediatric A&E, I am delighted to say that he is back to babbling at us and pushing everything with wheels around the house. It was another powerful reminder of the incredible care that our NHS staff give every single day of the year. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the dedicated staff at West Midlands ambulance service and Walsall Manor hospital, and join me in wishing all our NHS staff a very merry Christmas?