Josh Newbury MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Like the hon. Gentleman, I have previously been a local councillor, so I understand the importance of planning committees and of local democracy around planning decisions, but I find the idea that local councillors will have no ability to have any say or influence over officers’ delegated decisions a bit ludicrous. If a councillor is doing their job properly, they are constantly going to the planning department to speak to officers about various issues that are raised with them. It will be more than possible for councillors to speak to planning officers, knowing that they are to make a decision on something like this, to give them whatever local context they feel they would need to come to an informed decision. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree with that?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Animal Abusers · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison, for what I think is the first time. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for, as always, introducing the debate so thoughtfully as a member of the Petitions Committee. I also thank the 386 animal lovers in my constituency who added their names to the petition. Colleagues may have been hoping to have an animal welfare debate without hearing from me, but I am afraid that today is not that day. The petitions that we debate are not often started by social media influencers, but it is because of the determination of Bea Elton—known to her millions of followers, myself included, as Clean with Bea—that we are able to debate this important issue today. I will forgive hon. Members who have not yet watched Bea’s videos if they are on their phones throughout my speech. Bea offers free home cleaning to people in deep crisis or with severe hoarding tendencies. Sadly, she often comes across animals that have been neglected and have had to live in awful conditions. I am glad that Bea has used her experience and platform to bring the issue to Parliament. I hope that we can focus on the art of the possible, as I know that preventing the needless suffering of animals unites us all, across the political spectrum. Last autumn, I went on a ride-along with Sophie, an RSPCA inspector, to see what a day looked like for her. My constituency is full of pet owners, and who can blame them—why would anyone who lives somewhere as beautiful as Cannock Chase not get a dog as motivation to explore our stunning scenery together? However, I admit that I do not have a pet, not because I do not love animals, but because I could not give one the time and attention that it deserves—I often joke that I have two young kids and that is enough for now. This debate comes down to the fundamental fact that owning a pet is not a right; it is a privilege and a responsibility. The time I spent with Sophie reinforced that. Like many people, I assumed that most of an RSPCA inspector’s work involved rescuing animals from awful situations—and of course, they do that, in tandem with the police—but what surprised me was how much of their time is spent trying to stop animals reaching that point in the first place. Inspectors spend hours following up with owners after advising them that a pet needs veterinary treatment, for example, and they work closely with local vets to check whether animals have actually received the care that they need. Most owners do the right thing, but when somebody repeatedly ignores inspectors’ advice and an animal continues to suffer because treatment has been withheld, concerns rightly begin to escalate. One thing that has stayed with me from that day is that many cases of animal abuse reveal something far deeper. Inspectors told me that they often encounter people whose lives have unravelled. That might be because of relationship breakdown, domestic abuse, as we have heard, physical illness or mental ill health. None of that excuses neglect, but it reminds us that animal welfare is often connected to the wider challenges in somebody’s life. We also know, as we have heard, that the relationship can work the other way. The Ruby’s law campaign highlighted that perpetrators of domestic abuse may threaten or harm family pets as a means of coercion and control, knowing exactly how much fear and distress that causes. Nine in 10 people experiencing domestic abuse in England and Wales reported that animals were also abused by the perpetrators, so protecting animals is not separate from protecting people; sometimes it is part of the very same task. That is why partnership between organisations is so important. The RSPCA, as we know, does not have the power to seize animals, so it relies on the police following its investigations, and inspectors cannot force entry into a property if access is refused. The experience left me with one clear thought: our system does a reasonable job of responding once abuse has happened, but I am not convinced that it does enough to stop the next animal becoming a victim. As hon. Members have highlighted, the Government’s response to the petition states that convictions for animal cruelty are already recorded on the police national computer and that courts have the power to disqualify offenders from keeping animals. That is absolutely true, but rescue centres, breeders and pet shops cannot routinely check those records, so somebody who has already been banned from keeping animals can walk into one of those organisations, appear perfectly respectable and walk out with another pet simply because the people rehoming the animal have no way of checking whether that person has been disqualified. That does not mean the law has comprehensively failed; it means there is a gap in the system. Breaching a disqualification order is an offence, but somebody has to discover that breach first. Given the demands on our police and local authorities, we should not be relying on chance or left hoping that somebody will spot what has happened when another animal is already suffering. Surely it is better to stop the animal being placed there in the first place. I understand the Government’s concerns about privacy when it comes to a public register, but there could be a sensible middle ground, as hon. Members have already outlined. If a register was available to verified rescue organisations, breeders and licensed pet sellers, it would allow them to check whether somebody is currently subject to a disqualification order before an animal is handed over. It would not be to name and shame, or to publish personal information, but to answer one simple question: can this person legally keep and care for an animal?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and Craniocervical Instability · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. He mentioned a key word in this debate—“hope”, which is something that so many people with the conditions do not have at the moment. That is what we absolutely need to give them. I share his hope that there is a way forward, but we need to make sure that this group of patients is included in that. I am told that the rare diseases pathway could be one route forward. I would love to have the chance to explore that further with the Department alongside the people who clearly have an interest in this. The Government have rightly placed health at the centre of their agenda, and through the NHS 10-year plan we have an opportunity to build a system that is more joined up, fairer and more responsive to complex conditions like the ones I have mentioned. But patients like Connor cannot wait for long-term reform. Without action now, many will continue to face avoidable harm, worsening disability and, in some cases, irreversible deterioration. Let this be the Parliament where we turn the tide, recognise the people who are being let down, and act to ensure that no patient is left without a pathway to care simply because their condition does not yet fit the system.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and Craniocervical Instability · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The exhaustion and exasperation that she refers to occurs, as we have heard from other hon. Members, time and time again. I agree that the work being done on rare diseases is incredibly important, and at the end of my speech I will come to how I hope that we can build on that work for people who suffer from these conditions. The impact on Connor’s mental health has been immense. He told me that he feels as though he is “rotting in bed”, watching his condition deteriorate without any clear route to help. He has spoken openly about how low he has felt and the thoughts that he has had because of that, including considering whether he has any options left at all. While all that is happening, his condition continues to worsen. In recent days, he has experienced seizures and episodes affecting his swallowing and breathing. These symptoms are deeply concerning and underline the urgency of his situation. In response to inquiries about what support might be available, I have been told that there is currently no established or commissioned NHS service for investigation, multidisciplinary discussion or surgery for CCI in patients with hypermobile EDS. Connor is seriously unwell and is getting worse, and he knows that there is no clear pathway for him to access the care he needs anywhere in this country. Late last year, Connor and I had the opportunity to meet with the then Minister for Public Health and Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton). We discussed the challenges faced by people living with these complex conditions, including the lack of support in the NHS, the shortage of trained specialists and the fact that there is no way for anybody to get an upright MRI scan in the UK, which is crucial for diagnosing CCI. I was very grateful to my hon. Friend for her time and her compassion, and I would like to take this opportunity to wish her all the best with her treatment. We were joined at that meeting by representatives from the brilliant charity Ehlers-Danlos Support UK, as well as Connor’s advocate, Natasha, all of whom are in the Public Gallery with us today and have worked closely with my team to help us to better understand the link between EDS and CCI and what that means for people with those conditions. I sincerely thank them for that. What I have heard from Natasha, and from people across the UK who have contacted me, is that Connor’s is not an isolated case. I will share a few more experiences with the House to reveal the true scale and seriousness of the issue. I have heard from patients who, in 2017, were assessed for surgery here in the UK as part of a planned programme involving international specialist experience. At that point, there was not only recognition of this condition but a clear intention to treat it in the NHS. Yet those procedures were cancelled shortly before they were due to take place, leaving those people without care and without a pathway forward. What is most concerning is that, in the years since, we have not moved forward; in many ways, we have moved backwards. I have heard from people who were told that their condition was life-threatening, yet were left to face that reality alone, without support and without options. From there, the trajectory becomes all too familiar: people return again and again to NHS services, searching for answers, only to be told that nothing more can be done. I have heard from people who have had to raise extraordinary sums of money in a matter of weeks—while seriously unwell—and from families who have had to leave the UK altogether to access care, only to find themselves stranded overseas as conditions worsen and costs escalate. Even when people do receive treatment—often at enormous cost—they return home to a system that is still unable to support them, with no clear route for aftercare, rehab or specialist oversight. What is striking is not just the severity of these stories but their consistency —different people, in different parts of the country, seeing the same gaps, barriers and outcomes. Natasha has also shared her own experience with me. Like many, she spent years seeking answers within the NHS as her condition deteriorated, only to have her symptoms dismissed. At her most unwell, she lost the ability to stand, walk and even swallow properly. When she was upright, sitting or standing, even briefly, her arms became paralysed, she lost her speech and the ability to swallow, and was also losing her vision. These are absolutely horrific symptoms. Natasha was eventually forced to seek specialist care abroad, having travelled by air ambulance to get there, where she underwent lifesaving surgery at significant personal cost. Since returning to the UK, she has continued to face challenges in accessing the specialist follow-up and rehab that she needs. Despite everything she has been through, Natasha has worked tirelessly to support patients like her and to bring this issue to light. I place on record my thanks to her, not only for sharing her experience but for the work she is doing as an advocate for other people, such as Connor, in the same position. One reason why patients are passed between multiple specialists, and why diagnosis is so challenging, is the lack of access to appropriate diagnostics. Current NHS pathways are designed for CCI caused by trauma, such as road-traffic collisions, but not for EDS. In cases of traumatic instability, the problem is usually visible on standard scans performed lying down, and can be assessed through established neurological pathways—including the very fusion surgery that Connor is seeking. But in EDS, the instability comes from ligament laxity and is often positional, so that when someone is upright, the head is not adequately supported by the neck. That is often not visible when patients are lying flat in a standard MRI scanner, so their scans might appear normal despite ongoing neurological symptoms. One can see how, in cases like that, diagnoses such as Munchausen can come up. That means that many patients find themselves going back and forth within the system, often ending up in A&E with chronic symptoms and then being discharged because clinicians just do not know what to do. Symptoms can overlap with other recognised conditions, resulting in delays due to misdiagnoses and therefore missed opportunities to prevent further deterioration. There are also risks in how patients are managed during the period of instability. If instability is not recognised as a possibility, patients might be directed towards physiotherapy or exercise-based rehab, which, although well intentioned, can in some cases make things worse. At the same time, we know that CCI surgery is already performed in the NHS, yet there is no equivalent for patients with EDS. Imagine someone with a broken arm going to A&E, but being told, “I’m sorry, we only X-ray legs.” They point to their arm, the doctor can see it is broken and they can feel it is broken, but they cannot scan it, so they have to go home—over and over. Even worse, imagine if, instead of being provided with a plaster cast, they were referred to counselling. That might seem far-fetched, but that is what patients with EDS and CCI are facing. In the absence of an NHS route, patients are forced to take matters into their own hands, as I have said. In some cases, they might even require specialist medical transport to get abroad. Devastatingly, some find that their condition is too advanced for them to even make the journey. As I have said, there is then no aftercare, no consistent access to specialist imaging reviews and no co-ordinated rehab; many people are refused any of the care that would normally follow complex neurosurgery. Before I conclude, I would like to reflect on what has struck me since I began working on this issue on behalf of Connor. I have lost count of the number of people who have been in touch with me from across the country, and of the conversations with hon. Members who hear similar stories from their own constituents. I have just been told that an appeal from EDS Support UK has reached almost all MPs—over 98%. That is how many of our constituents are getting in touch with us about this issue. The conditions are often described as rare, but the truth is that for many patients they are simply rarely diagnosed. Without a pathway to diagnosis or treatment, patients with EDS and CCI are effectively invisible in NHS data. Behind every email, message and conversation is somebody trying to be heard—trying to access the care they need and live a life that many of us take for granted. I should stress that it is not easy for people living with these conditions to even do that. Many people are forced to become campaigners and lobbyists, but their energy should not be spent fighting to prove that their illness is real or to get access to basic care. They should be able to focus, as anybody should, on being believed, supported and treated. The last time EDS was debated in this Chamber was May 2024. With the general election called within days of that debate, the follow-ups on the issues raised by Members then were not possible. My ask of the Government is simple, and it comes not from me alone, but from patients, clinicians and organisations such as EDS Support UK, and from Connor. Patients are not asking for predetermined clinical outcomes or for routine surgical intervention; they are asking for recognition that suspected CCI in EDS requires a clear, defined process for assessment in the health service. In the short term, that means taking proportionate, practical steps to reduce avoidable harm, and making sure that access is appropriate, that diagnostic assessment happens and that a specialist opinion is given. It means being honest about where no pathway exists and providing clear guidance to avoid potentially harmful management when instability has not been ruled out. Finally, it means creating defined escalation routes with funding mechanisms where clinically necessary. In the longer term, we clearly need an NHS diagnostic and care pathway with proper clinical governance, referral routes, specialist input and continuity of care so that access to diagnosis and treatment is based on clinical need, not the ability to pay.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and Craniocervical Instability · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered outcomes for patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and craniocervical instability. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furness. Before I start my speech, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting us the time for this debate. I also thank Members from across the House who supported our application, and the clinicians, the charities and, most importantly, the patients who have shared their experiences in order to inform the debate. Let me also take this opportunity to warmly welcome the Minister to what is still her fairly new role. I know that throughout her time in Parliament she has been a staunch advocate for people with conditions such as less survivable cancers and other rare conditions, and for people who have suffered from medical failings, such as those with pelvic mesh. Throughout those campaigns, she has above all given voice to people who feel let down and forgotten by our healthcare system, so I know that she will empathise with much of what will be said in today’s debate. In April last year, I had an email from my constituent Connor Edwards. Connor opened his email by telling me that he was in “sheer desperation.” He explained that he was living with two conditions, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and craniocervical instability—having pronounced them correctly, I will now refer to them as EDS and CCI. I will be honest with the House: until that point, I had never heard of these conditions. I did not know how profoundly they affect people such as Connor, or the extent to which they are unseen in our NHS. Six years ago, Connor was 25 and living a very active life. He was a keen fisherman and mountain biker and, like many people in my constituency of Cannock Chase, he loved to spend his time outdoors, surrounded by the natural beauty that we are so fortunate to have on our doorstep. Connor’s story with EDS and CCI began when he was bitten by a tick while he was out on the Chase and subsequently developed Lyme disease. However, it turned out that that was only the start. In seeking explanations for his worsening health, Connor had to do so much research himself. Then, after finally seeing many specialists, he was diagnosed with EDS, a connective tissue disorder that affects the collagen responsible for supporting the skin, joints, blood vessels and internal organs. Some people living with EDS experience chronic joint dislocations, severe and persistent pain, and significant neurological complications. One of those complications in cases like Connor’s is CCI, whereby the skull no longer sits safely on the spine, placing pressure on the brain stem and spinal cord. I am conscious that I can get quite technical when I discuss Connor’s case, so I will put it in his words. He says that his head is quite literally falling off his body. Chillingly, that is not something that is picked up on a scan but not felt; rather, Connor feels his head shifting around dangerously every day, with all the pain that goes with that. He is also acutely aware that his symptoms continue to worsen. It is the intersection between EDS and CCI that I will focus on today, and I know that many other hon. Members will make important contributions about the broader challenges faced by people living with EDS.

• 12 Mar 2026 · International Women’s Day · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with the hon. Lady. Allyship across many different characteristics is essential, but I have always felt that anything that men can do to echo and raise up the voices of women is incredibly powerful. We should take that seriously and not shy away from it in debates such as this one, where we may perhaps feel that our voice is not as important, as it absolutely can be. Too many men and boys today feel disillusioned with politics, with opportunities and with what positive masculinity can look like in modern Britain. That is a real issue that deserves serious attention, but the answer to the challenge is not to exploit those frustrations by turning men against women, or to seek votes by weakening women’s rights, yet that is exactly the direction that some would take us in. For example, as we have heard, the Reform candidate in the Gorton and Denton by-election suggested that people without children should be taxed for that, placing pressure on women to have children. That misogynistic view of women’s role in society should be rejected in the strongest terms. I am proud of everything that this Labour Government are championing for women, including closing the gender pay gap. British women still earn 13% less than men, but the pay gap is not just about numbers on a spreadsheet. Large employers are required to publish gender pay gap data, but that alone will not close the gap. This is not just fiscal; it is cultural. Thanks to the Employment Rights Act, employers will have to publish clear action plans showing how they will close the gap and support women to progress. Before they even go into work girls can feel, as my daughter has shown me, like there are things that are not for them—certain ambitions that are out of reach. When we look at the history of opportunity in this country, we are reminded of how much can change when assumptions and prejudices are challenged. One of the most powerful examples of that is the work of Jennie Lee. As well as being a true Fifer, as noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), Jennie was also one of my predecessors as an adopted sister of Cannock. As the Minister for the Arts in the 1960s, Jennie championed the creation of the Open University, which was built on the belief that talent should not be limited by background, age or sex. The idea that someone could study for a university degree from their own home was dismissed by many as unrealistic, but Jennie believed that education should be open to anyone with the determination to learn. The result has been extraordinary: the Open University has educated millions of people across this country and beyond, many of whom might never have had the opportunity otherwise to access higher education. That legacy reminds us that expanding opportunity is not simply about access to education; it is also about expanding the horizons of what people believe is possible for themselves. But equality also depends on recognising the barriers that women still face in other areas of life. Women’s health has been overlooked far too often, with conditions such as endometriosis taking years to diagnose and many women leaving the workforce because of untreated menopause symptoms. I am proud that this Government are taking steps to tackle medical misogyny, from strengthening rights at work to improving support for conditions that largely affect women and expanding opportunity through education and childcare. According to a report published by UN Women in 2022, it could take close to three centuries before we achieve full gender equality. That statistic should give us pause, but it should also strengthen our determination, because progress does not happen by itself; it happens when we smash outdated assumptions and refuse to accept that inequality is inevitable. If my daughter and millions of girls growing up across this country are to inherit a fairer society, it will need all of us in this House to continue that effort.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Road Safety · Hansard source

  More

  Just two weeks after my election, I was contacted by my constituent Julie. Her husband Kevin was a devoted husband and grandfather, and was dedicated to keeping us safe on our roads as a traffic management officer. On the morning of 26 February 2022, Kevin was parked up in a closed lane, completing checks between junctions 14 and 15 of the M6. While he was there, a stolen Audi travelling at over 100 mph and being actively pursued by police entered that closed lane and collided with Kevin’s vehicle, killing him instantly. Julie was told that the police pursuit had been authorised to protect the public and that although officers were aware of a coned-off section of the motorway, that did not feature in the risk assessment because there was no indication that road workers would be present, but Kevin was present—he was authorised to be there and was working. Julie has never sought to apportion blame, but has consistently asked for answers about the protocols and lack of communication that led to Kevin losing his life. In her words, “Kevin looked out for everyone’s safety, but who was looking out for his?” A member of the public stopped in the same place where Kevin was working would rightly be considered at serious risk, yet Kevin’s only physical protection was plastic cones, and he had no radio link to the regional operations centre. I welcome the Government’s road safety strategy, which recognises that road workers are among the most vulnerable people on our roads and commits to harnessing technology, data sharing and improved enforcement to protect them. Julie believes that a simple message on the gantry signs could have saved Kevin’s life, but there is currently no requirement for communication between the police and National Highways when it comes to traffic control officers, as there is for those working on repairs. My team and I are engaging with National Highways about this issue, but it would be very welcome if the Minister would also consider it. I pay tribute to Kevin’s widow Julie, and thank her for her courage in repeatedly telling his story. I urge the Government to work with families such as Julie’s to make sure those who put themselves at risk to keep us safe are respected and protected.

• 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 · 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.

• 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

  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.

• 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?

• 16 Jul 2025 · Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you. I really appreciate that from my hon. Friend. I think that everybody who puts themselves forward to be an adopter or a foster carer does so with a huge amount of compassion. It is a journey that is often fraught with difficulty, and it certainly presents its challenges, but I think that all parenthood does. Sometimes we need to recognise that parents, no matter how they come to their parenthood, are doing an awful lot to make sure that the next generation thrives—which is, after all, why we are all here today. This Government are putting in place massive support for kinship carers, with £44 million invested in kinship and foster carers and a new kinship allowance being trialled to provide financial stability to those stepping up to care for children in their wider family. Our national kinship care ambassador is working with local authorities to improve support and permanence pathways, and that is very welcome. Together with the child poverty taskforce, which will report in the autumn, and the expansion of free school meals, these measures underpin our mission to lift 100,000 children out of poverty, because no child should go hungry into their classroom. By investing in family hubs where families in Cannock Chase and beyond can access wraparound support, by rolling out early intervention programmes that build children’s language and confidence from birth, and by prioritising early permanence and fostering to adopt for children in the care system, we can deliver on the promise of giving every child—not just some—the best possible start in life and the opportunity to make the most of their potential. Every child deserves love, stability and opportunity. Whether they dream of becoming a doctor, a teacher or even a Member of Parliament, it is our duty to ensure that those dreams are possible and to allow every child to make the most of their gifts and potential.