partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Florence Eshalomi

   Black History Month

   I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. It is good that English Heritage is considering that plaque—probably one of the most northern such plaques outside London. It is important that we recognise the rich contribution of many black Britons right across the UK. I hope that she will be successful in her pursuit of the plaque. The theme of this year’s Black History Month debate is “Honouring Our Communities”, which gives us the opportunity to recognise people from black communities up and down the country who work every day to make their area and our society better. They are people who start a business, mentor young people or volunteer their time to help run a community space, and whose contributions too often go unrecognised or underappreciated. Although Black History Month is about celebrating black Britons who have delivered outstanding achievements across society, who have helped to forge the country and who are here today through their visibility, it is also about recognising people in all parts of the country who may not make the news nationally, but who everyone in their neighbourhood knows. These are people like Lorna Jackson MBE. Coming to England aged five, Lorna went on to be an educator for nearly 50 years and a headteacher for 25 years. Today, she continues to serve a diverse community in east London. They are people like Claudia Jones, a Trinidad and Tobago-born activist and journalist who was granted asylum in the UK after facing political persecution in the US. In 1958, Claudia Jones founded the West Indian Gazette close to where I grew up in Brixton. The West Indian Gazette is often referred to as the first black newspaper in Britain. After the race riots of 1958, she organised the first Caribbean carnival in the UK, to coincide with the annual tradition in Trinidad, but as London is definitely a lot colder than Trinidad in January, the carnival was held at St Pancras town hall. It was a predecessor of Notting Hill carnival, which started in 1966 and continues to be a true celebration of culture and heritage to this day—thankfully in August and not in winter! My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) highlighted blue plaques. I was honoured to attend the unveiling of the English Heritage blue plaque dedicated to Claudia Jones three years ago, on 5 October 2023, outside a terraced house in my Vauxhall constituency that Jones called home for nearly four years—her longest place of residency in London.

   Hansard source
2. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Florence Eshalomi

   Black History Month

   I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I praise the efforts of Nubian Jak and Jak Beula’s work across not just London but the UK in recognising black Britons and their achievements. In the face of barriers, both conscious and subconscious, black Britons have driven lasting, positive change in every community: change that has profoundly shaped the arts and culture of this country, that has made our politics more responsive and more representative, and that reminds us time and again that Britain’s historical and present diversity is a strength—something not to be torn down, but to be cherished and invested in. When we speak about honouring our communities, we are talking about the individuals across Britain who made them. Our national story is incomplete without the story of Mary Seacole, whose statue stands proudly in the gardens of St Thomas’ hospital just over Westminster bridge. That powerful landmark in my constituency continues to remind me of the values and aspirations that I came to this House to represent.

   Hansard source
3. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Florence Eshalomi

   Black History Month

   I thank my constituency neighbour and want to recognise the many black Britons across not just London, but right across the UK who continue to be celebrated and remembered by hon. and right hon. Members from across the House. I felt immense pride at being able to choose the statue of Mary Seacole as the backdrop for my entry to the 40% Project last year, which photographs female MPs in recognition of the progress we have made towards gender parity in this House. This year’s theme feels especially relevant to the Windrush generation—so embedded in the fabric of black British history. Their legacy is not only the work they did, but in the communities they nurtured, the opportunities they created and the generations they inspired. Through the Windrush Day grant scheme, places across the country are telling stories in their own words, helping to ensure they are remembered and passed on. Their courage, perseverance and determination opened the doors for future generations, and that legacy continues to enrich our shared national history. But the Windrush stories also tell us that we cannot ignore the struggles we still face today. Black Britons still face deep systemic challenges every day, and although this Government are committed to tackling racial inequality and racism, it is our local communities who are on the frontlines. We need only glance online to see the racist rhetoric that has sadly been normalised. If anyone does not believe this, we just need to look at the racism—and let’s call it what it is—that my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Sagal Abdi-Wali) faced after she was announced as the candidate in the recent by-election. This type of politics has no place in our democracy, and I hope the whole House will join me in condemning it. Thankfully, my hon. Friend was undeterred and went on to win resounding support from her community, and I welcome her again to her rightful place on these Benches. I want to praise the Leader of the Opposition for her comments during her conference speech. We can disagree about things in society, but we should never normalise questioning someone’s loyalty or nationality based on the colour of their skin. We see the horrific consequences of this in the news far too often, and I want to take a moment to recognise and remember Jason Arday. His tragic death must be a call to action for all of us. I worked with Jason when I led as the project manager at the Runnymede Trust. Jason was one of the youngest board members.

   Hansard source
4. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Florence Eshalomi

   Black History Month

   I thank my hon. Friend and Members who were able to join Jason’s family at the tribute organised by my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). Unfortunately, I was not able to make that. Just this week, the comedian Munya Chawawa described the racism and homophobia that he and some of the cast members from “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” faced at the Chichester Festival theatre during the production’s six-week run. He said: “I think I saw more” racism “in those six weeks than I have actually seen across my entire lifetime, which is just an insane concept…Some of you heard we had to cancel a show because one of our cast members was attacked just before the show—that is just the tip of the iceberg.”

   Hansard source
5. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Florence Eshalomi

   Black History Month

   I thank the hon. Member; I know that she has been in touch with many of the cast members of that play and the Chichester Festival theatre. She is right that we have to ensure that we as parliamentarians, as a society, and as community groups do not allow this to be normalised, and think it is okay in 2026, in modern Britain. We can disagree on many things, but it is the responsibility of all of us in this Chamber, the Government and society to ensure that everyone is safe and able to live freely, and I want to be clear that the Government will not sit on their hands and watch this hatred thrive. In March, my Department published a cross-Government social cohesion plan, “Protecting What Matters”, which sets out more than 90 policy recommendations and commitments to improve cohesion, including measures to further tackle hate and inequality in everyday life. Throughout the United Kingdom’s history, we have overcome adversity by coming together and showing that we have so much more that unites us than divides us. We showed that exactly 50 years ago with the passing of the Race Relations Act 1976, a landmark piece of legislation protecting the rights of all of us to live free from discrimination, and the 1965 Act, which built the foundations of equality. History demands that, just as we celebrated the victories of previous generations, each of us must stand up for what is right in our time. That same unity remains our greatest defence. We must stand together against forces attempting to divide us, and must ensure that we all continue to be heard. I hope that Members will agree that there is a lot more that we can do, but united we are stronger. I commend this debate to the House.

   Hansard source
6. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Florence Eshalomi

   Black History Month

   I thank the hon. Member for highlighting what happened in her constituency. One of the issues that black people and black Members raise is the fact that it can be continuously tiring when it is only black people highlighting this issue. Does she agree that by raising this issue as a constituency MP, she is shining another light on it?

   Hansard source
7. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Fleur Anderson

   Business of the House

   Across the country, 47,000 women had toxic Poly Implant Prosthèse breast implants put into them before they were banned in 2010 and the owner of the company was jailed. Will the Leader of the House make time for a discussion in Government time on the continuing ill health and chronic pain suffered by these women and the case for an inquiry, and will he update us on the application for a debate on medical misogyny, which was brought before the Backbench Business Committee in June?

   Hansard source
8. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Fabian Hamilton

   Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

   I beg to move,  That this House has considered the matter of compensation for Equitable Life policyholders.  It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I thank hon. and right hon. Members for attending this debate. Before I begin, I hope you will allow me to convey the apologies of a long-standing supporter of justice for Equitable Life policyholders, the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis). He is sadly unable to join us this afternoon, but he has asked me to say that he has several constituents, as we all do, who remain without full redress following the collapse of Equitable Life. He asked me to mention those victims of the scandal in my speech today.

   Hansard source
9. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Fabian Hamilton

   Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

   I thank the right hon. Gentleman—and, dare I say, my right hon. Friend. We have known each other for many, many years, and he has also been a stalwart supporter. If he and the Minister have enough patience and are able to listen to what I have to say, they will hear me offer certain ideas that I hope will be pursued, because it is about time this issue was wrapped up for good. I am grateful to all those who have continued to campaign for justice for the victims of Equitable Life and the scandal that followed, including the Equitable Members Action Group, whose work has helped to keep this issue before parliamentarians, as the right hon. Member just pointed out. Of course, this debate is about more than just money; it is about fairness, accountability and the relationship between the state and the people it is supposed to represent and protect. It is about whether people who worked hard, saved responsibly for their retirement and trusted the regulatory safeguards established by Parliament should be left to bear the consequences of acknowledged Government and regulatory failure. My central argument is therefore straightforward: the state has accepted responsibility for serious regulatory maladministration that caused policyholders substantial financial losses, yet the majority of those policyholders received only a fraction of the compensation for their losses. That injustice remains unresolved, and I believe the Government should now take practical steps to put it right.

   Hansard source
10. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Fabian Hamilton

    Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

    I think that is above my pay grade. The fact is that we all need to be vigilant to ensure that the regulators are properly regulated. I imagine that it is up to us as parliamentarians to make sure that those who are charged with regulating—or with regulating the regulators—do their job properly and prevent this kind of injustice from ever happening again. But the fact is that it has happened, and many people have suffered. Equitable Life is one of the biggest scandals in the history of UK financial services, with more than 1 million people losing a significant proportion of their hard-earned retirement savings. Those people had done what successive Governments encouraged them to do: they worked hard, saved and made provision for their later years, rather than relying entirely upon the state. They trusted that the regulatory system established by Parliament—I hope this addresses the hon. Gentleman’s point—would provide appropriate oversight and protect the public from serious failures in the financial services sector. However, they were let down by Government Departments and regulators that failed to do their job to an acceptable standard. Following a four-year inquiry, the parliamentary ombudsman found that policyholders’ losses were directly attributable to a decade of serious and serial regulatory maladministration. The ombudsman made 10 determinations of maladministration and five of injustice, and concluded that the serial maladministration had resulted in the true financial position of Equitable Life being concealed and misrepresented. The findings were exceptionally serious. The ombudsman stated that “the prudential regulation of the Society…failed comprehensively” and catastrophically, but that, crucially, it was not a failure of the regulatory system itself. It was “a failure properly to implement in the particular case of the Society the system of regulation that Parliament had enacted.” The ombudsman also made it clear that no other party could be said to be at fault, because the regulators, acting with the advice and assistance of the Government Actuary’s Department, had “acted with maladministration”. Those were not merely the complaints of disappointed investors; they were the formal findings by our independent parliamentary watchdog after a forensic and lengthy investigation. The ombudsman recommended that “the Government should establish and fund a compensation scheme…to put those people who have suffered a relative loss back into the position that they would have been in had maladministration not occurred.” In 2010, the Government accepted the ombudsman’s findings in full. They acknowledged losses of £4.1 billion, yet only £1.5 billion was actually allocated to compensation. That is the fundamental unfairness that the victims of this scandal want to put right. Of the policyholders affected—forgive me for all the statistics, but they are relevant—37,000 with-profits annuitants are receiving full compensation through annual payments for life: so far, so good. However, approximately 895,000 other policyholders received a one-off payment amounting to just 22.4% of their acknowledged losses, barely one fifth of the compensation needed to address the losses that the Government accepted had resulted from maladministration. According to figures supplied by EMAG, those policyholders are still owed £2.6 billion before any consideration of interest. I ask the Minister to reflect on what that means in human terms. For many people, retirement savings represent decades of sacrifice. They are the savings that are put aside instead of taking holidays, improving homes or spending more freely on themselves and their children during their working life.

    Hansard source
11. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Fabian Hamilton

    Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

    I thank my hon. Friend, because what happened with Equitable Life meant the difference between a comfortable retirement and a struggling retirement, as his constituent, and constituents of every other Member in this room, will know full well. The moneys from investing in Equitable Life policies were intended to provide security in old age—to pay household bills, to fund care and to reduce dependence on family members and the taxpayer—but the financial losses that people suffered in very many cases, as my hon. Friend points out, fundamentally changed their retirement. It has meant struggling with everyday expenses, it has prevented planned support for children and grandchildren, and it has meant facing later life with far less independence than anticipated. For some, it has led to the loss of the family home and to depression, stress and anxiety—there are plenty of examples of that. Of course, many feel intense guilt for having invested their family savings with the most respected, the longest-standing and, supposedly, the safest pension company at the time only to see it fall apart and dissolve. The Government of the day argued that the £1.5 billion allocated for compensation was fair to both policyholders and taxpayers. Of course, public money must always be spent responsibly and the interests of taxpayers must always be considered. However, I think most people would agree that redress of just 22% of someone’s acknowledged losses is not fair—far from it—particularly when the state has accepted responsibility for losses caused by its own failures. I expect most people would think there is an undeniably compelling case to provide full redress.

    Hansard source
12. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Fabian Hamilton

    Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

    I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, and I will elaborate on that in a few moments.

    Hansard source
13. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Fabian Hamilton

    Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I certainly agree that at the heart of this matter is the issue of trust. As people throughout society lose trust in the institutions of government and the state, we will find increasing chaos and instability. Stability comes from trusting the institutions to deliver, and that trust is a two-way process. I thank him for his intervention. The principle matters, not just to Equitable Life policyholders but, as we have just been saying, to wider public confidence in Government and the regulatory institutions upon which we all rely, as we have heard. Aside from looking at full redress, I urge the Government to consider another issue. EMAG has calculated that, as of 31 May 2025, approximately £171 million of money already allocated for compensation had been held back by the Treasury rather than being paid to policyholders. This is not new money; it is money that had already been allocated. This situation deserves serious attention. It must surely be right that at least the value of all the money actually allocated for compensation as far back as 2010—16 years ago—should reach those affected. It is important to understand the figures and what policyholders fear is the Treasury’s plan. Of the £1.5 billion allocated in 2010, £625 million was assigned to compensate with-profits annuitants; £100 million was retained as a contingency against the possibility that those annuitants would live longer than expected; and £775 million was allocated to the remaining eligible policyholders. Importantly, the £625 million allocated to annuitants was a discounted figure, reflecting the value at the time of future payments. The forecast cash cost of those annual payments was £836 million through to 2050, which is still a long way ahead of us. The forecast total cash spend of the compensation scheme as a whole was £1.7 billion—I hope everybody is following these figures. According to the figures compiled by EMAG, actual payments to with-profits annuitants were around £599 million by 30 May 2025—just over a year ago—compared with forecast expenditure of approximately £646 million. That represents a difference of £47 million. And of the £775 million allocated to other policyholders, approximately £751 million had been paid out, leaving £24 million unspent. Together with the £100 million contingency, which EMAG argues is no longer required for its stated purpose, the total underspend as of May 2025 was said to be approximately £171 million. I will make sure the Minister gets those figures later; of course, they will all be in Hansard. I recognise that the Minister may wish to examine or even dispute those figures and the assumptions behind them, but I think we can agree that it is in everybody’s interests that there is absolute clarity around this. I hope that the Government will provide that clarity. If funds have been allocated but are not needed to meet the liabilities for which they are intended, they should be used to compensate people who have still not received their full redress. Those people are already known and their losses have been calculated. There is therefore a strong case that additional payments could be administered without much cost and complexity. Releasing those funds would not address the issue of the full outstanding debt still owed, but it would be a positive step forward in this long-running saga. There is a group of people whose position deserves particular attention and for whom an underspend could be used: around 10,000 with-profits annuitants were excluded from the compensation scheme because they bought their annuities before September 1992. When the Equitable Life (Payments) Bill came before Parliament in 2010 and 2011, I tabled an amendment to bring those 10,000 pre-1992 with-profits annuitants into the scheme, but it was sadly lost. The argument for excluding those annuitants was that they could not have known about the true parlous state of Equitable Life at the time, but that does not take away the financial losses that they too suffered. They were affected by the same underlying regulatory maladministration and the near collapse of the society. They have seen their annuity payments drastically reduced just as other annuitants have. The ombudsman’s findings and recommendations did not distinguish between those who had taken out annuities before and after September 1992; that distinction was a construct of the Treasury, not the ombudsman or the society. Those annuitants are, of course, among the oldest and most vulnerable victims of the scandal. Many will now be at a very advanced age, and many more have sadly died already. Every year that passes reduces the opportunity for them to receive the redress that they have long sought. Justice delayed is justice denied, but it has a particularly cruel consequence when the people waiting for it may not even live to see it delivered. The Government should therefore examine how the underspend could be used to bring those annuitants into the scheme. EMAG has suggested that payments could be distributed in proportion to their current annual annuity payments, avoiding the need for individual actuarial calculations. The ex gratia payments made to them in 2013 following representations by MPs, including me, and EMAG could be offset against any additional payments, because they will be recorded. I urge the Minister to look closely at what can be done for the surviving pre-1992 annuitants—there are not that many of them. An important core principle is at stake here. The Government, on behalf of the Crown in Parliament, have accepted the ombudsman’s findings and acknowledged £4.1 billion in losses attributable to maladministration. They have also calculated the specific losses suffered by individual policyholders. When the state accepts responsibility for a mistake and identifies the financial harm caused, it should be prepared to provide proper redress. The Government should not be exempt from the principles of accountability and fairness they expect others to observe. Fuller compensation would also recognise the importance of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to our unwritten constitutional system. Independent investigations and formal findings of maladministration must surely mean something. If those findings are accepted but the recommended redress is not delivered, public confidence in the system risks being further weakened, as has already been said. I would also suggest that further compensation would not be money spent to no positive effect—quite the opposite, in fact. Additional compensation would help people to meet the costs of care and everyday living, support their families and contribute to local businesses and communities, and I have absolutely no doubt that a significant part would return to the Exchequer through taxation, so it is not all losses. More importantly, it would give people back some of the financial security that was taken from them through failures for which the Government have accepted responsibility. I will conclude by asking the Minister to address four specific questions. I apologise for the lengthy nature of my introductory remarks, but those points had to be made. First, does the Minister believe that, in cases where the state has accepted responsibility for a failure leading to financial loss for individuals, and that loss has been calculated by it, the default position should be to provide full redress? Secondly, can the Minister confirm that total cash expenditure on with-profit annuitants was forecast to be £836 million, that that figure was discounted to arrive at the £625 million allocation for those annuitants, and that actual payments to date are below forecast? Thirdly, I will be grateful if the Government will confirm whether the £100 million contingency fund remains necessary to cover the risk that with-profits annuitants live longer than expected. If that contingency is no longer required for its stated purpose, will the Minister commit to considering its use for further compensation? Finally, will the Minister agree to carefully examine the possibility of including the surviving pre-September 1992 annuitants who were excluded from the compensation scheme? The victims of this scandal have waited long enough. That is why there are so many colleagues in the room today. The victims did not create the regulatory failures that damaged their retirement savings. They followed the advice to save responsibly, trusted the system established by Parliament and were let down by the institutions charged with protecting them. The Government have acknowledged the wrongdoing and losses and established a compensation scheme, but that scheme left the overwhelming majority of affected policyholders with only a small proportion of what they lost. Clearly, we cannot undo what has happened, but we can decide whether to leave this long-standing injustice unresolved or to take practical steps towards putting it properly right. The Government should review the unspent compensation funds, reconsider the exclusion of the pre-1992 annuitants and set out a path towards full and fair redress. Those who lost their savings deserve more than just our sympathy. They deserve fairness and justice now through action by the Government, not more empty words.

    Hansard source
14. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Fabian Hamilton

    Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

    I, too, thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have taken part in the debate: the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is always direct and forthright; my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury); the hon. Members for St Ives (Andrew George) and for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who made excellent contributions; the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson; the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), the shadow Minister; and, of course, the Minister. I first tabled a debate on this issue in June 2009—that was the first debate on this issue in this Chamber—and other Members have been debating the issue for even longer. I leave Members with the thought that compensation for Equitable Life policyholders is not just something that unfortunately not been fully fulfilled. My view, which was the view of many at the time, is that compensation is a moral obligation that has never been fulfilled. It is tragic that there is no question of reopening the scheme or using the statistics—the figures—about the moneys that are left; I think the Minister has just completely contradicted the view that there is no such money left. Unlike two colleagues—the hon. Members for St Ives and for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt)—I have not had a sabbatical. Nevertheless, I and many others who have campaigned on this issue will continue to campaign until the compensation is paid in full, however unlikely that may be. I again thank everybody for the part they have played in today’s debate, and also EMAG for all its work. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the matter of compensation for Equitable Life policyholders.

    Hansard source
15. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Lewell

    Independent Safeguarding System

    10. What recent steps the Church of England has taken to establish an independent safeguarding system.

    Hansard source
16. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Lewell

    Independent Safeguarding System

    It is now over three years since Professor Alexis Jay’s recommendations for a fully independent safeguarding system in the Church. I understand that the legislation to enact that is not due until 2028. Can my right hon. Friend say what can be done to accelerate that process, as any system that lacks full independence is not one that can claim it is adequately meeting its safeguarding requirements?

    Hansard source
17. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Sewage Discharges

    We have strengthened regulation and enforcement, driving record water company investment into waste water infrastructure to improve nearly 3,000 storm overflows across England and Wales. The strengthened Water Bill will go further in tackling sewage pollution from water companies, private sewage and catchment-wide pre-pipe and source-control conditions.

    Hansard source
18. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Sewage Discharges

    My hon. Friend is right to be angry about the failure of water companies to report sewage pollution on time. Our Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 will enact automatic penalties for companies that fail to report sewage pollution within four hours. As he will have seen from South West Water’s recent £8 million fine for sewage pollution incidents, this Government take enforcement seriously.

    Hansard source
19. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Sewage Discharges

    The hon. Lady raises one of my favourite things, which is talking about pre-pipe solutions: in a nutshell, how we prevent—[Interruption.] They are very exciting. They are about how we prevent water from entering the sewage system and overwhelming it in the first place. They link perfectly with nature-based solutions, help to ensure that our soils are wetter and help against drought. I agree with the hon. Lady that we need more of them, and that includes water companies providing water butts for more of their customers. That will help with the overwhelming of the sewage system and help customers to water their gardens when there is less rain.

    Hansard source
20. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Sewage Discharges

    I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that, since we came into power, we have been taking enforcement seriously. Fines just this year include a £7.1 million fine and a £2.4 million fine for illegal sewage pollution against Southern Water and a £7.87 million fine against South West Water—and I have not even included all the Ofwat enforcement undertakings and the fines included there. He will have heard what our Prime Minister said: we are strengthening our water Bill and will bring it forward soon. We are not taking options off the table, and we are serious about fixing the mess that we were left to deal with when we came into power.

    Hansard source
21. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Fly-tipping

    Fly-tipping is unacceptable. It blights communities, harms the environment and imposes significant costs on taxpayers and businesses. Those responsible should be cleaning it up and paying for it. That is why we have strengthened the powers and penalties available to councils, to ensure that vandals face real consequences, and we are consulting on making them clean up their own mess.

    Hansard source
22. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Fly-tipping

    My hon. Friend is right to raise that. Her constituents are, understandably, frustrated, and I share her confusion as to why her council does not want to use the powers it has been given to fine fly-tippers, seize their vans and prosecute them. I join her in urging her council to do the job it has been elected to do, and I hope her residents remember this lack of action when it comes to the next election.

    Hansard source
23. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Fly-tipping

    I completely understand the frustration of my hon. Friend’s constituents at repeated fly-tipping on private roads. We are taking this seriously. We have increased the maximum fine for offenders to £5,000, and we are working on advising the owners of private land on land security through the National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group. We are happy to give that advice to private landowners, but where we find out who is responsible, we will not hesitate in going after them.

    Hansard source
24. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Fly-tipping

    It is good to hear about a council being proactive and cleaning up some of this mess. I agree that graffiti and fly-tipping offences are unacceptable. Graffiti is a separate offence from fly-tipping, but local councils can issue fixed penalties of up to £500 for graffiti offences, and we are consulting on powers for councils to use conditional cautions, requiring offenders to clean up their mess and cover the clean-up costs, instead of simply walking away from the damage they cause.

    Hansard source
25. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Fly-tipping

    The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I absolutely sympathise with farmers, who, as he rightly highlighted, often see repeated dumping on their private land. As I mentioned, there is the National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group. I meet insurers regularly—in fact, I met them all last week—and I will certainly raise the issue of how we can ensure that farmers get the support they need in having to deal with a problem that is simply not of their making.

    Hansard source
26. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Fly-tipping

    The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. We have these illegal sites around the country; we are focusing heavily on the prevention side, before crimes are committed. We have already published the toughest ever waste crime action plan, given £45 million extra to the Environment Agency for frontline enforcement, granted new powers and expanded the joint unit for waste crime. We are going after prevention and are trying to clean up as many sites as possible, but fundamentally, we believe it is the polluter and not the taxpayer who should pay for the clean-up, and that is always the first route that we will pursue.

    Hansard source
27. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Fly-tipping

    The main problem that we have in the country is the serious organised crime behind some of these criminal activities, and that is exactly what we are going after through the new crackdown group, on which we are working with the National Crime Agency. We are escalating this issue and taking it extremely seriously because, as the hon. Gentleman said, we want to support legitimate businesses that are doing the right thing and get the criminals out of this industry.

    Hansard source
28. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Flood Preparation

    The Government are working hard to prepare communities for flooding this winter. Last week was Flood Action Week, and a wide range of information was communicated to citizens on how to protect themselves, their homes and their businesses. My personal favourite is the new Scout badge; if Members have children who are in the Scouts, they can now earn a badge saying “be prepared”, which I thought was brilliant. The communication targeted young adults, renters, householders, children, rural communities—quite frankly, everyone.

    Hansard source
29. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Flood Preparation

    The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. We used to have the flood taskforce; just last week, we held the first meeting of the new flood and drought taskforce, which was attended by four Ministers—from DEFRA, the Cabinet Office, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and the Department for Transport. The focus of that meeting absolutely was how we can be most prepared. I am determined that this year, because of El Niño and the concerns that the hon. Gentleman rightly raised, we will be more prepared than ever before. That is why we have done everything from targeting children and families, all the way through to looking at our transport system, resilience across Government and local resilience forums to see whether they are ready if the worst should happen. We are going out to every area and talking to Ministers across Government, so that they can contact the organisations for which they are responsible and ask them if they are prepared and ready. Although I cannot stop it raining, I want us to be as prepared as possible when it does rain.

    Hansard source
30. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Flood Preparation

    My hon. Friend raises an important point. I remember that flood. I commend her now, as I did then, on the compassionate, caring and supportive way in which she went out there to help her constituents, and I know how much the events affected her. She is right to talk about catchment-based flood management, looking upstream and using more nature-based solutions. I know the Environment Agency is working well with its Welsh counterparts to see what more can be done in this area.

    Hansard source
31. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Topical Questions

    My hon. Friend raises an important point. We intend to lay the statutory instrument before Parliament by the end of this year, subject to availability of parliamentary time.

    Hansard source
32. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Topical Questions

    Our Prime Minister is committed to introducing public control of the water sector. Just last month, we announced that we will remove Thatcher’s outdated cap on Government ownership of water companies. Later this year, our 10-year plan for Britain will set out plans for stronger public control over the water sector, making it work for people and places again.

    Hansard source
33. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Topical Questions

    Many of our older constituents, including my mum, remember returning bottles to the recycling bank and receiving money for them; it made sense then, and it makes sense now. Significant progress has been made on the deposit return scheme, but there is still lots of work to do.

    Hansard source
34. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Topical Questions

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and will make sure that the relevant Environment Agency area director meets him to look at the concerns he has raised.

    Hansard source
35. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Topical Questions

    My hon. Friend is quite right that we need to start thinking about flooding and water management in a more holistic way. We are looking at early roll-out of regional planning systems, which means we will start to address the issues of water quality and of flooding and water scarcity in the same area. My hon. Friend is right to hold water companies to account for delivering on the commitments they have made.

    Hansard source
36. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Elaine Stewart

    Business of the House

    For 26 years, yipworld in Cumnock has provided vital support, guidance and opportunity to young people and families across east Ayrshire. Its success belongs to many people, including the fabulous Janice Hendry and her dedicated team of staff and volunteers who work so hard to make yipworld a welcoming and safe place. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the team at yipworld on being awarded both charity of the year and the community award at the Ayrshire chamber of commerce business awards?

    Hansard source
37. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Zubir Ahmed

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on that point, especially as she is caveating our relative success in removing foreign offenders by providing the wider context about criminality in this country. The vast majority of crime is committed by British citizens—indeed, British-born citizens. Sometimes that is lost in this debate. Following on from that point, does my hon. Friend agree that foreign offenders are often synonymously conflated with violence against women and girls? There are certain elements in our politics that wish to leverage that narrative to demonise certain communities and to further their own political interests. Does she share my concerns about the politicians who do that, and does she agree that when it comes to people who commit violence against women and girls, the common theme is largely not one particular community or immigrant population, or indeed foreign offenders, but men?

    Hansard source
38. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Sam Rushworth

    Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

    I thank my hon. Friend for the excellent job he is doing of speaking on behalf of our constituents. A constituent of mine, who wishes to remain anonymous, told me that he would today be receiving £20,000 a year had he invested his money elsewhere. He invested it where he did only because he believed the state was saying that it was safe to do so. I thank my hon. Friend for fighting on behalf of those people. I hope the Government will listen carefully to the recommendations.

    Hansard source
39. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Sam Rushworth

    Topical Questions

    Farmers in my constituency are concerned about the rising cost of fertiliser, which risks making them uncompetitive. On their behalf, can I ask the Minister whether she will engage with the Treasury to consider delaying the carbon border adjustment mechanism, and also do more to ensure we can develop domestic, low-carbon fertiliser?

    Hansard source
40. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Marie Tidball

    Topical Questions

    I am deeply frustrated on behalf of my constituent Adele Riddle, whose Townend Farm is currently included in the Sheffield local plan. She wants it taken out, especially because an inspector’s recent report says that the land is of higher quality than the plan rates it. Given that the further main modifications consultation closes next week, does the Minister agree that the quality of agricultural land should always be taken into account when considering local plan site allocations?

    Hansard source