Aphra Brandreth
MP for Chester South and Eddisbury · Conservative · United Kingdom
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for securing this important debate, and for sharing his family’s experience.”
“That is crucial because, for too many people, more typical public toilet spaces are not just inconvenient but not fit for purpose, rendering the space effectively unusable.”
“The debate has featured powerful testimonies from constituents on how their lives are impacted every day by the inaccessibility of many public toilets, and how this affects them both physically and mentally. I would like to add one more example from my Chester South and Eddisbury constituency.”
“The 2019 consultation showed that the vast majority of the individuals and organisations that responded believed that an increase in the number of Changing Places toilets would give individuals with multiple or complex disabilities, as well as their carers and families, greater ability to leave home and visit different places.”
“It is also why I was proud to see the previous Conservative Government launch the Changing Places toilets fund, which was worth £30.5 million.”
“After the fund closed, the current Labour Government were petitioned on this matter in December last year. They concluded that local authorities are best placed to assess and manage toilet provision.”
The complete record
Every one of 560 lines we hold for Aphra Brandreth, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 12.
“It may be that the provision need not be used, but if the Government cannot support it, that would be another indication of their willingness to listen to Brussels over Belfast. I urge Government Members to join the Opposition in supporting this reasonable suggestion. It would make the Bill stronger, more balanced and more in keeping with our shared commitment to the Union. As Conservatives, we have a proud record of championing the Union, and it was a Conservative Government that delivered the Windsor framework. I did think that Labour was supposed to be Unionist party, not a European Unionist party. This is a chance for Labour to make its position clear.”
“It is only right that its representatives have a meaningful say in decisions that affect them, and that we treat their concerns with the same seriousness that we would those of any other part of the UK. The new clause reflects that principle. It would not tie the Government’s hands unnecessarily, but it would ensure that any action taken respects the processes of the Windsor framework and honours the spirit of consent. We have spent a good deal of time in Committee debating the balance of powers between Parliament and Ministers. In that context, the new clause is not a radical demand. It simply asks the Government to pause and consider the democratic expression of the legislature of Northern Ireland before acting.”
“Before addressing the specifics of the new clause, I will briefly reflect on the importance of the UK internal market, which is the economic spine of our Union, supporting the free movement of goods, services, capital and people across all four nations. Intra-UK trade has been worth up to £200 billion a year, which represents nearly 6% of our GDP. For Northern Ireland alone, it is up to £14 billion annually—twice its trade with Ireland and the wider EU combined. That should serve as a reminder of just how critical it is that we preserve and strengthen Northern Ireland’s place in our internal market. The new clause is a small but significant step toward doing just that. Northern Ireland is an equal member of the Union.”
“I rise to make a few points in support of the new clause, because I strongly believe that the Bill must uphold and not undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom and the strength of our internal market. First and foremost, we voted as a country—as the United Kingdom—to leave the European Union. Of course, the unique situation of Northern Ireland, sharing a land border with the EU, has added complexities to that process, but through the hard work of the previous Conservative Government, we secured the Windsor framework, an agreement that represents a careful balance. The framework upholds free-flowing trade within the UK while, crucially, protecting Northern Ireland’s position in the Union, safeguarding its sovereignty and upholding the Good Friday agreement, which remains the foundation of peace and stability.”
“The Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to regulate, and it is appropriate that the powers are flexible and future-facing. We must ensure that regulation supports consumer confidence without stifling innovation or imposing undue burdens on small and emerging businesses, particularly those that are trying to compete fairly in a complex marketplace. A safer marketplace benefits everyone. It is the foundation of consumer trust and business growth: if consumers feel confident that unsafe products are being properly policed, they are more likely to engage in the marketplace, and that in turn supports a vibrant and competitive economy. There is a clear need for ongoing scrutiny in this area, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how these important issues will be addressed as we take the Bill forward.”
“Those are not abstract figures; this is about the health and safety of our constituents. As the hon. Member for Wokingham said, some of the risks to children from unsafe toys are serious and extremely worrying. Particular concerns have been raised about dangerous incidents involving lithium batteries in e-bikes and e-scooters, which have led to fires, injuries and, tragically, deaths. These are serious and growing risks that demand serious attention. It is therefore right that online marketplaces take greater responsibility in this space. We expect the platforms to remove unsafe products swiftly, co-operate fully with enforcement authorities and ensure that robust safety checks are in place before products are ever listed. At the same time, we must approach this matter in a proportionate and measured way.”
“The new clause touches on the important issue of the safety and accountability of products sold through online marketplaces. In today’s consumer environment, the shift towards online purchasing has transformed the landscape. That has brought convenience and choice, but it has also introduced new risks that were not foreseen when our existing consumer protection laws were drafted. Conservative shadow Ministers and colleagues have met with product safety organisations, and we recognise the real concerns that have been raised. The number of unsafe goods entering the market is deeply troubling. Recent investigations have found that 85% of toys tested from online marketplaces were unsafe, and that nearly 90% of products entering the UK fail basic safety tests.”
“I fully welcome the prohibition on importing animals that have been subject to mutilations such as cropped ears, docked tails or declawing, which are harmful and unnecessary practices. We should not allow our high UK welfare standards to be undermined by those who seek to profit through cruelty. This is no way to treat animals. As a country that is rightly proud of our standards in animal welfare and biosecurity, we must continue to lead by example, so the Bill is both necessary and welcome. I also acknowledge the important work of charities including the RSPCA, Dogs Trust and Cats Protection, which have consistently championed these issues and called for stronger protections.”
“I therefore welcome the provisions in clause 1(3) and (4) to prohibit the importation of dogs and cats under six months of age. That is particularly important in the case of very young puppies, whose age can be difficulty to verify. As a result, they may be taken from their mothers too soon and imported at far too young an age, before receiving essential vaccinations, such as for rabies, putting both animals and humans at risk. I also welcome the vital prohibition on importing heavily pregnant dogs and cats—those more than 42 days pregnant. The stress of a long journey can impact the health of both the mother and her unborn young. Heavily pregnant animals require more frequent toilet breaks and are at higher risk of overheating, and the physical stress can compromise their respiratory health.”
“It is not just animals that are at risk. As the hon. Member for Winchester said, diseases such as Brucella canis, which is endemic in countries such as Romania and Ukraine, pose a real threat to humans—especially those caring for the dogs, including veterinary surgeons and nurses. In the most serious cases, the infection can cause miscarriage. While responsible breeders may carry out appropriate testing, those involved in illegal smuggling often do not. That makes the Bill not only a matter of animal welfare, but one of public health. Irresponsible and illegal breeders have exploited loopholes in existing legislation to treat animals with complete disregard and reduce them to mere commodities. It is absolutely right that we seek to close those gaps through the Bill.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I rise to speak briefly in support of this important Bill, which addresses some long-standing and deeply concerning issues around the welfare of animals brought into the UK. As someone who has run a veterinary business and is married to a vet, I have seen at first hand, and heard about from colleagues over the years, the serious impact on animal health and welfare—and, indeed, the risks to human health—of puppy smuggling. Sadly, we have seen too many cases in which puppies and cats arrive in the UK from countries with lower welfare standards, often in very poor condition. Many suffer from diseases and parasites, and some have been bred irresponsibly, resulting in painful and lifelong conditions—orthopaedic problems, breathing difficulties and eye defects, to name just a few.”
“Ear cropping in dogs is a cruel and clinically unnecessary procedure, and is illegal in the UK. The shadow Minister has long campaigned to raise awareness of that. Does he agree that images of dogs with cropped ears have been normalised, and that many owners are still unaware of the cruelty of the practice, so we must continue to highlight its impact?”
“Amendment 21, in particular, would ensure that any EU-derived product standards must first be brought into UK law by regulation before they can be treated as equivalent. That would both protect sovereignty and provide certainty. Ultimately, there must be proper scrutiny, and if Ministers are confident in their decisions, they should have no concern about being asked to report back to Parliament on any regulations aligning with EU law and to ask Parliament to approve their continuation. That would enable proper oversight while guarding against regulatory drift.”
“That is why amendments 3 and 4, to remove automatic mechanisms to treat compliance with EU rules as equivalent to UK compliance by default and without justification, are vital. This is not about rejecting co-operation where it is in our interest; it is about avoiding automatic alignment without accountability. As was raised in the other place, the powers are not just technical; they are significant policy decisions that deserve primary legislation. The democratic will of the British people, expressed in the referendum when we decided to leave the European Union and in elections since, was to restore British sovereignty. It is only right that no authority based outside the UK, whether it be the European Commission or the Court of Justice of the European Union, can unilaterally shape the enforcement or interpretation of our rules.”
“Friend the Member for West Worcestershire said, it enables the potential for dynamic alignment, which the impact assessment essentially spells out as the aim, without any binding requirement for parliamentary approval, debate or even explanation. Amendment 5 would change that by requiring the Secretary of State to explain the rationale for alignment and seek Parliament’s consent before any such decision takes effect. This is not obstructionism; it is good governance. As has been noted, the Bill also risks undoing the progress made by the previous Government in removing excessive red tape and regaining regulatory autonomy. Through sovereign decision making the UK has created trading opportunities on the world stage.”
“I want to make a few brief points in support of the Opposition amendments. Taken together, they serve a simple but essential purpose: they seek to ensure that the powers granted under the Bill are used transparently, responsibly and with full parliamentary oversight. Let me be clear: this is not about rehashing the debates of the past. It is about making sure that future decisions, especially those that could have profound consequences for British industry, trade and product standards, are subject to democratic scrutiny. As it stands, the Bill gives sweeping discretion to Ministers to align domestic product regulations with European law. As my hon.”
“If Labour Members really want—as they say they do—to see growth, I am sure they will want to support the amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire pointed out, the Government’s actions so far have seen GDP per capita shrinking and business confidence plummeting.”
“Empowering them—rather than prohibiting them with regulation and red tape from Brussels—should be central to achieving growth. There are huge opportunities and markets out there for the UK to seize. We must ensure that trade and national policy are as one, supporting job creation, innovation and competition. We need clarity and assurance from the Government that they understand the potential impact of dynamic alignment and the damage that that could do to the economy. When have legally binding powers achieved growth? When has ambiguity in what businesses should expect and in their operating conditions delivered growth? The truth is that it does not. Businesses need clarity and confidence, and this skeleton Bill does not deliver that.”
“I will speak very briefly on amendment 17. The watchword of this Government has been, supposedly, growth. That is supposed to be the driving force behind legislation and policy, yet they have clearly introduced measures that have done nothing to support growth, and the Bill risks being another stumbling block to continuing the path of recovery—a recovery that the Government actually inherited, with the UK the fastest-growing economy in the G7. The Opposition have sought to constructively improve the Bill through the amendment, which would ensure that the Government focus on growth. These are sensible and important provisions to promote investment and to foster innovation. I am sure that Labour Members want to encourage economic growth. Supporting businesses is the way to do that.”
“I thank my right hon. Friend for that important intervention. Dynamic alignment will see us give away control to the European Union, meaning that we cannot focus on growth in a way that will rightly and importantly improve growth for UK businesses across the whole of the UK. I represent Chester South and Eddisbury, a seat in the north-west of England, and we need to ensure that we see growth across the whole United Kingdom. The amendment, importantly, would ensure that we focus on that. More than ever, we must not stifle growth.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for that clear and important intervention. She is absolutely right: this is an opportunity to create incentives for growth and to position the UK as a global leader in innovation. We all know that we must continue to innovate. We want the UK to be at the forefront for so many possible emerging markets. We must do everything we can to support that. I urge Members to support the amendment.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I rise to speak in support of the Opposition amendments, which are not just minor textual tweaks but go to the core of how we manage product regulations now that we have left the European Union. Amendment 20, which proposes replacing the word “EU” with the word “foreign” in the relevant provision, might seem like a small change on the surface, but it is very important. Focusing only on EU law in this context risks narrowing our horizons at a time when we have been trying to broaden them. Since leaving the EU, the UK has made real efforts to strike up new trade relationships and to move in ways that enable us to take advantage of fast-growing global markets, not just the one on our doorstep.”
“The Government have argued that clause 2 provides flexibility and continuity. I understand that perspective, but flexibility should not come at the expense of democratic oversight, and continuity should not mean quietly reverting to rules that we have worked hard to move beyond. The amendments in this group would not prevent alignment where it is helpful; they would ensure that alignment is clear, accountable and firmly in our control. That is a balanced approach that recognises the opportunities of global trade while respecting the sovereignty of this House. I hope the Committee will support the amendments.”
“Finally, amendment 22 would add a simple but important safeguard: it would require the Secretary of State to publish an explanatory statement if the Government plan to base regulations on the law of just one foreign market. It is a transparency measure. If we are going to align UK rules with those of another country or bloc, the public and Parliament deserve to know why that is the right course of action. The amendment would help to ensure that decisions are made in the national interest and, importantly, that they are properly scrutinised. I ask again why Ministers are so unwilling to explain their decisions. Why would they not want transparency? If their decisions are in the public interest, they surely would not have any issue with supporting amendment 22 and agreeing to publish an explanatory statement in relevant cases.”
“Dynamic alignment would bring businesses uncertainty by requiring continuous adjustments, and such changes might require businesses to adapt and potentially bear the costs of the changes. As was pointed out in debates in the other place, EU rules are not always made with our economy in mind. They are sometimes protectionist, or designed to benefit specific interests in the single market. We must be sure that the Bill does not jeopardise any progress we have made with new partners, or tie us to a regulatory environment that is not in our best interests. Dynamic alignment would effectively mean outsourcing decisions about UK product standards to a foreign body. That does not sit well with the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and, frankly, does not give British businesses the clarity or stability that they need.”
“If the Bill’s powers allowed us to simply fall back into alignment with EU laws through dynamic alignment, we would end up undoing the very advantages that regulatory independence has given us. That is why amendment 6 is so important: it would make sure that if we chose to align with any foreign law, EU or otherwise, it would be to the version of that law as it exists on a specific date, not as it may evolve in the future. In other words, we keep control: we know exactly what we are aligning with and we do so deliberately. As the Opposition continue to stress, the Bill clearly indicates a move towards dynamic alignment with the EU without oversight. It is clear that the intention is to see our regulations automatically change every time the EU updates its regulations.”
“My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course we need to think about the EU, but we also need to think more widely and broadly, and look at the opportunities across the globe. A good example of that is, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire rightly pointed out, our accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. That is a major economic partnership with Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. To join the CPTPP, the UK underwent a comprehensive review to ensure that our domestic regulations were compatible with those of its members. That progress was possible because we were no longer locked into EU rules. We need to be careful here.”
“I thank the Minister for his remarks. If he says that these things will be done if they are in the country’s interest, what is the problem with bringing that back to the House to be debated and agreed? The problem we have, Ms Vaz, is that Ministers are to have discretion to decide what is in the country’s interest, when we think that should be for Parliament to decide.”
“The point is that we want to be forward-looking, and our concern is that this provision is very much backward-looking. My hon. Friends have talked about future trading partners and things like the CPTPP—things we might miss out on by being backward-looking. Does the hon. Member agree?”
“We all support product safety, but I urge the Committee to support the amendments and, in doing so, uphold the role of the House in setting the law, not just rubber-stamping it once the details have been decided behind closed doors.”
“This is not a narrow, technical concern; this is a constitutional one. As the DPRRC in the other place said in its report: “Skeleton legislation signifies an exceptional shift in power from Parliament to the executive”. This is not something that this House should hand over lightly. Our amendments do not reject the need for enforcement powers in principle, but as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire said, the wording of clause 3 needs to be clarified. Who are these authorities and what are their functions? In our amendments, we seek clear information, which is vital. There will be significant costs to businesses, so the powers must be clear.”
“That should give us all pause for thought. Subsection (1) allows Ministers to designate anyone as a “relevant authority”, and subsection (3) gives those authorities the power to investigate, monitor and even mitigate non-compliance. We then come to subsection (4), which grants those authorities the ability to appoint inspectors armed with powers to enter premises, seize goods, demand information and even order the destruction of products. These are serious powers. They may well be appropriate in specific, proportionate contexts but the point is that we do not know what those contexts will be because the Bill does not tell us. How can we, in good conscience, grant enforcement powers for rules that have not been set to people we have not identified in a system that Parliament will have very limited opportunity to scrutinise?”
“I rise to speak in support of amendments 23 to 25 on the enforcement of product regulations. Let me be clear: no one here is arguing against the need for robust enforcement of product safety or regulatory compliance. However, we must consider the broader context. Clause 3—indeed much of the Bill—is a classic example of what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place has rightly criticised as “skeleton legislation”. The Bill delegates sweeping powers to Ministers to create regulatory frameworks entirely through secondary legislation, with little to no detail included in the Bill itself, yet here in clause 3, we are being asked to give authorities that have not yet been named real and potentially intrusive enforcement powers for regulations that have not yet been written.”
“It is still not entirely clear from subsection (3)(c) and (d) what that “something” is. Rather than just referring to those provisions, will the Minister clarify what “something” means, instead of referring it back to the relevant authorities, when we still do not know exactly what they will be required to enforce?”
“Q12. With the so-called EU-UK reset summit less than two weeks away, will the Prime Minister reassure the House that he will not hand over any British sovereign powers, particularly the hard-won controls over our UK fishing waters, in backroom deals with Brussels?”
“I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Not only is Labour’s family farm tax threatening the future of farming in Wales; it is also a direct attack on farmers right across the UK. In England, the sustainable farming incentive scheme was closed with no notice. Meanwhile, in Labour’s spring statement the Government brought forward: increases in national insurance, hitting all farmers once again; their tax on double cab pick-ups; plus changes to furnished holiday lets, penalising farmers who have actively diversified. Can the Minister explain to the Welsh agricultural sector why the Government are carrying out an all-out assault on its way of life?”
“The hon. Member is giving an interesting speech and making important points, but distances in some rural areas mean that walking, and often cycling, are not feasible. Does he agree that any review needs a particular focus on rural roads and should perhaps support reducing speeds outside schools? In constituencies such as mine, there is not yet a policy of having 20 mph. Perhaps he can give some examples of rural roads in the Netherlands.”
“Given the debate we are having and the risk that our fishing communities could be used as a bargaining chip, does the hon. Member agree that, as the Government have said, food security is national security, and we cannot have our fishing communities and fishing stocks traded against defence in any way?”
“What is my hon. Friend’s view on the fact that this dramatic reduction in delinked payments does not seem to align with the Government’s claim that food security is national security? How can that be, when farmers in this country do not have any certainty?”
“The accelerated reduction in delinked payment rates, along with the other measures we have already heard about—the changes to agricultural property relief, the unreasonably abrupt halting of all future SFI applications with immediate effect, rather than the six weeks’ notice that farmers were led to believe that they would be given, and the ever-increasing cost of running a farming operation, from equipment to supplies—means we must ask the Government this: when will they give farmers a break? That is the message I hear when I speak to farmers in Cheshire. They have no confidence in this Government or in their management of the economic conditions to farm. There is a genuine, deep concern among farmers that their livelihoods are unsustainable under the current Government.”
“I rise to speak on yet another attack by this Government on our farming community. The decision to punish and penalise farmers by reducing the delinked payments they receive from April 2025 will have a hugely detrimental impact on the farming community in my Chester South and Eddisbury constituency, and indeed across the country. Delinked payments are an important transitional mechanism to new schemes, and an important income stream in themselves.”
“This measure is another economic burden that will be felt by farmers, and I can assure the Minister that the stress and uncertainty that they have been put under by this Government are taking their toll. I conclude my remarks with the same message that I have asked the Government to heed on numerous occasions in the main Chamber, in Westminster Hall debates and in meetings: “Please consider the real impact of the relentless attack on the people who provide our food, care for our countryside and maintain our rural economies.” There is so much to do to reverse the damage done to our farming communities since July, but we can start with the measure we are debating here.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. It is an attack on family farmers, rural communities and all the businesses that rely on those farmers to keep our rural communities going. As I said, it is unsustainable. That should stop us all in our tracks and make us think of the impact of having a country without farming. The cash-flow challenges that face farmers are well known. If we remove another layer of the support provided to them, as we are debating today, the negative consequences will continue to grow. The Government will be putting our food security at further risk and causing detriment to the stewardship of our countryside. The personal impact on farmers will be significant—and ultimately, that is what it comes down to. It is not just about figures; it is about people.”
“On the Minister’s point about the SFI—“When it’s spent, it’s spent”—when did he know that the SFI budget had been spent in full? How long did he know it before he made the announcement to farmers, without giving them the minimum six weeks’ notice that had been promised?”
“The north-west has some of the worst levels of children’s oral health in England, with Cheshire and Merseyside falling below the national average. In rural villages in my constituency like Bunbury, where bus services have been cut, and Kelsall, where a dentist is keen to open an NHS practice but faces barriers due to city centre prioritisation, residents are struggling to access NHS dental care. Given the challenges of rural access, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that NHS dental provision is available in those rural communities?”
“I add my condolences to the shadow Leader of the House. As of today, while ultrafast broadband is available in Chester, only 19% of premises have access. Villages in my constituency that are within a few miles of Chester city centre, such as Waverton, Littleton, Christleton and Rowton, have an average download speed of just 10 megabits per second, as against the UK average of 69.4 megabits per second. These villages did not qualify for Project Gigabit, as they were classed as urban rather than rural, despite being in the countryside, and they are outside the boundaries of the city of Chester, so are not included in urban-focused projects. Would the Leader of the House consider providing an opportunity for the issue to be properly addressed in the House in the form of a debate on broadband speeds in rural areas?”
“Those hospices have shared with me their challenges with recruitment and their deep concern that these tax rises will make paying their staff in line with what their colleagues receive in the NHS even harder than it already is.”
“I have had the pleasure of visiting both the hospice of the Good Shepherd in Backford and St Luke’s hospice in Winsford, which provide a vital service to the most vulnerable of my constituents at the most difficult time in their lives. They provide the very best care and support, and I encourage the Minister to visit and see for himself the warm, compassionate and welcoming environment that they offer, which reflects the attitude of the doctors, nurses and, indeed, all the staff who go above and beyond in their work. The financial implications of an increase in national insurance contributions and the resulting consequences for services and staff will be hugely damaging.”
“Do not just take my word for it: the Office for Budget Responsibility has stated that “additional payroll costs for employers are passed through into lower wages.” When I speak with business owners in my constituency, they say they feel like they are swimming against the tide, from the NIC increases to the reduction in business rates relief. The recurring message from every company I speak to is that confidence in the economy is down. I must ask the Minister: how is that conducive to growth? I will speak to two of the amendments. Exempting hospices from this damaging increase in employer national insurance contributions is the right thing to do.”
“I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Bill is yet another example of legislation from this Government that breaks their manifesto promises, harms local business, negatively impacts our constituents and limits the prospects of growth in my local economy of Chester South and Eddisbury and, indeed, the country. Fundamentally, these changes will hit working people the hardest—the very people the Chancellor said would be shielded from the impacts of the Bill will be the most affected. It will mean lower wages, higher unemployment and increased costs for businesses, resulting in higher prices in the shops.”