Josh Newbury MP: speeches

Speeches

• 29 Jun 2026 · Animal Abusers · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

  In recent weeks, I have heard from many fathers in my constituency concerned about the attitude they have encountered from the Child Maintenance Service and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, including assumptions that they are trying to shirk payments, absence of support when ex-partners cut off their contact with their children, and accusations being recorded without their side even being heard. Yes, there are manipulative and abusive men out there, but most dads are not like that and deserve to be treated fairly, not with prejudice. May we have a debate on the experiences of fathers in dealing with our family courts and the CMS?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. As a survivor of rape, I know that the time it takes to get to court, if people even get that far, was one of the things that put me off reporting what happened to me. When people talk about changes to jury trials being justice denied, I understand their concerns, but I do not think it is always appreciated that, for victims of horrendous crimes, backlogs mean justice is already being slowly and painfully denied. Could the Minister assure me that, while hard decisions are made on the speed and rigour of justice, the Ministry will keep in mind those brave survivors who have come forward and are being let down by the system as it is?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. As all hon. Members here will know, throughout October and November our inboxes and DMs fill up with messages from constituents sharing their concerns about fireworks and to what extent they should be controlled, so I welcome the chance to discuss that today. I thank the hundreds of my Cannock Chase constituents and the thousands of people across the country who lit the fuse on the two petitions. They include pet owners, parents, farmers, veterans and people with disabilities. They all ask a very simple question: why, when the harms caused by fireworks are so well evidenced, do we continue to allow their widespread sale with few meaningful restrictions? My experience of the issue is perhaps different from that of many people who would pose that question; growing up, I enjoyed many professional displays at council-run bonfire nights, and I married into a family that considers a small fireworks display in the back garden to be a closely guarded new year’s eve tradition. I do not have any pets, and my two children are about as heavy sleepers as it is possible to be. But I am also an animal welfare advocate, so I very much understand the concerns. The Kennel Club has reported an 81% increase in dogs going missing during periods when fireworks are used. Animal rescue centres continue to document animals fleeing in panic, and farmers talk of miscarriages and even deaths among livestock. And we know that wildlife disruption is very significant. We also have to acknowledge the impact on people. Parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities have told me how distressing it can be when fireworks are set off late at night, especially without warning; how difficult it can be to calm a child in sensory overload; and the effects that can be felt for days and days afterwards. For many veterans and survivors of trauma living with PTSD, fireworks season means the exact opposite of celebration. The organisation Combat Stress has extensive research on how certain bangs, flashes, whistles, smoke and smells can replicate the sights and sounds of warfare. It is telling that polling shows that 74% of veterans support further restrictions on when fireworks can be set off. If we had concrete nationwide statistics on the amount of time and money our police and firefighters spend dealing with accidental and criminal fireworks-related incidents, that would also add strength to the arguments for action on this issue. Most people, it must be said, use fireworks responsibly, and there are restrictions on what they can buy and who can buy. Yet the fact that we hear the same concerns raised consistently year after year tells us that doing nothing is no longer an option. Members of the public can buy fireworks as loud as 120 dB, roughly the equivalent to a jet engine taking off. As anyone who has been a councillor will know, noise limits are difficult to enforce unless the disruption is repeated, and with sales increasingly happening online information and advice is more and more difficult to give. Having once been confined to a few days of the year, many of my constituents have noted, the fireworks season is getting longer and longer every year, so I agree with calls to limit firework sales and use to specific periods of the year. I also wholeheartedly support the e-petition that calls for a 90 dB limit on fireworks. The petitions we are debating reflect a shift in public opinion. People are not calling for the end of celebration, but a more balanced approach. Before I conclude, I acknowledge the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who, as we have heard, has introduced a Fireworks Bill that I think makes sensible, proportionate proposals. I welcome the fact that Ministers are listening and reviewing the evidence from animal welfare organisations, veterans’ charities, parents, local authorities and the public, which I believe is clear. My ask of the Government is this: commit to meaningful reform. We should reduce permitted noise levels, tackle the ballooning length of fireworks season and tighten controls on sales. Our understanding of animal welfare has evolved. Our awareness of trauma and neurodiversity has grown. Technology has moved on and public expectations have changed. It is entirely reasonable and in fact necessary for the law to evolve, too.

• 15 Jan 2026 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents are sick to the back teeth of people getting away with working illegally while they play by the rules. The previous Government, despite the incredible hindsight the Conservatives now seem to have about their time in office, utterly failed to put in place a robust system of right-to-work checks, which was a gift to rogue employers and criminal gangs. Does the Minister agree that it is high time we brought in digital right-to-work checks to crack down on the scourge of illegal working that the Conservative party left to fester?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Illegal Waste: Organised Crime · Hansard source

  More

  My constituency is on the edge of the west midlands conurbation, and has plenty of country lanes and quiet beauty spots. Communities in my constituency, and particularly in my home village of Norton Canes, know all too well the impact of fly-tipping and organised waste crime. We Labour Members have not forgotten the deep cuts made to the Environment Agency under the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. Can the Minister assure us that this Government will ensure that the Environment Agency has the resources and powers that it needs to go after those who make a living out of exploiting people and businesses, and destroying our precious environment?

• 3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It gives me great pride as a Labour MP to speak in this debate on an incredibly important Bill that will further right historic wrongs—stains on our nation’s history. Although my constituents hold a range of views on many issues, they are united in expecting public servants and institutions to act with honesty and transparency. The Bill draws a line in the sand, signalling a landmark shift in the responsibilities placed on those who serve our communities. With the Bill we can finally say that when the state fails and public servants do not live up to their duties, the men and women of this country will not be left fighting for the truth. The duty of candour is about truth telling when the truth is inconvenient—even incriminating—and it is about ensuring that the power of the state can never again be used to conceal wrongdoing, distort justice or silence ordinary people. As an MP representing a former mining community, the memory of the battle of Orgreave still looms large. On 18 June 1984, hundreds of striking miners gathered to picket peacefully. What followed was a ruthlessly planned violent confrontation between police and miners; 95 were arrested and charged with offences including riot and violent disorder. Many of the prosecutions collapsed when it became clear that the officers’ statements were almost identical and not credible, but still those men were vilified and for 40 years have lived with the scars—physical and mental—and felt the crushing weight, as the families of the 97 have felt, of justice denied. In July the Government announced a statutory inquiry into Orgreave, to be chaired by the Bishop of Sheffield. That announcement was so welcome, but three months on many in our communities are desperate for news. Last week I and fellow coalfield MPs met the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, which reminded us that with many miners having shorter life expectancies due to the gruelling and dangerous work that they did underground, every day that goes by could mean lost testimony that would be crucial to the inquiry. As with Hillsborough, when it comes to Orgreave, a duty of candour could have prevented a generation of injustice, and could even have disincentivised a culture of cover-ups. The same principle of truth, transparency and accountability applies just as powerfully to the press. This morning in the Liverpool Echo , Margaret Aspinall, who has been such a powerful figurehead for the Hillsborough families’ campaign for justice, said unequivocally that justice for the 97 will not be fully done until we have proper press regulation and accountability for the lies that were told by The Sun. She is right, and we owe it to everyone who has had their life torn apart by press intrusion or misinformation to take action. I think of Paul Dadge from my constituency who became a symbol of humanity in the 7/7 attacks. Hon. Members may remember the harrowing image of a woman clutching a burn mask to her face, being guided towards an ambulance by a man. That man was Paul and, although he hates the word, Paul was a hero that day. But in the months that followed, Paul found that his phone had been hacked by News of the World journalists. We all remember the denials and warm words that were uttered throughout the public furore over the phone-hacking scandal. It has now been more than a decade since the Leveson inquiry exposed the corrosive culture of impunity in parts of the British press. The second phase of that inquiry would have investigated the relationship between the press and police, but it was shamefully abandoned by the previous Government. Instead, the big papers created their own regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which has never fined a newspaper and has found in favour complainants in only 0.3% of cases. Now that we are 12 years on from Leveson and in an age of social media, action against press intrusion needs to look different, but the principle of an impartial, independent watchdog is perhaps even more relevant now than it was in 2013. I hope that is something under active consideration by the Government. Whether it is the families of Hillsborough, the miners of Orgreave, or my constituent Paul, we owe them meaningful, permanent change. The Bill offers us a chance to do that, and I hope and believe that it will be the start of much more to come.

• 23 Oct 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I recently met a constituent whose husband died while serving in the police force and who now finds herself in a difficult position. Under the 1987 police pension scheme, surviving partners do not receive lifelong survivor benefits, whereas under the 2015 scheme, they do. She feels, understandably, that this creates an inconsistency for families who have already given so much to public service. Could we have a debate on police pensions to discuss whether more can be done to ensure the system treats all police families with consistency and compassion?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in favour of the Bill, because in so many ways it epitomises what the Government have had to do over the last 14 months. We inherited a prison system in crisis, having been fit to burst for years—something that evidently did not catch the attention of the then Ministers, given that in their 14 years they added only 500 places, one 40th of what they promised the people of this country they would deliver. Despite rapidly ramping up prison building as a national infrastructure priority to address the failed legacy of the Conservatives—whose reputation as the supposed party of law and order is, frankly, in tatters—this Government are being honest with the public that we will still face a shortfall in prison places of some 9,500 by 2028. That is why generational reform of sentencing is needed to ensure that our legal system is fit for the future. That is the responsible thing to do, which is why it is so unedifying to see the party of Peel, Disraeli and David Gauke disgracing itself with the scaremongering and party political point scoring we have heard from the Conservatives, over a Bill that will clean up the mess that they created. Let me turn to the specifics of the Bill. The changes to early release will ensure that that release is genuinely earned. It is indisputable that over many years we have seen an erosion of discipline and order in many of our prisons, as evidenced by the amount of contraband that makes it into secure facilities and the number of assaults on prison officers. The changes in the Bill will ensure that possession of a mobile phone, for example, or violent behaviour can add months to a sentence, and that there will be no limit to that, as additional time can be added consecutively. Far from being soft on criminals, the clear message is that if people cause disorder and intimidation in our prisons, they will spend longer behind bars. On rehabilitation, we have to be pragmatic and do what works. In my view, the primary purpose of our sentencing system is to punish offenders and make them repay society for their crimes, but I am also a pragmatist. If, as the Justice Secretary clearly outlined, the reoffending rate and the likelihood of offenders going on to commit more serious crimes is sky high, particularly for those serving short custodial sentences, then we have a duty to look at this again. It is right that the consequences that are proven to be more effective, such as community orders, are used, but with vital carve-outs for dangerous and prolific offenders, so that judges can ensure that victims, like those of vile domestic and sexual violence, are protected. On that point, this Government’s efforts to fix the mess that the last Government made of tagging will help us to protect victims through pragmatic changes, including a pilot of tagging before prisoners reach the gate for release. That will be coupled with the measures in the Bill of which I am proudest: restriction zones, which will be important for victims, often women, who have so much to fear from offenders—often ex-partners or family members. In one of the first surgeries that I held as an MP last July, I spoke to a constituent who lived in constant fear of her manipulative, violent and abusive ex-partner, who she felt would kill her. She had a restraining order in place but she felt that it was no protection at all, because her ex-partner would repeatedly find out where she lived and knew exactly how to get around the order. I know that many hon. Members have heard such stories, where the victim feels that they are now the one being restricted to a geographical area. Under this Bill, it will be the offender who feels that sense of geographical restriction. It should always have been that way around. On making offenders feel restrictions on their life and liberty, I also welcome the proposed reforms to community sentences, so that rather than a one-size-fits-all approach that will not affect every offender, there will instead be a broad range of punishments that can be tailored to the nature of the offending and to what would act as a deterrent to each offender. Finally, I welcome the Bill’s introduction of a requirement that the Lord Chancellor is consulted on new sentencing guidelines. That was a firm commitment made by the previous Justice Secretary, when new guidelines—stating that judges should take facts including the defendant’s ethnicity into account—were put before us without her oversight. She stated that this Government would take urgent legislative action to address that, and that commitment is being put into effect in this Bill. In conclusion, the measures in the Bill are necessary after the last Government’s abject record of failure on criminal justice and prisons. They will ensure that all our constituents can have the assurance that the criminal justice system is once again effective, fit for purpose and on a solid footing for the future.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Court Backlogs · Hansard source

  More

  1. What steps his Department is taking to reduce the Crown court backlog.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Court Backlogs · Hansard source

  More

  I recently had the chance to visit my local magistrates court in Cannock, and I was told that a major barrier to ramping up the number of sitting days in both magistrates and Crown courts is the lack of legal advisers. I am told that many are leaving the Crown Prosecution Service because the pay is often better elsewhere, but that means having to cut back on sitting times. Will my right hon. Friend outline what steps the Ministry is taking to increase the number of legal advisers in our courts?