Josh Newbury MP: speeches

Speeches

• 5 Mar 2026 · Palliative Care · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for securing this debate and, more importantly, for her work and advocacy on palliative care throughout her time in the House. Last August, I visited St Giles hospice in Whittington, just over the border in the Lichfield constituency; I am hugely grateful for that visit. The hospice is so well loved by my constituents, not least by the thousands of people who fundraise for it every year. We often judge our health services by how they treat illness, but the test of a good health service is also how it supports people when treatment is no longer the answer. The people I met at St Giles were doing extraordinary, skilled work. Their day-to-day is managing complex symptoms, while turning to steady a husband or reassure a daughter. That balance of clinical excellence and guiding family and friends as their loved one’s life nears its end showcases the immense skill that those nurses, doctors and support staff possess. At St Giles, I met the chief executive officer, Elinor Eustace, and saw the fruits of recent funding that they have had from the Government, and from the Francis and Eric Ford Charity Trust, which enabled them to create a new family lounge. The space gives people the chance to spend time with their loved ones away from their room, including cooking up a storm in the kitchen, nattering over a brew, or playing in the children’s area—because, heartbreakingly, St Giles is seeing more and more terminally ill people who have young children. Like all hospices, St Giles faces stark financial challenges. With only around a third of hospice funding coming from the NHS, the vast majority must be raised from donations, sponsorships and legacies. Though hospices fiercely defend their charitable mission and independence from the NHS, it is clear that the NHS and hospices have a close relationship, and always will, so public funding is critical. Having listened to hospices and the families who have relied on their world-class care, it is clear to me that the funding model for palliative care, and the recognition of the costs that hospices face, need a major shake-up. At St Giles, Elinor told me that although hospices are not bound by NHS pay scales, terms and conditions, they have to keep up with them, or they will lose many of their staff. They want to recognise the outstanding care that their highly skilled workforce provide, but the reality is that the payments they receive from the NHS often do not keep pace with increasing costs; the squeeze is tighter every year. It is the same story for many other hospices that serve my constituency, such as Acorns and the Dougie Mac. A stark example of this pressure can be seen at St Giles, where a third of beds are closed due to funding constraints—most definitely not because of a lack of demand or need. In previous years, that spare capacity has been given over to the NHS to help with winter pressures. Any hon. Members who have worked in the NHS will know that extra capacity is essential in the cold winter months; however, the amount paid for lower-level care than St Giles typically offers meant that the hospice made a loss on those beds. Donations were effectively subsidising NHS care, so, sadly, that arrangement had to be stopped. We Labour Members have to be honest that chief among the cost pressures faced by hospices in the last year has been the increase in employer national insurance contributions, which has cost St Giles £400,000. I continue to believe that given the vital role that hospices play for people at a critical time in life, and the pressures that they take off the NHS, hospices should be exempted from that increase. Not exempting them will continue to restrict the availability of end-of-life care, and will cost the NHS more in the long run. Like many in the Chamber, I devoted lots of time to the assisted dying debate, poring over heart-wrenching letters, and speaking with constituents and professionals on both sides of the argument. That debate showed me that, whatever views people hold, we need far more focus, discussion and funding for care at the end of life. When hospices have to cut their services, the people who need them do not just disappear; instead, they go to the NHS, or they are among the quarter of people who could benefit from specialist end-of-life care but never receive it. With stable long-term funding that reflects the full costs of specialist services, hospices could not only maintain their services, but expand their role to meet growing demand and the various challenges ahead of us. We all deserve a good death, but many of us do not get that. That must and can change, and I look forward to working with everyone in this Chamber, and with the incredible people who provide palliative care, to ensure that it does.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for opening the debate so thoughtfully. I also thank the petitioners for enabling us to debate this issue. Some 96% of my constituents in Cannock Chase were born in the UK, yet immigration is one of the issues most frequently raised with me. It is a topic of debate that matters to and affects people right across the country. In recent years, rhetoric around immigration has led to a fundamental misunderstanding of the motivations of many people who choose to make Britain their home. At the same time, legitimate concerns about the impact of migration on communities, particularly when that migration is rapid, have been dismissed as bigotry. That leads only to resentment, entrenchment and toxicity, so I am glad that we are having an open and respectful debate. As always, I am keen to hear a range of views, particularly from those who will be affected by the things that we discuss in this place. Two weeks ago, I met faith leaders and members of the congregation of the Victory church in Rugeley, most of whom work in health and social care. What they shared with me was not opposition to reform but a need for clarity and reassurance. They could see why change is needed, and they support the concept of contribution—they believe that they are making a contribution in many different ways—but the proposal that people in so-called “lower-skilled roles” could face qualifying periods of up to 15 years is causing concern, particularly for those in social care. The people I met pointed out that social care requires extensive training, safeguarding responsibilities, emotional resilience and compassion, but often is not well paid, meaning that they will not reach the income thresholds under the Government’s contribution proposals. They are not asking for special treatment. They made a constructive suggestion: could those who demonstrate a long-term commitment to care work and continued professional development have access to quicker settlement? I hope that the Minister will say something about how the contribution of social care workers, in particular, can be recognised. The issue I heard about loudest, though, was the need for transitional arrangements. People have understandably planned their lives around the expectation of ILR after five years, so I hope that the Minister can give us some clarity on when we will know what the arrangements will be. Uncertainty is affecting families’ ability to plan. My constituent Solomon works in social care. His daughter is currently doing her GCSEs and recently won an award for academic excellence. He fears that, on the brink of getting ILR, his family could face a decade or more of uncertainty.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  At its heart, this Bill is about fairness—fairness for the doctors who train in this country, and fairness for the patients who rely on the care provided by our fantastic NHS workforce. Before Brexit, graduates from our British medical schools predominantly competed among themselves for foundation and specialty training posts, but since Boris Johnson’s disastrous visa and immigration changes made under the previous Conservative Government, that picture has changed completely. Doctors trained here are facing huge barriers to progressing their career and caring for patients up and down the country, and many are turning to jobs abroad or within the private sector. That is not because they lack the ability or the commitment, but because of how the system was left to drift by the previous Government until it has got to this point of being set up against our graduates. We hear a lot about the doctors who train here but then end up going abroad, but we hear a lot less about the concerns of the doctors who remain here in the UK. They are passionate about our NHS and want to dedicate their careers to it. They want to build their lives here, but all too often they find that they simply cannot secure a training post. This is not a new problem; it is a reality that has been behind the flight of doctors overseas for many years. But only now do we have a Government who are committed to tackling it. I commend the Health Secretary not only for bringing forward the Bill, but for committing to bring in changes as swiftly as possible. Our NHS and our constituents are missing out on our home-grown talent because of the previous Government’s changes to immigration, which led to the so-called Boriswave. As we have heard, international medical graduates contribute hugely and are welcome, but visa changes have had a destabilising effect on British-trained doctors who now face double the competition for every single post. We are training more doctors now than ever before, but we have failed until now to match that ambition with a system that supports them. As we have heard, we spend around £4 billion a year training doctors in the UK, a huge investment of public money, and it is only right that taxpayers see that investment translating into doctors building their careers in our NHS. The prioritisation to which the Secretary of State referred is about sustainability and keeping things fair for our UK-trained graduates, not about shutting out international talent. The NHS is rightly proud to be a major international employer and people from around the world will continue to bring vital skills to our health service. Of course, anyone who can apply now will still be able to apply. But many countries from which we are recruiting also desperately need their own doctors. We should be proud that people want to come and work here, but it is morally unacceptable to pinch doctors from other countries that need them, meanwhile leaving our brilliant and willing resident doctors unable to get training places. The Bill builds on action that the Government have already taken to boost the NHS workforce. When the Government came into office, we heard concerns from GPs and patients alike about a dire need for more GP surgery capacity, while many qualified GPs were out of work. Labour removed the red tape around the additional roles reimbursement scheme and more than 1,000 additional GPs have since joined our primary care workforce. When the Government heard from nurses who were just about to qualify and struggling to find work, despite a clear and chronic need for more nurses, they brought in the graduate guarantee. Now the Government are acting again. Following the Secretary of State’s constructive approach to negotiations with the BMA, he offered a package of support, including quadrupling the number of specialist training posts being created in the coming three years and funding resident doctors’ Royal College exam and membership fees. Despite a rejection of that deal, he is making good on his commitment to put British graduates back on a level playing field, giving them a fair shot at taking the next step in their careers, with competition ratios that are reasonable and workable. The Bill will ensure that the NHS retains the talent it has developed through excellent medical schools such as Keele University in Staffordshire, rather than losing that talent to overseas recruitment or forcing doctors out of the profession altogether. The BMA has welcomed extending prioritisation to the foundation programme, which the Government expect will significantly reduce the number of placeholder offers faced by final-year medical students. I hope that as their members vote on whether to take further strike action, they will see that the Government do not make pie-crust promises. We are taking the steps we said we would take to fix the issues that they have raised. I know that the Bill will not fix every workforce challenge overnight, but it is certainly a big step in the right direction. It will reduce competition for training places and, most importantly, send a clear message to resident doctors who trained in this country: if you want to progress your career here, the Government will back you. For those reasons, I am proud to support the Bill.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Transport Connectivity: Midlands and North Wales · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak with you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I will focus most of my speech on Rugeley Trent Valley station, which is of interest to my constituents, particularly those in Rugeley and Brereton, even though it is technically just over the border in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson)—a neighbour constituency-wise and in the Chamber today. As we know, transport connectivity does not stop at constituency or council boundaries, and neither does the impact of stations where the facilities are not adequate for everybody. Rugeley Trent Valley is a striking example. The station has three platforms, yet only platform 3, serving trains towards Lichfield and London, is step-free. Platforms 1 and 2, serving far-distant locations like Birmingham, Stafford and Crewe, can be reached only via a steep footbridge. In practice, wheelchair users, parents with prams, older people and those with limited mobility are effectively barred from using two thirds of the station. With the delays that often characterise Avanti West Coast services and short connection times, running across from one platform to the next is simply not an option for many of my constituents. Let me give some real-life, human examples. One constituent in her 80s told me that she can no longer visit her family because she cannot carry a suitcase up and down the steep staircases safely. That highlights how the barriers are not limited to wheelchair users. Another constituent recounted travelling with a friend who has serious mobility issues from the waist down. He arrived at the station to discover that the only way for him to catch their connecting train was to physically haul himself up and down the stairs. Station staff did what they could, but goodwill alone cannot overcome infrastructure that excludes so many people in our communities. People are desperate to make journeys for work, healthcare, or family reasons, and they will often attempt unsafe routes if no accessible alternatives exist. While the British Transport police and station operators do what they can to manage risks, long detours or temporary measures are no substitute for basic dignity and safety. Using the database of the Office of Rail and Road, I noticed that more than 200,000 people exited and entered Rugeley Trent Valley station in 2024-25. A constituent highlighted that other stations on the network, even ones with fairly similar footfall or electrified lines, such as Kidsgrove station near Stoke-on-Trent, have been upgraded with lifts, waiting rooms, and toilets. Clearly, it is not a question of engineering impossibility, but of prioritisation. West Midlands Trains and London Northwestern Railway have told me that they fully support installing lifts at Rugeley Trent Valley. They acknowledge the station’s accessibility issues and the impact on passengers, but as many hon. Members will know, major upgrades such as this fall under Network Rail’s Access for All programme, which is always heavily oversubscribed. Over 2,500 stations in the country require upgrades, and Network Rail applies strict criteria, prioritising stations by passenger numbers and the proximity of the next accessible station. For Rugeley, nearby stations such as Stafford or Lichfield Trent Valley score higher under that system. Although Rugeley has been discussed and even shortlisted in the past, the next allocation of funding is still several years away. In the meantime passengers are offered so-called mitigations, such as being carried to the next accessible station and sent back again or provided with discretionary road transport. For many of my constituents those are simply not viable or dignified solutions. They are workarounds for systemic failure, showing exactly what regional inequality looks like, with smaller towns often having to wait endlessly at the back of the queue while people with the greatest need are left to navigate shortcomings in the system.

• 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.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Regional Transport Inequality · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad to be speaking in this debate, because far too many of my constituents are being held back by our transport system. On rail, Rugeley Trent Valley, just over the border in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson)—he is no longer in his place—is a striking example of what we are here to discuss. Two of the station’s three platforms can be reached only by a steep footbridge, meaning that wheelchair users, parents with prams and people with limited mobility are effectively barred from getting to Birmingham and Stafford. One constituent told me that his friend, who has mobility issues, literally had to crawl up and down the stairs to reach their connecting train. West Midlands Railway fully supports installing lifts, but such major upgrades fall under Network Rail’s Access for All programme, for which demand is huge and funding is heavily oversubscribed. With more than 2,500 stations competing, Network Rail prioritises based on passenger numbers and the proximity of the next available accessible station. That means Rugeley loses out to larger hubs nearby, such as Stafford. Although Rugeley has been shortlisted in the past, other stations have scored higher under the system. The reality is that the next allocation of Access for All funding is still a distant prospect. In the meantime, passengers are offered so-called mitigations, such as going forward to the next accessible station and being sent back again, or being provided with road transport at the operator’s discretion. For many, that is simply not a viable or dignified option.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Biosecurity at the Border: Britain’s Illegal Meat Crisis · Hansard source

  More

  On the Committee’s visit to the Port of Dover, we heard that many seizures of illegal meat include scales and tills—clear indications that the meat would be sold commercially. Most worryingly, as the right hon. Gentleman said, some of those imports are headed straight for farms, so the potential for a devastating outbreak of foot and mouth disease, African swine fever or many other diseases is huge. Does he agree that, regardless of any potential SPS agreement with the EU, we certainly cannot afford to scale back checks if we are serious about protecting British farming?