Josh Newbury MP: speeches

Speeches

• 18 Jun 2025 · Future of the Gas Grid · Hansard source

  More

  It is genuinely a pleasure to lead this debate on my birthday. Some people might sooner spend their birthday at Alton Towers or on the sofa, but an energy wonk like me would rather be here, among such knowledgeable and passionate Members, to discuss an issue of such significance to our nation’s future. I thank hon. Members for their thoughtful and well-informed contributions. I am pleased to see the amount of consensus, which is a rare thing or even a dirty word in the current political climate. Many of our constituents believe we spend our weeks shouting at each other, but this debate has been a prime example of the reasoned and respectful engagement that I think defines Parliament. We have heard from three of our four nations and covered a huge range of angles, from affordability, jobs and industry through to resilience, flexibility and, most importantly, communities and people. I welcome the Minister’s statement of confidence in the gas grid of today and tomorrow. He is right to say that we need to be pragmatic, and I welcome the clarity he has given us today. I worked in the industry for many years, so I know that is something we have not always had from previous Energy Ministers. I look forward to continuing this debate in the months and years to come. As the Minister said, tackling the hard stuff is what we do in this place. I look forward to a bright future for our gas grid and, therefore, our whole unique energy system. Once again, I thank you, Dame Siobhain, for ably chairing the debate and hon. Members for making it such a rich discussion. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the future of the gas grid.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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 · 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.

• 7 Apr 2025 · Road Maintenance · Hansard source

  More

  Staffordshire has the worst roads in the country. I do not have definitive proof of that, but it is something that my constituents in Cannock Chase tell me every time I am out knocking on doors—and I agree with them. As we have heard many times already this evening, the British people are sick and tired of broken roads, which are costing them thousands of pounds when they hit potholes and making their everyday journeys far more dangerous. Fixing the basic infrastructure on which this country relies is central to national renewal and to improving living standards. I commend the Government for their work to ensure that 14 years of pothole-covered roads are coming to an end. The local authority is set to share in the Government’s record £1.6 billion of highway maintenance funding, which is enough to fill 7 million potholes a year. However, my constituents continue to share their concerns with me about dozens and dozens of cratered roads, such as Betty’s Lane and Red Lion Lane in my home village of Norton Canes. Here, short-term fix after short-term fix rapidly fails, meaning that residents have to continue waiting for lasting solutions, ultimately leading to higher costs and greater disruption in the long run. I was a district councillor in my constituency for six years, and although highways were not part of my remit, I spent a huge chunk of my time on the issue, especially as successive Conservative county councillors were all too often missing in action when it came to my community. In addition to potholes, blocked drains have been a recurring problem, causing localised flooding and subsequently further damage to the roads and—you guessed it—more potholes. Staffordshire county council, which has been Conservative run for the last 16 years, has cut back its highways budget drastically, except of course in one year in the run-up to an election, and for most roads, routine drain clearage is done only once every three years. Even completely compacted drains that are not absorbing a single drop of rain are frequently ignored as the outsourced highways contractor, who I will come to in a minute, says that they are not a priority and will be cleared sometime in the next three years. In reality, that short-sighted approach often leads to localised flooding and further deterioration of the roads—again, a complete false economy. A common complaint from my constituents is about the highways contractor, Amey, the epitome of profit-driven, service-limiting outsourcing if ever I saw one. It frequently pitches up having travelled miles from its depot, only to sort out one pothole or drain at a time and leaving others nearby completely ignored, even though addressing multiple issues at once would be far more efficient. I am sure other hon. Members can relate to the frustration that my constituents feel, particularly given that in the face of that dire and costly service, the Conservatives at County Buildings in Stafford have not sought to scrap that contract. Indeed, they have repeatedly rewarded Amey with extensions. Other councils have switched to a more preventive approach and have had success, but in Staffordshire we are still on an endless cycle of patch jobs on those potholes deemed the most dangerous. It is a bit like patching up a leaking pipe while ignoring the rest of the plumbing, and we need a proper fix for the whole system. I commend the Government’s action to ensure that councils are accountable for road maintenance and improvement. I particularly welcome the news that from 30 June this year, councils such as Staffordshire county council will be required to publish detailed reports on how they are spending the £39 million that they are getting from the Government, how many potholes have been filled, and how they are minimising disruption, alongside gathering input on what works and what does not work—something that has not happened in my county for a very long time.

• 7 Apr 2025 · Road Maintenance · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend. I think it is no coincidence that in Staffordshire we went from having no Labour MPs before the election to having nine out of 12, and that so many of us are here today to speak up for our constituents about areas of frustration, and about the failings of our county council and our hope for change in the near future. Roads are critical national infrastructure, and this Government must and will undo the neglected state that the previous Government left them in. I welcome the record funding announced, but I say to my constituents that we must ensure that that record investment has the maximum benefit for our towns and villages. On 1 May we will go to the polls with a clear choice: carry on with a cosy relationship between the county council and an incompetent highways contractor with the Conservatives; deep cuts to budgets through an Elon Musk-style “efficiency” drive with Reform; or common-sense, good value highways services with Labour. I know the choice I will be making, and I hope my constituents will join me in electing dedicated Labour county councillors who will work with this Labour Government to get the potholes fixed.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. My constituent Paul Dadge was iconically photographed rescuing a badly burned survivor of the 7/7 bombings. What thanks did Paul get? His phone was hacked by a newspaper looking for stories. Twelve years on from the Leveson inquiry, most national papers are still in the Independent Press Standards Organisation, a complaints handler that they control and that has never investigated or fined a single newspaper in its history. Will the Secretary of State consult on introducing a truly independent press regulator for all national papers, so that we can make sure there are no more victims of phone hacking and press intrusion?

• 10 Mar 2025 · Legal and Illegal Migration: Suspension · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dr Huq, especially given that this is my first speech in Westminster Hall. I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), for introducing this debate so thoughtfully and in such a balanced way, as several hon. Members have said. It has not gone unnoticed that my constituency has among the highest numbers of signatures on the e-petition. As has been rightly pointed out, the petition is a signal to the House of how people feel about immigration and the real impact on their lives. It is our responsibility as Members of this House to acknowledge that. It is also our responsibility to be clear that discussing immigration and the strains that it leads to is not racist or intolerant, but a legitimate part of our democracy in the same way as public debate over any other issue. It is important for us to discuss the impacts of high levels of immigration, particularly where they are seen over a short period and where that immigration is concentrated in certain cities, towns or villages. The impact of that rapid rise in population in that context is not dissimilar to large new housing estates being built over a few years—except that, with house building, we can to some extent put in place mitigation through the planning system and allow for a direct transfer of cash from developers to infrastructure. We can—and, I am sure, will—debate whether the planning system delivers infrastructure quickly enough, but the bottom line is that rapid immigration to particular areas is far harder to plan for and therefore to address. Over the past two decades or so, several pots of Government funding have attempted to address that point, such as the migration impact fund, introduced under the last Labour Government, and latterly the controlling migration fund under the coalition and Conservative Governments. However, those pots often fund efforts such as encouraging GP registration among new migrants to reduce the use of urgent and emergency care. Although that is positive for demand on services and, certainly, the public purse, it often does not address the core issues with the lack of infrastructure, such as the number of places at local GP surgeries or schools. I believe we need to revisit the question of how we make up for the impact of immigration at a very local level, where people are feeling the effects most. Ultimately, we are here to discuss why hundreds of thousands of people have chosen to sign this petition. For some, it might be a worry about the pressure on housing, schools and healthcare, or an acknowledgment of the simple fact that net migration has been left to soar for far too long. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield mentioned, net migration reached staggering levels in recent years, and it has never reduced to the level that the previous Government aimed for.