Tonia Antoniazzi MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Mar 2026 · Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 19 Mar 2026 · Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for his response to our report. As Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I know it is very important that we work collaboratively. I am a Welsh Member of Parliament, and many members of the Committee do not have Northern Ireland seats, but we have all been touched by the troubles. My constituent Private Robert Davies was shot in Lichfield station in 1990. He would have been my age if he were still alive today. The troubles touch the lives of everybody across the country and across the world, but particularly those in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who made an excellent speech. I thank our friends in Northern Ireland and everybody who has worked with us. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Clerk of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Mr Stephen Habberley, who will be moving on after five years of work with us. His team, his leadership and the help that I and other Committee members have been given should be noted in Hansard . I thank everybody for their contributions. This debate has been handled with such sensitivity by everybody in the Chamber. I hope that we can continue with our piece of work on reconciliation in the same manner, and that we can have the same constructive dialogue with the Government. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the Second Report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, The Government’s new approach to addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland, HC 586, and the Government response, HC 1716.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the Second Report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, The Government’s new approach to addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland, HC 586, and the Government response, HC 1716. It is a privilege, as always, to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain, and I am grateful to the Liaison Committee for allocating time for the debate. We launched our inquiry in December 2024, and it stretched across 2025, culminating in the publication of our report shortly before Christmas. Alongside receiving almost 80 pieces of written evidence, we held eight evidence sessions with representatives of victims and survivors, veterans, retired police officers and human rights groups. We also heard twice from the Secretary of State. Importantly, we visited Northern Ireland several times to hear at first hand from people directly and indirectly affected by the troubles. As a cross-party group, we recognise the significance of raising our concerns with a unified voice. As I said during my statement on the Floor of the House when we published this report, I am deeply appreciative of my colleagues’ collaborative spirit in shaping a report built on consensus. It is a serious and comprehensive piece of work, engaging meaningfully with all communities and demonstrating a strong cross-party consensus on outstanding issues of concern and specific provisions in the Bill that require amendment. Our hope is that the level of detail contained in our report will help to shape and inform the parameters of debate in this House and beyond across a wide range of issues. Although the Government provided a detailed response at the end of January, for which we are grateful, a number of important matters remain outstanding, and this debate offers an opportunity to explore some of those further. I will start with resourcing. Beginning with the very foundation of the legacy process, my Committee repeatedly heard serious concerns about resourcing, which we set out in detail in the report. Put simply, no amount of reform, good will or political momentum will deliver truth or justice if the necessary funding is not in place for investigative bodies or those responsible for information disclosure. Even the current legacy investigation body, the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, pointed to concerns about sustainable financing going forward, given the increase in demand for its services—an increase that we hope will only continue under the new legacy commission. If the commission is to receive relevant information in a timely manner, the resourcing of organisations such as the Police Service of Northern Ireland also needs to be considered, given the new demands on them to retrieve and categorise their records. However, the Government’s response does not fully address the concerns we raised. Despite the commission being given new responsibilities through the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, the Government have not updated the initial funding allocation of £250 million following the passage of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. We put that to the Secretary of State when he appeared before my Committee earlier this month, and he acknowledged that further discussions will need to take place with the Treasury about the funding of the commission. Those conversations need to happen now. Moreover, the Government state that funding for the PSNI is a matter for the Department of Justice and that it is for the Northern Ireland Executive to consider how and where they allocate funding. However, the Chief Constable of the PSNI told us in January: “I get sent by the Secretary of State to the Executive, and by the Executive to the Secretary of State. The Executive will say, ‘This is Westminster-related’ and Westminster will say, ‘We give a significant grant to the Executive. It is for them to pay for this.’ I am caught between the two”. That is clearly an issue that needs to be addressed. On the requirement for bodies such as the PSNI to classify documents as sensitive or prejudicial before transferring them to the legacy commission, the Chief Constable also told us that, alongside that being logistically and financially burdensome, there are severe implications for trust and confidence in the PSNI. Again, the Government told us that the question of funding for the PSNI and other devolved organisations is a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive, and that those organisations are best placed to identify sensitive material. However, Operation Kenova did not undertake such a predetermined assessment of legacy materials. I therefore reiterate our call for the Government to reassess the current financial envelope and to consider the wider implications of their reforms, particularly the substantial and currently underfunded administrative burdens they place on organisations such as the PSNI, which are already under significant pressure to deliver core services in the present, while also addressing the past. On victims, financial resourcing may form the foundation of the legacy process, but victims and survivors unquestionably sit at its heart. We heard a range of concerns about how the new approach will operate in practice for them. For instance, on the proposed victims and survivors advisory group under the proposed legacy commission, questions have been raised about its membership, the method of appointment to it and the risk of it duplicating the important work already undertaken by the victims forum in Northern Ireland. I welcome the fact that the Government commit to complementing the work of existing groups, but we await further information regarding the composition and operation of this new group. The Northern Ireland Commissioner for Victims and Survivors, Joe McVey, recently expressed concerns that the debate on legacy legislation had been reduced to a false dichotomy of “veterans versus victims”. His warning is important, and I encourage us all to bear it firmly in mind as we move forward. On veterans, as I said at the outset, we took evidence from veterans’ representatives throughout our inquiry. The Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, whom we heard from twice, told us late last year that the Government had been listening to veterans’ concerns “to an extent”, but said that the proposals were not really “protections” for veterans so much as safeguards for all witnesses. Therefore, we concluded that in packaging these as protections, rather than as safeguards available to all, the Government risk undermining trust in this process among the very groups—veterans and others—in which they hope to instil confidence. In response to us, the Government acknowledge the concerns that measures may not go far enough for many. They add that they are in active consultation with veterans on further steps, emphasising that any additional proposals must be “practically deliverable” and compliant with human rights obligations. I welcome the fact that the Government are listening, but we still await the detail of further measures before we can make a proper assessment. On the structures proposed to address legacy, our report highlights several areas of concern. Owing to time, I will concentrate on some overarching ones, namely investigations, inquests, and information disclosure. On investigations and the question of who may request one, we heard from many stakeholders that the Bill’s narrow definition of a close family member risks excluding relatives who have often been central to pursuing answers, sometimes for decades after the events in question. Because the trauma is often carried from one generation to the next, our legislation must be designed with an awareness of these long-term and cross-generational effects. Organisations including the ICRIR have urged the Government to broaden the definition of a close family member. In response to our report, however, the Government maintain that their current approach is “balanced”. None the less, they acknowledge that views differ on the matter, and have committed to continued engagement and careful consideration of those perspectives. Again, I gently encourage the Government to revisit the definition. We heard similar concerns regarding the rigidity and exclusivity of the list in the Bill stipulating what is considered “serious physical or mental harm”. On inquests, the Government’s plan for an enhanced inquisitorial mechanism through the legacy commission is seen by some as an improvement on the system introduced by the 2023 Act, but concerns persist, including regarding why judges are to be appointed by Ministers, rather than through the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission. The Government reject the call for appointments to be routed through the commission, arguing that their approach is consistent with that for appointing inquiry chairs under the Inquiries Act 2005 and making many other public appointments. Information disclosure has been and remains one of the more significant issues with legacy policy. The troubles Bill assigns the Government a new role in balancing information disclosure with national security—something that Ministers did not undertake under previous legacy measures before the 2023 Act or with Operation Kenova. Our report highlights concerns about trust, appeal rights and how this provision will operate in practice. It is clear from the Government’s response that the proposals on information disclosure will not be revisited. That is likely to concern those who argue that retaining the so-called ministerial veto over what is disclosed presents a serious challenge to the Bill’s overall architecture and risks undermining trust and confidence.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for the work she does and the perspective she brings to the Committee, and I agree that this is a matter of building trust and confidence and building a better future across these islands. That requires everybody to step up. We noted a range of concerns in our report regarding the role of the Irish Government, including in relation to the timeline for equivalent legislation and information on the proposed legacy unit in the Garda. The Government response offers some welcome clarification. It confirms that the legacy unit is now operational and that the Irish Government intend to publish the necessary legislation to facilitate co-operation in either April or May this year. However, actions will matter far more than assurances, and we now await the practical outworkings of those commitments. Finally, we know and respect the fact that, for some, reconciliation may be impossible. For others, it could be the basis of a better future. My Committee will soon begin an inquiry that explores that in detail. The Government’s response did not fully address the concerns we set out in that section of our report, particularly those relating to part 4 of the 2023 Act. We will use our forthcoming inquiry into reconciliation to continue pressing these questions. We await the next stage of the troubles Bill, when we will all have the opportunity to put those who carry the legacy of the past at the heart of a new approach for the future. We owe it to them to get it right.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Child Maintenance Service · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. Has she noticed that child maintenance payments are being stopped when an ex-partner applies for child benefit? That is another source of income that is being manipulated by a partner to keep the money from the parent who is looking after the children.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T9. Only a couple of weeks ago, I introduced my ten-minute rule Bill—the Police (Declaration) Bill—on a requirement for the police to declare their membership of societies or organisations such as the Freemasons. Given the huge and controversial reduction in jury trials, what reassurances can the Secretary of State give the House that judges will not be unduly influenced by their membership of such organisations?

• 12 Mar 2026 · International Women’s Day · Hansard source

  More

  It is a real privilege to speak in this debate marking International Women’s Day. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) for her maiden speech. I remember that when I made my maiden speech nearly nine years ago—time flies—in the Gallery above me were my mum, my younger brother and my son, aged just 13 at the time. I do not know who the hon. Lady has with her today, but I would like to pay tribute to our family members. We lost my mother last September. I want to say that if it was not for other women supporting women, and their brothers and sisters and children, we would not be able to stand here to do our job. I wish the hon. Lady all the very best in her career. There have been many advances in the fight for women’s equality in recent decades, and indeed the very welcome and much-needed action on male violence against women and girls since this Labour Government came into office. There has, however, been a frustrating stasis on some issues, meaning they have worsened. Sexual exploitation has shown a clear and sustained rise in the United Kingdom, with an increasing number of women being identified as victims. We are seeing more UK-national victims of sexual exploitation, and at a younger age, yet the women and girls exploited in the sex trade remain among the most neglected in our policy discussions and reforms. I want to talk about them today, because these women matter and the harms they experience are extreme. Technological change has reshaped our world, but it has also created new opportunities for sexual exploitation to proliferate on a scale we have never seen before, because our legislation has not kept pace and is not capable of keeping pace. Despite it being illegal to place a prostitution advert in a phone box, the same advert can legally be published for profit on a website, and traffickers have moved quickly into that gap. Pimping websites that act as a vast online brothel drive demand and supercharge the sex trafficking trade by making it easier and quicker for pimps to advertise their victims. They make it as easy to order a woman to abuse as it is to order a takeaway. They operate freely and openly because our legislation allows it. A report published just weeks ago by the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner shows how adult services websites do not just host exploited and trafficked women but provide the infrastructure to initiate, scale and normalise their abuse. Nearly 63,000 listings for women were recorded at one point in time across 12 of these sites, and they attracted almost 41.7 million visitors in a month. That is just a fraction of an even larger marketplace, because additional sites are available to users. Nearly 60% of the adverts analysed displayed three or more indicators of trafficking or exploitation, which include multiple ads linked to the same phone number and “new to area” language. Behind the numbers are real and severe harms endured by the women exploited on these sites. Survivors interviewed for the report talked about how they were groomed, controlled and advertised online without their knowledge or consent. A survivor, who was exploited alongside other women, said: “None of us had access to the emails from buyers. They came directly through him. He answered as if he was us and then he would send me a message saying, ‘Oh, this person, you know, this is where you’re going to meet them and this is what you have agreed to do.’” The use and abuse of women is directly enabled and amplified by the sites’ very design, which, for example, enables third-party facilitation. Survivors spoke of how traffickers and abusive partners created profiles, arranged bookings and made profits, while women themselves were controlled and intimidated. Despite third-party facilitation being a known red flag for trafficking, Ofcom guidance ignores that and portrays it as a safety measure. Profiles on the sites also give the illusion of independence to mask deeper exploitation. Another survivor said she was “being raped on webcam essentially. And of course, the people watching aren’t aware of that...the profile is written so it sounds as if I’m independent and enjoying it...how do you go behind a webcam to make sure that the woman isn’t being coerced?” Meanwhile, buyers on some forums openly discuss which women are controlled and the benefits this has for them. As another survivor explained: “You will see men sharing about...‘these girls are trafficked’...‘you can get away with doing this to her’...it’s just right there on the page”. This is the selling and abuse of women in plain sight on an industrial scale, enabled by our legislative framework. It is totally unacceptable. These women deserve so much better. The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner is absolutely right to say that these websites are ready-made tools for abuse, and that the toughest action must be taken against them. The all-party parliamentary group on commercial sexual exploitation, which I chair, has been sounding the alarm on pimping websites and their harms for quite some time. The truth is that the current legislation and regulatory guidance are not acting or preventing harm, and it is traffickers, pimps and punters operating with near total impunity who benefit. Women are abused as if they are objects and suffer acutely. We are failing them. I urge the Government to pay close attention to the report’s findings and to act urgently on its recommendations for a robust review—one that includes survivors, and it needs to be prompt. A lot of evidence is already out there and the longer we wait, the more women and girls are suffering as a result. What is more, the scale and ease of access of the online market is not only facilitating exploitation; it is, more widely, fuelling the dangerous rise in misogyny by normalising the idea that women exist to be bought, used and discarded. In an age when prostitution is glamourised, boys and men are repeatedly exposed to platforms that present women as sexual commodities, and that inevitably shapes their attitudes. The scale of demand for pimping websites should give us serious pause for thought in that respect as well. Shutting these sites down has a fundamental role to play not just in preventing horrific exploitation, but in shifting the attitudes of men and boys to promote healthy and respectful relationships. If we are to tackle male violence against women and girls, these websites have to be shut down.

• 12 Mar 2026 · International Women’s Day · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to make the point that there are many people with different views across this House, many of which I agree with. The hon. Lady makes a very good point in naming some individuals, but there are also many other women who stand up for sex-based rights. I would like to say that on the Floor of the House. I thank her for her words.

• 5 Mar 2026 · Devolved Administrations · Hansard source

  More

  6. What recent progress he has made on strengthening the relationship between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations.

• 5 Mar 2026 · Devolved Administrations · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents in Gower need both Governments focused on what matters to them: the cost of living, jobs and public services. Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster agree that, with Labour Governments in Westminster and Cardiff, that is exactly what we are getting? Does he also agree that neither the distraction and ideological fantasies of the Greens nor the division and destruction of Reform will help Wales to move forward into a new era?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Consular Assistance · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for his statement and the advice he has given my constituents and everybody else. I want to raise two issues with him. We asked the FCDO yesterday about vulnerable travellers. It said, “People who identify as vulnerable should highlight this to the FCDO”, but it was not able to give guidance on what would be classed as vulnerable. I feel that that would be helpful. What steps has he taken to identify other countries, such as Egypt, where travellers are still going out for holidays and there is a danger that they may get stuck should the situation escalate? What advice would he give them?

• 4 Mar 2026 · Police (Declaration) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require police officers and certain employees of police forces to declare a membership of or affiliation to certain types of society and organisation; to require such declarations to be accompanied by a statement relating to that membership; and for connected purposes. Secret, closed or private societies have often been the subject of ridicule, from Monty Python to “The Simpsons”. Such organisations have been seen as silly, strange and perhaps old fashioned. Even today, we hear reference to the “funny handshake” club. But if people look beyond these parodies, they will find networks of people with power and authority, and clubs of like-minded individuals who look out for their own. Many often do excellent work raising funds for charitable causes and supporting communities. The most well-known such group is the Freemasons, one of the world’s oldest social and charitable organisations, with around 170,000 members. It offers people community and support, and it sets out its four core values as integrity, friendship, respect and service. I have met several members who are loud and proud to belong: they are happy to declare their association because it means that they can tell people about the good work they do and counter any allegations of secrecy and nepotism. I first raised the issue of police declaring membership of the Freemasons in 2024, with another ten-minute rule Bill. This is a matter that I have long believed needs to be put right. In December last year, I welcomed the Metropolitan police’s decision to revise its policy to require all officers and staff to declare whether they are members of the Freemasons or any other hierarchical association. The mandate has been largely supported by Met police officers. A survey of staff showed that two thirds of respondents felt membership of secret organisations affected the perception of police impartiality and public trust. Around 400 Met staff have now declared their involvement, most of them belonging to the Freemasons. However, the move has not been without opposition. Earlier this year, legal action was brought by the home of freemasonry, the United Grand Lodge of England, along with two serving officers. They argued that the Met’s disclosure policy breached members’ rights to privacy and free expression. Last month, the High Court dismissed the challenge, ruling the Met’s policy was both lawful and proportionate. For years, the Met has been under growing pressure to get to grips with concerns about the Freemasons’ influence in policing, and that pressure intensified after the Daniel Morgan independent panel highlighted the issue. The panel, set up to examine corruption around Daniel Morgan’s murder in 1987, found serious transparency failings and recommended that officers should be required to declare memberships, such as of the Freemasons, to help rebuild public trust. The pressure increased in March 2023, after the Casey review delivered a stark assessment of the Met police’s culture and standards, finding them institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic. The Casey review was commissioned in direct response to the kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard by a serving Metropolitan police officer. Sarah has been remembered today in the Chamber, as yesterday marked five years since she was killed. After her death, rebuilding public trust became something the Met police could no longer ignore. There is still a long way to go, but they hope that their new declarable association policy will be an important step towards greater transparency. Across the UK, our policing model relies on public trust and consent, and at the heart of the Peelian principles of policing is the idea that public consent is maintained by applying the law fairly and impartially. The College of Policing’s code of ethics states that, in order to demonstrate that they are applying the law fairly, police forces should operate with transparency. The Independent Office for Police Conduct’s 2023 report into public perceptions of the police identified “increased transparency” as a key measure that the police could take to improve confidence in policing. Interestingly, in 2016 the then police and crime commissioner for South Wales told “Y Byd ar Bedwar”: “If members of a club or society have to disclose, it takes away any hidden agendas… It would be best to have one common system for local authorities, police forces and health boards. Only then can we ensure everybody is being treated equally.” With these words in mind, I am seeking to bring forward a Bill that, at its heart, provides more transparency to the public. The outcome of the Bill would be to have a public register of associations for all officers and civilians working for the police. Members of this House work cross-party, and this is a policing issue, not a party political one, so I thank my colleagues who have sponsored the Bill, who come from three different parties. Today, I urge this Government to introduce legislation to make it mandatory for all police forces in England and Wales to adopt a consistent, standardised approach, aligned with the Metropolitan police’s declarable association policy, so that all our police are legally required to declare memberships, past or present, of any organisation with confidential membership or hierarchical structures, and there is an expectation that members support and protect one another. I want to see all police forces in the UK following the Met’s lead. Do the rest of us, who live outside London, not deserve the same level of transparency and impartiality from our police forces? This is not a particularly new idea for this House. In 1997 the Home Affairs Committee published its “Freemasonry in the Police and the Judiciary” report, which concluded: “We recommend that police officers, magistrates, judges and crown prosecutors should be required to register membership of any secret society and that the record should be publicly available.” In February 1998, the Home Office accepted that recommendation, stating that all new appointments shall have as a condition of appointment a requirement to declare membership of the Freemasons. If I were a serving police officer, I would welcome the opportunity to be transparent and show my dedication to the force and to the public, which is what motivates all of us who serve the public. If we are serious about reforming police culture, as I think we should be, then we should leave no stone unturned. This Bill serves to act as one of those many stones in need of turning. I must stress that the Bill does not seek to prevent membership of societies. I am acutely aware of the right to association and previous precedent that has been set for this in the European convention on human rights. For 20 years I was a schoolteacher, subject to checks by the Disclosure and Barring Service, but not a register of interests, as I am now as an MP. I feel very strongly about the significance and role of culture within organisations, particularly in public services. All organisations have a responsibility to change their culture for the better by being honest and—I use this word again—transparent about matters relating to governance and day-to-day operations. Of course, one might argue that if such declarations should be made in the police, they should also be made by Members of Parliament, given that we are lawmakers. To them I say: why not? Being part of societies can be inherently positive, enhancing friendships and fostering new connections, but there are issues that we must address. It is important that we restore trust in the police, and the Bill is no magic wand. However, to quote from the Home Affairs Committee’s 1998 report, “Freemasonry in Public Life”: “The solution is a simple one. It requires no bans or proscriptions, which generally have no place in a democratic society. It merely requires public servants who are members of a secret society—or ‘a society with secrets’ as freemasons used to say—to disclose their membership.” It is now time to move beyond secrecy in all police forces across the UK. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Tonia Antoniazzi, Louise Haigh, Justin Madders, Paula Barker, Claire Hanna, Chris Bloore, David Smith, Ben Lake, Ann Davies, Liz Saville Roberts, Llinos Medi andSarah Dyke present the Bill. Tonia Antoniazzi accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 April, and to be printed (Bill 393).

• 4 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q10. In 2018, this House legislated to allow the prescription of medicinal cannabis for children with drug-resistant epilepsy after a campaign spearheaded by my late good friend Hannah Deacon for her son, Alfie, yet many families are still paying around £1,300 a month due to conflicting guidance from multiple agencies. Does the Prime Minister recognise that this is not the will of the House, and will he agree to work with me and the Secretary of State for Health to secure the modest £2 million required for an observational study to relieve these families of this unacceptable burden?

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

  More

  I am very close to the hon. Lady’s constituency, so a banking hub in Rhydaman would benefit my constituents too. I thank LINK for working with local councillors to bring banking hubs to Mumbles and Gorseinon. I think she will be successful in her bid to secure a banking hub in Rhydaman.

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

  More

  Hear, hear!

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

  More

  I draw the attention of the House to my lovely little badge. Everybody has been calling it a gingerbread man, but it is actually a handmade felt Welsh lady to celebrate St David’s day, made by somebody from Penyrheol primary school in my constituency. I am going to talk about something quite niche today. I probably will not take up too much time, but I want to draw the House’s attention to a serious and entirely preventable animal welfare issue that is affecting our coastlines, particularly in Gower. It is the harm caused to seals by discarded flying rings. Once lost to the wind or tide, these lightweight toys frequently end up at sea, where they become deadly. Rescue centres are increasingly treating seals with flying rings embedded in their necks—injuries that cause severe tissue damage, infection and, in most cases, death. These seals, the grey seals, are a very rare species, and are found off the coastline of Gower. Gareth Richards, my constituent, is the founder of Gower Seal Group and vice-chair of the UK’s Seal Alliance. There is quite a lot we could do, because these flying rings are imported into the UK in their thousands and sold in many retail outlets for as little as £1. They are often left discarded on our beaches or near waterways, where they end up in the ocean. To a curious little seal, these floating flying rings—our toys or playthings—are seen as attractive, as any child would find a new toy, but soon that natural curiosity of maybe a few seconds will turn into a lifetime of pain. When the flying ring is in their neck, it will grow into the skin over time. It is really awful, and I have seen some terrible pictures. It is difficult to rescue or disentangle seals that are trapped in such rings, and those fortunate enough to be rescued require many months of rehabilitation at a specialist wildlife rehab centre, such as those provided by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals at one of its four centres located across England. As an aside, we do not have a specialist RSPCA centre in Wales; it has to utilise one of those four centres, with the nearest to Gower located in Taunton, Somerset. A single seal caught in a flying ring will cost the RSPCA up to £15,000 during its time in rehabilitation before it is fit and healthy enough to be let out into the wild again. That is a massive expenditure for a charity that relies on public donations. To put that in context, one flying ring costs the retailer a wholesale unit price of 33p, so it is costing charitable wildlife centres 45,450 times more than the cost of one of those rings to rehabilitate just one seal. However, there is a solution. I am very proud of Swansea council, which unanimously voted in favour of a motion to voluntarily ban the sale and use of flying rings in Swansea via one of our councillors, Councillor Andrew Stevens, who supported the application. Neath Port Talbot council and Vale of Glamorgan council have also voted for such motions. That shows the grave concern about the sale of flying rings. I would like the Secretary of State and the Minister to help me and Members across the House to get all 22 unitary authorities in Wales to ban flying rings, which would make Wales the first country in the world to ban them. Other unitary authorities across the UK, such as Cornwall and several on the Norfolk coast, have banned them, and action from other councils is pending. We can do this. There has been a huge amount of media coverage of the issue—from mainstream BBC and ITV to BBC Wales, ITV Wales, Radio Wales and programmes such as “Countryfile” and ITV Wales’s “Coast & Country”. There is significant public interest in the campaign. There is also a petition from the Save Our Seals from Flying Rings campaign. Many major retailers are really leading the way—Tesco, John Lewis, Pets at Home, Halfords and Sainsbury’s, as well as a number of smaller retailers. Retailers in Gower, particularly on the coast, have been absolutely fantastic in supporting the campaign. Vets are taking part, as well as Kennexstone caravan park and Pitton Cross farm in particular. People can also read the children’s book “Sammy and the Flying Ring”, written by Sandy Brown and illustrated by E.J. Henderson. Anyone planning a trip to the beach, whether they live in Gower or not, should buy a traditional frisbee, which were created in the 1930s and are fantastic. Do not buy a flying ring. It is a big ask for the Secretary of State to get the local authorities on board and make us the best in the world. Grey seals are the sentinels of the sea: a globally rare species found off the Gower coast, which is a unique destination—not only because it was the first designated area of outstanding natural beauty, but just because it is a great place. Did hon. Members know that seals swim 60 to 80 miles in just one day? There are no boundaries on these flying rings—they should be banned. Earlier, I bigged up some of the major retailers. I would like to call out Asda and Home Bargains. They are two of my favourite places to go and shop, but they have not banned flying rings. I call on the Secretary of State to urge them to be more like St David: do the little things, and save the seals.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Troubles-era Violence: IRA Accountability · Hansard source

  More

  On the subject of troubles-era violence, this week my Committee published a unanimous report calling on the Government to formally name agent Stakeknife. The Government have said that the Supreme Court judgment in the Thompson case has implications for their decision, but lead officers have said it does not. What is preventing the Government from naming Stakeknife, and when do they plan to do so?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to make the point that a lot of work is done in good faith in this House, particularly on my Select Committee and particularly by the Secretary of State. I really do not appreciate the way in which this debate is being led by those on the Opposition Benches. The shadow Secretary of State should take a while to look through the recommendations contained in the Committee’s work on the troubles, take them Committee seriously and have productive conversations on how to move this matter forward.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure · Hansard source

  More

  I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my chairship of the all-party parliamentary beer group. Does the Minister accept that pubs are anchor employers on our high streets, and will he please ask the Chancellor to expedite a package of rates relief and duty reduction aimed specifically at sustaining these really important jobs in hospitality?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I will not be the only Member dealing with a large number of child maintenance issues that have been ongoing for years and years. It is frankly intolerable. Could the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what further steps he is taking to prevent an appeal process being repeatedly used as a delaying tactic, particularly by high-income parents who are non-residents and are under-reporting their incomes?

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for speaking about an imminent decision on business rates, but this is not just about business rates. The Victoria Inn in Mumbles in my constituency has not banned me as a Labour MP—it has not banned any Labour MPs—but it would like to extend an invitation to those on the Front Bench to visit Mumbles, come to the pub and have that conversation, because it is a positive conversation about how the Government are listening and moving forward.

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

  More

  Our predecessor Committee took evidence that said that leaving the ECHR would have implications for policing in Northern Ireland. Does the Secretary of State agree that calls to leave the ECHR would add to the challenges faced by the Police Service of Northern Ireland? What assessment has he made of the potential impact?

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

  More

  11. 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.