Ruth Jones MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 10 Mar 2026 · Fur: Import and Sale · Hansard source

  More

  I could not have put it better myself. Let us be clear about what the fur trade involves. Each year, tens of millions of animals, including foxes, mink and raccoons, are still trapped solely for fashion. On farms, they are confined for their entire lives in barren wire cages, unable to run, dig, swim or express the most basic natural behaviours. Investigations on fur farms by organisations including Humane World for Animals repeatedly show animals suffering extreme physical and psychological distress, self-mutilation, cannibalism and untreated injuries, before being killed at around eight months of age, commonly by gassing or anal electrocution. Importantly, that suffering is well documented on farms that operate under the industry’s “welfare assurance” scheme. Animals trapped for their fur can be caught in maiming metal-jawed traps and left trapped for days with no food or water, exposed to the elements, before a trapper finally returns to kill them. Extremely disturbing footage from undercover investigations into trapping in the US by Born Free USA, Respect for Animals and Humane World for Animals shows trappers laughing as they bludgeon trapped animals to death and drown a terrified raccoon in a river. There is no such thing as humanely produced or responsibly sourced fur. The European Food Safety Authority recently published scientific opinion on the welfare of animals kept for fur production, which clearly showed that the needs of animals such as mink, foxes, raccoons, dogs and chinchillas cannot be met on fur farms. The report also concludes that suffering cannot be prevented or substantially mitigated in current fur farming systems, which include so-called “high welfare” farms in Europe. Underscoring that, Mike Moser has publicly stated: “Having spent so many years working to defend the fur industry, it is now my strongly held view that while animals continue to be caged, no improvement to nor strengthening of fur farming regulations will ever prevent the welfare problems and cruelty that are systemic to the fur industry.” There is no meaningful dispute that the fur trade has suffering written through its DNA. Under a Labour Government, the UK recognised that when it became the first country in the world to ban fur farming on animal welfare grounds. Since then, 23 countries have followed our lead. The question before us today is not whether fur farming is cruel—Parliament has already answered that. The question is if it is too cruel to produce here, why are we allowing it to be sold here? Despite our domestic ban, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs records show that the UK imports between £30 million and £40 million-worth of fur every year—equivalent to as many as 1 million animals killed annually to be traded here. Although fur is extremely unpopular in Britain’s shops and wardrobes, and only 3% of people say that they would wear fur, by the fur trade’s own admission, the UK is a trading hub for the global industry. Banning fur imports would remove that vital piece of the industry’s trading landscape, and so hasten its demise. The case for a ban on fur imports and sales does not rest on animal welfare alone. Leading virologists around the world, including from Imperial College London, have warned that fur farms represent a serious threat to public health, describing them as an “important transmission hub for viral zoonoses” equivalent to other high-risk practices like the bush meat trade and live animal markets. They are a ticking time bomb for the next pandemic to occur. Hundreds of outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 and highly pathogenic avian influenza have been recorded on fur farms in recent years. Viruses have mutated, spread rapidly between animals, and been passed back to humans. During the covid-19 pandemic, millions of animals were culled and fur farms shut down in several countries on public health grounds. Yet the industry continues. At a time when Parliament speaks about resilience, prevention and learning the lessons of covid, continuing to be complicit in the public health risk of the global fur trade is indefensible. In its death throes, the fur industry has attempted to rebrand itself as environmentally friendly, but those claims do not withstand scrutiny. Fur production is resource-intensive, highly polluting and carbon heavy. For example, 1 kg of mink fur generates around seven times more greenhouse gas emissions than 1 kg of beef, and requires over half a tonne of meat feed. Fur processing also relies on toxic and carcinogenic chemicals to prevent decomposition and to dye the fur. Meanwhile, faux fur technology has advanced rapidly, with British designers using recycled and plant-based materials, many of them biodegradable. Ending the UK fur trade will support innovation, not greenwashing. The public are far ahead of the law on this issue. More than three quarters of voters believe that when a farming practice is banned in the UK for cruelty, imports produced in the same way should also be banned. More than 1.5 million people have signed petitions calling for a ban and over 200 MPs and peers support the campaign for a fur-free Britain led by Humane World for Animals, FOUR PAWS, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Labour Animal Welfare Society, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Animal Aid and others. The vast majority of British retailers and designers have also moved on from fur. Major brands and British department stores do not sell fur. In 2023, the British Fashion Council banned real fur from London Fashion Week. It is time that our laws caught up with society on the issue of fur. Some hon. Members may wonder about the economic impact of a ban. I can provide assurance that the fur trade is already in steep decline globally. Fur production has fallen by over 85% in the last decade. In the UK, the sector is tiny, employing only a few dozen people, many of whom already trade in alternative materials or services. There is also a clear consumer protection benefit to a ban. A few years ago, there was high-profile coverage by the BBC, Sky News and others exposing the scandal of fake faux fur—real fur being sold as fake fur. That problem has improved thanks to the efforts of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the Advertising Standards Authority, Trading Standards and Humane World for Animals, but it is still today possible to buy a bobble hat on a popular online retailer that is described as fake fur but is, in fact, made of fox. That leaves would-be ethical consumers unable to buy with confidence in accordance with their values. A ban on all animal fur would simplify and strengthen enforcement and restore confidence. The evidence for this ban has been gathered, tested and confirmed for years. Parliamentary inquiries have been held and a Government call for evidence attracted tens of thousands of responses, with over 96% agreeing it is wrong to kill animals for fur. Public opinion, scientific evidence and the economic case are clear. I was proud when, in opposition, Labour’s shadow Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister stated support for a fur-free Britain. We now have an opportunity to make that a reality. I press the Minister today for any details that she may be able to provide on the timing of the publication of the results of the Government’s 2021 call for evidence on the fur trade, as well as the report on the UK fur trade by the DEFRA Animal Welfare Committee. I also place on record my hope that processed animal fur will be left squarely outside the scope of the UK’s ongoing sanitary and phytosanitary negotiations with the EU. As an important agreement to smooth trade in agrifood, it should not concern itself with trying to reach a common position on the trade in furry bobble hats any more than it should worry about trade in leather shoes. I am grateful to the Minister for the formation of a working group to address the UK fur trade, and I hope that it can conduct its business in the coming months with haste, followed by the political will to act in accordance with public opinion and end the UK’s cruel, outdated and unnecessary fur trade.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Domestic Abuse (Pets) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the application of non-molestation orders and occupation orders to behaviour relating to pets; to amend definitions of controlling or coercive behaviour and economic abuse to include behaviour relating to pets; to extend the application of Domestic Abuse Protection Orders to pets; and for connected purposes. Britain prides itself on being a nation of animal lovers. Indeed, the annual PDSA animal wellbeing report found that 51% of UK adults own a pet of some type, with 28% owning a dog and 24% owning a cat. While owning a pet brings joy and companionship to many, Britain’s high levels of pet ownership also mean that animals are too often subject to violence within the home, or are used as tools of coercion and control. However, this known reality is not currently reflected in family and domestic violence law in England and Wales. At the moment, pets do not receive any meaningful legal protection or consideration in domestic abuse cases. This leaves many victims afraid to leave abusive situations due to concerns about their animals’ safety. Abusers can also retain legal ownership of pets, with limited legal mechanisms to transfer custody to survivors. This Bill, which is also known as Ruby’s law, seeks to change that by explicitly incorporating pets into family law protections such as non-molestation and occupation orders. I am proud that this Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls and providing meaningful support to victims of domestic violence and abuse. Such efforts can only be strengthened by recognising the clear link between domestic violence and violence against pets. The statistics are stark: the Dogs Trust has found that 97% of domestic abuse professionals have dealt with cases where pets are harmed as part of coercive control by abusers. This involves controlling access to food, veterinary care and formal ownership rights, often preventing victims from seeking safety in a refuge or adequately caring for their pets. Another study by Dr Mary Wakeham found that in 88% of households experiencing domestic abuse, the abuser also abused pets. In most cases, this involved physical violence against pets as a form of control—pets are kicked, hit, thrown, or even poisoned. In 12% of cases, the abuser ends up killing the animal. This accompanying animal abuse has a significant impact on survivors and their families. Victims often exhibit lasting psychological trauma as a result of witnessing or fearing harm to their pets. The emotional toll on children can also be particularly stark—studies show that 88% of children in abusive households have witnessed pet abuse. This often results in the children developing post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, or other behavioural issues. Ruby’s law seeks to draw on international best practice in tackling these clear concerns. In the US, Canada and Australia, pets are explicitly included in domestic violence protection orders. California and Maine have passed laws allowing pets to be part of restraining orders, providing survivors with greater security and helping them to leave abusive situations sooner. The Northern Ireland Assembly has similarly shown significant support for introducing its own Ruby’s law, with similar proposals forming part of the Executive’s new strategy for ending violence against women and girls. For that reason, I particularly welcome the interest and support from the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann), who sadly is not in his place at the moment. Turning to the substantive proposals of the Bill, Ruby’s law would seek to address current gaps in the Family Law Act 1996 by including pets in non-molestation and occupation orders. This would include the addition of provisions to ensure that pets are protected from harm and survivors are granted legal custody of their pets. Ruby’s law would also amend the Domestic Violence Act 2021 to explicitly reference pet abuse as a form of controlling or coercive behaviour under section 1 of the Act. This will require the police and prosecutors to take pet-related domestic abuse seriously by providing clear legal grounds for prosecution. The Bill would also allow veterinary records, witness testimony and digital evidence of threat or harm to pets to be admissible in court as evidence of a non-molestation order breach, making it easier to prosecute abuse cases involving pet harm. Courts would also be able to consider animal abuse as an aggravating factor in sentencing and risk assessments of perpetrators, helping to protect women and their pets from further abuse. Offenders could also be required to attend behavioural intervention programmes aimed at addressing the link between animal cruelty and domestic violence. I will close by paying tribute to Christina Warner. I have been working closely with her, and she has provided extraordinary leadership on this issue, drawing on her professional experience as a family law barrister. Ruby’s law is firmly aligned with the Government’s agenda of tackling violence against women and girls and supporting victims of domestic violence, and I urge Ministers to give its provisions serious consideration. Together, these changes would offer greater legal clarity and protection, increasing safety for both human and animal victims of domestic abuse. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to . Ordered, That Ruth Jones, Irene Campbell, Sir Roger Gale, Kerry McCarthy, Rachael Maskell, Adam Jogee, Sir Desmond Swayne, Ann Davies, Dr Neil Hudson and Robin Swann present the Bill. Ruth Jones accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 April, and to be printed (Bill 402).

• 9 Mar 2026 · Type 1 Diabetes: Infant Testing · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Alec. I welcome the Minister to her place; it is great to see her. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this e-petition debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and the 240 of my constituents who signed it. I also thank the Story family for submitting the e-petition and for all the work that they do to raise awareness of the importance of early diagnosis and type 1 diabetes in memory of Lyla. Prior to this debate, I was honoured to speak with Welsh campaigners Beth Baldwin and Emma Hopkins from Rewrite Peter’s Story—and Beth is here today in the Public Gallery. Beth’s son Peter suddenly and unexpectedly died aged 13 in 2015 from diabetic ketoacidosis as a result of undiagnosed type 1 diabetes. Beth had taken Peter to the GP with flu-like symptoms. After being diagnosed with a chest infection, Peter was prescribed antibiotics and sent home. Less than 24 hours later, Peter was fighting for his life. The first responder who was called to the house by Beth, on seeing Peter, gave him oxygen and performed a finger-prick test. His blood sugar was extremely high, and he was rushed to A&E. Unfortunately, he was already in diabetic ketoacidosis, and died a few days later. Peter’s death was preventable. Instant blood glucose finger-prick tests are easily available and take seconds, but each year hundreds of children are hospitalised with diabetic ketoacidosis because of delays in diagnosis. Each year, 10 of those children end up dying. Concerningly, 40% of all child diagnoses occurred only once they reached critical care. I am very pleased to hear about the campaigning of Lyla’s family and Peter’s family, and once again I want to thank them all for their work in drawing attention to these important issues. We must move swiftly to extend awareness and training on type 1 diabetes, and to ensure medical guidance is robust and that all primary care sites have the necessary testing equipment. We cannot afford to lose any more lives.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Family Farms · Hansard source

  More

  As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, the Welsh Affairs Committee recently published its report on farming in Wales. We welcome the Government’s reforms to inheritance tax, but call for further work on the impacts of the change on Welsh family farms to protect our culture, language and amazing farm produce. Does the Minister agree that the Chancellor’s changes to the threshold for agricultural property relief and business property relief show that this Labour Government are listening to Welsh farmers and our rural communities?

• 26 Feb 2026 · St David’s Day and Welsh Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  It has been an honour to open and close this debate. I thank everybody who made a contribution. I will not go through the list as the Secretary of State just did that admirably, but each Member spoke with passion and pride about their constituency and highlighted the great aspects of the people and the places within their constituencies. Sadly, none of them can compare with Newport West and Islwyn, but well done for trying. We have also been educated. Madam Deputy Speaker, I think you might have missed the references to St David when we learned about his diet, where he lived and what he did. We also had animal welfare lessons from my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), which we will all go away with, about the flying rings. None of us will buy those ever again. It is really important that we have been here for the debate. Madam Deputy Speaker, you were not in the Chair when the previous Deputy Speaker was invited to the tin baths of Merthyr, but I am sure you would be welcome to go along as well. We will all be there to cheer you on as you get into that ice-cold water—it will be lovely, I am sure. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I am so proud that our country can be spoken about so well and so warmly in this Chamber. I thank everybody. It remains only for me to wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a very happy St David’s day—dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered St David’s Day and Welsh affairs.

• 26 Feb 2026 · St David’s Day and Welsh Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered St David’s Day and Welsh affairs. It is a real privilege to open this debate as we come together to mark St David’s day and discuss Wales’s past, present and, critically, its future. I may not use my full 15 minutes to speak, because other colleagues will want to speak in this important debate. This is my seventh St David’s day debate and my second as Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee. I thank my colleagues the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) and the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who sadly is not in his place today, for helping to secure this debate. It continues to be an honour to Chair the Welsh Affairs Committee and to facilitate the effective cross-party working that makes the Committee so special. We work together to achieve the best for Wales, and I must thank all current and former members of the Committee for their valuable and constructive contributions over the past year. I particularly commend the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) for her practical support of Welsh cakes for our Committee meeting yesterday—they were very useful. I would also like to pay tribute to the fantastic team of Clerks, led by Alison Groves, who support the Committee. We simply could not function without them and are incredibly lucky to have such a diligent and skilled team assisting us. It has been a busy year for the Committee since our last St David’s day debate. We have four ongoing inquiries, with two reports set to be finalised in the coming months. We also published the conclusions of our inquiry into farming in Wales in November, and following it, the Treasury made very welcome changes to the thresholds for agricultural property relief and business property relief. Let me move on to the namesake of this debate: St David, who adorns the entrance to this Chamber coming from Central Lobby. He faced adversity from an early age, having been born in the middle of a violent storm as the child of an act of rape. Nevertheless, he would rise to become the first Bishop of Mynyw and establish new churches throughout south Wales, 50 of which are still named after him. St David is commemorated as a great orator and preacher who spread the Christian message. Indeed, one of his recorded miracles was forming a hill beneath himself as he preached to a large crowd to enable them to see and hear him more clearly. As a nation, we are proud of our rich and storied past, kept alive by our vibrant oral tradition. The Eisteddfod each summer forms a key celebration of this oral tradition, our Welsh culture and the Welsh language by attracting 170,000 visitors each year. From the chapels to the miners’ welfare halls, Wales is renowned for being a land of song. Regardless of the rugby score—we are trying to forget some of the latest scores—Members can be sure that we are the loudest and proudest on and off the field. Our choirs are not only a source of national pride but often the bedrock of community solidarity. Wales has an enduring history of valuing fairness, solidarity and respect—values passed down from generation to generation and shaped by our history, but employed time and again in our everyday lives. Indeed, before there was an NHS or a welfare state, Welsh communities came together to ensure dignity and respect for all.

• 26 Feb 2026 · St David’s Day and Welsh Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is quite right; we are always better together. As a Gaelic colleague, I welcome him to this debate today and I look forward to his contributions later on. St David was known for his austere lifestyle, surviving on a vegetarian diet of mostly leeks and water. I am not necessarily advocating that today for all here, but his resilience has come to symbolise Wales’s resilience in the face of social challenge, including inequality and social disadvantage. Wales has strong communities that are rooted in the place where they live. This is a legacy of our rich working-class heritage—a pride in place founded upon pride in work. Wales played a leading role in Britain’s last industrial revolution as a centre of heavy industry, including mining, quarrying, smelting and steelmaking. This was recognised by our communities. In continuing this place-based story, I welcome the Government’s focus on restoring pride in place and driving investment into our former industrial communities. Welsh councils are set to benefit from £280 million of Pride in Place funding, alongside over £30 million of capital funding to invest in Wales’s public realm. While manufacturing might have defined Wales’s past, it will also shape its future. Wales is still a proud manufacturing economy, and manufacturing continues to be the biggest contributor to the Welsh economy in terms of output, employing over 150,000 people. This makes Wales an outlier in the UK and an international leader in advanced manufacturing. Whether it be aerospace, automotive, defence or electronics, we know that Wales is leading the way. I am extremely proud that my constituency of Newport West and Islwyn is an exemplar in many of those industries of the future. Duffryn is home to the world’s first compound semiconductor cluster, which includes Vishay, IQE, Catapult and KLA. Just across the road, Airbus is innovating cyber-security solutions for aerospace, and Safran provides deluxe seats and even beds for airlines. In Blackwood, General Dynamics is busy outfitting the future of Britain’s mechanised defence forces, and in Marshfield, Microsoft and Vantage are building a number of data centres as part of the new South Wales AI growth zone. As Wales positively embraces the fourth industrial revolution, I welcome the efforts by the Welsh and UK Governments to address the adverse impacts of the last. As a former physiotherapist, I have treated miners with lung conditions such as pneumoconiosis and silicosis, so I know how profound and lasting the impacts have been. The human and environmental impacts have been great and long-lasting, and we are not going back there. In Islwyn, I am proud to represent a former mining area that will greatly benefit from the Government’s decision in the autumn Budget to return £2.3 billion to former British Coal staff. Those pensions are long overdue and I welcome their return. Though the pits may be gone, the bonds of solidarity and community spirit embedded within Islwyn are still clear for all to see. A prominent example of that is the Cefn Fforest Miners Institute. First built in 1935 and funded by contributions from local coalminers, it has been lovingly restored by the village. It reopened in November after being closed for 15 years and now acts as a renewed hub for the community, hosting shows and events. At the same time, I pay tribute to the fantastic Cross Keys silver band, which was formed in 1902 by the local mining community and is still going strong today. I would recommend any concerts they provide—really, I would. I welcome the strong, co-ordinated response by the UK and Welsh Governments in putting forward a record combined £230 million over the next four years to improve coal tip safety. The new multi-year approach being taken by both Governments was much needed. The Welsh Affairs Committee has been looking in detail at prisons, probation and rehabilitation in Wales. That is an area of significant public policy concern in Wales because we have the highest incarceration rate in western Europe, with 177 Welsh residents in prison per 100,000 of the population. The Committee was pleased to receive oral evidence from the Prisons Minister, Lord Timpson, who I know is committed to driving forward work to address reoffending and improve our prison system. As part of our inquiry, we have looked at a wide range of issues, including prison management, housing and education support, as well as the provision of healthcare and services in the Welsh language. The Committee has also considered the specific experiences of women in the criminal justice system, but of particular concern has been the ongoing management of issues at HMP Parc following the 17 deaths there in 2024. We will continue to scrutinise the working arrangements there to ensure the safety of inmates and staff alike. Despite our inquiry being ongoing, the Committee has already had some early wins, with the Ministry of Justice agreeing to our request for the publication of an annual Wales-specific justice dataset, the first of which was published in September. I will close by talking of the future and the big choices facing the people of Wales in just a few months’ time. In May, Wales faces a profound choice about its future: to move forward with a clear plan and a track record of delivery with Eluned Morgan and Welsh Labour, or to turn inward and embrace a politics of grievance and division. While Wales relied on devolution to protect itself from the worst of the Conservative and Lib Dem austerity for 14 years, that period thankfully has ended and Wales can face the future and invest. We now have a Labour Government at each end of the M4 working together for Wales, providing a record devolved financial settlement for 2026 and year-on-year increases in borrowing powers for the Welsh Government, delivering on our manifesto. That means an additional £6 billion of funding for our schools, hospitals and public services. In the Senedd, that record funding is being put to work. Waiting lists in Wales have fallen for the last seven months in a row and are the lowest they have been in three years. We are seeing serious long-term investment in improving literacy and numeracy in our schools, and significant additional support for local businesses seeking to grow. Just last week, we saw our two Governments in partnership announce the end of the historical under-investment in Wales’s railways, with a shared ambition for £14 billion-worth of upgrades across north, south, mid and west Wales, including new stations at Newport West and Cardiff Parkway, near Marshfield in my constituency. This week, the House voted to abolish the cruel two- child limit, which is set to benefit almost 70,000 children across Wales, including over 2,000 in my constituency. From April, that change will slash child poverty in Wales by 10% overnight. None of that is an accident; it is the product of a joint vision of a fairer future for Wales, rooted in social justice and delivering the jobs, transport and opportunities people need to thrive. The path of progress may be slow and difficult, but that does not make it any less valuable. Now is not the time to put the partnership at risk, just as we are beginning to see good news and developments across Wales. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate on St David’s day to take place, and I look forward to hearing the contributions of other colleagues. Diolch yn fawr.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Animals in Science Regulation Unit: Annual Report 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir John. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing this important debate. As the hon. Gentleman said, the 2024 annual report of the ASRU makes for very grim reading. The 146 reported cases of non-compliance with the legal requirements of licensing conditions highlight an ongoing failure to prevent appalling animal suffering in laboratories. As he said, those include extreme cases of animals drowning or starving to death. It is shocking that the ASRU continues to grant scientific licences to allow animals to be deliberately deprived of food and water. Other worrisome incidents include cases of two cats and four dogs being kept in substandard facilities, including a pen that was too small, and another dog that was kept alive longer than authorised, resulting in significant unnecessary suffering. Two primates were also reported to have been left without food overnight, and another two were injured while caged. In total, the ASRU report identified at least 542 animals dying or being euthanised following issues of non-compliance. The report’s detailed accounts of the suffering of 22,000 animals is in stark contrast to our much-lauded identity as a nation of animal lovers. Our national reputation as a world leader on animal welfare legislation, particularly in relation to the use of animals in science, is in real jeopardy. As the hon. Gentleman highlighted, we are falling behind. Despite its content, I welcome the report. If Britain is to remain a world leader on animal welfare, transparency around breaches of animal welfare standards is critical. It ensures accountability and allows both the public and lawmakers to routinely assess the adequacy of existing enforcement. Having read the report, I can only conclude that the ASRU is in urgent need of reform. Despite issuing 15,626 licences at the end of 2024, the ASRU had only 8.2 full-time equivalent inspectors. With the number of licences granted per inspector at its highest since 2012, there are serious concerns about the capacity of the ASRU to ensure effective compliance. Just 68 establishments were inspected in 2024, and only 10 of those inspections were unannounced. What steps are the Government taking to reform the ASRU and improve the resourcing of its audits? With 69% of non-compliance incidents in 2024 being self-reported, I worry that the extent of welfare breaches goes far beyond this, and I worry about the culture in our scientific institutions around safeguarding animal welfare and preventing undue suffering. I would be grateful if the Minister could reflect on this pattern of self-reporting and outline what steps the Government are taking to support a culture of safeguarding animal welfare in licensed organisations. The adage that prevention is better than cure fits well here. Although enforcement needs strengthening and is an ongoing concern, the best way to manage the risks to animals through non-compliance is to stop animals from being used in scientific testing. As the hon. Gentleman said, the three Rs—replacement, reduction and refinement —are already a legal requirement under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. Nevertheless, the embedding of this approach needs strengthening. I welcome the Government’s new “Replacing animals in science” strategy and its recognition of the need to strengthen the ethical review approval process to ensure that animals are used only when there is no alternative, in line with the findings of the Rawle report. The commitments in the strategy are ambitious, but we can go further. Embedding in the law the targets to phase out routine tests, prioritised as parts of baskets 1 and 2, would provide absolute certainty to both the scientific community and campaigners of our commitment to end the use of animals in testing. Such a step could also crowd in wider investment in UK scientific research, strengthening our position as a global leader in the development of animal-free testing methods. I therefore urge the Minister to commit to introducing Herbie’s law and enshrining the targets committed to in recent strategies in legislation. The 2024 report must be a catalyst for change. We must bear down on those who continue to neglect their responsibilities to uphold animal welfare with better enforcement and harsher penalties. While doing that, we cannot and should not neglect the fact that the only long-term solution to this avoidable suffering is to end animal testing once and for all.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Animals in Science Regulation Unit: Annual Report 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister says there are not alternatives, but there are. The forced swim test is a classic, as is the LD50. These need to be phased out; we do not need them any more. I gently encourage the Minister to tell us how we can phase these out as quickly as possible.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Animal Rescue Centres · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing the debate. I was privileged recently to meet the lead petitioners—Paul Watkinson and Niki Roe of Jack’s Giant Journey, who are in the Public Gallery today—to discuss the issues that dog rescue centres face. I also thank the 175 constituents from Newport West and Islwyn who signed the petition. Although animal welfare is a devolved issue, Scotland is currently the only constituent nation of the UK in which animal rescues and shelters are licensed. There is much to be learned from that experience as Welsh and UK Government Ministers develop proposals for licensing regimes in Wales and England respectively. I greatly welcome the Welsh Labour Government’s commitments to introduce regulations for animal rescues, sanctuaries and rehoming centres, following clear support in consultation in 2024. The measures will go a long way toward protecting animals and ensuring effective minimum standards for those sadly much-needed institutions. I look forward to taking those commitments to doorsteps across Casnewydd Islwyn ahead of May’s Senedd elections. I encourage the Minister, when taking proposals forward in England, to look at the responses to the Welsh Government’s 2024 consultation and to talk with Welsh Government colleagues about the work that they have already done in developing a licensing scheme. Let us learn from one another as we work together to level up animal protections across the UK. Currently in England and in Wales, anyone, regardless of competence, premises, finances or track record, can set up a rescue and take in animals and charge fees, and they will face scrutiny only once things have gone badly wrong. We have all seen the most extreme cases pop up on our TV screens and news apps. The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock) mentioned the 37 dead dogs and 20 live animals seized in Basildon and Billericay in May last year, and almost 100 animals were seized from an animal sanctuary in Lincolnshire in 2024. Although these extreme cases of animal abuse are shocking, there is a more sinister side to the regulatory desert in which rescue centres in England and Wales operate. Too often, when adopting an animal, members of the public do not know what they are getting and from where, because of the lack of a mandatory licensing and inspection regime. Seventy-eight per cent of the public believe that minimum standards are already in place. That leaves animal abuse hidden and allows families to be taken advantage of or even put at risk. Voluntary-only standards, such as those operated by the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes, are well intentioned but unenforceable. Rogue providers ignore them, while responsible rescues already comply. Only a nationwide licensing framework will provide consistency and accountability. Unfortunately, too many animals being rehoused from animal shelters are, unbeknownst to the adopters, from puppy and kitten farms. Others rehoused via rogue rescues were stolen. With no law to compel rescues to check where a dog came from, paperwork can be limited. The issue is best highlighted by the case of Maggie, a King Charles spaniel adopted from a dog rescue centre. Unfortunately, little did her adopter know that Maggie was the product of a puppy farm. That was known by the rescue centre, but not discussed. Maggie was later found to have more than 20 rotten teeth, facial paralysis and a heart murmur. She also had a shoulder injury possibly after being kicked. Worryingly, one in every four rescues is unknowingly rehoming puppy-farmed dogs like Maggie. A new licensing scheme must prevent that by ensuring proper record keeping, microchip scanning and veterinary assessment. Animals also often arrive in pseudo-rescue centres after being imported from abroad in a practice denounced by the RSPCA as “Deliveroo for dogs”. With the Naturewatch Foundation reporting that four in every five dogs in the UK have no verified origin and the numbers of animals entering Britain doubling in the last decade, this is of grave concern.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Animal Rescue Centres · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This is about consistency, levelling up and ensuring that across the UK we are all operating to those standards, so I thank him for that intervention. People need to know the animal they are adopting. A lack of screening also presents major biosecurity concerns. A University of Liverpool study found that 15% of imported dogs that were tested had Leishmania infantum—a parasitic disease uncommon in the UK —despite 93% of the tested dogs’ owners believing that a vet had given their dog a clean bill of health. Any new licensing regime must ensure that rescue centres accept only animals imported with full documentation verifying origin and veterinary health. Medical checks must also be undertaken prior to rehoming. Rogue operators often rehome animals with no regard for their behaviour, putting vulnerable people at risk and potentially worsening the surge in dog-related violence we have seen in recent years. Hospital admissions for dog bites have risen by 47% over the past 10 years, costing the NHS more than £71 million a year. In my county, Gwent, 539 dog attacks were reported to the police last year, an increase of more than a quarter on 2024. We cannot allow the supply of dogs to become dominated by dodgy breeders and rogue rescue centres. That is why any new licensing regime must be outcome-focused, with minimum requirements for enrichment and behavioural support, as well as a behavioural assessment prior to rehoming. Rehoming animals with unaddressed behavioural issues only puts people at risk. In introducing such a scheme, UK and Welsh Ministers must learn the lessons from Scotland. Small, independent foster-based rescue centres are a critical part of the animal welfare landscape, with independents outnumbering the major charity sites by almost 10 to one. In Scotland, many of these were forced to close after 2021, when the Scottish Government tied licensing to charity status and a minimum turnover of £5,000. Those closures came despite many foster-based rescue centres having excellent welfare standards. I urge the Minister not to replicate this mistake, and to ensure that any new licensing regime incorporates smaller rescue centres. In recognising this diversity of high-welfare provision, I also ask the Minister to consider a tiered approach to any new licensing fees, thereby reducing the disproportionate burden that could be created for smaller, high-welfare rescues. In closing, I emphasise that the case for change is urgent. We need licensing schemes in England and Wales that people can trust. The rules must be robust and enforced.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Minority Language Broadcasting · Hansard source

  More

  The Welsh Affairs Committee took evidence from the chief executive officer and chair of S4C last week, and it was good to hear their plans for the future. What discussions has the Minister had with S4C and other broadcasters to further the development of the Welsh language across Wales and beyond?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has explained what has happened in the past and what is happening now, but we are interested in the future. We need legislation, and we need it before 5 November this year. May I press her for a timeline for what is going to happen next?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for introducing these important petitions, because the sale and use of fireworks is of great concern to my constituents and is frequently one of the top issues in my postbag. Over the last year, I have received correspondence from residents right across my patch, from Newbridge to Blackwood, Abercarn, Cefn Fforest, Risca, Rogerstone, Crumlin and even Bassaleg. Given that widespread concern, I am not surprised that 700 residents in Newport West and Islwyn signed the petitions up for debate today. The petitions have clear asks: reduce the maximum noise of consumer fireworks and limit the sale of fireworks to licensed events. The changes are backed by 65% of the public, as well as a broad coalition of charities, and could easily be introduced through amendments to regulations. Critically, something must be done to address local communities’ lack of control, as residents can report incidents to their local councils, but they are powerless to do anything about it. Fireworks are an important part of many celebrations and are enjoyed by millions across the UK each year, overwhelmingly at large organised displays. A startling 78% of the public have never bought fireworks, which highlights the public’s general preference for the safety of organised events. Despite that, residents are still too often exposed to surprise explosions late at night—unexpected loud bangs that startle children, distress older people and frighten pets and livestock. Vulnerable groups, including children with sensory needs, older residents living alone, or those managing health conditions or trauma are particularly affected. Sudden firework blasts can also be deeply distressing for many veterans; 93% of those living with PTSD say that fireworks negatively impact them, and Help for Heroes found that almost a quarter of veterans reported fireworks triggering negative experiences, including panic attacks; similarly, Combat Stress, the veterans charity, sees a 25% spike in helpline calls around Diwali and bonfire night. Loud fireworks are also a significant concern to pet owners and livestock farmers, as the unexpected explosions and flashes of bright light panic animals into desperate attempts to find safety. These instinctive reactions risk animals fleeing into traffic, injuring themselves or getting lost. As we have already heard, Petlog found that the number of missing dogs doubled between 27 October and 10 November in 2024. Appropriate restrictions on the use and sale of fireworks are essential to safeguard animals’ health and welfare. Further consideration is also required for the risks posed by the household use of fireworks. While organised displays often use trained professionals and adhere to rigorous health and safety requirements, such protections are not always in place for small events or family gatherings. In 2025, there was a fourfold increase in firework-related burns to children and the highest admittance rates to A&E in a decade, with 550 children admitted in the four weeks around bonfire night. Those stark statistics cannot be ignored. I need to declare an interest here: as a former physiotherapist working in a burns and plastic surgery unit, I have seen at first hand the long-term difficulties and disfigurement that these injuries cause. These children face a lifetime of impairment. I therefore call on the Minister to heed these clear concerns and the overwhelming evidence supporting a change of approach. Ministers must update the Fireworks Regulations 2004. I look forward to the Minister outlining a clear timetable for these desperately needed changes. We cannot be here again after 5 November this year. Let’s get it done now.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Ajax Programme · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for securing this important debate. I pay tribute to our armed forces and those who put their lives on the line to keep our country safe. We ask a great deal of our servicemen and women, so the least we can do as parliamentarians is ensure that our armed forces have the equipment they need. Like other Members, I was extremely concerned to hear of soldiers reporting noise and vibration symptoms during a training exercise on 22 November last year. I pay tribute to the Ministry of Defence for moving swiftly to respond to those concerns; the safety of armed service personnel must remain paramount. Given the importance of the Ajax programme, I welcome the Government’s focus on ensuring that the ongoing investigations are concluded swiftly—the facts must be identified urgently. I remind the Minister that any delay will come at a cost: it will mean workers being concerned about their futures, ongoing confusion about the safety of the rigorously tested Ajax, and opportunities to export Ajax to our allies being put at risk. The Ajax programme is a welcome product of a deliberate choice by successive Governments to develop our sovereign capability to design and manufacture Britain’s next generation of armoured fighting vehicles. Ajax is not only built in Britain; it is, more importantly, built in Wales. The General Dynamics UK facilities in south Wales are a critical part of the Welsh manufacturing landscape, supporting 680 employees across sites in Merthyr Tydfil and Oakdale in my constituency. I was delighted to visit the General Dynamics Oakdale facility just before Christmas to meet some of the 200-plus staff. I saw the wide range of skills employed on site, and especially the integration of the advanced digital technologies that make Ajax such a pioneering vehicle. As the world’s first fully digitalised armoured fighting vehicle, Ajax is well positioned in the international market as allied countries seek to update their armoured forces. Many of their procurement cycles are expected to conclude in the next 12 to 18 months, making the timing of the MOD’s review of Ajax critical. Successful export of the Ajax could be worth up to £20 billion in the future and is essential to sustaining and growing sovereign AFV manufacturing facilities in south Wales. In learning the lessons of the Challenger programme, we cannot allow the British Army to be loaded with the lifetime costs of a unique vehicle. In responding to current threats, the latest strategic defence review highlighted the need to expand the capabilities of armoured platforms and integrate them with evolving digital technologies. Ajax will play a vital role in delivering on those aims and the wider objective of digitising the British Army. The technical functionality and pioneering nature of Ajax also mean it is unique and cannot easily be replaced by an alternative. In closing, I would reinforce to the Minister the importance of the ongoing reviews to not only the welfare of our soldiers, but wider supply chains and our sovereign manufacturing and defence capabilities. I urge him to ensure that the reviews are completed as quickly as possible so that we can have certainty for everyone involved.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak on schedule 12. I greatly welcome the Government’s changes to the proposed agricultural property relief and business property relief thresholds. As Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, I am proud of the work that my Committee has undertaken on reviewing the Welsh farming industry and the report with clear recommendations that we produced before the Budget. I also thank the Treasury for its swift response to our report as well as the changes that it has made to the thresholds. These changes show that the Government are listening not just to farmers but to the Welsh Affairs Committee and Welsh Labour MPs. The new higher thresholds are a win for Welsh farmers. Raising the allowance for 100% relief from £1 million to £2.5 million will ensure that the changes to inheritance tax are properly targeted at the wealthiest estates while ensuring that smaller-scale family farms remain protected. Couples will now be able to pass on £5 million-worth of agriculture or business assets between them, tax free. This additional relief will have a particularly significant impact in Wales, given its specific context, which is very different from England. This was a key finding of the Welsh Affairs Committee’s recent inquiry.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely; the hon. Member makes a point that I am going to come on to later. Welsh farms are typically smaller than those in England, with 55% being less than 20 hectares, and 66% of Welsh farms are cattle and sheep farms situated on hilly or mountainous terrain, compared with just 12% in England, which also has a much higher concentration of arable farming. This leaves Welsh farms with the lowest average income of the four nations—£18,000 lower than in England. Welsh family farms are also a cultural bastion of the Welsh language, with almost half the people working on Welsh farms speaking Welsh as their first language—more than double the Welsh average. While the Government’s changes to APR and BPR are likely to disproportionately benefit Welsh farmers, the diverse nature of farming across the four UK nations needs to be considered when making such significant changes. That is why the Welsh Affairs Committee continues to call for the Wales-specific impact assessment of the Government’s changes to inheritance tax that the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) just referenced. It is critical that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share of tax. That is why it is important that we close the inheritance tax loophole that allowed wealthy investors to purchase agricultural land as a way of avoiding tax. Ensuring that the tax burden falls fairly relies on effective data, however. The Welsh Affairs Committee and I remain concerned about the availability and accuracy of the data used to justify the thresholds set for APR and BPR, particularly in regard to Wales. The Government have thus far been unable to provide any estimate of the number of Welsh farms that will be affected by these reforms to inheritance tax. Such data is critical when considering any potential impacts on the Welsh farming sector, given its greater financial precarity and reliance on low-income, family-run livestock farms. We cannot afford to be complacent. I hope that the Government will ensure that they take specific account of the unique cultural, environmental and economic circumstances of farming in Wales when making such significant policy decisions. I wholeheartedly support the changes to the APR and BPR as laid out in the Government’s amendment to schedule 12.

• 7 Jan 2026 · European Convention on Human Rights: Belfast Agreement · Hansard source

  More

  3. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the UK’s membership of the European convention on human rights on the Belfast agreement.

• 7 Jan 2026 · European Convention on Human Rights: Belfast Agreement · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for that response. The Good Friday agreement was indeed a proud legacy of the last Labour Government, so does he agree that the reckless approach adopted by Opposition parties towards the ECHR risks undermining the huge progress made since 1998?