Josh Newbury MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  Across the UK, volunteers give their time, energy and care to support our communities, and we could not do without them. One such champion is my constituent Doug Smith, who founded Volunteers Count, a campaign asking organisations to record volunteer hours so that we can finally put a number and a value on the enormous contribution of volunteers. Will the Leader of the House join me in supporting the Volunteers Count campaign, and make time for a debate on the value of volunteering to our country?

• 19 Jun 2025 · Water Safety Education · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for securing today’s debate, particularly during Drowning Prevention Week. I will speak of not just the risks of wild and open-water swimming, but the enormous benefits that it can offer when done safely and responsibly. Specifically, I would like to address concerns about the lake at the former Shoal Hill quarry—which is in the neighbouring constituency of Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge—and about Chasewater reservoir. Although that reservoir falls within the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), it is a much-loved site that is frequently used by many of my constituents, particularly those in my home village of Norton Canes. They feel a very strong sense of ownership over what was, for many years before a rebrand, known as the Norton pool. My hon. Friend had hoped to be here today, but due to constituency commitments, he has not been able to join us for this debate. However, he shares the concerns I will raise about Chasewater in his constituency. As the evenings grow longer and the days get warmer, places such as Shoal Hill quarry and Chasewater become popular destinations for families seeking to cool off. Appealing though it may be, the risks of swimming in dangerous bodies of water can strike anyone. They including cold water shock, currents that drag people down due to the depth of the water, rip currents that drag people away from the shore, a lack of safe exits from the water, cuts caused by hidden objects underwater, a lack of preparation or ways to call for help, and aftershock. Being safe and well prepared before swimming is crucial. According to the National Water Safety Forum, an average of 19 people a year drown when swimming in open water, and I know that every Member in the Chamber today would want to make sure that none of our constituents becomes one of those 19. Tragically, six years ago, a 21-year-old man drowned in Chasewater while saving a nine-year-old girl from the water. His bravery should not be forgotten, nor should the circumstances that led to such a loss. From memory, I believe that this incident involved an inflatable like the ones used in swimming pools, which—in deep water and with high winds—was pulled some 30 to 40 metres out into the reservoir. However, later that summer and in summers since, we have again seen young children on inflatables in Chasewater. I know I might come across as being a killjoy, but this is genuinely a threat to life, especially for children. As such, I take this opportunity to urge my constituents not to swim in Chasewater—unless it is with an open water swimming group, which I will come to later. At Shoal Hill quarry near Cannock, too, it is simply not safe to enter the water. Risks lie hidden beneath the surface, including sharp debris, submerged machinery and toxic contaminants. Weed beds and rubbish create an unforeseen web of entanglement, while sheer sudden drop-offs along the quarry floor can turn a step into a deadly fall. But this is not about discouraging people from enjoying the outdoors—quite the opposite. When open water swimming is done properly, it can be incredibly rewarding. People can stay safer while open water swimming by checking the weather, being aware of where to exit the water, making sure they have kit prepared, wearing a brightly coloured swimming cap, and knowing their gear. Chasewater’s open water swimming groups offer one-to-one coaching, compulsory tow floats, and the National Open Water Coaching Association’s safety system. That wristband system allows immediate access to emergency details. With safety and training of this kind available, people can enjoy open water swimming and trust that they will be safe while doing so. I also pay tribute to all the other businesses and groups that provide safe activities on Chasewater, including Chasewater Activity Centre, Chase Watersports Centre, Pier 52 Watersports and the Chase Sailing Club. With the beautiful hot weather upon us, it is vital that we continue to talk about ways to make wild water swimming as safe as possible. By increasing awareness and educating people in high-risk areas, we can start to bring down the number of these tragedies. No one should lose their life from a moment of fun, and no family should suffer the grief of a death that could have been prevented. This is not about stopping people enjoying the outdoors, whether at Chasewater, Shoal Hill quarry or anywhere else across the United Kingdom; it is about giving them the information and tools they need to do so safely and confidently.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. Whether it is cheap vapes littering our parks and town centres, or fly-tipping blocking country lanes in Norton Canes, my constituents are rightly fed up with waste crime. My local council has had to deal with 1,500 instances of fly-tipping in the past three years, and it is all too often paid for by taxpayers, not criminals. Will the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to get tough on waste crime?

• 19 Jun 2025 · Priorities for Water Sector Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) not only for leading this statement but for her forensic and passionate scrutiny of water companies as part of this inquiry. It has been a real pleasure to sit with her on the Committee. Whether it is billpayers or citizen scientists, as a Committee we heard story after story of the people whom water companies are there to serve being disregarded or even subject to legal action. We know that the terms of Sir Jon Cunliffe’s review rule out public ownership, but we also know that disgraceful behaviour in private, often foreign-owned, water companies has been rampant, and has ignored the fact that water is an essential public service. Does my hon. Friend agree that co-operative and mutual principles, which she and I both champion, should be fully explored as they could resolve so many of the issues that our inquiry has uncovered?

• 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.

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

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I pay tribute to him for all his years of work in the gas industry and for the knowledge that he brings to the House and indeed to this debate. I look forward to hearing from him later. Previously, I worked for the Energy and Utilities Alliance, which is a trade association primarily representing companies in the gas heating industry. Recently, however, I had a heat pump installed at home, so I will not be using gas at all in future. I am certainly not a believer in silver bullets or dominant solutions. That heat pump cost £15,000, though, and the installation was fraught with complications, so it is fair to say that I have mixed views in this space. Gas is an essential part of our energy system, accounting for 40% of the UK’s total energy consumption and about a third of total electricity generation. Crucially, it provides vital flexibility to make up for peaks and troughs in generation from renewables, which should of course be our focus—but they cannot be the whole solution for the foreseeable future. Indeed, the Government’s clean power by 2030 mission foresees a role for gas power stations as flexible generation for up to 5% of demand, but it will take a huge amount of energy storage to enable us to reduce our gas usage for power generation even to that level. Looking ahead, the National Infrastructure Commission and the Climate Change Committee have recognised that gas, in one form or another, will continue to play a vital role in the energy system for decades to come, as a crucial component of a diverse and secure energy supply. All realistic projections for the UK’s energy transition envisage a continued role for gas, alongside carbon capture and storage and hydrogen, which I will come on to. A key area of interest to me—and, I am sure, to every Member wishing to contribute to this debate—is the role of gas in domestic heating. Nationally, the gas grid serves more than 24 million homes and half a million businesses. It carries three times more energy than the electricity grid does annually and, on peak winter days, that figure rises to five times as much. Eighty-three per cent of homes rely on mains gas, and in my Cannock Chase constituency 95% of households are on the gas grid. Meanwhile, 6,460 households in my towns and villages live in fuel poverty. Given that gas heating is clearly the cheapest form of domestic heating we have today, the future of the gas grid is not just a technical issue, but a cost of living issue. Heat pumps are a potential solution for many homes, in particular those off the gas grid, but we have to be honest about the persistent cost barriers. With the average heat pump installation coming in at about £13,000 and only just over half of that paid for by the £7,500 boiler upgrade scheme, heat pumps are clearly still the preserve of able-to-pay households and niche house builders.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the future of the gas grid. It is a pleasure to lead a Westminster Hall debate for the first time with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain, in particular given that it is my birthday today. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you, everyone. I thank colleagues from across the House for joining me in this important discussion about the future of Britain’s gas grid. First, I pay tribute to the men and women who work in our gas industry, from extraction and refining through to transmission and product engineers. They literally keep the lights on and our houses warm—not that we need a lot of assistance with heating in the month of June, but of course we rely on gas heating for much of the year.

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

  More

  Absolutely. That was a topic of huge discussion when I worked in the sector. I go back to my point that there are no silver bullets or dominant technologies, or at least there should not be. We need to ensure that each household—smaller properties, in particular, of which there are many in my constituency—has the right solution. She is right that we need to consider a range of options, and I am sure the Minister will touch on that. Hybrids were the topic of discussion at a fascinating all-party parliamentary group for energy studies meeting last night. We heard from a Dutch energy expert who explained that hybrids are the norm in the Netherlands. Three provinces have told households that they will not be able to install heat pump-only systems, due to a lack of capacity on the electricity grid. Overloading of the grid is paralysing development in some areas of Holland. With our Government’s ambitious house building target, the message from our Dutch friend was, “Please make sure that Britain doesn’t end up where we are.” The Dutch are finding that gas demand from households that have installed a hybrid heat pump is down by around 75%, while the increase in electricity demand is minimal. Given that our highly developed electricity and gas grids are very reliably serving the nation, that would seem to be a sensible balance for the UK, too. Substantially reduced gas demand opens the door for zero carbon gases such as biomethane and hydrogen to play a much bigger role in our energy future. The main barrier to hybrids in the UK is a policy one. The policies we inherited from the previous Government are inconsistent on hybrids. The energy company obligation fully pays for a hybrid installation and the clean heat market mechanism gives 0.5 credits for a hybrid system, but the boiler upgrade scheme does not allow for hybrids at all. I hope the Minister can say something about the Government’s view on hybrids. Our gas grid stretches over 275,000 km and its operation and maintenance provide highly skilled, well paid, often unionised jobs. It is estimated that the oil and gas sector supports one in every 160 jobs nationwide. Significantly for Scottish colleagues, that figure is around one in 20 jobs in Scotland. We are fortunate to have hundreds of thousands of some of the most skilled energy sector workers in the world. A gradual transition that leverages that as an advantage will help us maintain those good jobs, as well as our technological edge. Gas is clearly a critical industry for many other sectors in the UK, such as glass, cement, ceramics and paper. Those sectors employ more than 1 million people and support essential supply chains, including in defence. Around a third of gas-reliant businesses say they cannot electrify due to technical or economic constraints. Again, those jobs are often in the high-skilled, high-wage sectors that we need more of. Hard-to-abate sectors such as ceramics, which as a Staffordshire MP I have to single out, depend on parliamentarians to navigate a way to net zero that does not leave them behind, and I believe that low-carbon gases could be the answer. So what does the future look like? It starts with blending hydrogen into our existing network—a step our European neighbours are already taking. Blending even small amounts can kick-start demand in the hydrogen economy, lower the cost of the fuel and give the industry confidence to invest. I welcome the Government’s backing for the creation of a core hydrogen network and the repurposing of parts of the existing gas transmission system to carry 100% hydrogen to industrial clusters, power stations and storage sites across Britain. The Chancellor’s recent vote of confidence in Britain as a leader in carbon capture, utilisation and storage puts rocket boosters under that and will, of course, enable huge emissions reductions in some of the most greenhouse gas-intensive industries. We also need to talk about the role of renewable gases, such as biomethane, which already contribute about 1% of our gas supply and have plenty of room to grow. Supporting the domestic production of low-carbon gases strengthens our energy security, supports rural economies and reduces emissions. In the light of the introduction of weekly food waste collections across England next April, our anaerobic digestion capacity will be more important than ever, so I ask the Minister to confirm that the green gas support scheme, which was extended to 2028 in the final weeks of the last Parliament, will be maintained at least until then, if not beyond. What is required for us to decarbonise our gas grid, as other nations, such as the Netherlands, are doing? The replacement of our old iron mains is nearly complete, so that major hurdle is already being cleared. Other core infrastructure will need to accommodate hydrogen, but work is under way. For example, National Gas has already invested £350 million in hydrogen blend-ready compressors, and has demonstrated through its FutureGrid project at RAF Spadeadam that blending up to 20% hydrogen, and even operating at 100%, is both safe and feasible. As has been discussed many times before, clear regulatory frameworks that enable innovation and investment are critical, as is public engagement, which we often overlook in these technical discussions about the energy sector. We need conversations with the public to be honest and inclusive, and to address concerns about safety, jobs, cost and fairness. An energy system is only as resilient as the storage capacity that backs it up. When I first entered the energy sector way back in 2016, the Rough gas storage facility in the North sea was threatened with closure, and one of my first tasks was to furiously campaign for it to be rescued by the then Government. Sadly, they did not heed the dire warning from the industry, and Rough closed. It was able to reopen five years later, but only partially. With geopolitical events being what they are, we are suffering the effects of the previous Government’s short-sighted inaction. I am proud to be part of a Government who not only talk about gas storage but actively value it as a critical piece of national resilience. I ask the Minister to strongly reject the inflammatory rhetoric around the transition that needs to take place in our gas grid, which is often designed to frame the issue in solely negative terms. Talk of ripping out boilers is as inaccurate as it is worrying for consumers. I also ask the Department to drive forward as quickly as possible the opportunities presented by hydrogen produced by carbon capture and storage and renewable energy. This transformation offers real opportunities, thousands of skilled, well-paid jobs, greater energy security by reducing our dependence on volatile international fossil fuel markets, and of course the chance to lead the world in green technology and innovation. The future of the gas grid is not about choosing between the past and the future; it is about building a bridge to a very British net zero.

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

  More

  I could not have put it better myself. My hon. Friend must have been reading my mind, because I was about to come to that point about my neck of the woods. My fear is that, without a substantial shift in the cost barrier and a clear focus by the Government on inequality, as my hon. Friend said, decarbonisation inequality will widen. That inequality is apparent in the number of boiler upgrade scheme vouchers issued in the three years to March this year. That stood at just 27 for my Cannock Chase constituency but 316—nearly 12 times as many—in North Devon. One solution that is not spoken about as much as it perhaps should be is the hybrid heat pump—the combination of a combi boiler with a smaller heat pump. Those systems typically use the heat pump for space heating and hot water production almost exclusively for most of the year, with the gas boiler supplementing it on cold days or when a boost of heat is needed.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Farming · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to speak in this debate as a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I thank our Chair, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), for securing the debate. The future of farming is not simply about keeping our fields green, livestock sheds full or supermarket shelves stocked, but about securing the future of our rural communities, protecting the environment and supporting the farmers who are the backbone of our nation’s food system. This Government inherited underspent farming schemes, resulting in hundreds of millions of pounds not reaching farmers’ pockets. A record 50,000 farms now use these schemes, and more money than ever before is being spent through the sustainable farming incentive and countryside stewardship. The recent publication of the land use framework set out the changes and complementary use of land needed to achieve our environmental targets. Alongside support for the environmental land management schemes, the framework will help to drive improvements on food security, biodiversity, carbon emissions, water and air quality, and flood resilience. The Scottish land use strategy has shown that we also need clear policies to give certainty on how to deal with directly competing interests on land. As we know, England is in the midst of a transition. If we are to make this transition successful, we must ensure that farmers are supported in this shift, ensuring new schemes are accessible, flexible and equitable. I welcome the progress the Government have made on freeing up bottlenecks in applications; as the MP for most of the Cannock Chase national landscape, I also welcome the extension of the farming in protected landscapes programme. We know that any sector that does not have certainty in its workforce lacks certainty for the future. I commend the strides the Government have made on expanding apprenticeships across the UK, but our agricultural and land management sectors need to share in the benefits of that. Figures show that only 5% of the 285,000 people working in agriculture are under 35, and, with the twin pressures of climate change and global food insecurity, the next generation of farmers need to be equipped to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Automation is another way of addressing these challenges, but the harsh reality is that smaller farms cannot shoulder the burden of the risk of investing in expensive new tech. There is good work being done on this, with 20 and 25-year agreements being signed with farmers to unlock long-term investment, which I hope will become the new normal. Without that certainty, farmers will not be able to do everything we want to see. Lastly, I want to raise the long-term plight of abattoirs. It is not frequently spoken about, but while there were 2,500 abattoirs in the 1970s, there are now just 200, making it far harder for many farmers to keep their supply chains small and local, from farm to fork. To bring my remarks to a conclusion, the reality is that for many, many years, our farmers have been worried about their future and the future of their sector. We need to ensure they feel confident that their concerns are being heard and addressed so that we and our farmers can achieve the world-leading ambitions we have for our agricultural sector.

• 24 Jan 2025 · Climate and Nature Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to speak on the Bill, given the twin challenges of tackling climate change and ensuring that our natural world not only survives but becomes a far greater part of our lives. Those priorities are shared by the vast majority of my constituents in Cannock Chase, many of whom have written to me over the last few weeks. As others have done, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), who deserves great credit for using her private Member’s Bill to push for strong ambitions and action on both climate and biodiversity. That decision has enabled a huge amount of discussion to take place on those issues not just today, but over the last few months and, no doubt, in the months and years to come. In particular, she has worked incredibly hard to ensure that those discussions radiate out of this place by engaging with passionate campaigners from up and down the country. I have no doubt that that will make the public debate both wider and deeper, which I am confident all hon. Members in the Chamber welcome. As I noted in my maiden speech, my constituency is best known for its forest. While there is far more to Cannock Chase and the fantastic people who call it home than that, I am happy to have the welcome excuse of this debate to focus on the natural beauty and serenity that it has to offer. The truth is that Cannock Chase has a far more complex and diverse range of habitats than simply a 2,700-hectare forest. About a third of the wider Cannock Chase national landscape is agricultural land, which I will come to later, and a large proportion is heathland, which is a vital but endangered habitat. In many ways, the decline and continuing plight of Britain’s heathland is symbolic of the decline of our natural world, which we are discussing today and which the Bill rightly seeks to address and reverse. It is often said that Britain is one of the most nature deprived countries in the world, but for us in Cannock Chase that can be hard to believe because of all the natural beauty right on our doorstep. Indeed, no one living in my constituency is more than a 15-minute drive from our stunning forest and heathland. Having said that, inequality and poor bus services mean that the most deprived parts of my constituency are also the most nature deprived. I hope we will bear that intersection in mind as we continue the debate. When I knock on doors on new build estates in Cannock Chase such as those in Hednesford, which is often described as the gateway to the Chase, people who have recently moved to the area often tell me that having nature a stone’s throw away is what drew them to our communities, particularly those who grew up in urban areas. The Chase attracts a huge number of visitors—about 2.5 million a year—which, if hon. Members can believe it, means that the density of visitors we receive is four to five times greater than that of the Lake District national park. That intensity of tourism shows how passionate we are about nature and our instinctive need to get lost in it, but also that we can sometimes pose the greatest risk to the natural world. In my area, it is sometimes said that we are at risk of loving the Chase to death, so the agenda of this Bill and this Government to prevent outcomes like that is very important. As I mentioned, no habitat in my constituency illustrates this better than lowland heathland. Rarer than tropical rainforests, lowland heath is found on Brindley heath and Moors Gorse, just north of Hednesford, and at the iron age hill fort of Castle Ring in Cannock Wood. As well as being a scheduled ancient monument, Castle Ring is home to a variety of rare habitats such as sphagnum bog and acidic grassland. The UK is fortunate to have a fifth of all the heathland in Europe, yet sadly we have lost 80% of it over the last two centuries. It is particularly concerning that much of that loss has occurred over the last 70 years, echoing the picture of ever increasing species and habitat loss that Members have drawn attention to today, including my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald). I know, from taking my daughter to see the stunning carpets of purple heather over the Chase every August, that the cutbacks to conservation work due to austerity are allowing scrub and ferns to creep in more and more year after year. That is why I was delighted that just before Christmas, to mark the 75th anniversary of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the Environment Secretary announced that national landscapes such as Cannock Chase will be granted new powers to boost nature’s recovery and improve sustainable access to these beautiful landscapes. Refining the role and authority of national parks and national landscapes will benefit our rural economy and mean that more people can enjoy spending time reconnecting with nature. It is also fantastic to see stronger regulations to ensure that public bodies, including water companies, do more to respect and support these precious landscapes. I am confident that that ambition will be extended to the protection of sites of special scientific interest, of which we have many in Cannock Chase. Often SSSIs are under greater ecological threat than national parks or landscapes because they are more dispersed or designated for a particular species. For example, the Cannock extension canal in my home village of Norton Canes plays host to one of the country’s largest populations of floating water plantain, which I have to admit is not particularly special to look at but is none the less an ecologically important endangered plant that thrives in gently undulating waters such as canals. As I mentioned, farming is absolutely present in the Cannock Chase national landscape, and in my view, there is nowhere better than national parks and national landscapes to see that farmers are stewards of the land and keen to work in harmony with nature. Support must be in place to enable farmers to realise this ambition, which is why I very much welcome the Government’s announcement of £5 billion over the next two years through the new deal for farmers, which will help to ensure that natural recovery is taking place on every English farm, alongside sustainable food production. To the credit of the previous Government, they introduced the farming in protected landscapes programme. Four Oaks farm, near Slitting Mill in my constituency, was one of the recipients of the funding, but it was a very time-limited programme, so I hope it will be renewed beyond the next financial year. Alongside many Members of the House, particularly my fellow members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I look forward to continuing the work of finding a way forward to a financially and environmentally sustainable future for British farming. For protected landscapes like Cannock Chase, funding streams such as the higher tier of the countryside stewardship scheme will be vital. These bespoke, delicately balanced projects need the expertise of Government agencies such as Natural England, and while significant progress has been made in recent months on expanding capacity and speeding up decisions, we still have a long way to go to ensure that all farmers can access environmental land management schemes and improve sustainability and biodiversity in the best way for their farm.

• 24 Jan 2025 · Climate and Nature Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I completely agree that we need to ensure that our farms are properly supported and that we highlight best practice, so that it is spread across the country. Sustainable food production and national self-sufficiency need to go hand in hand with that work. We must encourage and enable farmers to be stewards of the land, which we know they absolutely are.

• 24 Jan 2025 · Climate and Nature Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This is why I mentioned that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is holding an inquiry on the future of farming, as part of which we are looking at this issue of balance and ensuring that we strike the proper balance. The underlying principle has to be that we empower farmers to do what is right for their farm and enable them to make that judgment on the correct balance. The fact that water quality has been a feature of this debate is welcome. We talk about the state of our rivers, lakes and seas a lot in this House, but there cannot be too much discussion about it. As I am sure is sadly the case in every constituency, in Cannock Chase we have waterways that are rated poor for quality: the River Trent on the edge of Rugeley and the Rising brook. In 2022, untreated sewage was discharged into watercourses in my constituency 254 times, for a total of 372 hours, which disgracefully is typical in this country today. We know that has consequences for wildlife. When I met the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust in May last year, it highlighted to me that in just two decades the water vole has completely disappeared from Cannock Chase, and there has been a 96% decline in records of grey partridge. The consequences for those two species paint a grim picture indeed. A key ask from the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust, of which I am a proud member, was for Labour to commit to the 30 by 30 pledge and protect 30% of land and sea for nature by 2030. I am proud to say that this Government have committed to that. Unlike the last Government, we are putting it into action. Through the Water (Special Measures) Bill, the Government are ensuring that water companies will be held to account for the improvements that are being promised in exchange for hefty bill increases, while empowering customers, who for far too long have witnessed the decline in the health of our waterways but have been unable to challenge it directly. I have spoken a lot about nature, but in Cannock Chase we also have a story to tell about energy. In my maiden speech, I explained that the closure of the coal-fired Rugeley power station had a huge impact on the communities I represent, but that a new community on the now-cleared site will ensure energy-efficient homes and new infrastructure, marking a new era for Rugeley and Brereton. There are plans to ensure that the power station’s energy legacy is maintained, with a battery storage facility and, I hope, rooftop solar. On very few sites in the country will there be such a clear transition from the energy sources of the past to the homes, jobs and technologies of the future. Finally, I will turn to the principles of the Bill. When it comes to the climate and nature crisis, holding people in positions of power to account is perhaps more important than ever. Knitting together work across Government into a coherent strategy will be essential to making sure that the targets in the Environment Act 2021, to which this Government have made an unwavering commitment, become a reality. We all know that we do not have time to waste in the battle to limit global temperature rises and avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change and the battle to halt and reverse nature loss. The last Government talked the talk to some extent, but they dithered and delayed so chronically that they did not end up implementing much. As with the last Labour Government, this Labour Government have set a world-leading agenda on climate and nature. As some countries backslide on international commitments, this Government stand firm in asserting the importance of sticking to our targets and making meaningful progress towards meeting them. Whether it is increasing woodland cover, seeing the return of water voles in constituencies such as mine, or stopping islands sinking into the sea on the other side of the world, this Government will always make our climate and natural world their priority and, on behalf of the people I represent, so will I.