Kevin Bonavia MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As ever, the hon. Member speaks up not just for his constituents, but for the welfare of the armed forces community in Northern Ireland, and I am sure this Government will treat them with the respect they deserve. In my area, Stevenage borough council has signed the armed forces covenant. However, this is not just about a piece of paper; it is about working to turn that commitment into something real. We are working with the armed forces community, including with initiatives such as the Muster Point—a grassroots mutual support veterans organisation, where veterans talk to each other. The group brings cases to the council and think, “Let’s work out a solution to make sure that this person is not left behind”, making sure that council staff understand the needs of the veterans who come to them. That work in Stevenage is led locally by our armed forces champion, Councillor Claire Parris, who works with veterans at the Muster Point—like Stu Mendelson, Steve Black and many others who have visited this place, including earlier today—to ensure they are not left behind, and that places like this and others across the country are truly for them too. The reality, though, is that such joined-up, practical delivery has not been consistent across the country. For too long, service families have been told that the covenant exists, only to find that their experience depends on the postcode in which they live. When we look at the Bill, and at amendment 9, the question is not whether we need more frameworks, new office holders or more statements; the question is whether we finally ensure the covenant works everywhere in this country of ours, not just in the places where there is strong local leadership. The duty in this Bill embeds the covenant across the system and ensures that the approach in my constituency of Stevenage is not the exception, but the standard. After years during which the covenant was talked about but not consistently delivered, this Bill will start to make that consistency real. Secondly, I turn to amendments 48, 51 and 54 on service housing. As we have heard in this debate, for too long service families were expected to put up with conditions that simply would not be tolerated anywhere else. Two thirds of service family accommodation needs major work, repair satisfaction has collapsed to as low as 16% and tens of thousands of complaints have been made year upon year. Let us be honest about how we got here. That is the legacy of a failed housing model, a botched privatisation that left families living in substandard homes while taxpayers continued to foot the bill. This Government are now putting that right, making a £9 billion investment in our service housing, upgrading or rebuilding tens of thousands of homes and, crucially, bringing homes back into public ownership so that we can finally take back control of standards and delivery. It is not just about comfort; it is about capability too. When only four in 10 personnel are satisfied with service life and morale has fallen to record lows, housing is not a side issue. It is central to retention, readiness and the future of the armed forces.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Park Home Owners · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing this debate. For residents of park homes in my constituency, this is not a technical issue; it is about power, protection and whether anyone steps in when things go wrong. Park homes are meant to offer security and affordability, particularly for older people. For many, park homes represent their life savings and their final move, but too often, they instead experience anxiety about charges they do not understand, standards that quietly slip and enforcement that never seems to arrive. Let me give some examples. Pitch fees are a major source of the pressure they face. Residents face increases imposed with little explanation, often linked to CPI, entirely at the site owner’s discretion. Getting basic receipts can be a struggle, and many residents do not challenge these increases because they are afraid—they are afraid of retaliation, afraid of being labelled difficult and afraid that services will quietly deteriorate if they speak up. Then there is maintenance. Members have already mentioned some examples of local authorities failing to enforce. Such examples are why I have written to East Herts district council, which is the licensing authority for a park home in my constituency, to set out my residents’ concerns. I expect the district council to act promptly, and my participation in this debate should underline that expectation clearly. Finally, I turn to the 10% sales commission, which we have heard so much about today. However, we have not really heard why it is set at that arbitrary level. On behalf of park home residents in my constituency, I ask the Minister to consider seriously either removing it or reducing it to a far lower level. At its heart, this debate is about fairness. Park home residents are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for honesty about what they are buying, transparency about what they are paying for, proper maintenance of the places they live and councils that enforce the rules. I ask the Minister to consider all that very carefully.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  We have heard powerful speeches today. Those of us in the Chamber are united in support of our friends in Ukraine. Members have spoken about their own experiences of support, and about the support given by Members who are not present. But we must remember this: Members of the Ukrainian Parliament—the Rada—are doing far more than we could ever do. They are fighting the war; they are on Putin’s hit lists. We here must show that resolve, because what we say in this Chamber is not heard and watched only on the TVs of our constituents; it is watched by our allies and our adversaries, so what we say here does matter. We also know that our ally, Ukraine, depends not just on words: the Ukrainians need the tools to carry on the job, and they must know that they have no truer friend than this country and that we will be with them until the very end.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely; the hon. Lady makes a good point about Ukrainians we have given sanctuary to in this country. They are making a fantastic contribution and should be proud of their identity; just as many of us, even if we are not doing it today, wear the Ukrainian flag alongside the Union Jack, they should be proud of that and never lose that identity wherever their lives may take them. Going forward, the world must be clear about this country’s position on the future of this horrific conflict. Yes, we want peace, but not at any price, and we must be clear that no peace can be made without the people of Ukraine. We have a proud history in this country of defending democracy, but we have blots on our history, too. We decided the future of Czechoslovakia without the Czechoslovaks; we must not do that now, and we should urge our allies that they must not do that either. That must be at the heart of this Government’s policy. Beyond that, this is about soft and hard power. There are people talking about hard power politics out there. I speak as a lawyer who believes in the rule of law, but law without the power behind it is just empty words, so I commend efforts by this Government to increase that hard power. This country is getting serious and needs to get more serious, and I am sure many Members in this House will support the Government to do precisely that. If we do not, and if there is a peace, which is just a pause for Putin, we know what will happen next. Those Ukrainians are on the frontline of Europe and—make no mistake— not just Europe: this hostility goes right across the world to our allies across the Atlantic and beyond.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q11. Many of my constituents in Stevenage were appalled to hear Reform MPs oppose the principle of deploying British troops to maintain peace in Ukraine. Our brilliant armed forces have defended democracy in Europe across the generations, so it is shameful that the leader of Reform opposes that today. That is not leadership; it is surrender. Does the Prime Minister agree that Labour Governments always have and always will defend British interests, not those of Russian dictators or oligarchs?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Ukraine and Wider Operational Update · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, commend the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister for their calm and determined resolve in defence of Ukraine. Beyond that, Ukraine has no truer friend than this country. Putin knows that too, which is why he would never tolerate a democracy such as ours, nor have a debate and questioning such as we have had here this evening. Because of that, he will do everything to undermine this country. What can not only my right hon. Friend’s Department, but the Government as a whole, do to ensure that we as a country have the resilience to take whatever Russia may throw at us?

• 6 Jan 2026 · BBC Charter Renewal · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member really wants to hammer the BBC about the amount of scandals. Guess what? It is the biggest broadcaster, so I do not think that just talking about numbers is enough. The fact that is really important about the BBC is that, compared to other broadcasters, we hold it to a higher standard. It gets far more scrutiny than any other broadcaster, as it should. Yes, there are bad eggs at the BBC. There have been some terrible scandals there too. Ultimately, those are usually—but not always—flushed out. In this world of misinformation, where we have far more players and fake news out there, I have constituents in Stevenage say to me, “Sorry, I don’t do mainstream media.” There are people out there who are much happier to share a fake video. That is why it is so important—more important than it has ever been—that we have a national broadcaster that we do hold to account. The question before us now is, how do we make this national broadcaster fit for the age we live in? In this dangerous age of misinformation from people who are prepared to take their shilling from private broadcasters, how should our national broadcaster meet the standard we expect? That is a real challenge for this Government. I know they will do their best to review the charter to make sure we have a national broadcaster that does meet the age that we live in. I have talked about the high standards we expect in the BBC, and it has been called out on those standards in this very room today. One Member spoke about the bias towards Palestine, and another spoke about the bias towards Israel. These are right, subjective points of view, based on the facts that those Members see, and that is fine—it is good that people have that debate, and so should we in this Chamber.

• 18 Dec 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  The people of Ukraine are not alone, as we have heard in this House today. Their sacrifices are for their own country, but they are for us all. I am therefore very grateful for what this Government are doing in leading the way; so much more is being done to support our brethren and sisters in Ukraine. However, Russia is a threat not just to Ukraine but to all of Europe, and we have heard about the threats to this country. What can the Minister tell us about the cross-Government steps we are taking to stop interference in our democracy, attacks on our infrastructure and, indeed, attacks on our whole society?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  This Budget shows that after years of decline, this Labour Government are building a stronger and more secure economy, one that works for working people in Stevenage and the villages across our constituency. We are beating the forecasts, with growth upgraded to 1.5% this year and wages rising faster in our first year than in the entire first decade under the Conservatives. But this is all for nothing if working people cannot see and feel positive changes in their day-to-day lives. That is why this Budget makes the fair and necessary choices to cut the cost of living, renew our public services and bring stability to the economy. For families in Stevenage, the cost of living has been a real pressure, so I welcome the measures that will put money back into people’s pockets, with £150 off average energy bills, rising to £300 off for those who need it most, alongside freezing prescription charges and, for the first time in 30 years, freezing rail fares. That means that commuters travelling from Stevenage or Knebworth will not see the annual hike that they endured year after year under the previous Government. Take, for example, one of our fantastic young apprentices from Airbus who wrote to me before the Budget asking the Chancellor to consider a rail freeze to ensure that he could afford to do the job he loves. When working people call, this Labour Government answer. We are cutting NHS waiting lists, with 250 new neighbourhood health centres and millions more appointments, and we are freezing prescription costs. For Stevenage, where the Lister hospital serves not just our town but the surrounding villages, this investment in our infrastructure and in our patients is vital. We are doing all that while reducing borrowing every year so that interest rates—already cut five times since the election—can keep falling, helping families with mortgages and businesses with investment. Let’s deal with the nonsense we have heard from the Opposition Benches. We have been told that this is a Budget for “Benefits Street”, that Labour is hiking taxes to pay for welfare and that borrowing is spiralling out of control. Here are the actual facts: borrowing will fall every single year of this Parliament, moving to surplus by 2028. That is fiscal responsibility, not the chaos of unfunded tax cuts that crashed the economy under the last Conservative Government. Scrapping the two-child benefit limit is not a handout; it is an investment. A child growing up in poverty is less likely to work as an adult and earns 25% less by the age of 30. Lifting 450,000 children out of poverty is both morally right and economically smart. On taxes, the biggest changes fall on those with the broadest shoulders: high-value property owners, landlords who pay less tax than their tenants and online giants who have dodged their fair share for too long. Compare that with the Conservatives, who now talk of £47 billion of spending cuts, hitting working people the hardest and still leaving public services crumbling—they have some cheek, after 14 years of doing just that. That figure would be the equivalent of firing every police officer twice over. Reform’s fantasy economics, with billions of cuts and no plan as to where they fall, would mean complete, unbridled chaos. That is why we need a sensible Labour Budget. That is what we have, and that is why I will support it tomorrow night.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Supporting High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  This motion is a masterclass in political gaslighting. It claims to support high streets, but proposes slashing public investment, scrapping workers’ rights and deregulating the very protections that keep our communities safe. It is not really a motion; it is a demolition notice for our high streets and our town centres. Neglect, not regulation, is the real threat to our high streets. Under the previous Tory Government, shoplifting rose by 71%, street theft increased by 59%, and violence against shop workers hit 2,000 incidents per day. This is the legacy of the Conservative party—a record of abandonment and inaction. The Conservatives let crime spiral and neighbourhood policing collapse. This Labour Government are reversing that damage. Through the safer streets summer initiative, more than 500 towns, including my town of Stevenage, are seeing a surge in visible policing, targeted enforcement against shoplifting and antisocial behaviour, and bespoke local action plans to tackle violence against shop workers. This is not a short-term stunt; it is the first wave of Labour’s neighbourhood policing guarantee, backed by a £200 million investment this year alone. This Government will deliver 13,000 new officers and police community support officers by the end of this Parliament and £5 million for our pride in place programme, giving communities the power to reclaim boarded-up shops, save derelict pubs and block unwanted gambling and vape outlets. This means boots on the ground—not empty promises—restoring safety and confidence to our high streets. This motion offers slogans about energy bills, but it is Labour that offers systemic reform. We are reforming the energy market to make it fairer and more transparent for businesses and accelerating clean, home-grown energy to reduce long-term costs and dependence on volatile fossil fuel markets. We are not capping chaos; we are ending it. The Opposition attack the Employment Rights Bill—a Bill that bans the fire and rehire practices that caused the exploitation of so many workers under the previous Government, introduces bereavement leave for grieving parents after pregnancy loss, ends non-disclosure agreements that silence victims of harassment and discrimination, and lifts standards for thousands of my constituents in insecure work. The Opposition call it red tape; I call it basic decency. The Bill will reward decent employers by punishing the bad behaviour of others. In their motion, the Opposition talk about protecting post offices, pubs and pharmacies, which we all want to do. But how dare they? How dare they preach about protecting post offices? The Conservative candidate in a by-election in the Roebuck ward of Stevenage sent out leaflets to my constituents falsely insinuating that the local post office was closing—this was scaremongering. I checked with the post office, and there was no threat of closure. It was part of a national campaign by the Conservatives, telling people, “Your local post office is being closed,” with no evidence behind it. It is merely a cynical attempt to mislead voters.

• 27 Oct 2025 · Holidays During School Term Time · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on introducing the petition, and I thank the petitioners themselves. I am also grateful to the 865 people in Stevenage who signed this petition, showing how strongly families feel about the issue. I will shortly turn to some of the reasons why the petition really matters, but before I do, I must be clear that every day in school counts—and parents agree. In addition to the evidence that we have heard from the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), 78% of parents say that every school day matters, according to the charity Parentkind. The evidence backs them up: missing even a few days can have a big impact. Year 6 pupils with near perfect attendance are 30% more likely to meet expected standards. Secondary pupils with near perfect attendance are almost twice as likely to achieve a grade 5 in English and Maths. Persistently absent pupils could earn £10,000 less by the age of 28. Normalising the taking of time off in term time would send the wrong message. It would undermine teachers’ hard work and risks widening the attainment gap. Every missed day is not just a lost lesson, but a lost opportunity. I am sure that many of the parents who signed this petition would wholeheartedly agree with that, but, as the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley explained at the outset, it is simply the only way they can afford quality family time together. Just last week, a constituent told me that the only way they can afford a holiday is to take their children out of school one or two days before the end of term, knowing they would not risk a fine but can still take advantage of cheaper prices. If parents have to play the system like that, we know that the system itself is broken. The real problem, which many Members have touched on, is that families are not breaking rules because they do not care; they are simply being priced out. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) started with Center Parcs, so let me turn to Center Parcs. Four days at Center Parcs Woburn Forest, near me, in term time is £429. In February half-term, that goes up to £1,449—an increase of 238%. At Center Parcs in Longleat, four days in term time is £579, but in half-term it is £1,599—an increase of 176%. A British Airways flight from Heathrow to Geneva costs £184 in term time, but in half-term that goes up to £3,072, which is a 1,570% increase—and it is outbound only. In May half-term, a TUI Tenerife package for seven days in term time costs £1,204, and in half-term it costs £2,384—an increase of 98%. A Jet2 flight to Bodrum in term time is £500, but in half-term it is £1,065, which is an increase of 113%. Then there are the summer holidays, which are much longer, but people still get hit. A Ryanair flight from Newcastle to Faro in term time is £140, but in the summer holidays, it is £340—an increase of 143%. With packages in Spain on Go.Compare, seven days in term time is £290 per person, but that goes up to £384 in the school holidays, meaning that a family would pay £760 more. What can the Government do to stop the travel industry from exploiting families with outrageous price hikes during school holidays? Fines are simply not working. According to Parentkind, 61% of parents say that the risk of a fine makes no difference to them. Families feel trapped between unaffordable prices and rigid rules. Even when they want to play by the rules, they are still penalised. A single mum in Stevenage told me that she had been fined even though it had been her ex-husband who took their child out of school. Let us not pit education against family time; let us ensure that both are respected and that no parent is forced to choose between their child’s education and quality family time together.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This is not about individuals; it is about the principle. Does the Father of the House agree that it is the principle we should be talking about today, not the individuals, however good they may be at serving in the other place?

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Our constitution is indeed a very curious beast. Nobody starting from scratch would come anywhere near designing what we have for this country—perhaps apart from the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and some of those on the Benches behind him. It has evolved over the centuries in response to the political pressures that arise from time to time, and today is part of that evolution. As the constitution has changed, our traditions have remained. I for one love a bit of tradition in this place, especially when it tells the story of how we have come to be where we are; whether it is Royal Assent being signified in Norman French or the doors of this Chamber being shut on the entry of Black Rod, it all tells a story. However, when tradition holds us back from the work we are sent here to do, it becomes a barrier.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree wholeheartedly with the principle of a check on this place. However, that check must come with due wisdom and expertise. We have heard from the Conservative Benches about those centuries of wisdom, but wisdom cannot simply be passed down genetically to people in the other place today. Surely we need people in the other place who have expertise and are there on merit, not because of who their ancestors were. Lords amendment 1 seeks to amend the 1999 compromise of by-elections to replace vacant hereditary peers by allowing the cohort of hereditary seats to gradually reduce by natural departure. As my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has said, that amendment would effectively delay our manifesto commitment to end the hereditary element in the other place for many years to come. As I said earlier, this is about not individuals or personalities but ensuring that our institutions reflect the values of our modern democracy. I have seen at first hand the important role of the second Chamber in scrutinising legislation and improving the quality of lawmaking, but that role must be based on merit and public service, not on birthright. If anyone watching today’s debate is a hereditary peer—I see none up in the Gallery—and is dismayed at the prospect of no longer being able to contribute to the work of the other place, I say to them: do not be downhearted. Anyone in principle, including ex-hereditary peers, should have the ability to serve as a parliamentarian if they are willing and able to do the necessary work—and work is the point here. Doing the necessary work brings me to Lords amendment 3, which would effectively bring about a new tradition of creating life peerages as honours in name only, with no work involved. What on earth is the use of that? There are plenty of other honours, as we have heard, that His Majesty can bestow that would show due public recognition for services rendered to this country. The other place is not and should not be used as an honours board. It should be a working and effective part of our legislature—our Parliament. I believe that any parliamentarian comes to this building to do the work, to hold or be held to account, to raise issues that matter to the wider country and to pass good and workable laws. When I was elected on that expectation by my constituents in Stevenage, that was the pledge I promised to uphold. Although Members of the other place do not have expectations from constituents, I believe there is an expectation from the public as a whole that they are there to do the work of good parliamentarians. An empty life peerage title would only take away from that public expectation. These amendments complicate what is and should be a simple task before us: to deliver—finally—on ending the principle of hereditary peerages and ensure that the other place is a working place in a Parliament that works for all the people.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Strategy for Elections · Hansard source

  More

  I declare a former interest as a lawyer specialising in election law. I can say from that previous life that the previous Tory Government left our election law in an unfair and dangerous state: unfair in that they made it harder for people to vote, and dangerous in that they did nothing to prevent foreign actors from spending millions of pounds, roubles or dollars to interfere with our democracy. Does the Minister agree that it is high time to take robust action to make our democracy safe and fair for everyone, and will she assure the House that this will be a speedy and fair process?