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?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Farming Road Map and Profitability Review · Hansard source

  More

  The road map is a very welcome step forward that will give our farmers certainty for the future. I particularly welcome what the Secretary of State had to say on co-operatives, which could go a long way to redressing the current power imbalance in our food system. I hope we can begin that work at pace. We hear consistently from farmers that they feel that the planning system—made so much worse by the Conservatives—is stacked against them. Broiler chicken farmers, for instance, are expected to lower stocking densities but cannot get permission to expand their sheds to compensate, while farms in water-stressed areas are having to go through years of bureaucracy to build reservoirs. Does the Secretary of State agree that reforming the planning system will be key to freeing up trapped investment and getting us to the sustainable, prosperous future for British farming that this road map sets out?

• 12 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Having heard that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will soon decide on the next round of Pride in Place funding, I would like to plug my constituency. It is my honour to represent proud communities, but many, like Chadsmoor and the Rugeley Springfields estate, were hit hard by austerity, which tore away support for deprived areas. Does the Leader of the House agree that Cannock Chase would make an excellent candidate for Pride in Place, and may we have a debate on the benefits of local growth funding for communities up and down the country?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Woodland Creation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) for securing this debate. He set out perfectly the value of woodlands to both nature and people, and his city is clearly a living example of that. I appreciate that hon. Members might wonder why, as the Member of Parliament for Cannock Chase—a constituency famed and named for its forest—I might want to speak in a debate on creating new woodlands, but my answer is this: “You can’t have too much of a good thing”. Woodland creation is central to building a greener, fairer Britain, and the Government have set ambitious targets, aiming to increase woodland cover in England to 16.5% by 2050. Our current woodland cover remains significantly lower than many of our European neighbours at 13.5%, compared with an EU average of around 38%. In Britain, describing somewhere as “leafy” usually is shorthand for “wealthy”, which says a lot about how access to nature reflects inequality on multiple levels. The Woodland Trust’s tree equity score clearly demonstrates that the many benefits provided by trees are disproportionately enjoyed by wealthier communities. Even in my constituency, that disparity is evident. Chadsmoor is one of the most deprived areas of Cannock Chase and is also among the most nature deprived. By contrast, more affluent areas like New Penkridge Road in Cannock benefit from significant tree cover despite being less than two miles away. That contrast shows that the communities that stand to gain the most from access to green space are too often those with the least access to it. Planting trees is often the easy part, but explaining to residents why an unmanaged woodland has suddenly appeared at the end of their road is considerably harder. In Hednesford, an urban woodland was established on Bradbury Lane with positive intentions, but insufficient maintenance generated understandable complaints from residents—an important reminder that successful woodland creation requires sustained stewardship and community involvement. I welcome the Government’s commitment to funding not just planting, but long-term management and skills development. However, on the flip side, I have heard concerns about newly planted trees on housing and commercial developments not being properly cared for and subsequently dying, or even not being planted in the first place. Although the national planning policy framework makes it clear that planning decisions should require aftercare, councils need to ensure that those conditions are attached and enforced. Alongside expanding woodland cover, it is equally important that we improve the quality and resilience of the woodland that we already have. In December, I visited Birches Valley in my constituency, where I met the Forestry Commission’s agroforestry woodland officer to discuss the restoration of ancient woodland. Plantations on ancient woodland sites—often referred to as PAWS—account for around 17% of the nation’s forests. Forestry England has set an important ambition to restore those sites to resilient native woodland, but achieving that will require a doubling of the rate of restoration. The work is ecologically vital. Moving woodland from predominantly non-native canopy cover towards native broadleaf species strengthens biodiversity, increases resilience to pests and diseases, and helps to ensure that our woodlands are better able to adapt to climate change. The Climate Change Committee has recommended that two-thirds of new woodland should be broadleaf and one-third conifer, to maximise climate and biodiversity benefits while reducing the risks associated with monoculture planting. However, foresters have highlighted concerns such as the impact of pests such as deer and grey squirrels, and the long-term financial sustainability of restoration. I therefore welcome the Government’s funding for Forestry England’s PAWS restoration programme. As we expand woodland creation, we must also carefully balance environmental ambitions with the needs of our farming communities. Agroforestry—integrating trees into productive agricultural land—presents significant opportunities, including improved soil health, enhanced biodiversity and increased flood resilience. Here, the Government’s approach recognises the vital role that farmers and rural communities play in environmental recovery. Many farmers are already boosting natural flood management by increasing woodland cover, as well as natural water storage areas. Concerns have been raised, though, particularly in upland areas, about productive farmland being taken out of use or tenant farmers being displaced in pursuit of woodland creation targets. It is vital that environmental policy retains the confidence and support of our farming sector, particularly the 50% of farmers who are tenants. Schemes such as the sustainable farming incentive present an opportunity to strike that balance by encouraging tree planting on less productive land or areas already identified for nature recovery, or intercropping with arable crops, allowing us to increase woodland cover without undermining food production or rural livelihoods. In closing, I note that woodland creation and ancient woodland restoration are not competing priorities. They are complementary pillars of a broader strategy to restore nature, improve community wellbeing, strengthen climate resilience and protect our natural heritage. Not only that, but in representing Cannock Chase, I am contractually obliged to be enthusiastic about trees at all times. Thankfully, trees are one of the few policy areas where we can improve air quality, biodiversity, public health and community pride simultaneously, which in policymaking terms is about as close as we can get to a unanimous win.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Yet again, we have the wonders of hindsight from the Conservative party. In the immortal words of Beverley Knight, “‘Shoulda woulda coulda’ means I’m out of time”, and the Tories certainly were. I thank my constituents, including Rob from Heath Hayes and Daniel and Rebecca from Brereton, who have written to me to stress the need for these reforms. Like them, I very much welcome the draft Bill. Given that these proposals will not only reform a feudal system but cap ground rents at £250, does the Minister agree that this is another way in which this Government are putting money back into the pockets of families struggling with the cost of living?

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 18 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Merry Christmas to you and your team, Mr Speaker. Alongside many colleagues on the Government Benches who are passionate about farming, I will continue to argue for a rethink on inheritance tax, but I back this Government and their mission to improve the profitability of our farms. We are speeding up planning, tackling unfair supply chain practices, unlocking finance and boosting exports. Does the Minister agree that the findings of the Batters review mean that we can finally turn a page on dwindling farm incomes and unleash benefits for farmers, the rural economy and our nation’s food security?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Pavement Parking · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire). Pavement parking was regularly raised with me during my five years as a councillor before coming to this place, but its real impact was brought home to me by one doorstep conversation with a couple in Chadsmoor. Both are in their 80s, and the gentleman is a carer for his wife who has mobility issues as well as dementia. Luckily, they have a good social care package and access to respite care, but often they cannot get out of the house because accessible taxis cannot pull up to their home due to cars parked right up to their driveway. They cannot move her wheelchair further down the street due to people routinely parking on the pavement. Sadly and ironically, often those cars belong to care workers visiting other properties. A blocked pavement is not just an inconvenience; it can trap people with disabilities. Councils can use traffic regulation orders, but often they are slow and expensive to put in place. People in Cannock Chase often tell me how much better it was when Staffordshire’s police community support officers could issue fines for pavement obstruction, but since those powers have been removed, any meaningful deterrent has all but gone. As has been said, drivers often worry about blocking traffic or emergency vehicles on narrow roads, and housing in many areas just was not built with cars in mind. Looking ahead, let us consider national action, complemented by local solutions such as community parking hubs and resident permits. That should sit alongside better public transport and active travel, on which the Government are acting. This may not be the top issue for many of our constituents, but it absolutely can be for those affected. I hope that, by planning for the future, we can keep our pavements safe and accessible for all.