Kevin Bonavia MP: speeches

Speeches

• 29 Jun 2026 · Animal Abusers · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the petitioners for bringing this important issue to the House; I am very sympathetic. Animal abuse comes in many forms, and we should also consider what sanctions owners who are irresponsible with their pets should face. In my constituency, we recently had a horrific case where an XL bully attacked a man and he ended up needing hospital treatment. Does my hon. Friend agree that people who cannot responsibly handle their animals are also committing a form of abuse and should be treated accordingly?

• 6 Jan 2026 · BBC Charter Renewal · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for bringing this important issue to Westminster Hall. In the short time I have, I want to make only one point: the BBC is distinctly British. What do I mean by that? It is a service—a service for all, like the NHS. It is a human organisation; it is not perfect, as we have heard in the debate. That, dare I say, is a good thing, and we are having a debate about whether the BBC is up to the high standard we expect, because it does have to meet a higher standard than other broadcasters—some of which pay some Members in this House a separate salary, rather than them being full time.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I will not, I am afraid. I am now convinced that it is necessary. Why is that? It is because today, identity checks are not a novelty; they are a necessity across all our lives. Why is it that a company such as Amazon can do far better handling our data than the national health service? My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), a respected doctor, explained how we cannot, as individuals, access the services that we need. Why is this seen as so un-British? Is it not British to be ambitious for our people? If we think that other countries can do it, but we cannot because we are so rubbish at such things, why should we not discuss that?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Ms Furniss. The historian AJP Taylor said: “Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state…He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission.” Sounds great, does it not? Yet the world wars that followed changed all that. By the second world war, we had a national identity card—as has been mentioned—and that requirement only ended in 1952. However, individual registration numbers remained, and do so to this day, for national insurance and the NHS. When the NHS was being formed, many people said, “Oh no—not the socialist state that is taking over all our lives.” Yet so many of us depend on it to this day. It would be wholly wrong to claim that there has been no need for the state to provide a system to verify a citizen’s identity, either for national security or for the right to access public services. If someone had asked me 20 years ago, the last time a national identity service was being properly considered, I would have had my doubts as to whether it was really necessary.

• 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.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to take an intervention from the hon. Lady, if she wishes. By working with our European partners and other countries we can better manage arrivals, reduce pressure on local services and ensure that those seeking asylum are treated with fairness and dignity. Co-operation must be more than simply operational, however; it means tackling the criminal networks that exploit vulnerable people and ensuring that our asylum system is efficient and humane. Our communities want clarity. They want to know that the system is working, not just for those who come here in search of safety, but for our local communities. That starts with policies that build on partnership, not posturing. While I will always bang the drum for safer and stronger border management, I do not want us to turn our backs on those in need or give up on the multicultural Britain we know and love. Britain has long been a place of refuge and opportunity. We have heard about the 250,000 Belgians this country gave refuge to in the first world war, the Windrush generation and the frontline workers who kept our NHS going during the pandemic. Immigrants have always played a vital role in shaping our country for better. We have a legal and a moral responsibility to support those fleeing persecution. That means building an asylum system that is fair, efficient and humane, and one that does not leave people waiting in limbo for years. At the same time, we must be firm where it matters. If someone comes to this country and breaks our laws, they should be removed. That is not about prejudice; it is about protecting the integrity of our system and the safety of our communities. It is something that those who come here legally, and contribute greatly, wholeheartedly support—fairness matters to us all. That balanced approach must guide us. We need to move away from the use of hotels, which were never designed for long-term accommodation. We must continue the work of clearing the backlog so that decisions are made swiftly and fairly. We must deepen our partnerships with international allies to address the drivers of migration, which affect all countries, at their source. With that in mind, I ask the Minister how and when local authorities will be notified that hotels in their area are being returned to public use, and what support will be provided to ensure a smooth transition for both our local communities and all those applying for asylum?