Josh Newbury MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Jun 2025 · Farmed Animals: Cages and Crates · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree and am always happy to take interventions from hon. Members with greater expertise than mine. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to bear that in mind. We also need to appreciate that it will probably be more difficult to verify the standards of imported products; it is much simpler for people to get around any system that we put in place. We must bear that in mind so that—to go back to the point about welfare washing— consumers do not end up buying products that appear to be of a higher welfare standard, but are not. Animal welfare need not come at the cost of British farming. With the right transitional support, we can lift the whole sector. It is important that we spell out how that transitional support would work and how quickly it could come about. On farrowing crates, according to the National Pig Association, it could cost around £4,000 per sow to convert an existing building and up to £8,000 per sow to build a new structure. Those figures do not include planning permission, which, as we know, does not come free. We also need to acknowledge that higher welfare animal products carry additional costs for farmers, which have to be passed on to consumers. That is not a reason not to raise standards, because the desire to do so is not limited to higher socioeconomic groups. A separate issue is the time that such conversions would take. Given the complex planning and permitting requirements, and constraints in the supply chain, it is estimated that it could take at least 15 years to transition all farrowing systems to higher welfare alternatives. The Government are reforming the planning sector to speed that up, but we still need to acknowledge those barriers and work with farmers. We can reward good practice, reduce suffering and ensure that our farms are known not just for productivity, but for principled production. If the science is clear, the public are supportive and the market is adapting and willing to go further if supported, what are we waiting for? I thank the petitioners. This is our chance to end the cage age, to deliver real transparency and to reward those farmers who are already doing the right thing. By giving consumers the tools to make informed ethical choices, we can build a food system that reflects the compassion of the British public and upholds the standards that we all believe in.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Farmed Animals: Cages and Crates · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading the debate; I heard her speak at the Humane World for Animals event, so I know her passion for the subject. The petitions that we debate in this place always draw a great deal of attention, but there cannot be many that have the same level of awareness and passionate support as this one. Consistent polling shows that three quarters of the British public oppose the use of cages for hens, and two thirds oppose the use of farrowing crates. The petition is therefore clearly in the mainstream of public opinion. However, the reality is that consumers all too often cannot act on their values without the tools to do so, which is why labelling is so valuable to give consumers a choice. I imagine that hon. Members may be growing used to seeing me in Westminster Hall debates on topics like this. This is the third debate on animal welfare that I and many other Members have attended in the last fortnight, so to curb the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will try my best not to retread old ground. I will speak to the prolonged suffering that cage and crate systems cause, preventing animals from carrying out basic natural behaviours such as dust bathing, rooting, grooming and even turning around. The result is stress, frustration and sometimes injury for the animals. The animal health and welfare pathway acknowledged those challenges, identifying the need to transition away from so-called enriched cages. Labelling is a crucial method of doing so by ensuring that farmers invest in higher welfare and the changes are visible and rewarded, so we can show the public that we are in line with their values. If we are serious about welfare washing—outsourcing cruelty to other countries—we must empower consumers to choose products that meaningfully reflect their values. Presently, farmers who move to higher welfare, cage-free systems receive little recognition at the point of sale. Labels such as “free range” vary significantly in their meaning, and in some cases are misleading for consumers. A robust method of production labelling would inform consumers clearly about how an animal was reared—battery cage, enriched cage, free range or organic. It would allow consumers to choose to support farmers who are rearing to higher welfare standards. It would reward farmers who are making costly transitions to higher welfare systems, helping to sustain rural livelihoods while staying competitive. Every supermarket shelf should carry clear, visible information. Where did that bacon come from? Was that sow crate-free? Did that chicken live in a cage? Right now, consumers might be paying more under the assumption that they are supporting higher British welfare standards, but they cannot see whether those standards involve cages. Transparency is the friend of both the farmer and the shopper, and labelling is the bridge to achieving that. To be clear, this is not about shaming farmers. Quite the opposite: it is about empowering them. The transition to cage-free systems has been supported by this Government, via grants for laying hen and pullet farmers, and by the major supermarkets that have promised to selling shell eggs from caged hens by the end of this year. Some are going further and are ending the use of processed eggs, too. Free-range eggs now account for 69% of the total egg throughput in the UK which shows, as the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) rightly said, that we are very far ahead of many other nations on high-welfare farming. Sadly, however, those measures alone will not shift the dial quickly enough, particularly on meat products, as without a comprehensive labelling system, consumers cannot identify and choose higher welfare products. Without their demand, and the necessary investment from retailers, farmers lack the ability to transition in a way that ensures that their businesses are not damaged by the process.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Adoption: Children in Foster Care · Hansard source

  More

  13. What steps she is taking to reduce the time taken for the adoption of children in foster care.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Adoption: Children in Foster Care · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for that response. As an adoptive parent and a foster carer, I know the transformative effect that early permanence can have on the lives of children in care. It is not right for every child or for every parent, but adoption agencies could make much wider use of it. Would the Minister be willing to meet me and adoption charities to discuss how we can maximise the benefits of early permanence?

• 12 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The minor injuries unit at Cannock Chase hospital temporarily closed more than five years ago. In August, the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent integrated care board announced proposals to permanently close our MIU, but it has been radio silence since October. My constituents are having to use unreliable bus services to travel elsewhere, or call an ambulance, which is the opposite of what the ICB wants to achieve. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on the importance of urgent care, particularly in more deprived communities, like Cannock Chase?

• 12 Jun 2025 · Spending Review: Health and Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  This investment is so welcome, because my constituents in Cannock Chase have been struggling to access urgent care between their GP and accident and emergency since our hospital’s minor injuries unit was temporarily closed in March 2020. Despite the welcome investment in Rawnsley surgery, Chadsmoor medical practice and Red Lion surgery in my constituency, our ICB plans to kibosh any hope of our MIU reopening. Does the Minister agree that this Government’s huge investment in our NHS needs to be felt in the parts of the country, such as my towns and villages, that were so badly let down by the Conservatives? Will she meet me to discuss the worrying urgent care reform proposals for Staffordshire?

• 12 Jun 2025 · SEND Funding · Hansard source

  More

  For far too long, families across my county of Staffordshire, and indeed across the country, have been failed by the very system that was meant to support them. The breadth and depth of the crisis in SEND provision is such that this has to be one of the most, if not the most, frequently debated topics since the general election. Since becoming an MP, I have spoken with dozens of parents who are forced to travel long distances, often across county borders, just to get their child the support to which they are legally entitled. Recently, my team helped a family who had been waiting nine months to get into the school of their choice; others have been waiting for years. I have heard stories of poor communication, of documents being illegible to parents, who feel like outsiders navigating a system designed to exclude them, and of families having to repeat their stories multiple times due to layers and layers of decision making.

• 12 Jun 2025 · SEND Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry to hear about Monty’s story and I fear that we will hear stories like his from Members across the House in this debate. It is a perfect, but shocking, example of how the system is so broken that we are wasting huge amounts of resources. Money is leaking out of a system that is already inadequately funded. My hon. Friend is right to highlight that. It is awful that we are in such a situation. Children, particularly those with high needs, are having to wake up before dawn and travel for over an hour, finding themselves exhausted when they reach school. That is not choice; that is a scandal. It is not just the children with the most acute needs who are suffering; many children and young people could thrive with targeted, mid-level support if only it were available. The number of children with education, health and care plans has exploded since 2015, in reflection of a genuine increase in need and greater recognition of mental health issues and neurodivergence. Yet funding has not kept pace, resulting in a deficit of around £33 billion in high needs budgets within local authorities. I welcome the Government’s acknowledgment that the current SEND system is not fit for purpose and the recent commitment of £740 million to deliver 10,000 new SEND places, particularly in mainstream schools where specialist units can offer much-needed support closer to home. Following yesterday’s spending review, I look forward to the schools White Paper that will come out in the autumn, with details of the Government’s approach to reforming the SEND system. We must ensure that the money goes where it is truly needed. I share the frustration of the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), as Staffordshire is also chronically disadvantaged by the outdated funding formula, with specialist schools in my constituency receiving £8,000 per pupil less not than Camden but than the national average. A fair, needs-based funding system must reflect the actual costs of specialist provision, not assumptions or averages.

• 12 Jun 2025 · SEND Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing his expertise and long experience to the debate. I am sure that that message has been heard by the Minister on the Front Bench and that she will look into it. We must recognise that every child’s needs are different. Reforms must deliver on three major fronts: early intervention, so children get support before problems escalate and not after they have already struggled for years; inclusive schools, with proper funding for specialist units and trained staff in every community, not just in a lucky few; and fair access to transport, because no child should be denied education due to postcode lotteries or long, exhausting journeys. Before I conclude, I want to take a moment to highlight the number of young people with SEND who go into employment later in life. In Staffordshire, only 2.1% of adults with learning difficulties were in paid employment in 2019-20, compared with an average of 5.4% for all English regions. I am proud to support the Government’s investment for children with additional needs, but families in Cannock Chase now need to see change on the ground: to see parents and children listened to, not dismissed, and to see them respected, not exhausted. We cannot build the fairer, more inclusive country that we all want to see while SEND families are left fighting for support.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Theft of Tools of Trade · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and thank her for her steadfast campaigning. Like many hon. Members, I have had conversations with tradespeople on the doorstep. I have had loads of messages and emails thanking her and supporting her campaign. Rob Waring, who runs Midland Central Heating in Cannock, told me that its vans have been broken into twice. It is now considering not putting its livery on the vans, for fear that they will be targeted again, but even that will not offer much meaningful protection. Does my hon. Friend agree that although we must focus on the real-world effects of tool theft, we should also consider the fact that the fear of tool theft is holding back our sole traders and small businesses?

• 11 Jun 2025 · British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I am proud to have supported the BCSSS campaign since long before I became an MP, and I have continued to support it. I pay tribute to the campaigners in my constituency, including ex-miner Tony Jones, who gave me a badge that I wear with pride. I am grateful to the Minister for her engagement with BCSSS trustees and us as coalfield MPs. However, many of my constituents are often elderly, in poor health and desperate for a resolution. Given that the investment reserve is already held within the scheme and its return would not require any new public spending, will the Minister continue to work hard to ensure that these deferred pensions are rightly returned as quickly as possible to their rightful owners?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Non-stun Slaughter of Animals · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I welcome the opportunity to debate this subject, so I, too, thank the petition author, Mr Osborne, and the signatories for enabling us to do that. I declare that I am personally against non-stun slaughter. I am not religious, and I would never knowingly buy products from animals that had not been stunned before slaughter. Some 301 of my constituents signed this petition to ban the non-stun slaughter of animals. That is the second highest number of signatories from any constituency across the UK, so it is clear that people in Cannock Chase feel very strongly about this topic. I appreciate that many of my constituents will have signed the petition to voice their concerns about animal welfare—a topic that I am always keen to discuss. I hope that across the House, we can balance that valid question with respect for those for whom non-stun slaughter is part of religious observance. I affirm that animal welfare is, and must remain, a core concern in the UK. We are rightly proud of our high standards, and it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that our animals are treated with dignity and suffer as little as possible in life and death. Just last week, I was in this room for a debate on animal welfare in farming, discussing low-welfare farming practices, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), who is no longer in his place. I am glad to be in another debate with the Minister so soon. Although the religious aspect of slaughter methods might make headlines, I have brought my passion for animal welfare to this House long before today, and I will continue to do so long after this debate is over. As representatives of the British people, parliamentarians must recognise that both the Jewish and Muslim faiths have deeply rooted religious practices around slaughter—kosher and halal—which are grounded in principles of respect, discipline and faithfulness to scripture. In preparation for the debate, I spoke at length with a friend of mine who is a practising Muslim. He told me that in the Koran, cruelty towards animals is considered to be a sin. There are also several rules around Islamic slaughter, as other hon. Members have said. Animals must be well treated before being killed and they must not see other animals being killed. The knife must not be sharpened in the animal’s presence, and the blade must be free of blemishes so that it will not tear the wound. The demonstration of life protocol is an industry-led initiative that provides assurance to Muslim communities that stunning is compatible with halal slaughter requirements while protecting the welfare of the animals involved. Because of that, already a significant proportion of halal meat comes from animals that were stunned before slaughter, as has been said. Last year, that was 88% of halal meat. There is widespread agreement in the Muslim community in Britain that stunning is compatible with halal slaughter principles as set out in the Koran. As has been pointed out, stunning is deemed incompatible with Jewish requirements, so exemptions for non-stun slaughter are particularly used for the production of kosher meat. This debate is an opportunity for us to reflect on whether, as raised by the Chair of the Petitions Committee, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), the law should evolve once again. The British Veterinary Association shared a briefing note with Members about changing labelling requirements so that meat from animals that have not been stunned prior to death is clearly labelled, so that consumers can make informed choices. As the Minister knows, I am keenly interested in improving labelling for consumers, particularly welfare labelling, which would give a far broader perspective on welfare than simply “stun” or “non-stun”. I appreciate that we could end up crowding food packets with way too much information, but as part of the Department’s ongoing review of food labelling, I ask the Minister to consider the BVA’s proposals; perhaps he could comment on that. The BVA also shared ideas on introducing a non-stun permit system to ensure that the number of animals slaughtered without prior stunning does not exceed demand. I imagine that others across the House will focus on those suggestions, so in the interests of timekeeping I will not dive any further into them, but I want to place them on the record as I feel that they are important for us to consider. Through the National Farmers Union food and farming fellowship scheme, I recently had the opportunity to visit a beef farm owned by ABP Food Group in my home county of Staffordshire. We met abattoir managers who talked to us about how the industry is continuing to innovate and push for higher welfare standards during slaughter. For example, they are introducing new forms of lighting, which mimic the way that light falls in barns, to ensure that animals are as relaxed as possible. Although there are lingering examples of outdated and bad practices, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) rightly highlighted, I hope that innovations in modern abattoirs will ensure that they are consigned to history. We also discussed non-stun slaughter at Bromstead farm. Contrary to what people might think, there are ways to minimise the suffering of animals being slaughtered without prior stunning. Many of the stunning methods that have been described in this debate are instantaneous, so I do not believe that it is correct to say that they always cause excruciating pain to animals. Scientific evidence continues to develop, and discussions in faith communities about how animal welfare can be improved are growing. Examples of improvements include shortening transport times or increasing transparency in abattoirs. That brings me to the importance of the role of small and local abattoirs. They must be part of this conversation. Small abattoirs offer something that larger industrial systems often cannot: shorter journey times for animals, more human handling and the possibility for community oversight. The long-term plight of abattoirs is not spoken about in this House frequently. In the 1970s, around 2,500 abattoirs were operating in the UK, but today that number has fallen to just 200. That collapse in capacity has left many farmers with no choice but to send their animals long distances for slaughter, which increases the animals’ stress and undermines efforts to maintain short, local supply chains from farm to fork. I know that is a concern for some religious communities. The Food Standards Agency has been consulting on increasing fees and removing a discount scheme on the inspections. Concern has grown in the industry about the future of the current discount, which represents up to 90% of charges for some abattoirs, according to the Association of Independent Meat Suppliers, which states that 45% of small and medium-sized abattoirs could close without this discount. Our commitment to farming and our record £5 billion investment into the agricultural sector needs to support small local abattoirs. They are essential not just for animal welfare but for rural economies, food security and diversity in our food system. If we are serious about welfare and about balancing our values and standards with religious traditions, we should support a system that allows more ethical, more local and more transparent slaughter. That includes investing in small abattoirs, supporting training for specialist staff, and encouraging respectful dialogue between religious and non-religious groups, vets, farmers and regulators. Our task is to hold all those principles together with seriousness and sensitivity.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Free School Meals · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the announcement, which will help more than 4,000 working-class children in my community. The Minister rightly emphasised that the expansion of free school meals is both pro-learning and anti-poverty, and we know that the appalling cost of living crisis, which the previous Government left behind, means that so many children are coming into school hungry and not in the best position to learn. Will he set out what else the Government are doing to tackle the poverty that is holding back so many children?

• 5 Jun 2025 · Police Presence on High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for securing this important debate. I remember campaigning alongside her in her by-election, and this issue being raised by constituents, who, in her, are now fortunate to have such a steadfast advocate. Over the past decade, too many of our town centres and high streets have been gripped by antisocial behaviour, theft and shoplifting. It was often dismissed by the previous Government as merely low-level crime, but there is nothing low-level about the impact these crimes have on the communities left to deal with the consequences, often alone. My constituency of Cannock Chase is home to people who care deeply about their community, but too many of them now tell me they feel unsafe on our high streets. When people no longer feel safe where they live, work or shop, we risk losing more than just footfall: we risk losing our sense of identity altogether. People are not asking for the world; they are asking for the basics: to feel safe walking home, to be secure at work, and to let their children go out with their friends without fear. A recurring issue is shoplifting, especially in Cannock town centre. In the two years prior to the general election, shoplifting rose by more than 60%, leaving retail workers feeling frightened and unprotected. Cannock’s shoplifting rate currently stands at nearly three times the national average. Shopkeepers and store managers have told my team that they feel intimidated when large groups of young people gather and go into shops all at once. Some talked about how helpless they felt in the face of shoplifting, which has got to the point where it is actually endangering the future of their business. The British Retail Consortium’s 2023-24 annual crime survey laid bare the scale of the crisis. Retail workers endured 124 incidents of violence or abuse every single day, yet only 32% of those incidents were reported, and only 10% led to police attendance. That is simply unacceptable. I welcome the measures in the new Crime and Policing Bill, including the long overdue creation of a stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker. I particularly pay tribute to USDAW and the Co-operative party, of which I am a member, for their long years of unwavering campaigning for this vital change to the law. In Hednesford, two young men recently stopped me to raise their concerns about gangs loitering in town centres and parks. They told me how intimidating it felt to walk past all of these groups. Between September 2023 and 2024, there were 587 recorded incidents of antisocial behaviour across my constituency. These are not just statistics—they are the lived experiences of people who have been driven away from our high streets. We will never be able to rebuild our communities when people feel that way. Recognising the scale of the problem, a new public spaces protection order has come into force, and I commend the Government for taking steps through the Crime and Policing Bill, including targeted provisions to restore safety and confidence in our communities. But let me be clear: these are more than just headlines. In February, a group of teenagers were robbed in Cannock town centre. One of them—a 15-year-old boy—had his phone, watch, bank card and coat taken. Three of his friends also had their phones stolen. No young person should have to go through that. Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of welcoming pupils from Kingsmead school into Parliament. They did not just bring enthusiasm—sadly, they also brought concerns. Many of them shared their worries about a rise in phone thefts by people riding e-scooters. This is not unique to Cannock; it is happening in town centres across the country. Elderly residents have told me how frightening it is to be approached by fast-moving, illegally ridden scooters, especially when they cannot move out of the way in time. Crimes like this may seem minor on paper, but their cumulative effect is devastating. They create an atmosphere where people feel unsafe, uncared for and overlooked. Cuts to neighbourhood policing have taken a heavy toll. Trust in the police has plummeted. We hear time and again that when something goes wrong, people feel that nobody will come. I welcome the steps the Government are taking, and I will continue pushing for safer high streets for my constituents, because they have the right to feel secure where they live, work and shop. Our message is clear: we need visible policing and real opportunity for young people, to draw them into jobs, not gangs. This is not just about being tough on crime; it is about being strong on community, on prevention and on justice.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Animal Welfare in Farming · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for enabling us to speak on this important topic. I will start by sharing how valuable it was to spend a day of last week’s recess at Staffordshire’s county show. As always, I came away full of admiration for our farming community. I am a little biased, but Staffordshire is a shining example of some of the best of British farming, and everybody at the show seemed to agree. That is not just in terms of productivity and innovation but in the deep care many of our farmers have for animal welfare. That brings me to the complex and often uncomfortable balance we are trying to strike in this debate between raising animal welfare standards and the environmental, financial and logistical realities of making that happen. When we talk about moving away from practices such as caged systems—a move that, for the record, I absolutely support—we are also talking about the need for more barn space, more land use and more infrastructure, all of which mean higher running costs for farmers and sometimes greater greenhouse gas emissions. To be clear, those are not reasons for rejecting higher animal welfare standards, but they are reasons to approach the issue with farmers in mind. That must be our starting point, because farmers are not charities and, more than ever, they have to look at the bottom line, which all too often is dwindling. Let us be frank: supermarkets will always demand higher welfare, but they are not always willing to pay more for it. That is disingenuous to consumers and squeezes producers even further, pitting welfare against farm viability. An area where we could make a real difference is animal welfare labelling, which is being looked at by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, of which I am a member; I am glad that the Committee’s Chair is present. For the average shopper, labelling is a minefield. Information on nutrition and the country of origin has been simplified in the past decade, but in the animal welfare space we have statutory minimum standards and the “Red Tractor”, “RSPCA Assured”, EU organic and Soil Association organic labels, all representing different standards. Consumers need to understand what labelling means in practical terms and how to interpret it when they shop. That will not be easy, but I believe that is a challenge that we can and should take on. However, in doing so, we must make sure producers have a say, alongside consumers and animal welfare organisations, so that they can realise the benefits of clearer labelling too. The lack of coherent and clear information on welfare on the shelf is a concern for farmers who are producing to higher standards because they do not have a clear way of differentiating their products for consumers. They therefore do not reap the rewards from the quality of their goods that should incentivise higher welfare standards. Research indicates that the current systems of farm assurance, regardless of the label, are not working as best as they could for farmers, consumers and, most importantly, animals.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Animal Welfare in Farming · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I think that that is a perfect example of where stronger, more consistent animal welfare labelling would give consumers that kind of information. In other countries, such as Germany, systems take that into account, and consumers should have access to that information. On farm assurance, for example, the campaign group Animal Rising has uncovered failings in “RSPCA Assured” farms and abattoirs. We also have to ensure that fairness for the farming sector is paramount. I raised that in Select Committee sessions and it has been raised today, but it bears repeating: we cannot ask our farmers to invest in higher standards and then leave them exposed to undercutting by imports. We are all in favour of better welfare. In fact, a 2022 poll revealed that 71% of the British public want the Government to pass more laws to improve animal welfare, but we cannot hold our farmers to a gold standard while turning a blind eye to imports that are produced to far lower standards. Trade deals without adequate safeguards will negatively impact the UK’s animal welfare standards for decades to come, undermining our farmers and the hard-won animal welfare improvements that we need to build on. That risks putting more farmers out of business, jeopardising our food security and offshoring animal cruelty. To put it simply, if it is too cruel to produce here, it should be too cruel to import. If it is not good enough for our farms, it is not good enough for our shelves. Ultimately, we need to get the balance right by supporting our farmers to raise standards, making sure that consumers understand what they are buying and ensuring that the whole system—domestic or international—reflects our values as a nation of animal lovers.

• 22 May 2025 · Independent Sentencing Review · Hansard source

  More

  Is the Lord Chancellor as astounded as I am by the hypocrisy of the Conservatives? They really are the arsonists attacking the firefighters. We are having to clean up their mess, because, in the words of the National Audit Office, this crisis is the result of their failure “to ensure that the number of prison places was aligned with criminal justice” priorities.

• 22 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T6. Cannock Chase is home to many fantastic dance schools such as the Crystal Academy in Hednesford, which has been crowned dance school of the year. Dance can empower people from all backgrounds, but a third of schools are not teaching it, despite its being on the national curriculum. A varied, high-quality sports offer should not be only for a privileged few. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that all schools can inspire their students through dance?

• 22 May 2025 · Grassroots Sports: Cannock Chase · Hansard source

  More

  I very much welcome the Minister’s response. Through the park tennis project, Cannock Chase has benefited from £215,000 of investment from the Government and the LTA Tennis Foundation to revive tennis courts in four of our parks, but the notorious British weather remains a barrier to participation, and many in my towns and villages lack access to covered tennis and padel facilities. With the park tennis project coming to an end, will the Minister consider funding the development of more covered courts to allow my constituents to enjoy tennis, whatever the weather?

• 22 May 2025 · Grassroots Sports: Cannock Chase · Hansard source

  More

  3. What steps her Department is taking to support the provision of grassroots sports facilities in Cannock Chase constituency.

• 20 May 2025 · Adoption and Kinship Placements · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for enabling us to speak on this subject. I declare an interest as an adoptive parent and foster carer. That experience has shown me the transformative effects that adoption can have and the immense challenges faced by many children who are looked after and care experienced. When we talk about Government support, let us be clear that we are talking about lifelines, not luxuries. Around 3,000 children in England are placed in adoptive families every year, and 80% of them will have suffered from abuse, neglect or violence, so it is no wonder that they often need specialist support to help them and their families to heal, and to live with the scars that will never fully fade. I will not speak at length about the adoption and special guardianship support fund, as many hon. Members are raising it in their speeches, but I will say that to limit its reach is to effectively clip the wings of the young people and families it supports, as well as those of the incredibly skilled and compassionate professionals who work with them. I highlight the fact that the Minister is among that group. She draws on a wealth of experience from her career as a social worker, and I know how deeply she cares about adopters and kinship and foster carers. If she faced no financial constraints, I know that the money would be out of the door tomorrow, to support every family to the fullest. Yesterday, I met Adoption UK, which stressed to me not only the importance of the ASGSF but of the need to ensure that all healthcare and education professionals are aware of the impact of early-childhood trauma and care experience, so that affected children and young people can receive targeted support and advocacy services. In advance of an Adjournment debate led last month by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), I spoke to the social worker who supports my husband and I with what we hope will be the adoption of our second child. She had lots of thoughts on the subject, and I would like to mention some that I could not raise in that debate. She highlighted the need for improved holistic support in schools, enabled by integrated working among schools and healthcare professionals such as occupational therapists, so that there is continuity of support; closer working between psychologists and adoption teams, because access to support within teams could reduce the need for families to apply to the ASGSF; and higher levels of short-term funding to allow for weekly therapeutic support, which is currently very difficult to obtain through the ASGSF. Although I do not have enough time to say as much as I would like about kinship care, I will say that too few families receive financial or therapeutic support, but they still face the practical and emotional challenges. The route closest to my heart, which my husband and I took, is fostering to adopt, which gives the benefits of early permanence, but without a cast-iron guarantee that the placement will end in adoption. I hope we will have the opportunity to debate that more in the future. My point is that whatever the route into permanence, children’s needs are no different. What is different is the consistency and quality of the support they receive. When we ask families to step up for vulnerable children—and they do, day in and day out—the least we can do is make sure that we step up for them.

• 19 May 2025 · Gender Self-identification · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Mundell. According to the Rainbow Map, which ranks European countries based on their legal and policy practices for LGBT people, the United Kingdom is now as low down as 22nd. We should bear in mind that just 10 years ago we were at the top of that list, but since then we have slowly but surely made our way down it. Let us be clear: trans people in this country are facing a wave of hostility, misinformation and marginalisation. Regardless of our position on the topic of the petition, that should concern us all. Some organisations have jumped the gun on restricting access to single-sex spaces in advance of the full guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, in the misguided belief that they are following an updated law. I am afraid that the interim guidance, as other Members have said, does nothing to help that situation, and actually exacerbates it. In particular, there is the inexplicable assertion that, in some circumstances, the law also allows trans women not to be permitted to use men’s facilities, and trans men not to be permitted to use women’s facilities. In other words, trans people are excluded from all single-sex spaces. For me, it is the vigilante enforcement of the so-called guidance that is perhaps the most toxic and damaging aspect of all. Toilets are becoming ideological battlegrounds, with the casualties including not just trans people but cisgender women who are not stereotypically female. It is clear that there is no adequate test for determining whether a person should now have access to a single-sex space, except for a DNA test perhaps, which is clearly not going to happen in a toilet, refuge or anywhere like that. Out there, and perhaps in this place too, access is being based on whether a person appears to be a certain gender and whether they adhere to gender norms. I thought that we had left outdated notions of what a women should look and sound like where they belong, in the past, but now they are being dredged back up. Worst of all, that is being done by people who call themselves feminists. The toxicity in this debate is not new; in this House, successive Conservative Governments not only failed to defend the trans community and advance their rights, but actively stoked division and rolled back the clock. Today, although there are calls for wider reforms, including on gender recognition and self-identification, we must also be honest about the political and social climate we are in. These are such important conversations and they require the right timing and sensitivity, not culture wars. Over the last decade, both in the UK and globally, a lot has happened. I worry that we have started to channel wider fears into isolating an already marginalised group who just want to live their lives with the same dignity and respect that so many of us take for granted. A survey from Stonewall in March this year found that 17% of LGBT+ people have experienced physical assault because of their gender or sexual identity, and the number for trans and non-binary people is almost two in five. The Labour party has a proud history of advancing LGBT+ rights, from legislating for a statutory right to NHS fertility treatment for lesbian and bisexual women to leading a United Nations campaign for the decriminalisation of homosexuality and, of course, introducing the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which was a groundbreaking change to the law at the time. However, 21 years on, as the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) so eloquently put it, the Act is in need of reform and modernisation. Today, the Labour party once again has the opportunity to champion dignity and equality for all. Our manifesto commitments include a ban on all forms of conversion practice; improving access to high-quality NHS care, including gender-affirming care; making LGBT+ hate crime an aggravated offence, leading to harsher sentences; and that all-important gender recognition certificate reform. I know the profound impact it has when the law reflects our identity and allows us to live freely as who we are. Labour Governments have always understood that, and we have always known that progress never comes from standing still or failing to show up when the going gets tough. The petition calls for legal recognition based on self-identification, and I completely understand why. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) said, our neighbours in Ireland introduced self-ID without incident or issue way back in 2015. In the words of an Irish lady I spoke to last week, “the sky didn’t fall in and I’m pretty sure it’s still up there.” Meanwhile, trans people here still face long-winded, undignified, medicalised processes just to have their identity legally recognised. The Gender Recognition Act ultimately allows people whose gender identity does not correspond with the sex registered on their birth certificate to obtain recognition and a revised birth certificate. However, as has been said, that process involves two medical certificates, including a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and details of any treatment received. Further, it requires evidence of a person living in their true gender for at least two years and a declaration that they will continue to do so permanently. Clearly, there is much unfinished work ahead on untangling the legal mess that we have been plunged into, restoring dignity for transgender people, modernising the Gender Recognition Act and ensuring that our laws reflect the lives and identities of everybody in Britain. As a cis man, I understand completely that progress must be built on trust, on consensus, which I hope we are able to come to, and on delivering what we have promised. Let us begin by delivering on banning conversion practices in all their vile forms, equalising the punishment of all forms of hate crime, reviewing adult gender identity services and ensuring that all trans people receive appropriate and high-quality care, and, of course, making the Gender Recognition Act fit for the future. I invite the Minister to confirm that the Government are still fully committed to those advancements, as I am. I conclude by reaffirming my allyship for trans people, who now, more than ever, need our respect, acceptance and steadfast support.

• 15 May 2025 · Youth Services · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons), a fellow ageing millennial, for securing this debate. I speak not only as a parent who would love to see well-funded youth services, but as somebody who has witnessed the consequences of short-term thinking when it comes to youth services. In 2014, Conservative-led Staffordshire county council took the callous and short-sighted decision to close our youth service completely. The complete emptiness of the Opposition Benches speaks volumes about whether the Conservatives’ attitude to youth services has improved in the past 11 years. For them, this was a line on a budget sheet, but for communities in my county it was the closure of 38 youth clubs and the loss of 400 jobs. However, the real cost of these decisions lies not in numbers but in the experiences of young people in my constituency. The day-to-day impact of cuts often goes unnoticed, but the long-term impact is impossible to ignore. As an antidote to the gloomy picture that I may have painted, I will mention a couple of the incredible organisations that, despite the closure of our youth service, are doing incredible work. The Staffordshire Council of Voluntary Youth Services, fondly known as SCVYS, offers practical support to charities and local groups and ensures that the voices of children and young people are heard. The VYSIONS youth service was created by children and young people in Brereton and Rugeley and provides a range of programmes and activities, from shooting and fishing to arts and crafts, in some of our most deprived white working-class communities. I welcome the investment announced by the Government but, in closing, I urge the Minister to ensure that that funding is front-loaded in areas, such as Staffordshire, that have no council youth services left whatsoever. I sympathise with colleagues who represent inner-city areas and have seen deep cuts, but I ask them to imagine a world in which their youth service no longer exists at all: that is the world that my constituents have lived in for the past eleven years. All of us here have the highest hopes for our young people, and I am incredibly glad that once again we have a Government that do too.

• 14 May 2025 · Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this debate, and for her frank and wide-ranging speech. I will use my time to highlight the significant and growing concerns within the hospitality sector, particularly in our pubs. The principle behind EPR—ensuring that producers take responsibility for the packaging waste that they create—has my full support. It is absolutely right that we strive to reduce waste, increase recycling, and shift towards a more sustainable circular economy. In delivering these changes, however, we must also ensure that we do not unfairly burden working people or the businesses that serve our communities, especially when many of them are already doing their part. A truly circular economy means designing waste out of our systems and reusing valuable materials like glass. Glass is one of the most recyclable materials that we have, and in the hospitality sector it has been instrumental in supporting closed-loop recycling systems, not just recently but for decades. The Government have highlighted the development of the EPR policy since 2019. I acknowledge the points raised in a written response to me from the Minister, which outlined the extensive consultations undertaken in 2019, 2021, and 2023 on the implementation of the legislation. It is clear that the Government have engaged with stakeholders, including glass manufacturers, to shape the policy and assess business impacts. Despite the consultation, concerns remain, particularly among those at the frontline of hospitality, about the unintended consequences of this otherwise positive step forward. I echo what has been said about the specific challenges those on the frontline face, and ask whether the Minister will consider targeted adjustments that would maintain the integrity of the scheme while ensuring fairness for businesses that are already contributing to recycling efforts. Specifically, the classification of glass packaging used in pubs as household waste, as has been said, is estimated to cost pubs £2,500 a year on top of the other cost increases they face. That is despite them already managing their waste through commercial channels, at a relatively high cost that often rises above inflation. Pubs are assets to communities in Britain. They are not just alcohol vendors, but places for people to hold what might be the only conversation they have that day. They are community centres, workplaces, incubators for the hospitality staff of tomorrow, and linchpins of many village economies. However, the British Beer and Pub Association estimates that the double charging that the EPR could inadvertently bring in could add between 5p and 7p to every bottle of beer sold in the UK. The risk is that the producers of beer will be discouraged from using glass and could gravitate towards alternatives, such as plastic, which although lighter, does not offer the same level of recyclability. There is a level of unfairness in the proposed EPR fees for pubs, which, as other hon. Members have stated, will effectively pay twice for waste collection. The fact that the OBR has defined EPR as a tax but DEFRA deems it a levy, has left pubs uncertain as to whether costs will have to be absorbed by businesses or whether they will be passed on to their customers, something that could depress demand and make it even harder for businesses to plan for the future. We must get the implementation of EPR right, so that we achieve environmental progress without putting an unfair burden on the very people and businesses who keep our communities going. Pubs, brewers, and hospitality businesses are already doing their bit. I hope that the Government will ensure that their policies rightly reflect and reward that effort.

• 12 May 2025 · British Nationals Murdered Abroad: Support for Families · Hansard source

  More

  Some aspects of the cases that the hon. Gentleman is eloquently describing are sadly very similar to those in the case of Rob Spray, from my Cannock Chase constituency, who died suddenly in Bulgaria in 2019. Rob’s case is about to be heard at inquest, so I will not comment on the legal aspects, but I can say that his family were left in the dark by the Bulgarian authorities and, sadly, by the Foreign Office. They had very little guidance, even on how to bring Rob’s body back to the UK, and they had to resort to a translation app to decipher Rob’s autopsy after they were told that they would have to wait six months for an official translation. That all deepened their grief and frustration at the worst possible time. The worst part of all is that Rob’s mom sadly passed away not knowing what happened to her son. I will do everything I can to help Rob’s family get the answers that they have waited so long to get, and I know that the hon. Gentleman will continue to campaign on this. Does he agree that we need to make sure that bereaved families like the Sprays get the full support of the British Government, so that they can get the closure that they need and deserve?