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

12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sir Alan Campbell

   Select Committee Chairs: Period of Leave

   I beg to move, That:— (1) A select committee chair who has arranged for a proxy vote under the provisions of Standing Order No. 39A (Voting by proxy) may take a period of leave. (2) The period of leave must be continuous and must last for a minimum of one month and can last up to a maximum of seven months, with the possibility of extension, subject to the approval of the Chair of the Liaison Committee, if the proxy vote arrangements are extended. (3) The formal leave period for a chair will begin only after the committee has appointed a replacement for the chair, to be known as the acting chair. (4) There must be at least five sitting days’ notice given of the intention to agree the appointment, or the extension, of an acting chair (not including the day on which the notice is circulated, but including the day on which the appointment or extension is to be discussed) and such notice must be in writing. (5) The acting chair must be a member of the committee and where the chair of a committee has been elected by the whole House, the committee should appoint an acting chair who comes from the same party as the chair unless the committee decides there are compelling reasons to do otherwise. (6) In the case of the committees specified in Standing Order No. 122B(8)(f), the acting chair must come from the official Opposition party, unless no member from that party is available or willing to act in that capacity, in which case they must come from another opposition party. (7) In the case of an appointment of an acting chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the provisions of Standing Orders Nos 122D(1)(c) and 152J(6) shall apply to that appointment. (8) The acting chair may exercise all the powers of the chair, including any powers already delegated to the chair by the committee. (9) The acting chair shall be a member of the Liaison Committee during the period of the chair’s leave, in place of the chair. (10) The chair of the committee shall resume that function either at the end of the period of leave or after giving at least five sitting days’ notice of their intention to return from a specified date. (11) The leave or return of a chair and the appointment, or the extension, of an acting chair, and their temporary membership of the Liaison Committee, shall be reported to the House. (12) In relation to Standing Order No. 122A (Term limits for chairs of select committees): (a) the acting chair may be a previous chair of the committee even if they have reached the term limit for chairs of select committees; (b) time spent as an acting chair does not count towards the term limits for chairs of select committees; and (c) any period of leave taken by the chair counts towards the term limits for chairs of select committees. (13) In the case of a committee to which Standing Order No. 122B (Election of select committee chairs) applies, the committee may remove an acting chair at any point, provided that it has first agreed a motion of no confidence in that chair in accordance with the conditions set out in paragraphs (3) and (4) of Standing Order No. 122C (Resignation or removal of chairs of select committees) and any such resolution shall be reported to the House. (14) If the committee has resolved it has no confidence in an acting chair, it may choose another member to be the acting chair in accordance with paragraphs (5), (6) and (7) of this order. (15) If the committee is one which is specified in the resolution of the House of 19 March 2013 (as amended) relating to positions for which additional salaries are payable, the chair will continue to be paid the salary of a select committee chair during the period of leave and the acting chair, if they are a Member of the House of Commons, will be paid the salary of a select committee chair pro rata for the period during which they stand in for the chair. (16) The Liaison Committee may issue guidance about the operation of this Standing Order. (17) That this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the present Parliament.

   Hansard source
2. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sir Alan Campbell

   Select Committee Chairs: Period of Leave

   I have brought forward these motions today seeking approval for recommendations by the Modernisation Committee and the Committee of Privileges and for changes to the Standing Orders following the machinery of government changes. I will briefly address each motion. I should make it clear that in speaking to the motions relating to the Modernisation Committee I am effectively wearing two hats—first, as the Leader of the House and, secondly, as Chair of the Modernisation Committee. I want to take this opportunity to thank all my colleagues on the Modernisation Committee for their hard work in developing these proposals. I also pay tribute to the Chairs and Members of the Liaison Committee and Procedure Committee, who fed into our work and have been supportive throughout. Colleagues will know that virtual participation by Members in Select Committee meetings is currently not permitted. Committees routinely hear oral evidence from witnesses virtually, but Members themselves must be in the room. There are, of course, good reasons for the emphasis on in-person participation. However, when the Modernisation Committee held its consultation exercise in the autumn of 2024, it heard from people who argued for the benefits of virtual participation. The issue arose during our previous accessibility inquiry, so the Committee decided to consider the matter further. As a result, the Committee is recommending that virtual participation by Members in Select Committee meetings should be possible for limited and specific purposes. The very strong expectation, however, is that in-person participation will continue to be the default. Let me be clear about the specific circumstances. They are, first, for business continuity reasons when access to the parliamentary estate is significantly restricted or prevented entirely; and, secondly, when reasonable adjustments need to be made for an individual Committee member on the grounds of health and wellbeing, following guidance produced by the Liaison Committee. Although the circumstances set out by the Modernisation Committee in its report are very specific, the possibility of virtual participation is none the less a significant change. I want colleagues who are perhaps more sceptical about the value of virtual participation to be assured that the Modernisation Committee was conscious of that when it made the proposals and has worked with colleagues on the Liaison Committee to ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place. If agreed today, the motion will come into effect on 30 November. The delay is necessary to ensure that technological support is in place. The second Modernisation Committee motion will introduce a scheme for acting Select Committee Chairs. There is currently no formal mechanism to enable a Select Committee Chair to take a period of extended leave from their role—for parental leave, for example. This situation arose on the Health and Social Care Committee last year, and although in that case the situation was handled locally, it raised a number of procedural and practical issues. As a result, we are proposing the introduction of a new scheme to allow a Chair to take a formal period of leave and for another member of the Committee to stand in for them and have the same powers as the Chair. We spent some time considering who would be eligible to be an acting Chair, and we decided that the acting Chair must be a member of the Committee and that for those Chairs elected by the whole House, the Committee should appoint an acting Chair who comes from the same party as the Chair, unless there are compelling reasons to do otherwise. Once again, I am grateful to colleagues on the Liaison Committee who produced detailed guidance that sets out how this will work in practice.

   Hansard source
3. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sir Alan Campbell

   Select Committee Chairs: Period of Leave

   The reason we need to look ahead if this change happens in a Committee is that we need to keep the issue under review. We need a clear set of rules about what will happen at the beginning, and it needs to be kept in our thoughts as we go forward. There is a similar system in place for when someone gets a proxy vote—permission needs to be given for that to continue. There are some comparisons. The motions are temporary in nature. If the House agrees them today, they will run until the end of the current Parliament. There will be time to assess how they have worked in practice and whether the House wants to make the changes permanent. I hope that colleagues agree that both Modernisation Committee motions improve the flexibility available for Select Committees and Members, while preserving and enhancing the ability of Committees to perform their vital functions. I turn to the motion relating to the Committee of Privileges’ report into the actions of the Charity Commission. I welcome the Committee’s consideration of this matter. As the Committee sets out, this report is, at its heart, about the provision of information to the House and whether it is appropriate to use the courts to prevent information from being provided. The report outlines that the Charity Commission had sought a judicial review seeking to prevent the Parliamentary Commissioner For Administration from laying a special report before the Commons. The case was referred to the Committee to consider whether, in seeking to prevent the flow of information to Parliament, the Charity Commission’s action constituted a contempt of this House. As the report outlines, the obstruction of provision of information to Parliament is wholly unacceptable. The Committee concludes that the Charity Commission committed a contempt of Parliament in seeking to prevent the laying of the report. The Committee recommended that the chief executive of the Charity Commission should apologise to the House for repeatedly saying that the commission’s legal action was not intended to quash the laying of the report, when that was precisely its purpose, and that the board of the commission, which backed the legal action, should take responsibility for the contempt and should apologise to the House. I am pleased to say that since the Committee’s report was published, the Charity Commission has provided such apologies. The Government have confidence in the leadership of the Charity Commission and are confident that the board is taking action to address the concerns raised by the Committee’s report and learn lessons for its handling of similar cases going forward. The motion invites the House to agree the report and endorse its conclusions and recommendations. I hope that the House will support the motion. Finally, I turn to the motion relating to Standing Orders following the machinery of government changes announced in July. The work of our Select Committees is extremely important, and today’s changes demonstrate the value that we place on them. The motions before the House ensure that all existing Committees remain in place and are aligned to the Departments and bodies that they scrutinise. With respect to the changes on science and technology, given the abolition of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, we are reverting to the set-up that the Committee had prior to the establishment of that Department. I hope that Members will support these motions. I commend them to the House.

   Hansard source
4. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sir Alan Campbell

   Select Committee Chairs: Period of Leave

   May I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to the debate? I will briefly respond to them. I am eternally grateful to the Chair of the Privileges Committee, the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), and very much agree with his remarks, including about the timeliness of any response from the Charity Commission and the significance of that issue. I will point out the importance—if I need to do so—of his Committee and its findings in that instance, because it had the desired effect, and I am grateful for that. I hope that lessons have been learned not just by the Charity Commission but by anyone who may feel tempted to go down that misguided route. Let me turn to the comments of the Chair of the Liaison Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier). I am grateful to her Committee and to her for her work on that Committee as well as more widely. I absolutely agree with her about the importance of protecting Members’ rights. The measures proposed today are about enhancing those rights. As she said, it is about modernising and maintaining integrity. I am pleased if the House thinks that we have got that balance right. I thank the Chair of the Procedure Committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith)—and her Committee. Our Committees work closely together and she shares my radical instinct on these matters—I just point that out in case this goes horribly wrong, but I am sure that it will not. My hon. Friend was right to emphasise that member participation should be in person and that the motions are time-limited. She asked whether there will be a review. I have a feeling, but it is no more than that. I obviously hope that these changes will be successful and that when the time comes the House will want to carry them forward. In that case, it would be right for us to review them before that. Finally, I turn to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), who I thought was not going to mention Harlow, but he managed to get there in the end. He may have spent only a short time on Committees, and indeed only a relatively short time in the House compared to some of us, but he has been extraordinarily quick in picking up many of the best elements of working in this place. Central to that—he knows my view—is the importance of Select Committee work. I hope that hon. Members will support the motions. I commend them to the House. Question put and agreed to. Select Committees: Virtual Participation by Members Ordered, That with effect from 30 November 2026:— (1) Select committee members may in the circumstances set out in paragraph 2 below participate in any select committee proceedings through electronic means of communication in accordance with guidance to be determined and published by the Liaison Committee, which must take into account the need for cyber security. (2) The circumstances in which this Standing Order applies are: (a) when access to the estate is significantly limited or prevented entirely, or (b) when reasonable adjustments need to be made for an individual committee member on the grounds of health and wellbeing, following the conclusion of an assessment process as set out in the Liaison Committee guidance. (3) A Member participating through electronic means in accordance with this Standing Order shall count towards the quorum of the Committee. (4) The provisions of this Standing Order apply to meetings held under the provisions of Standing Order No. 137A (Select committees: power to work with other committees). (5) This Standing Order applies to all select committees appointed under Public Business Standing Orders, the Modernisation Committee, and such other select committees as the House directs. (6) That this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the present Parliament.—(Sir Alan Campbell.) Privileges Committee Report: Charity Commission Actions Ordered, That this House agrees with the Committee of Privileges First Report of Session 2026-27, Matter referred on 4 September 2025: Actions of the Charity Commission (HC 315), and endorses its conclusions and recommendations.—(Sir Alan Campbell.) Select Committees: Machinery of Government Changes Ordered, That the following amendments and related provisions be made in respect of Standing Orders: A: Select Committees Related to Government Departments (1) That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended in the Table in paragraph (2) as follows— (i) leave out items 1, 3, 14 and 19; (ii) insert, in the appropriate place, the following items: “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade” “Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade” 11 “Digital, Culture, Media and Sport” “Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport” 11 “Science and Technology” “Government Office for Science” 11 “Women and Equalities” “Office for Equality and Opportunity” 11 B: Related Provisions (2) That all proceedings of the House and of its select committees in this Parliament, including for the purposes of calculating any period under Standing Order No. 122A (Term limits for chairs of select committees)— (i) relating to the Business and Trade Committee shall be read and have effect as if they had been done in relation to the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee; (ii) relating to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee shall be read and have effect as if they had been done in relation to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee; and (iii) relating to the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee shall be read and have effect as if they had been done in relation to the Science and Technology Committee. C: Liaison Committee (3) That the Resolution of the House of 4 December 2024 (Liaison Committee: Membership), be amended, in paragraph (2)— (i) by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”; (ii) by leaving out “Culture, Media and Sport” and inserting “Digital, Culture, Media and Sport”; (iii) by leaving out “Science, Innovation and Technology” and inserting “Science and Technology”. (4) That Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended, in paragraph (6), by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”. D. European Committees (5) That the Table in paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 119 (European Committees) be amended in respect of European Committee C, by leaving out: (a) “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”; (b) “Culture, Media and Sport” and inserting “Digital, Culture, Media and Sport”; and (c) “Science, Innovation and Technology”. E. Scrutiny of orders and draft orders (6) That Standing Order No. 18 (Consideration of draft legislative reform orders etc.) be amended in paragraph (1), by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”; (7) That Standing Order No. 141 (Scrutiny of regulatory and legislative reform orders etc.) be amended in paragraph (1), by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”; and (8) That Standing Order No. 142 (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders) be amended in paragraph (1), by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”. F. Planning: national policy statements (9) That Standing Order No. 152H (Planning: national policy statements) be amended in paragraph (2)(a) as follows— (a) by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”; (b) by leaving out “Science, Innovation and Technology” and inserting “Science and Technology”.—(Sir Alan Campbell.)

   Hansard source
5. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Seema Malhotra

   International Skills Partnerships

   I welcome the recent announcement of new technical education pathways at GCSE level, which will hugely benefit pupils in Feltham and Heston and across the country. Through visits to Germany, Singapore and Australia, I have seen how we can build opportunities for increased partnerships including internationally with world-leading specialist training providers. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will look to make sure that we invest in the skilled workforce and partnerships that we need to give our students not just the best chance for a great job but the best chance for life in an increasingly competitive world?

   Hansard source
6. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sean Woodcock

   Water Sector: Public Ownership

   Banbury is heavily affected by the failings of Thames Water; we have had thousands of sewage spills, leading to hundreds of thousands of hours of sewage being discharged into local rivers and streams, which is probably why so many of my constituents signed the petition. I had prepared a longer speech for the debate, but given the number of speakers and time available, I will keep my remarks much briefer. In March, I wrote for LabourList that the water scandal had become a test of whether a Government elected on a promise of change were prepared to confront vested interests. Across England and Wales, water bills rose by 26% last year, but for Thames Water customers, including my constituents, they rose by 31%—and this year the bills have risen again. During the Makerfield campaign, the Prime Minister said that Britain’s water industry had become a system where “the shareholders always win and the billpayers always lose”. He was right. On Thames Water specifically, the Prime Minister argued that public ownership was ultimately something that should happen. Although I welcome the steps that this Government have taken to address the water industry, the fact that so many people have signed the petition would suggest—as would a glance at my mailbox, and probably that of every other Member of Parliament—that most people feel that, despite what those measures are intended to do, none of them quite goes far enough. My simple question to the Minister is this. What more are the Government prepared to do to demonstrate that they understand the scale of public anger, that they hear the public’s frustration and that they are prepared to act with greater urgency in response?

   Hansard source
7. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Russell

   Water Sector: Public Ownership

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for leading this debate, and the gentleman who started the petition in the first place. I am sure that, like me, my constituents are absolutely staggered that we are having a conversation about children getting ill from paddling in our streams and drinking our water. The Victorians built a load of sewers because they recognised that this was completely and utterly unacceptable, yet we do not seem to have managed to maintain them to the point that we can actually drink our water. That is crackers. The fact that we have to have a conversation about whether our water is fit to drink should raise alarm bells. In the 30-odd years since privatisation, £85 billion has been paid out in dividends. I am genuinely astonished that so much money has been taken from the good people of this country and given to private interests without more outcry. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary gardening and horticulture group. It is really important to note that the current arrangement does not just have implications for individuals —although they are horrific and I do not wish to understate them. It also has implications for horticulture businesses. Our general access to water is appalling and is decimating businesses, which are paying very high utility costs across the board without being able to regularly access what they need. It is damaging our economy, and it is damaging our experience of the great outdoors. The amount that we are paying in bills is ridiculous, and 20% of treated drinking water in the UK is lost to leakage. I know that the Government have already taken some steps to improve the regulation of the water industry, but frankly we need to go further and faster. I am so proud to represent a very beautiful area of the world. Many of my constituents have grown up playing in local rivers and streams, and people still allow their pets to go into the water, but most parents will not let their kids paddle in the same places where they used to paddle, because they know it is not safe. How have we got here? It is completely unacceptable. I know there are arguments about how much nationalisation would cost, and of course we have to consider that, but if the law prevents us from renationalising things that clearly should be renationalised, then—I speak as a lawyer—perhaps we should revisit the law. It is clear to our constituents that we need to move forward.

   Hansard source
8. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Hall

   Water Sector: Public Ownership

   Thank you, Sir Jeremy; it happens. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I support public ownership of our water industry. Water is an essential public service, and it should be run in the public interest. People in my constituency cannot suddenly decide that they have had enough of United Utilities and switch to another water company. They pay their bills because they need the service, and they should be able to expect it to work for them. In reality, however, across the country, that is not what is happening. After years of neglect, failure to upgrade infrastructure, sewage dumping in our waterways and skyrocketing bills, people have frankly had enough. We have spent decades trying to regulate these monopolies, so that they behave somewhat like a public service, but it is clear that that simply has not worked. Across the wider water system, responsibility is divided between organisations, Departments, agencies and authorities, leaving people struggling to find out who will put a problem right. On new year’s day last year, families in Warrington had water coming into their homes, and when water is coming through the front door, they do not want an organisational chart; they just want to know what happened and what someone is going to do about it. The system that we have, which has been bolted together over the years, does not reflect how closely all those things connect. That is where we need to change the way we think. I want to see a publicly owned water company that works holistically across the whole system. A long-term public programme would give businesses certainty about the work coming in. A steady programme of work would give British firms the confidence to invest, take on apprentices, and develop skills and technology. We must use any change in the ownership model to change the way that the whole water system works, so that it is transparent, puts profits back into the crumbling system and ends the dumping of sewage in our waterways. The Prime Minister has spoken about stronger public control of essential services, and I welcome that, but in water, public control has to mean more than regulating private companies more closely. We have been doing that since privatisation. Regulation alone cannot decide what the company is ultimately there to do or whose interests should come first. Every one of us depends on water. I believe it should belong to the public and be run for the public good.

   Hansard source
9. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sarah Champion

   Speciality Steel UK

   Today is a really good day. I have been in this Chamber for more than a decade, watching my industry being allowed to wither on the vine. Secretary of State, a huge thank you to you for understanding the potential in the Rotherham, Brinsworth, and Stocksbridge sites, which work hand in hand. It is not just about the sites themselves, but the infrastructure around them. We have a whole supply chain that needs these sites back and running again. Of course, this is green steel, or recycled steel, so it fits exactly with the Government’s industrial strategy—it is the linchpin. Secretary of State, thank you for continuing the pay so far and thank you for committing to continue it for the next six months. Can he also speak a little about the training that the staff will get? While they are grateful to be furloughed, they want to be working, and that means that they need to be fit the day that he says we can open the doors. They want to be ready to go. Can he also say a little about product accreditation? Literally every week, I have people from around the country calling in, trying to purchase steel. However, to purchase it, accreditation needs to be in place. Finally, can he speak a little about any anticipated restart costs? I know the workers are doing all they can to maintain the sites, but there are likely to be costs. Today is a good day, and I thank the Secretary of State.

   Hansard source
10. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Samantha Niblett

    SEND: Cross-Government Work

    Schools in my constituency, including Fairmeadows Foundation primary school, applied to Reform-led Derbyshire county council for capital funding for SEND provision within their mainstream settings. They were told that their application was successful in July 2025, and again in September that year. Funding was to come from a pot believed to be about £7 million, with an extra £500,000 mentioned on 10 September this year, but so far no funding has been released. I personally raised this matter with the council leader, Alan Graves, in June. When we chased the money again last week, we were told that the service-level agreements were still being worked on. Will the Minster please join me in calling on Derbyshire county council to get on with releasing these moneys?

    Hansard source
11. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sadik Al-Hassan

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. Thirty-seven years after privatisation, those companies are laden with debt, our rivers and coastlines are polluted and shareholders expect good returns while investment lags. That proof can be seen in North Somerset. One young man training for an Ironman in 2023 swam in Clevedon Marine lake, which was unfortunately polluted. Within a day, he had collapsed. It took four months of tests to confirm what had happened; a virus caught in that water had lowered his blood pressure and triggered a minor heart episode. That is what “acceptable” water quality is costing real people in my constituency.

    Hansard source
12. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sadik Al-Hassan

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    I agree. In my constituency, the Land Yeo river, which once ran clear and was a genuine source of local pride, is no longer the beautiful river that residents grew up with. Agricultural and urban runoff, as well as underfunding and a lack of investment, have left it choked with invasive plant species and thick algae. In 2025, a storm overflow at Portbury Wharf nature reserve discharged sewage into the Severn estuary for a total of 721 hours—the equivalent of 30 full days of waste pumped from North Somerset’s shores. That is why I strongly welcome the swift introduction of the Water (Special Measures) Act, but it treats the symptom, not the disease. We are past the point of regulating out a structural failure. If a company’s incentive is shareholder return rather than public service, no amount of fines will help. Water is an essential utility, but as we saw this summer, the failure of these companies is already compounding the impact of climate change and drought. We had one of the wettest springs on record, yet the companies have failed to invest in reservoirs, such as in Barrow Gurney in my constituency, that are needed to capture one of the most valuable resources. Reservoirs in the south-west, which should be central to how we store and manage water, have suffered from years of under-investment, neglected by companies that are more focused on returns than resilience. Nobody chooses their water company. Nobody can switch. But our constituents are paying the price through their health, their pride in local areas and their bills. The public deserve the chance to say whether that should continue.

    Hansard source
13. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Rushanara Ali

    Battle of Cable Street: 90th anniversary

    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) on securing this important Adjournment debate. She represented Cable Street until the last general election, and I am very proud to represent it now. She and I have much in common. We are the beneficiaries of all those who came before us, who fought in the battle of Cable Street to make the east end the place it went on to become, and the generations after, who fought against the racism of the National Front—some of our colleagues who are in this Chamber and in this House, who made the east end a safe place for us to grow up in. My hon. Friend and I studied at the same secondary school and, as children and young people, along with our peers, benefited from learning about the battle of Cable Street and by visiting the memorial that she spoke about, which has inspired young people in the generations that came after as well as before us, and it continues to do so. The significance of what happened almost 90 years ago, as we look to the 90th anniversary, which we will mark on 4 October, remains crucial for our society if we are to fight the modern-day intolerance, hostility and hatred that we are seeing yet again, in even greater force, fuelled by the disinformation and online hatred that is playing out in our society and in our communities up and down the country. Growing up, I heard the testimonies of so many in our community. I am a few years older than my hon. Friend, so I was able to meet many powerful advocates of the anti-racism movement, including two of my former constituents who are no longer with us. I pay tribute to their struggles and what they did. They were young people when they took part in the battle of Cable Street: the late, great Max Levitas, whom I had the good fortune of being able to campaign with as a Member of Parliament, who fought against the English Defence League and other far-right groups that sought to exploit division and stir up hatred in my constituency when I was first elected; and the late Beatty Orwell, who died in 2023 aged 105, who also took part in the battle of Cable Street. They were two people who inspired me and supported me through my political career, along with many others in our community who told the story of the anti-racism movement and continued to work across communities. My hon. Friend spoke eloquently about that period and what happened afterwards. The fight against intolerance and hatred continues. We have to build on the legacy of that generation, who worked so hard to ensure that division is not amplified by those who seek to divide us. I hope that as we mark the 90th anniversary of the battle of Cable Street, we can all work together to redouble our efforts to build strong communities, cohesion and strong inter-faith relations, as well as relations with those with no faith, and recognise that the modern-day challenge of intolerance and hatred is even greater in some respects, though much has been achieved. We have to be vigilant and we have to work together to ensure that we stand against racism, fascism and intolerance of the kind that we are seeing grow once again. I look to the Minister to work with us to do that.

    Hansard source
14. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Richard Quigley

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    May I say what a phenomenal pleasure it is to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker? You are a wonder. As the MP for half of England’s best island, I feel uniquely placed to speak about the state of our water sector. Quite frankly, I think my constituents would never forgive me if I did not use this opportunity to highlight just how unacceptable the situation has become. Since the 2024 election, there have been 14,902 hours’ worth of sewage in my constituency alone. Across the island, that figure rises to 26,682 hours. It is little wonder that islanders feel utterly frustrated, deeply let down and increasingly sceptical about the idea that the system is supposedly delivering for them or that private companies can be genuinely trusted to act in their best interests. On the island, we are immensely proud of our 57 miles of UNESCO biosphere-recognised coastline. It is part of what makes the Isle of Wight so special, but it is also why so many islanders find themselves utterly dumbfounded. The Prime Minister received a lot of flak last week for his comments about the damaging impact of the privatisation of the 1980s. The Benches opposite—not the Labour and Liberal Democrat Members sitting there now; I mean the Opposition—mocked those remarks, but not even they could argue that the state of our water industry represents a ringing endorsement of Margaret Thatcher’s privatisation project. Private equity has become so effective at fearmongering that Governments of all colours are reluctant to challenge the status quo. We hear figures, from companies that see our basic utilities as huge pound signs, that suggest that public ownership would cost £100 billion and would put workers or pension funds at risk, yet evidence from the People’s Commission suggests that public ownership could deliver a much fairer and more sustainable system than the one we have today. That is why we need to stop placing private equity on a pedestal. Water is not a luxury. It is an essential public service. My preference will always be public control, especially when private companies have blown their chance, measured on performance, investment and public trust, and have resorted to fear stories about the alternatives. Our promise of hope in every heart and growth in every postcode will not feel real or achievable if people cannot do something as basic as trusting the water that comes out of their tap, or safely swimming in the seas that surround them.

    Hansard source
15. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Richard Burgon

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I start by thanking the more than 200,000 petitioners across the country, as well as the hundreds of my Leeds East constituents, who have signed the petition. When discussing the arguments for public ownership, we need to start by staring the facts in the face. England and Wales are the only countries in the world to have fully privatised their water and sewerage systems. We are the odd ones out, and something needs to be done about it. The privatisation of our water system has been a catastrophic failure—not for shareholders, or for the chief executive of Yorkshire Water, but for the public, the environment and, as we have heard, even children. With climate change leading to further droughts and water shortages, the iniquitous role of the leaderships of private water companies, and the system they represent, will only get worse. We hear a lot about Thames Water, but we also need to talk about Yorkshire Water. Under Yorkshire Water, bills have gone up by over a third in two years, and every year it dumps hundreds of thousands of hours of sewage into our rivers and seas. It is performing so badly that it has been downgraded to a one-star rating by the Environment Agency. Yorkshire Water was recently hit by an £89 million performance penalty for under-delivering, yet its chief executive’s total salary is running at over £1 million a year, so privatisation has worked for some. That is rewarding failure—as long as the profits keep flowing. Enough of all this: full public ownership is what is needed. Let us get into step with the rest of the world, focusing on cleaner water, lower bills and a system that actually works and is fit for the climate challenges of the future. People out there in the country know this is a disgrace, and they know it needs sorting out now. We need public ownership of our water system now.

    Hansard source
16. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Rebecca Long Bailey

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    It is clear today that the privatisation of water was one of the biggest cons in British history. We have seen water bills rise by 44% in real terms since privatisation, rivers polluted, infrastructure deteriorate and shareholders extract to the tune of £85 billion from our water industry. Regulation has failed to fix it; we have to be honest about that. Water companies have been fined millions of pounds, but that has demonstrably failed to change their behaviour. Chronic underfunding of the Environment Agency and failures by Ofwat have meant that even the limited regulatory powers available have too often gone unenforced. I am pleased that the Prime Minister understands these issues, because it is time to bring water back into public ownership. There is an economic case for doing it: Professor David Hall’s research estimates that public ownership could reduce financing costs by between £3.2 billion and £5.8 billion a year. That is money that could be invested in repairing pipes, tackling leaks, improving sewerage infrastructure, protecting our rivers and keeping bills affordable. But I must stress that public ownership has to mean much more than putting a Government sign above the door. Public control cannot mean just some sort of franchise model with the pretence of overarching Government control, or the odd token councillor sitting on a water company board. That will solve nothing. We need regional publicly owned water companies with democratic accountability and meaningful representation for workers, customers and communities. The revenues from water bills should be used to operate and improve the service, not provide returns to shareholders; investment should be planned for the long term; and environmental protection has to be at the very heart of the industry. Of course, that has a cost—we have to be honest—but we already know from research that public ownership would pay for itself within around seven years, with savings thereafter. We do not need a referendum; we need to take water back into public ownership now.

    Hansard source
17. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Rachael Maskell

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. We have all seen the price of failure. “Dirty Business” hit us hard with the true cost—the human cost—and the scale of sewage and chemicals. Professor Alistair Boxall is drawing to our attention the pollutants that are destroying our river health and ecology and causing our rivers to die, but also the money and how it flows—the revolving doors and the completely unaccountable power within the water industry. Of course, when we see the revolving doors between regulators and companies, we know that we cannot trust the system. Our constituents cannot trust the system as they are fleeced to pay more for the profits of these companies—of these now millionaires who are allowing sewage to run through our cities. York has the second-worst polluted river, the River Ouse. We see floods and droughts in our city, and burst pipes that are unaddressed for days. We see the cost to our constituents. The Minister must bring water into public ownership, and must not prevaricate or look for a different route. Plain and simple—let’s just get on with it. We have heard how we can bring forward an SAR to bring those companies and contracts back into public hands. I also say to the Minister that I have looked at this issue over the summer, and it is vital that we look at how we hold public institutions to account, who makes decisions and how the public can have a say. As politicians, all we can often do is come to this place and plead, and use our campaigning platform to speak of the challenges we see, but we do not have power and leverage over systems. Setting up public ownership is important so that we and the public have leverage over the system. The public would have the ability, through a deliberative process and a citizens assembly, to hold water companies—public companies—to account so that they can get the answers that they deserve.

    Hansard source
18. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Peter Swallow

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    I will give the hon. Lady a chance to drink some water, which is, of course, what we are all here to talk about. It is important to my constituents, and I know to hers. I will let her carry on with her fantastic speech.

    Hansard source
19. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Peter Swallow

    Curriculum and Assessment Review

    This summer, the Prime Minister set out his ambition for our education system: “Whether you choose construction, coding or classics…Labour will build an education system where you’ll get the skills you need”. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on classics, I really welcome that. Will the Secretary of State set out her vision for the arts and humanities in our curriculum to ensure that more young people take up these subjects, which are so good at empowering them with skills?

    Hansard source
20. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Perran Moon

    SEND Specialists: Schools

    22. What progress her Department has made on ensuring that schools have access to high-quality training to support pupils with SEND.

    Hansard source
21. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Perran Moon

    SEND Specialists: Schools

    Several schools in my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency are reporting profound concerns about the lack of availability of educational specialists right across Cornwall, including occupational therapists, educational psychologists and speech and language therapists. As a result of our remote coastal location, recruitment and retention is particularly difficult. Will the Minister meet Cornish MPs to discuss this issue?

    Hansard source
22. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Perran Moon

    Speciality Steel UK

    I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Does he agree that workers and communities are ultimately paying the price for the reckless conduct associated with Lex Greensill and those who championed his business model, and that this Government are now stepping in with the leadership that was previously so lacking?

    Hansard source
23. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Paula Barker

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    Order. I remind hon. Members to bob if they wish to be called to speak. Given the level of interest in this important debate, I will immediately impose a time limit of two and a half minutes. It is up to speakers if they wish to take interventions, but they can see how many colleagues wish to speak.

    Hansard source
24. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Paula Barker

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    I remind hon. Members to face the Chair, not other hon. Members.

    Hansard source
25. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Paul Waugh

    Apprenticeships

    Thank you, Mr Speaker. Apprenticeships are the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions, but the Department for Education is supporting apprenticeships by introducing new technical and vocational pathways from 14 to 19 years, including new V-levels from 2027, new level 2 pathways and even more T-levels, from which young people can progress through apprenticeships and higher education. These new 14 to 19 qualifications will enable students to progress more easily and on to apprenticeships.

    Hansard source
26. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Paul Waugh

    Apprenticeships

    May I return those congratulations by congratulating the hon. Member on his elevation to the shadow Front Bench, and may I congratulate him, too, on the work he has done on vocational skills, including in his jobs fare in Bromsgrove? It is worth saying that V-levels are precisely designed to tally with what employers want. That is exactly why we are reforming the system to ensure every child will have the right technical education. More broadly, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have said that the parity of esteem between vocational and academic education is exactly what everyone in this country wants.

    Hansard source
27. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Paul Waugh

    Apprenticeships

    I thank my hon. Friend for all the hard work the Education Committee has done on this topic. She is right that there should be parity of esteem, and the equivalent of a UCAS system for children who are going into technical education. Baroness Smith is looking at precisely that subject, and we aim to come up with some answers soon.

    Hansard source
28. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Paul Waugh

    Apprenticeships

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his hard work on this subject as the former Skills Minister. The House is in agreement on the issue. The Prime Minister rightly says that we should be focusing on problem solving rather than point scoring. Given that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned apprenticeship starts, it would be remiss of me not to point out that they have gone up by 8.7% under this Government, whereas apprenticeship starts collapsed under the last Government since 2020.

    Hansard source
29. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Paul Waugh

    Apprenticeships

    My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for FE in his constituency, as are many Members across the House. He is right about FE, and many specialists who are engaged in teaching further education and vocational skills are addressing the point he raises. That is why many of them support a move to V-Levels, because they are aligned with what employers want. Employers are telling us that they want those job skills to be more in tune with academic skills, and that is what we are delivering.

    Hansard source
30. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Paul Waugh

    Topical Questions

    The Government’s SEND reforms will create a more inclusive school system, with fewer children needing to travel to access the quality education that they deserve. I take onboard the hon. Member’s concerns, which we are listening to, but we want to make it absolutely clear that ensuring drivers and passenger assistants have received the training necessary to respond to all children’s needs is central to Government policy.

    Hansard source
31. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Paul Waugh

    Topical Questions

    The updated standards that we have announced today will ensure that school food is delicious, nutritious and practical for schools. I was proud to see Bite Back and a range of sector leaders welcome our standards, and I thank them all for the hard work they do to help schools achieve what we want.

    Hansard source
32. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Paul Davies

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 762640 relating to a referendum on public ownership of the water sector. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I begin by thanking Ashley Paul Smith, who is sitting in the Public Gallery, for pulling together this petition. It has now received 208,000 signatures, and counting—I am sure that that number is already out of date. As the founder and chair of Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, Ash has been investigating the sewage scandal since 2016. Members will likely be aware that his efforts were dramatised earlier this year in Channel 4’s “Dirty Business”, which exposed the long-term impact of the private model on our water sector.

    Hansard source
33. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Paul Davies

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    As I run through my speech, the hon. Gentleman will find a theme of strong support for public ownership of the water sector throughout. We absolutely must look at that option. Ash’s petition calls for “a binding national referendum on whether the water industry should be returned to public ownership…A referendum would give the public back its voice about its water.” For too long, our water sector has been in the hands of shareholders rather than the public, who pay for and rely on its delivery.

    Hansard source
34. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Paul Davies

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    I absolutely agree that there is huge frustration out there, which I will refer to later in my speech. I give way to my other hon. Friend.

    Hansard source
35. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Paul Davies

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    I will certainly come to that subject later in my speech. My view is absolutely that there needs to be fundamental change in how we ensure that people have access to affordable, safe and secure water supplies.

    Hansard source
36. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Paul Davies

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    I will make a little progress; otherwise, I am not going to get past the next few paragraphs. In 1989, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher sold off our then publicly owned water and sewerage industry for £5.2 billion, arguing that privatisation would bring desperately needed investment to the sector. She told the Commons that she believed it would be a better deal than nationalised water. She hoped it would “proceed successfully”, encouraging the Opposition at the time to “wait and see in the light of the facts rather than pontificate.”—[Official Report, 28 November 1989; Vol. 162, c. 577.] Years later, here we are: we can see in the light of the facts that the private model for water has been far from a success. It has been an economic, environmental and public health failure. I will take an intervention now.

    Hansard source
37. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Paul Davies

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    I will make some progress, and then I will. The current model is absolutely an economic failure. Private companies have paid out, in 2024 prices, around £83 billion—an average of £2.4 billion a year—as dividends, while loading the companies in debt. Often, those loans were taken out simply to increase the amount of cash extracted as dividends when profits alone were not enough. As we know, crucial infrastructure has been left to fail. Not a single new reservoir has been built since 1992, and water companies have overseen the waste of around 3 billion litres of water a day through leaky pipes.

    Hansard source
38. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Paul Davies

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    I absolutely agree. As my hon. Friend will hear throughout my speech, the evidence clearly shows us that the model is failing in a range of areas. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) want to get in; I will make a little progress first, then I will give way. The model has also been an environmental disaster. In 2024, under the administration of water companies, raw sewage was discharged into rivers and seas in England for a record 3.61 million hours. In the first six months of this year alone, raw sewage was discharged into rivers and seas during dry weather a total of 7,280 times.

    Hansard source
39. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Paul Davies

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    I will make a little progress first. According to Environment Agency data, today, just one in seven of England’s waters is in good ecological condition.

    Hansard source
40. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Paul Davies

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    I absolutely agree that transparency and accountability are crucial. As will be made clear in my speech, and, I am sure, the contributions of other Members, that is a major issue in the current model. The model has also been a health disaster. According to Government advice, swimming in open water can increase the risk of gastrointestinal illness. Bathing water quality in England seriously lags behind that of its European counterparts. According to Best for Britain, the percentage of bathing waters in England that are rated poor quality is more than five times that in the European Union.

    Hansard source