Ruth Jones MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Air Pollution · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for bringing forward this debate and for his powerful and passionate speech. We know the effects of air pollution. In the previous Parliament, I was proud to serve my party as the shadow Minister responsible for air quality. As a consequence, I remain extremely passionate about this. Also, in a previous life—in my youthful life before this place—I was a physiotherapist, and I treated people with breathing conditions. I treated miners with pneumoconiosis and silicosis, people young and old with asthma, and patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Those are very real symptoms of the environments that we live in today. Scientific studies have shown that air pollution is a major cause of disease and premature death. Those exposed to dirty air face an increased risk of heart disease, respiratory deterioration and even dementia. Fine particles can enter deep into the lungs, affecting blood vessels and respiratory function. The link between air pollution and poor respiratory health was laid out by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West in relation to Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, who died back in 2013 aged just nine. I was privileged to meet her mum Rosamund a couple of days ago—again, after a long break. It was really good to see her, and I pay tribute to her for all her campaigning to get this silent killer back on the agenda—it is really important that that happens. I appreciate that the Minister is standing in today. We know a lot about water pollution—a great deal is made about it, and that is fine—but it does not kill thousands, as air pollution does. Air quality is a key social justice issue, because it is not uniform; its impacts are often felt most among those who are already vulnerable. It is our most deprived communities, who already suffer from the worst social determinants of health, who experience the worst air quality. If this Government are to be defined by their breaking down of barriers to opportunity, tackling social determinants of health, such as poor air quality, must be a priority. We know that poorer people live near dual carriageways and busy main roads, which contribute to poorer health—the evidence is clear. Certainly, as a shadow Minister, I went on a number of walkabouts with a personal air monitor on. I could see the results there and then, and they were stark. I am not even going to mention the tube; it was very frightening. However, we do need to know where pollution hotspots are, because then we can do something about tackling them. The clear, detrimental health impacts of continued exposure to air pollution led the World Health Organisation to revise its guidance in 2021, to state that there are no safe levels of air pollution. That is a fact: there are no safe levels. That updated guidance now means that UK air pollution limits, first adopted in 2010, are significantly out of date, with targets for nitrous oxides and PM 2.5 emissions being four times those now adopted by the WHO. I therefore ask the Minister what consideration the Department has given the updated WHO guidelines, and what steps it is taking to align UK regulations with those standards. This year marks the 70th anniversary of the UK’s Clean Air Act 1956. Given the ongoing and pressing health emergency posed by air pollution, there is a clear need to update it. We need a new clean air Act that is fit for the present day. We know that local authorities play a critical role in delivering local improvements in air quality, but they need the funding, enforcement powers and clear national backing to do so effectively. A new clean air Act would really help them in their challenges. I pay tribute to one of my local councils, Newport city council, for its fleet of electric buses. It is doing its bit, but it needs help to do even more. What steps has the Department taken to update the Clean Air Act, drawing on national and international best practice? Will the Minister outline what conversations the Department has had with the Treasury and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on greater financial support for local authorities to take action to tackle air pollution hotspots? This Labour Government are committed to protecting our environment, rebuilding our NHS and breaking down barriers to opportunity, but we cannot deliver on those targets if we continue to overlook the significant impact of poor air quality on people’s health, particularly the poor and the young. Tackling air pollution is an investment in the next generation. We cannot let our children continue to pay the price for continued inaction. We need a new clean air Act and we need it now. I look forward to hearing the Minister outline a timetable for its introduction.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Air Pollution · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is very brave to say that there will be no new clean air Act. I understand why he says that, but when the Clean Air Act was introduced, it saved thousands of lives; why would we not amend and update that Act?

• 2 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Leader of the House will be well aware that our UK Labour Government have given more than £340 million to the Plaid Cymru minority Government in Wales, specifically for those with additional learning needs. Could he explain why this money has not been distributed to local councils, as all 22 local authorities and every teaching union have called for? Why is this vital funding being held back? Why is it not being used to support our Welsh pupils with ALN? I am at a loss to understand it. Could he help, please?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Women’s Prison Estate: Biological Males · Hansard source

  More

  Given that we are thinking about the women’s prison estate more generally, and given that the Swansea residential women’s centre was due to open in 2024 but now does not look like it will open at all, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that Welsh women can access alternatives to custody?

• 22 Jun 2026 · Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Newborn Screening Test · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for leading this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I thank the 306 residents of Newport West and Islwyn who signed the petition. I am delighted to have spoken with the chief executive of SMA UK, Giles Lomax, a number of times, and I pay tribute to his tireless advocacy. I also thank Jesy Nelson for her work raising awareness of SMA following the diagnosis of her twin daughters. SMA is a serious but rare genetic decision that causes progressive muscle weakness and deterioration, as we have heard. I should declare that, in my previous life, as a paediatric physiotherapist, I treated a number of children and babies with SMA, so I know a bit about the struggles that families go through in coming to terms with the diagnosis, the treatment, the child’s ongoing needs and the aids and adaptation that are required throughout their life. Currently there is no cure but, thanks to transformative research, treatment can slow symptoms and even stop progression. As a result, early detection and treatment of SMA due to newborn screening can dramatically improve the wellbeing of patients. That includes the significant benefits that have already been highlighted to respiratory health, motor function and, critically, life expectancy. To be totally hard-hearted about it, catching SMA early via screening saves not only lives, but taxpayers’ money. Without presymptomatic treatment, T he Lancet estimates the annual health cost for a single child at about £75,000—not including the wider mental health issues, equipment, carer costs, housing adaptations or disability benefits. Those costs can run into hundreds of thousands of pounds per family. It is therefore not only morally right to roll out the screening to all children straight away; it is also financially prudent. I am pleased that the Scottish Government have recognised the public case for newborn screening, becoming the first nation in the UK to add SMA to their universal screening programme. If they can do it, why can the rest of us not? It is really important. I am pushing for all constituent nations of the UK to learn from that example and urgently explore how we roll out universal screening for SMA. We cannot risk the postcode lottery mentioned in this debate. Children with SMA should not have their life chances determined by which part of the UK they live in. I welcome the progress made in England to extend access to newborn screening, although we know it does not go far enough. Around 72% of babies born in England will be screened, but we obviously must go further. The previous Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), committed to expanding the ISE to ensure that more children could be screened, so I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on the progress on delivering that. While significant progress has been made in England, Wales still has no plans for a screening roll-out, despite being uniquely well positioned to participate in the ISE. Screening facilities at the Cardiff and Vale University health board are currently being upgraded and have the capacity to facilitate newborn blood spot screening for every child born in Wales. A single, one-off and modest investment of around £1.5 million could therefore deliver 100% coverage and certainty for the parents of the 27,000 children born in Wales every year. Given that unique opportunity, the decision thus far by the Welsh Government not to participate in the ISE is extremely frustrating. I wrote multiple times to the previous Welsh Cabinet Secretary for Health and Care, urging him to reconsider that short-sighted decision. Although the NHS in Wales faces many challenges and competing demands for future investment, I will continue to press the new Welsh Government to participate in the ISE. Waiting until the ISE concludes risks no babies being screened until the National Screening Committee makes its formal recommendations in 2030—four years more of missed opportunities for Welsh babies. Given the clear benefits of cross-border working across our Union, could the Minister outline what conversations she and her colleagues have had with their Welsh Government counterparts about the ISE and how Wales could participate in it? If she cannot answer tonight, I would be grateful if she would write to me. To conclude, although the effects of SMA can be dramatic, screening and early treatment offer us the opportunity to transform these children’s lives. We need to ensure that all babies across every nation of the UK receive blood spot screening for SMA, so that no child’s future is determined by their postcode.

• 22 Jun 2026 · Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Newborn Screening Test · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate what the Minister says about getting evaluation right, but Ukraine can install such an evaluation across the whole country during a war, and Ireland is doing it, too, so why aren’t we?

• 22 Jun 2026 · Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Newborn Screening Test · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister says that screening must be safe and fair. We know the benefits of screening—the people in the Public Gallery have articulated it so clearly. The benefits are undeniable, so is it fair that the whole of Wales and a third of England does not have such screening?

• 17 Jun 2026 · Job Creation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her responses. I want to raise the issue of young people not in education, employment or training. We know that the Conservatives failed our Welsh young people for 14 years, so I am really pleased that this Labour Government are investing £2.5 billion in the youth guarantee. How many Welsh young people will benefit from this scheme?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Brain Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the 54 constituents of Newport West and Islwyn who signed the petition calling for an increased focus on tackling brain cancer. I will speak about Owain’s law, a campaign that seeks to end the postcode lottery across the UK in accessing brain tumour tissue freezing. That is critical for preserving the fresh DNA and RNA samples needed for later advanced genomic testing, clinical trials and personalised treatment. The current postcode lottery in accessing fresh brain tissue freezing means reduced treatment options for many and barely improving survival rates for decades. I was really pleased to meet Ellie James again last week, after her husband Owain died from a grade 4 brain tumour aged just 35. During his treatment, Owain and Ellie pursued a personalised cancer vaccine using Owain’s tumour tissue. However, just 1 cm of the 7 cm tumour removed during the surgery was fresh frozen. While that allowed three personalised vaccines to be made, when the tumour returned no further treatments could be made. Owain later died in June 2024. No one had discussed with Owain or his family how the tissue would be preserved or the implications of that decision. Like others, I again press the Minister on whether she will set out a funded delivery plan to close these gaps in freezer capacity. No one should have a postcode lottery on those important matters of life and death. Will she commission new national guidance on the removal and freezing of suitable brain tissue following diagnosis? Owain’s tragic case needs to be learned from if we are to improve treatments for those with brain cancer. Relatively small investments, which are already waiting to be spent, could close the postcode lottery in freezing capacity, ensure uniform quality of care and have the potential to be truly transformational.

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure—well, it is always interesting to follow the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), and I thank him for his speech, although I am not sure that I learned anything from it. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) for her poignant and clear proposal of the Humble Address, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for his witty seconding of it. I wish him well in his future marathons. I welcome the firm focus in the King’s Speech on the day-to-day security of British families. It puts the cost of living front and centre of the Government’s priorities. This Labour Government have already increased the minimum wage, boosted pensions, and ensured that wages are rising faster than prices for the first time in over a decade, and the removal of the two-child cap will benefit more than 2,000 families in my constituency. Now we are moving further and faster to deliver the change that our country needs, bearing down on the costs facing ordinary families. There is no clearer expression of the cost of living squeeze than people’s energy bills, which doubled under the last Government. The latest energy crisis highlights the danger of Britain’s continued reliance on volatile fossil fuel markets, which would only be exacerbated under the Conservatives and Reform. Genuine energy independence cannot be achieved through continued exposure to volatile global fossil fuel markets. The fastest way to improve energy security, while meeting the UK’s climate and nature obligations and bringing down bills, is through the expansion of renewable energy and the roll-out of energy efficiency and electrification measures. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to go further and faster, looking not just at solar and wind—onshore and offshore—but at tidal, including wave energy and lagoons. The need for change is pressing. A third of all households across Wales live in fuel poverty, amounting to approximately 9,000 households in Newport and 12,000 in Caerphilly county borough, and that can only be tackled by bringing down bills for good. I am disappointed to see that the Welsh Government in the Senedd have tied themselves in knots over decarbonising Wales’s energy supplies, because Plaid Cymru’s policy of undergrounding cables at all costs will mean cancelled projects and higher household bills. They need to rethink that as a matter of urgency. The Bill proposed in the King’s Speech shows that Labour is clear that the UK’s future is in clean, cheap power. The energy independence Bill is a decisive step towards energy security, warmer homes and reforming our broken energy market.

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  I do not disagree with the right hon. Lady, because we absolutely need to make sure that our prices are fair. That means looking across Wales as a whole, but also benefiting from the renewables that we know Wales has in abundance. The energy independence Bill is a decisive step, as I said. Another major scourge of bill payers that is firmly in the sights of this Government is our failing water companies, including Welsh Water, and I welcome the urgent steps being taken by the Government to reform our broken water system through a new water Bill. In March, Ofwat published its finding that Welsh Water breached its legal obligations in operating its waste water treatment works and network. Ofwat found that Welsh Water failed to operate, maintain and upgrade its waste water assets adequately to ensure that they could cope with the flows of sewage and waste water. We know that Welsh Water discharged raw sewage into rivers, lakes and seas for over 968,000 hours in 2024. Water pollution in Wales has reached emergency levels, so I welcome the water Bill. I look forward to seeing water bosses being held to account, and to the clean-up of our rivers and waterways. I welcome further action by this Government to back British Steel. Whereas the Tories left our steel sector unsupported, Labour is taking action. That includes nationalising British Steel and protecting domestic production from international dumping and uncompetitive subsidies. UK Steel has said that the Government’s steel strategy is the most significant intervention to support UK steel competitiveness in over a decade. The Government’s new target for at least half of steel used in Britain to be made here is a major boost for Welsh steel, with Welsh manufacturing expected to account for half of future steelmaking. We must not forget about Port Talbot and Llanwern in south Wales, and I pay tribute to my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for the sterling work that she has done to promote and protect our steel at Llanwern. The Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal has been disproportionately damaging to the Welsh economy, because Wales remains a significant manufacturing economy, with 60% of our exports going to the European Union—that is 10% higher than the UK average. Although negotiations on the EU trade Bill are ongoing, I urge the Government to commit to securing a carve-out on animal welfare, like that secured by Switzerland in a similar deal. The UK is proudly a nation of animal lovers and a world leader in animal welfare standards, and we were the first country in the world to ban fur farming. A future trade deal, involving dynamic alignment in key sectors, must not risk watering down UK commitments to ban the sale of foie gras or end the import of fur. I gently say to those on the Government Front Bench that there is a lack of legislation on animal welfare in this King’s Speech. I said that we are a nation of animal lovers, and the Government could have some easy wins. We are committed to the animal welfare strategy, and we could use it to ban the use of snare traps, bring forward a close season for hares, and bring into effect the Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Act 2023. These are small pieces of legislation, but they could make a huge difference to wild, domestic and farmed animals, both here and abroad. I will move on to small businesses. The Federation of Small Businesses has estimated that 50% to 54% of SMEs regularly experience late payments, which cost the average SME £22,000 a year. On average, businesses spend 86 hours a year chasing invoices. This is a massive problem for businesses in my constituency of Newport West and Islwyn, and I am pleased that we are taking action to stop it happening. Looking ahead to Great British Railways, this Labour Government’s new railways Bill will transform the railway network in Wales as we deliver our £14 billion plan to improve Wales’s railways. Front and centre of that is the £90 million investment in five new stations between the Severn tunnel and Cardiff, including new stations at Newport West in my constituency and Cardiff Parkway next door. These new stations will support over 12,000 new jobs across Monmouthshire, Newport and Cardiff. South Wales is also set to benefit from an additional £40 million investment to upgrade two sets of rail tracks, which will improve service reliability and capacity for additional services. Labour’s railways Bill will also give the Welsh Government a new statutory role, to ensure that Wales-wide strategies feed into cross-border plans by Great British Railways. This will be a key pillar of the constructive and professional relationship between the two Governments as they work together for the benefit of people in Wales. I turn now to the Timms review. I would welcome the Government’s continued ambition to support more young and disabled people into work by reforming the welfare system, but the changes must be based on compassion and provide effective support mechanisms for people to move into work, building on the already introduced right to try. I agree with His Majesty that we must have a system that is fair and fit for the future. Finally, I turn to the conflict between Israel and Palestine. I welcome this Government’s continued commitment to supporting a two-state solution. We urgently need to work with partners to ensure a viable Palestinian state, alongside a secure Israel. In supporting peace efforts in the middle east, I press Ministers to call on Israel to end its continued bombing in Lebanon, which has seen over a million civilians displaced from their homes.

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. If we cut ties, we cannot communicate. The only way to a lasting peace is through communication, so we must keep communication channels open. That is the only way to a lasting peace. I listened carefully to the King’s Speech this morning, and I am pleased to hear of the proposed 35 Bills and the actions planned. I look forward to them being delivered swiftly for working people across the UK, so that they can feel the benefits of a Labour Government working for them and with them.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  I understand the timetable that the Minister is outlining, which is great, but there are still millions of tests being undertaken every year unnecessarily. We know about the forced swim and LD50 tests. Could the Minister outline a bit more the review of the generic project licences? How can we issue a licence for a generic project when we do not know about it? How can we evaluate and assess the risks there?

• 27 Apr 2026 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Mr Twigg. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. She is a fantastic, tireless champion of the rights of animals and does a great job chairing the APPG on phasing out animal experiments, of which I am proud to be a member. I also thank the 211 constituents in Newport West and Islwyn who signed this petition to end animal testing. The fact that the Public Gallery is so full today is testament to how important this subject is to so many across the UK. We have already heard that the number of procedures in 2024 was some 2.6 million, just 2% lower than the preceding year. Although 2024 marked the lowest number of scientific procedures involving living animals since 2001, the pace of reduction is far too slow. Britain, as we have already heard, is proudly badged as a nation of animal lovers and a world leader in animal welfare, but it is critical that we do not rest on our laurels. Indeed, continued leadership requires urgent commitments on further reforms to the regulatory, licensing and inspection regime governing the use of animals in science on the UK. I aim to touch on each of those areas in my speech —but I will be brief, as I can see the Chair’s eyebrows raising. I first turn to regulation. I greatly welcome the Labour Government’s new “Replacing animals in science” strategy, and their clear ambition for phasing out basket grouping of unnecessary tests on animals in the near future. I particularly support funding for a new UK centre for the validation of alternative methods and investment in non-animal method technologies. Although the strategy is detailed and comprehensive, I still believe that there are areas where we can go further. Embedding the targets to phase out routine tests prioritised as part of baskets 1 and 2 in law 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 bring 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 the recent strategy in legislation. I turn to licensing, which I have raised previously in Westminster Hall debates. I continue to believe that the Animals in Science Regulation Unit needs urgent reform. One of the key roles of the ASRU is administering the licensing regime created by ASPA. That is critical to reducing the number of animals used in scientific testing, as the Act already requires proactive consideration of the three Rs framework: replacing, reducing and refining the use of animals in such experiments. That is supposed to ensure that animals are used only as a last resort, but the embedding of the approach needs strengthening. That was a key reflection of the Rawle report, published in 2023, which voiced concerns that the welfare inspection regime risked embedding a focus on “box-ticking” rather than ensuring a culture of genuine commitment to advancing the three Rs. I greatly welcome the Government recognition of the need to strengthen the ethical review approval process to ensure that animals are used only where there is no alternative in line with the findings of the Rawle report. I therefore ask the Minister to report on the progress being made by his Department in strengthening the application of the three Rs following the publication of the Animals in Science Committee’s January report, and in advance of its forthcoming report in September. Of particular importance is strengthening the ASRU’s understanding of the rapid developments in non-animal methods—NAMs. That is essential to ensuring that the application of the three Rs is effective and in line with international best practice, such as that now being implemented by the US Food and Drug Administration as part of its road map. It is interesting that the US is now ahead of us in this area. I urge the Minister that we need to get back on top here. Responsibility for driving this change sits directly with Ministers, with statutory duties to assess for the three Rs—particularly replacement, which sits with the Home Secretary. As such, Ministers must drive the necessary reform of the ASRU, ensuring that it has the expertise to effectively and independently verify whether applications have been appropriately evaluated against NAMs. The ASRU has typically been composed of vets, who unfortunately, given the fast-moving nature of the field, do not always have up-to-date expertise in modern NAMs, including organs on chips and computational biology. Those handling applications need to be well versed in those technologies and able to engage in critical questions around scientific methodologies and data validation, rather than reliant on a replacement checklist. ASPA requires that scientifically satisfactory NAMs are used “wherever possible”. Given that, and the section 2A duties on the Home Secretary—I appreciate that is a different Department—I ask the Minister what steps they are taking to improve the training and expertise available to ASRU inspectors to allow them to effectively and independently verify application compliance with ASPA. Of particular concern are tests taken under the so-called “generic” project licences as highlighted by Animal Aid and Animals International. Those licences are granted without knowing the substances being tested, and as such, a harm-benefit analysis cannot have been done. I therefore ask the Minister what specific steps he is taking to review “generic” project licences to avoid unnecessary harm and strengthen application of the three Rs. I appreciate that relates to a different Department, but I am sure that his Department will be working in lockstep with the Home Office, so I look forward to the response. Turning to enforcement, adherence to ASPA within licensed premises also continues to be a site of significant concern. The latest annual report from the ASRU made extremely grim reading. The 146 reported cases of non-compliance with legal requirements of licensing conditions highlight an ongoing failure to prevent appalling animal suffering in laboratories. That includes extreme cases of animals drowning or starving to death. In total, those cases detail the suffering of more than 22,000 animals. Those numbers are significant, but unfortunately they only reflect breaches self-reported to the ASRU. My fear is that the numbers are far greater than those documented. That only underlines the importance of an effective inspection regime and promoting a proactive culture of safeguarding animal welfare. Despite the ASRU issuing more than 15,000 licences in 2024, at the end of that year, the ASRU had only 8.2 full-time equivalent inspectors. That means that just 68 establishments were inspected in 2024, with only 10 of those inspections being unannounced. I therefore welcome commitments made by the Government to increase the number of veterinary and medical inspectors working for the ASRU, and I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the Government have been successful in recruiting to meet the previously stated target of 22 inspectors by March this year. In closing, the continued testing on animals demands moral leadership. That requires urgent implementation of the replacing animals in science strategy, strengthening enforcement of ASPA, and using Britain’s unique position as a global leader in animal welfare and pharmaceuticals to chart a global path towards ending animal testing once and for all. I thank the Petitions Committee for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall, and I urge the Minister to go faster in eradicating animal testing. The public is impatient and wants change quickly, and so do we.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Defence Sector · Hansard source

  More

  The Welsh Affairs Committee has a great interest in the future of the defence manufacturing industry in Wales, because the defence sector is such a major driver of Wales’s manufacturing economy and provides many well-paid jobs, including at General Dynamics in Oakdale in my constituency. The sector is also central to maintaining the UK’s national security, so will the Minister indicate how the Government plan to help to grow this vital sector in Wales?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I would very much welcome that opportunity to talk to the Minister outside this Committee. In terms of the UN alignment, that is fine, but what happens when the UN has countries that have lower and weaker chemical regulations than the EU and the UK? What happens with the alignment then? Do we align down or up?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Dr Murrison, for enabling me to speak even though I am not a member of the Committee. It seems like a long time ago, but I should declare that I was a shadow Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister and part of my portfolio included chemicals, so that is why I am here today to speak about chemicals and possible unintended consequences. I also lived through the painful immediate post-Brexit era. I thank the Minister for his opening remarks and for outlining so clearly the need for this delegated legislation. I understand that and welcome most of it, but I have concerns about its implementation and possible unintended consequences. We know that since Brexit, the HSE has had significant policymaking and delegated authority powers. Where that has been exercised, decisions have often been more ad hoc and less protective than the EU’s. Since January 2021, the UK has operated its own chemical regulation system, but UK chemical regs are a casualty of Brexit and we have fallen behind the EU. I welcome the environmental improvement plan, which was introduced by this Labour Government in 2025. It is a sensible shift back towards EU-aligned protection, which is still the best in the world. However, I still have concerns about four specific areas. First, how will the proposed changes not lead to unnecessary and undesirable divergence from the EU chemicals regulations? That is against the HSE’s explicitly stated policy. Also, how will any changes be reported to Parliament and to the devolved Administrations? Secondly, we need exact dates for when protective EU hazard classes will be adopted in GB law. Why does this delegated legislation not enact the six new hazard clauses that the EU introduced in 2023? Northern Ireland, as the Minister outlined, already has those new hazard classes applied, so why should not the rest of us have them? Thirdly, we need to tighten the broad and wide-ranging criteria for diverging from the EU. The HSE talks about “exceptional divergence”, but gives very broad criteria, including economic and industrial considerations. If we are talking about forever chemicals, carcinogenic or harmful biocides, we must ensure environmental and population safety before broad economic or industrial considerations. We need clarification and transparency to ensure that we do not regress from environmental and public health protections retained in GB law post Brexit. This SI introduces changes that include postponing expiry dates to July 2031 for all biocidal active substance product type combinations. That could mean contaminated products. It could mean the continued free circulation of products in Great Britain that are blocked in the EU due to their potential to cause harm. We in the UK pride ourselves on protecting humans, animals and the environment. We should look to align closer and not diverge further from the highest chemical standards in the world—the EU’s. I want to ask about the EU-UK reset, which the Minister alluded to. I understand negotiations are ongoing and I am not privy to behind-door conversations, but this realignment is a chance to improve our chemical safety in Great Britain. We should grab the opportunity with both hands. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I understand the need for this delegated legislation, but I press the Minister to ensure that the chemicals industry’s concerns are acknowledged and, more importantly, addressed in terms of the HSE’s remit and accountability.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. He will know that Yom HaShoah, a Jewish commemoration of the 6 million Jews murdered during the Holocaust, begins tonight. We must never forget. But as this powerful memorial begins, Benjamin Netanyahu continues to flout international law by bombing innocent civilians in Lebanon and intimidating Palestinians in the west bank, under the cover of the US-Iran situation. What can the UK do to support the victims of Netanyahu and stop his ongoing destructive actions in all areas?

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

  More

  It is helpful to hear the Minister outline the progress so far. Given yesterday’s SPS statement, could she clarify that fur and fur products will not form part of the negotiations and are outside of scope?

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

  More

  Thank you again for your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. It has been a pleasure to serve under you. This has been a very coherent and cohesive debate; I am not aware that there have been any dissenters. I thank all hon. Members for participating in today’s debate and bringing their different perspectives to this subject. I thank the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) and for Newcastle-under- Lyme (Adam Jogee). I thank the people in the Public Gallery for their ongoing work and persistence in ensuring that the animal welfare message goes out loud and clear across the UK, and for educating us in this House so well. I thank the Minister for outlining the progress that the Government have made so far, and I appreciate that a lot of it is happening behind the scenes. I do not envy her the persuasive familial discussions, because I am sure they are going on at all times—I would encourage her sibling to carry on with them. Public opinion is clear, the scientific evidence is clear and the economic case is clear, so let us stop the delay, get on with the action that we need to ban fur and fur products from being imported into this country, and end our complicity in this barbaric trade. Question put and agreed to . Resolved , That this House has considered the import and sale of fur and related products.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the import and sale of fur and related products. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Ms Jardine. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing a debate on fur today. I am grateful for the opportunity to lead a debate on a topic as important as the UK’s continuing trade in animal fur, and in relation to my Fur (Import and Sale) Bill. To explain the problem with fur, I will start with a true story about a man, a dog and a fox. The man was a prominent leader in the international fur industry and had spent 10 years of his professional career defending the fur trade against accusations of cruelty and working to try to get designers to use fur in their collections. He had increasingly found that to be an uphill struggle. One of his roles in the fur industry was to promote welfare standards on fur farms, and that saw him travel to fur farms around the world. One day the man found himself on a fur farm in Poland. On that farm, about 1,000 foxes spent every day of their lives in wire cages only a little bigger than they were, about 1 metre square. It was the rough equivalent of a person living their whole life in a phone box. The rows of cages stretched as far as the man could see. Some animals were spinning in desperate circles—a sign of mental collapse. Others were just slumped in hopeless heaps on the wire-mesh floors. All were waiting for the day when they would be electrocuted to be turned into a coat trim or perhaps a bobble hat. As the man toured the farm with the Polish industry bosses, he locked eyes unexpectedly with a fox. She had beautiful silvery-grey fur, a white stripe down the middle of her nose and shiny hazel eyes. Quite without meaning to, he connected with her, and her eyes told him something. Returning home to the UK the next day, the man was greeted by his adoring Labrador, Barney. After the enthusiastic tail wagging had subsided, the man looked at Barney, and Barney looked back, eyes full of love, optimism and energy. In that moment, the man saw what he had been missing for years—the connection between these two sentient beings. He realised that if anyone tried to do to his Barney what the fur industry was doing to millions of foxes, he would do everything in his power to stop it and help him. In that moment, he decided that he could no longer defend the indefensible and he resigned from working for the fur trade. But he did not just slip off into obscurity. Mike Moser, because that is who it was, approached anti-fur campaigner Claire Bass at Humane World for Animals, explained his change of heart and mind, and offered his insights and services in its campaign for a fur-free Britain. I have much respect for Mike, who joins us here today. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that his powerful testimony against the fur trade is worth bringing to the attention of the House. Mike says: “Over time I realised that whatever soundbites we devised to reassure consumers, retailers and politicians, neither welfare regulations nor any industry certification scheme, would ever change the reality of these animals being stuck in tiny wire cages for their entire lives.” I am grateful for the strong support from so many hon. Members for my Fur (Import and Sale) Bill. It is simple in principle and modest in scope, but overwhelming in its justification. It would end the import of animal fur into Great Britain and prohibit the sale of new fur products in England, while allowing appropriate exemptions and of course respecting devolved competence. In doing so, it would finally bring our law into line with our values, because the truth is this. The United Kingdom banned fur farming more than 20 years ago because we recognised it as inherently inhumane, yet by allowing tens of millions of pounds-worth of fur to be imported here, we continue to be complicit in exactly the same cruelty overseas. My Bill seeks to end that double standard.

• 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?