Danny Chambers MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 May 2025 · Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to move on, then.

• 14 May 2025 · Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I spent many happy years living in his North Somerset constituency while I was teaching at Bristol Veterinary School at the University of Bristol. He must be very proud that there is such an institution, which does so much to improve animal welfare, in his constituency. To close this loophole, subsection (4) of clause 4 reduces the number of dogs, cats and ferrets that can be brought into Great Britain from a third country in a single non-commercial movement from five per person to five per vehicle, including vehicles on board a train or a ferry, and to three per person for foot or air passengers. This represents a significant reduction in the number of pets that can travel in a single, non-commercial movement. It is, however, a proportionate intervention that balances the need to disrupt illegal trade while minimising the impact on genuine pet owners. The new caps are high enough to ensure that family and friends travelling together with their pets have enough flexibility to transport their pets non-commercially when they have genuine and legitimate needs to do so. They are also high enough to ensure that individuals are able to travel with assistance dogs and still have enough space to travel with any additional pets. The new limits in clause 4 also align with industry practice. Eurotunnel, which sees the greatest volume of pet movements, has capped the number of animals moving non-commercially on its service to five per vehicle. Importantly, these restrictions would not preclude the movement of larger consignments of animals. A person who wishes to move more than five pets per vehicle or three per person for air or foot passenger travel would still be able to do so under the commercial import regime. Currently, the pet travel rules also allow the non-commercial movement of a dog, cat or ferret into Great Britain within five days by a person authorised by the owner to carry out the movement on their behalf. Unfortunately, there is evidence from APHA and anecdotal evidence from stakeholders that this rule is also being exploited. Some individuals are known to pose as authorised persons to move animals under the non-commercial rules, when they are actually bringing them into Great Britain for sale. These pets should be moved under the commercial import regime, subject to more stringent requirements. To prevent the misuse of these rules, clause 4(5) amends the existing pet travel rules to directly link the non-commercial movement of a dog, cat or ferret with its owner, in order to ensure that a pet can only be moved by an authorised person if it is within five days of the owner’s completing the same journey. Subsection (6) also makes amendments to the non-commercial pet travel regulations to ensure that only an owner, and not an authorised person, is permitted to sign a declaration that the movement of a dog, cat or ferret is non-commercial. Amendments 5 and 8 together, with consequential amendments 4, 6 and 7—provide the appropriate authority with powers enabling it to grant exemptions in certain circumstances from the requirements affecting non-commercial movements of pet animals in new articles 5 and 5A of the pet travel regulation.

• 14 May 2025 · Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is completely right that the surge in demand for pedigree cats has also led to a surge in demand for the illegal import of cats, and cats struggle more medically with stress than most other animals. Paired with the illegal trade of puppies is the emerging practice of moving heavily pregnant dogs into Great Britain to sell their litters. There is anecdotal evidence that these animals are brought into Great Britain to give birth and then transported back to breed again in low-welfare conditions abroad. If we do not act now to restrict the movement of heavily pregnant dogs and cats, it is a worry that traders may turn to this tactic when we raise the minimum age for importing puppies and kittens. The British Veterinary Association reported last year that one in five vets reported seeing illegally imported puppies in the previous 12 months. There is also a concerning demand for importing cropped and docked dogs into Great Britain, even though it has rightly been illegal to carry out a non-exempt mutilation within Great Britain for more than 15 years. That loophole creates a smokescreen for ear cropping and tail docking to be carried out illegally in the UK, where it is not done by a vet and probably not done under anaesthetic, causing a huge amount of physical and psychological damage. The loophole allows individuals to claim that these dogs have been legally imported. Ear cropping reports have increased sevenfold in the past five years, according to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill will provide the powers to improve welfare for our beloved pets, including powers to close these loopholes exploited by unscrupulous commercial traders and prevent these abhorrent pet-smuggling practices.

• 14 May 2025 · Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, we know that late-stage travel during pregnancy is a risk factor for problems during the pregnancy and that it can lead to the cat giving birth early. The potential for low welfare during travel greatly increases as the pregnancy of the female advances, and that risks the health and welfare of the offspring. We also anticipate that traders may respond to an increase in the minimum age for importing puppies and kittens by increasing the number of pregnant dogs and cats that they import. A ban on bringing heavily pregnant dogs and cats into Great Britain is therefore needed to mitigate that. The first set of regulations made under clause 1 will go further than the current requirements, so that dogs or cats that are more than 42 days pregnant cannot be brought into Great Britain. At 42 days, there are much more reliable visual markers of pregnancy, meaning that the ban will be much easier to enforce. It is currently illegal to carry out a non-exempted mutilation in Great Britain, and it has been since 2007. Despite that, demand continues for pets with mutilations such as dogs with cropped ears or docked tails and declawed cats. Those procedures are cruel and cause unnecessary pain. The definition of mutilation is set out in subsection (9): “a dog or cat has been ‘mutilated’ if it has undergone a procedure which involves interference with its sensitive tissues or bone structure otherwise than for the purpose of its medical treatment.” For example, the amputation of the tail of an injured dog for medical reasons would still be permitted. Allowing people to bring animals into Great Britain that have suffered in this way only outsources such cruelty. Fundamentally, the ban would make the purchase or ownership of dogs and cats of non-exempted mutilations extremely difficult. It would also remove the smokescreen that enables ear cropping to continue to be done illegally in Great Britain with relative impunity. Members will note that ferrets are not covered by the initial provisions. That is because very low numbers of ferrets are being brought into Great Britain, and unlike dogs and cats, there is no evidence of a significant illegal trade in, or low-welfare movement of, ferrets at this time. Importantly, the regulation-making powers in clause 1 will allow for measures to protect ferrets’ welfare to be introduced in the future should that situation change. Those three measures are widely supported by stakeholders and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Together, they will help to disrupt low-welfare movements of pet animals into Great Britain for sale. Delivering the measures via secondary legislation allows the Government the opportunity to gather further evidence and to discuss the prohibitions with stakeholders, the public and enforcement bodies. That crucial exercise will ensure that new restrictions are developed and implemented effectively with no unintended consequences and with appropriate exemptions. I understand that the Government have already started engaging with stakeholders, including the Kennel Club, to gather information and to consider whether there is sufficient evidence to support appropriate exemptions. Any exemptions will need to be finely balanced against the risk of creating loopholes that could be exploited. Importantly, as set out in subsection (5), the prohibitions would only be lifted in subsequent regulations following consultation with appropriate persons. Subsections (6) and (7) will enable regulations to set out a process for non-compliant dogs, cats and ferrets that are seized or detained. That will allow for the costs of detention to be met and, if necessary, for animals to be rehomed. The powers will help enforcers to effectively tackle the low-welfare movements of dogs and cats that are routinely seen on entry into Great Britain, while maintaining our high standards of biosecurity. Subsection (8) will allow regulations to make provision for monetary penalties to be imposed, which will help to ensure that measures envisaged by the Bill can be enforced appropriately and act as a sufficient deterrent.

• 14 May 2025 · Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 4, page 5, line 28, at end insert— “(b) in point (b), after ‘non-commercial movement’ (in the first place it occurs) insert ‘(including movement that would be non-commercial movement but for Article 5 or 5A)’.” This amendment makes a minor clarificatory change in consequence of the other amendments made by Clause 4.

• 14 May 2025 · Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 6, page 8, line 14, leave out subsection (3). This amendment removes the power to make provision in regulations that is consequential on clause 4 or 5.

• 14 May 2025 · Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with the hon. Member for Epping Forest and as someone who helped to draw up the British Veterinary Association advertising policies for use of animals in adverts, I certainly urge all companies to read that before they produce adverts. In relation to this Bill specifically—the hon. Member has touched on this already—we are mindful that we will need to review with the Government how effective our biosecurity is. This legislation should help hugely in lowering the risk of rabies, Brucella canis and other diseases that can affect humans, but other steps may need to be taken, perhaps through other Departments or other legislation, to ensure that we have rigorous public health safety when we have a large number of animals moving between countries. We also need to ensure that people are not inadvertently affected by this measure. Many organisations and individual constituents have contacted me with concerns, and we will have to keep an eye on how we can improve things for individuals with secondary legislation. I thank everyone who has worked on this measure for many years, in whatever capacity and both outside and inside Parliament. I am fully aware that it was part of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill initially. It was then brought forward by the former Member for North Devon in the last Parliament and with a lot of help from the hon. Member for Epping Forest. I am so proud to have finally got it over the line, but I am also very mindful that it was not me on my own. This has been a huge discussion for many years by a lot of people, on a cross-party basis, and I am very thankful for all the work that has been put in, so thank you.

• 14 May 2025 · Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Okay; I will thank my team from Winchester again later. Shall I go on to clause 4?

• 14 May 2025 · Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the Bill is timely and essential. I thank you, Sir Jeremy, for chairing the Committee this morning. I also thank my whole team from Winchester—

• 14 May 2025 · Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 4 will close loopholes in the non-commercial pet travel rules to make it harder for those rules to be exploited for commercial gain. The clause contains the second set of substantive measures in the Bill to tackle puppy smuggling. The measures are designed to make it more difficult and less profitable for traders to disguise commercial imports as genuine pet movements. Our non-commercial pet travel rules are intended to make it easier for the genuine pet owner to travel with their dog, cat or ferret. We know, however, that some unscrupulous commercial importers abuse the existing rules to bring in pets for sale. Those individuals seek to maximise their profits, often at the expense of the welfare of the animals they are importing. By its very nature, the true extent of pet smuggling operations cannot be known; it is likely that APHA figures only capture a small proportion of the animals being smuggled into the country. A key loophole in our current rules is that up to five pets per person can travel in a single non-commercial movement. Consequently, unscrupulous traders can claim ownership of up to five puppies each, enabling them to cram vans with tens of dogs for transportation into Great Britain in a single trip. By bringing animals in under the non-commercial rules, these traders avoid the more onerous requirements of the commercial import regime, which include the clinical examination by vets of animals before transport and enhanced traceability requirements. These requirements protect both animal welfare and our high biosecurity standards.

• 14 May 2025 · Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate your chairmanship throughout our proceedings, Sir Jeremy, and I want to thank everyone who was involved. I will thank my team in Winchester, again. I am so effusive in my thanks because, for a brand-new MP, trying to learn how to set up an office and then negotiate the complexities of a private Member’s Bill, this has been a huge amount of work, and my team—Sophie Hammond, who is currently on maternity leave, and Tom Wood and Hayley Puddefoot, who took over from her on this—have now become experts in animal movement. There has been a lot of work from everyone, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs staff. I was a member of the British Veterinary Association policy committee more than 10 years ago, and we campaigned on this issue. I know that applies to so many other organisations: the RSPCA, Dogs Trust, FOUR PAWS and Blue Cross. I was at Battersea yesterday, with my friend the hon. Member for Epping Forest. So many organisations have been working on this issue for so long, and I think I can speak on behalf of the veterinary profession when I thank every Member who is here today to make this legislation happen, because it is seismic for animal welfare. The veterinary profession has wanted it for years and it will have a huge impact on animal welfare and on those who work with animals every day. We know that the Bill will put an end to the sight of dogs with cropped ears. Whether they are imported from abroad or whether the procedure occurs in the UK, there will no longer be an excuse to own a dog with cropped ears, and that will be something we can all celebrate, because it is a very cruel procedure. It is not the only mutilation that we see; it is not the only unnecessary mutilation that we see, but it is so common. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest said earlier, so many of the public are not even aware that it is a mutilation. I think many believe they are seeing normal anatomy, and that is a huge problem in itself. On that note, and although this is not part of the Bill, I look forward to working with the Government—along with other vets in Parliament—to ensure that we deal with other animal welfare issues where the public simply do not understand that they are causing cruelty. A very good example is flat-faced—brachycephalic—dogs. They shot up in popularity by over 300% between 2010 and 2020. Some of these dogs are bred to such an extent that they need surgery even to be able to breathe. Again, it is not a niche issue. More French bulldogs were registered in the UK than labradors, so this is a very common problem, and we need to work together to both educate the public and, potentially, legislate as we are doing today to prevent unnecessary animal suffering, even if it is caused by well-meaning people who do not understand the amount of suffering that they are causing.

• 13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that rejoining a customs union would achieve all those aims of reducing red tape?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  What’s that?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a hugely important point, which was going to be my next one. It is completely accurate. The veterinary profession has been extremely concerned by the lack of recognition of animal sentience in law. We urge the Government to change that as soon as possible. My hon. Friend said that Frank was ugly.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs · Hansard source

  More

  He is unique; he is a pug cross border terrier. He has a strange underbite and quite buggy eyes. We were at our friend’s house for dinner recently, and one of their children said, “Frank’s really ugly.” The other child said, “You shouldn’t say that because he might’ve been in an accident.” I would like to introduce the concept of one health, which many people will have heard of. It is the fact that human and animal health are completely interlinked, whether we are talking about antimicrobial resistance, risk of pandemics, food security or climate change. There is also the concept of one medicine, which has been driven forward by the Humanimal Trust, based primarily on the work of academics at the University of Surrey’s school of veterinary medicine. We are really pushing not only for animal experimentation to be reduced, refined and replaced by other methods, such as those that hon. Members have mentioned today, but to ensure that when these tests are carried out, humans and animals can benefit from the information gathered. For example, if a drug passes animal trials and then passes human trials, it still does not have a licence for animals, even when we know that the drug worked in those animal trials. It is often cost-prohibitive for companies to then carry out the further trials to produce the body of evidence needed to get the licence for animals. Equally, if a drug passes animal trials but fails human trials, there should be a quick and easy way to make it available for veterinary use, so that the animals that have had to endure experimentation and suffering can also benefit. I am very proud that the Liberal Democrats, in the coalition, were involved in stopping the testing of household products on animals. I know that that meant a huge amount not only to the veterinary profession, but to all dog and animal owners. I would appreciate a meeting with the Minister—perhaps with the Humanimal Trust and academics from the University of Surrey’s vet school—to talk about how we can improve the benefit to animals from drug testing and the other types of testing, such as medical and joint implants, that are being carried out. We want to ensure that companies and academics can, as easily as possible, get licences for the drugs to be used on animals so that they can benefit from them as well.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank everyone who signed this petition—it is a huge achievement to get a debate here in Parliament—and in particular one of my friends, Steph Jones-Giles, who has been a passionate campaigner for animal-free research for years. She has been contacting me for years about this issue specifically. My partner Emma and I have a dog called Frank. He is quite an unusual-looking dog. He is a pug cross border terrier, and he is 15 years old today—I have had an update of him in Pets at Home, choosing his new toy. Thankfully, in 15 years, he has not worked out that I am a vet, because he hates going to the vet—he has no idea. I should also point out that Jennie, who is present today, the guide dog for my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), had her sixth birthday just last week. My reason for bringing that up is that no one thinks it is stupid to celebrate a dog’s birthday. We know that dogs have the same range of emotions that people do. We also know that they are—well, I was going to say “hugely intelligent”, but hon. Members have not met Frank—relatively intelligent, and we certainly know that they feel pain, need to have social interaction, just like us, and need the freedom to express natural behaviour.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  It is every British citizen’s right to vote, and voter turnout is one demonstration of public engagement with politics. Will the Minister consider scrapping photo voter ID, so that the 777,000 people who said that was the reason they did not vote at the last general election will be able to exercise their right to vote at the next general election?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  It is indeed unacceptable, in respect of patients’ safety but also health and safety at work, because the health of the staff is being put at risk as well. These are not minor inconveniences; they are daily threats to patients’ care and they cost us dear, so why are we not fixing them? Failure on the part of the last Government is no excuse for continued delay, and saying “We cannot afford it” when the cost of inaction is higher is simply nonsensical. The longer we wait, the more it will cost the taxpayer. Much has been said about trust in politics, and we will not forget what happened in our part of Hampshire when Conservatives stood on election manifestos promising to deliver a new hospital for which they never had any funds. There was no funding secured and no shovel-ready plan, but they campaigned on the issue repeatedly, hoping that the voters would not find out until it was too late. Other Members have pointed out that GP surgeries are being particularly neglected. The Budget allocated funds to cover additional upgrades for just 200 GP surgeries out of a total of 6,000. With the Government’s jobs tax hitting GPs, it is becoming harder for those practices to fund their own improvements. However, I was pleased that the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) mentioned the importance of primary care and mental health. This is, of course, a debate on hospitals and hospital infrastructure, but I know there is cross-party agreement on the fact that keeping people healthy in the community—whether that involves investment in primary care, mental health or public health services—is much more cost-effective for taxpayers as well as being better for patients. We really welcome the Minister’s warm words on social care. We had a social care roundtable just yesterday, and we heard that every pound spent on social care saves the NHS £3. We urge the Government to hold cross-party talks as soon as possible, because for every year that we delay getting a plan for social care, people are languishing in hospitals on delayed discharge which is costing us a huge amount of money. We have to end the vicious cycle of false economies and fortunes being spent on papering over the cracks. The total repair backlogs at the delayed new hospital sites could reach an estimated £5.7 billion by the time construction starts. Are the Government really of the view that keeping hospitals on life support is a good use of taxpayers’ money? Repairing and replacing crumbling NHS buildings is not just about treating more patients; it is about reviving and boosting our economy. Here is the truth: we will not grow our economy unless we reinvest in the services that support it. Let us change course. We urge the Government to reverse the long delays in the new hospital programme, because many will not be open until the 2040s on the current timeline, and those hospitals have to be kept functioning until then; to set out a 10-year investment plan to fix hospitals and GP surgeries; to urgently release funds that have already been committed, to start construction straightaway; and to publish a plan to recruit and retain a skilled workforce to carry out the work efficiently. That is what investing to save looks like. It means improving care, lowering long-term costs and building a stronger, healthier economy. The Conservatives chose to cut investment, which led to higher costs. Our plan is to increase investment now so that we can lower costs in the future. We urge the Government not simply to patch over the damage done to our NHS. As the Liberal politician William Beveridge, who was a visionary behind the formation of the NHS, said: “A revolutionary moment…is a time for revolutions, not for patching.” Let us be bold, and let us invest now. It will be better for the taxpayer, it will be better for patients, and it will boost our economy.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  It seems that Members on both sides of the House have been experiencing similar problems in the hospitals that they represent. Years of under-investment has left many hospitals with leaking roofs, for instance. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) spoke of sewage in clinical areas—I thought that sewage was the subject of the next debate; it is outrageous that we should be discussing its presence in our hospitals—and my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) told us about a room full of incubators which had to be removed because the ceiling was at risk of collapsing. It is crazy that operating theatres and hospital rooms are unused not because of a lack of staff, but because they are not safe enough for people to work in. Like many other Members, I regularly meet hospital leaders and managers—in my case, at our local hospital in Winchester—to discuss the problems that they are experiencing. Despite the heroic efforts of the staff at the Royal Hampshire County hospital, they are facing a set of issues similar to those that have been raised time and again this afternoon, including, again, leaking roofs over treatment areas. Like the hospital mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), ours has old, outdated lifts that fail, making it difficult to transport patients from wards to the operating theatre. It has no back-up power generators, so there is a risk to patients’ safety during power cuts.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T10. When it comes to global public health, we know that nobody wins unless everybody wins, and that an infectious disease elsewhere on the planet can affect us here as well. What steps is the Department taking to secure funding for overseas development projects involving diseases that will specifically be a risk to the UK, including in relation to antimicrobial resistance?

• 24 Mar 2025 · Male Suicide in Rotherham · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for giving way and for speaking so eloquently about this difficult and sensitive subject. On that point, it is known that those living in poverty are three times more likely to take their own lives or have mental health issues than people on the average wage. Linking into that, 85% of homeless people are men, and their homelessness is often related to mental health issues. I appreciate all the work that he is doing to highlight poverty.

• 24 Mar 2025 · European Union: UK Membership · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not only vets and farmers who are extremely proud that we have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, but the British public? We should not compromise those farming standards and any trade deals that may occur in the future should not undermine them either.

• 24 Mar 2025 · European Union: UK Membership · Hansard source

  More

  Some of the greatest challenges facing civilisation right now include climate change, how we feed 8 billion people and give them energy sustainably, the risk of pandemics, and antimicrobial resistance. Does my hon. Friend agree that barriers to research are not only damaging our universities and industries, but hindering the tackling of these huge problems?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Free School Meals · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I pay tribute to my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis), for securing this hugely important debate. This is not a niche issue. As has been said, with three out of 10 children living in poverty, many of them going to school hungry, this is a matter of national shame. It has made me reflect on how privileged I was. I went to the local state school, which was a perfectly fine school. I never went to school hungry, and I always had a roof over my head. If I had gone to school hungry, there is no way I would have concentrated to get the grades I needed to go on to study veterinary science at the University of Liverpool for seven fantastic years. I could not have achieved that. We know that in this country we are short of vets, doctors and engineers. A huge amount of talent is being wasted because children cannot reach their full educational potential. The hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) touched on the economic benefits of universal free school meals, and rightly mentioned the PwC study showing that for every £1 we put into free school meals, we get £1.71 in economic growth. There are a variety of reasons for that, including the fact that children end up getting better jobs and paying more tax—more than £18 billion over a 20-year period. There is less childhood obesity, costing the NHS less; people are less likely to end up on long-term benefits because they are getting better jobs and are healthier. We also know that the prison illiteracy rate is several times the national average. It costs £51,000 a year to keep someone in prison, yet apparently we cannot afford to give children free school meals that might prevent them from going down that path in the first place. Not only do we have the heartbreaking moral argument for ensuring that children go to school well fed, but we also have the economic argument that doing so will grow our economy if we are brave enough to provide those meals. I visited the tiny Itchen Abbas primary school—a little like the one I attended. The school has only 60 or 70 children, and I heard how by the time the school pays staff to come in an hour early and covers heating costs, while receiving only 60p, 70p or 80p per meal, it costs a lot to provide those breakfast clubs. The school wants to do it, but it is not feasible at the moment. I totally support breakfast clubs, and I think they are a fantastic idea. However, we have to make sure that not only are they affordable for schools, and not costing extra, but they are providing good, nutritious food for children. Clearly, when we factor in all the added costs, 60p or 70p per meal will not provide a nutritious meal and will cost the school a lot of money. Despite the best efforts of Liz Truss and the last Government, we are still one of the wealthiest nations on the planet. There is no reason for any child to go to school hungry. If we make the right choices over the next few years, we can ensure that every child reaches their full educational potential, we can regrow our economy and we can ensure that every child enjoys being at school.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Domestic Abuse Offences · Hansard source

  More

  I commend my hon. Friend for speaking so eloquently and movingly about his personal experiences. There is a recognised link between animal abuse and domestic abuse. I pay tribute to organisations such as the Links Group that train veterinary professionals to recognise when the cases they are seeing may be indicators of abuse or domestic abuse, which ties in exactly with what he is saying. If there is no specific offence of domestic abuse, it is really hard to signpost and give guidance to everyone in the community on how to proceed, so that people are identified and helped at an early stage.