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·Chris Vince

   Sovereign Grant Bill

   Thank you, Madam Chair. I desperately tried not to intervene at all, but I could not stop myself. I was on the Modernisation Committee when it had the opportunity to visit Buckingham Palace to see some of the regeneration work being done. Does the Minister feel as reassured as I do that the renovation work was done as efficiently and practically as possible, bringing in apprentices from elsewhere—I do not think any of them came from Harlow, unfortunately—to ensure it was successful?

   Hansard source
2. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Vince

   Select Committee Chairs: Period of Leave

   I thank the Leader of the House for his speech. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) that he is radical, forward-thinking and progressive, and we thank him for that. The Leader of the House will know that I served on the Modernisation Committee for a very short period of time. The strangest part of that experience was coming face to face with my predecessor as the Member for Harlow when he gave evidence to the Committee. His evidence to the Committee was really important, and that is one reason why I feel it is so important that I stand up and ensure that his voice is heard here. I welcome the Leader of the House’s words on the changes to be made to Select Committees. We all recognise the important role of Select Committees in the running of this place. I think of my short time on the Education Committee—my time on Select Committees always seems to be short—and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who is in her place, for the work she did in securing a Government apology for the victims of the false adoption scandal. Select Committees can make a huge difference to what happens in this place and beyond. However, I recognise the need for balance. It is important that we make Select Committees accessible—as the Member of Parliament for Harlow, I take accessibility seriously on behalf of my predecessor—but I also recognise the importance of in-person scrutiny. I have sat in a number of virtual meetings, including virtual council meetings during covid, and I do not think that they are necessarily as effective, particularly when huge numbers of people join them online. I echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) about the importance of having strict rules on virtual participation. We do not want to have our dog or cat appear on the screen during Select Committee meetings. It can happen to any of us, but it is not necessarily what we want when scrutinising somebody from an outside body who very much needs that scrutiny. I also echo my hon. Friend’s comments about maternity rights and sick pay. It is really important that we support everybody in the House to have those. Finally, I think that the Leader of the House has got the balance absolutely right in this case, and I very much support what he has said.

   Hansard source
3. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Hinchliff

   Water Sector: Public Ownership

   It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. The case for public ownership of our water is unanswerable. We can all see the money being swindled out of the British public by the privatised system. We can all see the sewage pollution going on, even during a summer of drought. I beg the Minister, in her response, not to repeat the bogus figures that some use to argue that public ownership of one of our most essential national resources would be too expensive. Those claims have been so comprehensively debunked that using them now is just getting embarrassing. The truth is that the cost of the societal impacts of failing to take back control of our water resources would be far higher than that of taking action now, because—ludicrously for a country as wet as ours—we are on course for a water deficit of more than 6 billion litres of water every single day in the next 30 years. The truth is that there is currently no credible plan to avert that. All the reservoirs that currently we have planned will reduce that deficit only by a meagre 13%. There is no realistic prospect of water companies hitting the efficiency targets they have signed up for, either—and that is before the speculative proliferation of data centres claims its thirsty share of our dwindling resources. In all likelihood, we will face further and severe water shortfalls in the future. Fire services are already warning that water pressure in many areas is dangerously low for fighting the new wildfire season that we also face. Communities in my constituency have already seen the taps running dry. In the future, we will have to choose what we do and do not use water for. We cannot have a situation in which our democracy has to mediate the fundamental question of national security through the interests of private companies that have proven beyond all doubt that their overwhelming priority will always be profit. We cannot afford to leave our water in the hands of private vested interests. It must be brought back into public ownership.

   Hansard source
4. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Hinchliff

   SEND Provision

   It is difficult to overstate the trauma that the SEND crisis has inflicted on children in North East Hertfordshire, so the Government’s commitment to reform is welcome. However, given the scale of the failure that families have experienced, many are nervous. Will the Minister reassure me and my constituents that the reforms will not mean pushing children into a one-size-fits-all approach and will ensure that there is a firm legal backstop so that every child receives the support they deserve?

   Hansard source
5. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

   Robert Hamill Inquiry Report

   I too pass on my condolences to the Prime Minister on the death of his father. I am enormously grateful to the First Minister of Northern Ireland, Michelle O’Neill, who texted me a few moments ago to pass on her heartfelt sympathy as well. I am sure that all hon. Members will want to share in that. With permission, I will make a statement on the Robert Hamill inquiry report, which is published today. I start by paying tribute to the extraordinary grace and honour that Robert Hamill’s family have shown in the 29 years since he was murdered. It is hard enough to grieve the death of a loved one; it is even harder to grieve a loved one who was violently assaulted and brutally murdered; it is even worse to grieve a loved one without clear and coherent answers about the circumstances of their death for years and years. Many victims of the troubles have told me of the pain that gnaws away at them because they have no answers. Today will be particularly difficult for Robert’s family, so I send them my heartfelt sympathy and, I am sure, the sympathy of the whole House. The facts are bleak. At about 1.20 am on Sunday 27 April 1997, a 25-year-old Catholic man, Robert Hamill, a father of three, left a dance at St Patrick’s hall on Thomas Street, Portadown, and walked with others towards the junction with High Street and Market Street, where Royal Ulster Constabulary officers were in a parked RUC Land Rover. There, a group of Protestants attacked Robert and left him with such injuries to the head that he never recovered consciousness, and he died in hospital 11 days later on 8 May 1997. The inquiry is clear: “Robert Hamill suffered head trauma either shortly after that violence broke out or a little later when…Protestant youths kicked him while he was on the ground. The trauma included axonal injury, in particular in the brain stem. We find that those injuries directly caused his death.” The inquiry refers to there being at least three blows to the head and states: “Robert Hamill’s death was murder, because those who assaulted him must have at least intended to cause serious injury to him.” The people who attacked Robert did not know him. Robert had done nothing to provoke such a vicious and violent attack. He was killed simply for being who he was. To put it bluntly, he was killed solely because he was Catholic. I cannot imagine the pain felt by his family and his companions that day, who were clearly outnumbered as they watched him lying on the pavement. The intervening years have been plagued by delay. Following the Weston Park talks in 2001, the retired Canadian judge Justice Peter Cory examined six cases and recommended that a public inquiry be launched into Robert’s death, which was then established in November 2004, chaired by Justice Sir Edwin Jowitt. He completed his work in 2011, but the Government committed not to publish the report until ongoing criminal proceedings had been exhausted. These ended on 14 June 2024 with the conviction of former RUC officer Robert Atkinson for his role in failing to properly investigate the incident and for perverting the course of justice. Given the passage of time and Sir Edwin’s health, a new chair was appointed: Sir John Evans, a member of the panel. I am pleased that Sir John’s report is finally published today, but I fully acknowledge the significant delay, which is through no fault of the inquiry. That delay— 15 years from completion to publication—is far too long and has no doubt caused family members additional frustration and anguish. I truly regret that. The inquiry’s terms of reference did not include attributing responsibility for Robert’s murder, but addresses two areas of public concern regarding the conduct of the Royal Ulster Constabulary: first, whether the officers in the Land Rover were in any way responsible for Robert Hamill’s death; and, secondly, whether the subsequent investigation into his murder was inhibited by any wrongful act or omission on the part of the RUC. The inquiry finds that although RUC Land Rover crew parked near to the outbreak of violence were distracted talking to two members of the public, this did not facilitate Robert Hamill’s death. It also finds that the officers in the Land Rover were not guilty of any wrongful act or omission in relation to the death of Robert Hamill. This last point was not the unanimous view of the inquiry panel, as the former chair Sir Edwin Jowitt expressed a dissenting view that the officers were guilty of omission by not keeping watch. The report also finds that the officers did not in any way condone or collude with the attackers. However, on the second area of public concern, the inquiry findings are disturbing. They conclude that RUC officers were guilty of wrongful omissions and that those omissions arose both at the scene and during the initial investigation between 27 April 1997 and 7 May 1997. Those omissions included, first, a failure to carry out an initial debriefing, both at the scene and immediately upon return to the police station, with multiple officers finishing their shifts or going on to other duties without recording what had happened. This had a serious and significant impact on the murder investigation, and these omissions were negligent. Secondly, there was a failure to carry out a full debriefing of all officers who had been at the scene once it became clear that Robert Hamill’s injuries were life-threatening. This omission was negligent. Thirdly, there was a wrongful omission by two officers to supply relevant information in relation to an individual they had seen at the scene. This inhibited and obstructed the investigation and was, in the case of one officer, negligent, and in the case of the other, deliberate. The inquiry finds that one RUC officer, Robert Atkinson, is guilty of a wrongful act for making a telephone call to the home of Allister Hanvey, who was present the night of the incident, which resulted in that individual destroying or putting beyond the reach of the police the clothes he had been wearing that night. That deliberately obstructed the investigation. In September and October 1997, Mr Atkinson subsequently conspired to cover up the tip-off telephone call at an important point in the murder investigation. The conspiracy amounted to an obstruction of the murder investigation and was deliberate. That conduct resulted in the conviction of Mr Atkinson in 2024 for conspiring to pervert the course of justice. The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Jon Boutcher, will want to reflect on the report’s findings, and I do not want to pre-empt any comment that he may make. I note that policing and justice are now devolved responsibilities, but these events happened under the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I merely say that it is especially disturbing that Mr Atkinson carried an RUC badge for years when he had so evidently and heinously failed in his duty and acted as a criminal. The report says that there was a “catalogue of failures” by the RUC. It is difficult not to agree. The inquiry was empowered to make recommendations. Although it makes none for the Northern Ireland Office or the Government, I will make a couple of broader points. First, today is a landmark moment, and I am proud to be the Secretary of State who can finally share the report with the House, but it is also a reminder to all of us of the long shadow of the troubles and its deep and lasting effect on the people of Northern Ireland and beyond. We must never forget that many other families still wait and yearn for answers about how their loved ones were killed. My second point is that the peace that was ushered in by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement the year after Robert’s death was an extraordinary achievement. Power sharing is difficult, but we should never take that peace for granted. After all, Robert’s death happened against the background of deep sectarian division. Nobody wants to return to that. That is why, to seek a more harmonious way forward, we must always double down on compromise and rise above our immediate instincts. I thank the current and former chairs of the inquiry, Sir John Evans and the late Sir Edwin Jowitt, the Reverend Baroness Kathleen Richardson and all those who played a part in its delivery, including Paul Murphy—now Lord Murphy—who commissioned the report. I will lay a copy of the report in the Libraries of both Houses, and it will be published in full online. This will be a difficult day for Robert Hamill’s family. He would have been coming up to his 55th birthday in December—he was younger than me. He might have become a grandfather or a great uncle by now, but he was murdered just for being a Catholic. We all pay our heartfelt respects to him and his family. I end by noting one of the final paragraphs of the report: “The murder file is still open and to this day no one has been convicted of causing Robert Hamill’s death.” I commend this statement to the House.

   Hansard source
6. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

   Robert Hamill Inquiry Report

   I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whom I should welcome to his post. The first point I want to make is that something like 300 RUC officers were killed in the troubles. I pay tribute to the many thousands of RUC officers who did their jobs diligently in very difficult circumstances and with great courage and dedication to all communities in Northern Ireland. That is why a report such as this is so painful, including for the many RUC officers who formerly served, because they see the reputation of the organisation brought into disrepute by the actions of some. When we read the chapter in the report and all the paragraphs about the investigations, and the failings in them, it is difficult not to put our head in our hands and ask how on earth this could be the case. There were manifest failings. As the hon. Member said, the actions of Robert Atkinson were absolutely despicable, and he has rightly been convicted. When I recently visited the RUC memorial garden in Belfast, I was struck by how there were decades when maybe two or three, or five or six, RUC officers were killed; then there were decades when dozens and dozens were killed. Of course we have to take seriously when there are criticisms of processes and we need to ensure that we get those right. The fact that many of the recommendations for the RUC and the PSNI were made many years ago and have now been implemented is noted. There are not any particular questions or recommendations for the Government to adopt. The hon. Member asked me about the inquiry cost. He is right that the figure was at something like £33 million and a few more since. I feel a bit conflicted, because on the one hand, in the short time that I have been Secretary of State for Northern Ireland I have met so many people who lost loved ones and have no idea what happened, but I have also met people who see the person they believe killed their brother, their husband or their father going to Marks & Spencer or going about their daily business without ever having been interrupted by the legal system at all. They find that phenomenally painful. I do want to get answers for as many people in Northern Ireland as possible. I also do not want to over-promise, because sometimes—there is an irony about this sentence—the truth is complex and nuanced and depends on whose point of view we take. I also note the several points in the report where the inquiry panel points out that it would have been able to do more if more people had been able to provide witness statements, but lots of people did not do so because they felt that they were under threat or they were being cajoled into not doing so. All of that makes it very difficult to get to the truth. This is why I am committed to the troubles Bill, and to making sure that it delivers a legacy commission that is able to get to the truth for as many victims as possible. I often think that one of the things that the Good Friday agreement did was bring an end to the fighting—not immediately, obviously; the hon. Gentleman has referred to the Omagh bombing—but it also meant that lots of people had to try to forget. They were effectively asked to forget what had happened in their own family lives, and they have borne the brunt of that pain for many decades, so the more we can do to provide answers, the better. The hon. Gentleman asked about the Finucane inquiry. He will know that it is starting its processes in earnest this week. Several Governments promised an inquiry, which is why I pay tribute to my predecessor for setting it up. I hope that it will get to the answers. The hon. Gentleman’s final point was about the DPP. The report says that “we have come to the firm view that the process by which the decision was reached to discontinue the prosecution of Res Con Atkinson was riddled with significant flaws. We have reached the clear view that it was not carried out with due diligence.” In fact, subsequent to the interim report, the DPP returned to its original decision to prosecute two people, and that is what led to Mr Atkinson being convicted.

   Hansard source
7. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

   Robert Hamill Inquiry Report

   First, I warmly commend my right hon. Friend. If I can be as nice, sage, honourable, decent and gentlemanly as he in this role, I will have performed a decent task. He is absolutely right. There is another thing that is absolutely shocking here: there has never been an inquest. In fact, this is the first time that it has been declared that it was murder. That, of itself, is truly shocking. This is not the only case in Northern Ireland where no answers have been provided for individuals. He is absolutely right: the behaviour of Mr Atkinson would shock in a drama, but it is in fact the truth that he deliberately perverted the course of justice. I should say that the inquiry is keen to make the point that deliberate actions are much more blameworthy than casual omissions.

   Hansard source
8. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

   Robert Hamill Inquiry Report

   I am grateful for the hon. Member’s comments. It is vital that all those in public office exhibit candour. That is as important for police officers as it is for anybody else, as became painfully apparent throughout the process of trying to get justice for those involved in the Hillsborough disaster. That applies equally to the PSNI as it did to the RUC. The hon. Member is right that these are now primarily matters either for the PSNI directly or for the Justice Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, and I am sure that they will want to go through the report with a fine-toothed comb. It is not only that nobody had said until today that this was a murder; nobody had decided on what the cause of death was until today. I urge hon. Members to read the report, because it goes in some detail into precisely what happened, and it makes for very distressing reading.

   Hansard source
9. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

   Robert Hamill Inquiry Report

   I think everybody wants to condemn sectarianism, but the truth is that it is awfully easy to stir it up, in every society in the world. What is striking in the report is not only some of the terms of abuse that were shouted from one side to the other; a couple of witnesses also referred to the fact that when Robert Hamill’s body was being stretchered into an ambulance, people were shouting, “I hope he dies.” We need to remember the bitterness that sectarianism can instil in people’s hearts, especially when people are gathered in large crowds. Anything that we can do to calm sectarianism is a really important part of my job, and that of all those involved in the politics of Northern Ireland. The hon. Member makes a very fair point about disclosure. We will talk about the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill in a couple of weeks’ time, and that is one of the issues that we will address.

   Hansard source
10. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Robert Hamill Inquiry Report

    Well, that was a slightly partial version of what is in the report. If the hon. Member read the whole report, I think she would come to a rather more settled position. She is absolutely right that, on the first issue that the inquiry was asked to look at—namely, whether the behaviour of the crew in the Land Rover had in some way contributed to the death—the report is absolutely clear that there was no collusion with the attackers. However, there are quite serious criticisms of the way the investigation was pursued, or was not pursued effectively. Of course, there is the additional issue of how Reserve Constable Atkinson behaved and that whole saga. I think it is best to tell the whole of the story, rather than just part of it. I did not answer one of the questions that was asked earlier about the support for the family. I spoke very briefly to Diane over the weekend. Of course, the Northern Ireland Office has been in contact with the family throughout the process. In the end, of course, the most important thing is ensuring that the family get the answers they need.

    Hansard source
11. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Robert Hamill Inquiry Report

    It is often very difficult, including for a well-resourced inquiry, to get to the truth. I will read out another clause of the report: “We are left in no doubt that the decision by so many to have no recollection was by no means always spontaneous but was the result of suggestion, cajolery and in some cases threat. This has added to our difficulties.” The truth is that sometimes sectarianism leads not just to the murder, but to the cover-up. That is why I am very keen to ensure that we do everything we possibly can to diminish that. There is a Purcell anthem that I used to have to sing a lot when I was at school and at university. It includes the line: “Let your moderation be known unto all men”. Perhaps that should be our motto.

    Hansard source
12. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Robert Hamill Inquiry Report

    First, just because nobody has been convicted of murder does not mean that a murder was not committed. Indeed, one of the most painful aspects of all of this is that, clearly, as this report finds for the first time, there was a murder. The cause of death was at least three beatings to the head that Robert Hamill received—possibly two or more being kicks to the head when he was already lying on the ground, and possibly a third from a bottle. It beggars belief that in this country we can all decide that somebody was murdered but nobody ends up facing justice for the murder. I suppose that is one of the pains that arises in many of the cases that we deal with here.

    Hansard source
13. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bryant

    Robert Hamill Inquiry Report

    Yes, of course I recognise that, and in addition there is the problem that for the families and for all the witnesses and the many other people, such as those who were there that night, there is the anguish of going through that process—through multiple legal processes, judicial reviews, considerations of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the original report by Justice Cory and then the eventual launching of the inquiry. All of that of course has an emotional cost as well as a financial cost. I do not want to set the financial cost aside; that is of course a consideration for Government, especially at a difficult time fiscally. But in the end we want to get as many answers as possible for people. I say this as much for the families of the 300 or so RUC officers, or the 1,100 members of the security services who were killed in Northern Ireland, and the families who were killed in whatever set of circumstances in Northern Ireland. That is why I want to make sure that the legacy commission really is able to do the job that we are setting it up to do, and that is why it is important that the troubles Bill goes through its passage. I would just say one other thing. It is one thing for us in the British Government to be candid; I think it is also important that the Irish Government be candid. That is why it is such an important part of the process that we are undergoing with the troubles Bill that when I have spoken to my opposite numbers in Dublin, Helen McEntee and Jim O’Callaghan, they have been very keen to say that they want to make sure that their necessary legislation, which enables them to participate in the process of providing answers for people and giving information, happens in lockstep with ours so that they will be implemented at the same time. If we can get the two Governments working together to provide answers, there will be many more families who will have—I hate the word “closure”, but they will at least reach a point when they are able to understand that this moment is done.

    Hansard source
14. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Catherine Fookes

    Speciality Steel UK

    I thank the Secretary of State for his support for domestic steelmaking. People do not often think of Monmouthshire as a steelmaking community, but we have excellent downstream steelmaking companies and hundreds of workers going every day to Llanwern, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden). Will the Secretary of State share what the Government are doing to support downstream steel and to ensure that we are buying more Welsh steel in all UK projects and construction that are undertaken?

    Hansard source
15. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Cat Smith

    Select Committee Chairs: Period of Leave

    On behalf of the Procedure Committee, I thank the Leader of the House for bringing forward these motions. I never had any doubt that he would be a radical and reforming Leader of the House, and the motions are evidence of that radical reforming nature that he has always had in him, which I am pleased to see. The Procedure Committee has corresponded frequently with the Modernisation Committee. On 4 March my Committee expressed—the Leader of the House’s Committee published this—its wholehearted support for the acting Select Committee Chair role, and on 25 March we supported the motions for virtual participation. The motions reflect the nature of us being a modern and welcoming workplace where MPs’ participation is supported, regardless of our health status—or, perhaps, parental leave—as such things, which can happen to any one of us, should not bar us from participating and representing our constituents’ views in this place. The measures come from a line of reforms, including proxy voting, which ensure that we are that radical and reforming Parliament that will be welcoming to anyone, regardless of their family set-up. My view is that the priority will always be for members to attend Committees in person. As a Committee Chair, I can speak to how much easier it is to chair a meeting when members are in the room rather than all on screens. Does the Leader of the House foresee us having a thorough and timely review of these schemes in time to assess whether they could be made permanent and whether reforms may need to be made to them at that stage? I welcome the motions and hope that the House will choose to support them.

    Hansard source
16. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Cat Eccles

    Speciality Steel UK

    I thank the Secretary of State for his positive announcement. Downstream businesses in Stourbridge, Brierley Hill and Netherton used to source many items from Speciality Steel UK. I spent a lot of time working with it and the Department and Ministers to update product codes ahead of the tariff that Spain introduced. I am grateful for their engagement during that time. I understand that the upscaling of production will take time, but will he commit to continuing to work with the industry as the products come back online in the UK, so that none of the businesses in my constituency or elsewhere in the country are unfairly penalised?

    Hansard source
17. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Callum Anderson

    Curriculum and Assessment Review

    An important feature of the curriculum and assessment review was the recognition of and the commitment to strengthening financial literacy as a vital life skill for young people. To ensure we can deliver on that ambition, participating in the OECD’s PISA financial literacy assessment will help us to both measure our progress and identify gaps in that progress. Can the Secretary of State set out what assessment she has made of the merits of UK participation in 2029, and will she meet me to discuss it?

    Hansard source
18. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Brian Leishman

    Sovereign Grant Bill

    My sense of patriotism does not come from a flag, an anthem or the royal family. Instead, my patriotism comes from things like our national health service; movements such as that of the Levellers, who were committed to popular sovereignty, extended suffrage, equality and religious tolerance; and how Britain stood up to and defeated the evil of fascism, both abroad during the second world war and at home in places like Cable Street, where Jewish residents, Irish dockers, trade unionists, socialists and others united to stop the British Union of Fascists movement from marching through Jewish neighbourhoods. That is the sort of patriotism I love. I have the utmost respect for any citizen who believes that the royal family is a fundamental part of British life. I have no issues with that opinion; people are entitled to it, but it is simply not one that I share. There were many reasons why I joined the Labour party. One was to change—

    Hansard source
19. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Brian Leishman

    Sovereign Grant Bill

    I will just put a red pen—a very dark red pen, obviously—through some of the comments that I wished to make. I will accelerate my remarks. It is clear that we are a nation of persistent inequality. I fully appreciate that the role of the royal family is way down the list of pressing issues that my Government have to deal with, but when looking at the intense suffering that millions of people are experiencing, I cannot help but feel that the sovereign grant money could and should be directed elsewhere, and not to a family worth an estimated £21 billion.

    Hansard source
20. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Brian Leishman

    Israel and Palestine

    Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), I believe that historical context is essential when it comes to this debate, because Britain has been an important participant in creating the situation that Palestine and Israel are in. Our country’s role as the former colonial power in Palestine—issuing and implementing the Balfour declaration of 1917 and presiding over the dispossession and disenfranchisement of the Palestinian people—is an awful stain that has got deeper with the failure to stand up for the inalienable rights of Palestinians in the decades after the Balfour declaration. Britain was an architect in establishing Israel, but over time the relationship has changed. Britain and Israel have become a partnership largely defined by imperialism, colonialism and capitalism, and the oppression, apartheid and poverty that those traits have created. Co-operation between the British and Israeli Governments goes beyond the “normal” relations that most nations have. It was a year ago that the then Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, welcomed the Israeli President, Isaac Herzog, to No. 10 Downing Street. The House should remember that President Herzog is the man who said that an entire nation was responsible for the October attacks perpetrated by Hamas, and that the collective punishment of Palestinians was right. President Herzog came to protest against British positions, including the potential—at the time—recognition of a Palestinian state and Britain supporting humanitarian efforts. The result of the meeting was not a resounding condemnation of Herzog’s abhorrent views, but instead the Government stressing that Israel is a long-standing ally and the importance of our ongoing partnership with Israel. The appeasement of the president of a state that carries out a genocide is a much more recent stain on our nation. The time for the UK to show international and moral leadership, as we did last week, was long overdue. Like many others in this place, I welcomed the change in outlook from our new Prime Minister and our Government with the Foreign Secretary’s statement. It was a real change and a massive step towards Israel being held to account for its blatant, flagrant and repeated violations of international law, but it must be just the start. Our Government must act much more quickly, because Palestinians cannot wait six to nine months. They are still subject to human rights abuses because of Israeli state-sanctioned settler violence. The UK should not be financially facilitating that a day longer. I say to the Minister that the UK Government must target the infrastructure that funds, sustains and supports Israel’s unlawful occupation and impose measures on key entities, including Israeli Government Ministries that are implicated in establishing, maintaining and providing material support to illegal settlements and settlement infrastructure. The UK Government must end any political, diplomatic, financial and military support that contributes to Israel’s serious and systematic violations of international law. The Government should suspend the UK-Israel trade and partnership agreement and impose targeted sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes, against Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel Katz, Orit Strook and all Israeli officials directly implicated in ethnic cleansing and the forcible transfer of Palestinians in the west bank. There is no doubt in my mind that we have witnessed a genocide take place, so the UK must now act swiftly in response by ending all political, diplomatic, financial and military support that contributes to Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza. The UK must sanction the Israeli officials most implicated in the commission of genocide and commit to executing ICC arrest warrants. Finally, the UK must support South Africa’s genocide case against Israel in the ICJ, just as the UK has done in support of The Gambia v. Myanmar case. To finish, I wish to reiterate that our Government have done the right thing in shifting our position, but we must go further and quicker if we are to repay the historical debt that we owe the Palestinian people.

    Hansard source
21. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Bell Ribeiro-Addy

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for introducing the debate. My constituents are fed up of mismanagement, debt, and simultaneous price hikes and shareholder bonuses. They are also fed up of hosepipe bans, while water runs down our streets. Since April 2025, our bills have risen by 31%, and this year by an additional 3.4%. What do we get for that? Sewage dumps, burst pipes and drinking water that I advise all Members—if they do not know this—not to drink without boiling or filtering first. Thames Water is one of the worst polluters in England and, last year, got one star from the Environment Agency—I think that is only because it has not figured out how to colour in half a star or a quarter of it. Unfortunately, Thames Water is not just crap; it is also full of crap—9,189 sewage spills last year alone, and nearly 592 million litres of water lost to leaks every single day. The company then has the cheek to call a hosepipe ban. The Thames cannot be seen from my constituency, but anyone who wants a riverside experience can just walk down Brixton Hill, where water is usually gushing from some leak, causing havoc and gridlocked traffic on the main road or some of the residential roads—a reality TV version of “The Hunger Games”, with residents scrambling for bottles of water that have been left there during an outage. Keeping the company under private ownership just delays the inevitable Government bailout—essentially, us paying twice. I believe that the great privatisation experiment has failed in nearly every public service industry in which it has been tried. Some may call me ideological for this, but I point them to Thames Water as a case in point. We do not need a crystal ball, or even a referendum, to tell us that there would be overwhelming support for public ownership, so I ask the Minister: why has it not happened yet? Why has Thames Water not been put in special measures? Why will it not simply be brought under public ownership?

    Hansard source
22. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Barry Gardiner

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    I hope I do not shock my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies), who made an excellent speech in opening this debate, when I say that I do not want a referendum to bring the water industry back into public ownership. I just want Ministers to get on and do it. The Secretary of State has the power under the Water Industry Act 1991 to petition the High Court for any water company to lose its licence for either poor performance or insolvency. Poor performance? Discharging untreated sewage into our waterways across England and Wales 568,674 times in just one year—I call that poor performance. That is the reason that Ofwat and the Environment Agency have been imposing fines of more than £100 million a time on water companies. No river in England meets good chemical status, and only 14%—one in seven—achieve good ecological status overall. Section 94 of the Water Industry Act sets out that companies have a principal duty to provide sewerage systems. They also have a principal duty to comply with their statutory duties under regulation 4 of and schedule 2 to the Urban Waste Water Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994. The Secretary of State can apply to put a company into a special administration regime if it has contravened, or is likely to contravene, any principal duty. They have; she should. On insolvency, let us turn to Thames Water’s disservice of my constituency of Brent West. Under section 24 of the Act, the company can be taken into an SAR if it “is or is likely to be unable to pay its debts”. Thames Water’s gearing is 88%. Major pension funds have written off their £956 million stake in the company, and it has failed its licence obligation to maintain investment-grade status.

    Hansard source
23. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Barry Gardiner

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    No, I will not. The company’s credit rating is now junk status. The only way it claims it can pay its bills is if the regulator allows it not to do its job of meeting its environmental performance obligations. For goodness’ sake, we do not need a referendum. We need a Secretary of State who is prepared to use the legislation that was provided for the purpose of defending the public.

    Hansard source
24. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Barry Gardiner

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    I fully agree with all that the hon. Lady is saying. Does she find it strange that, although we talk about taking tough action against these companies —we talk about Thames Water’s £80 million rebate and the more than £100 million fine—it is not the investor who ends up paying that, but we the billpayers? Even then, it is not the companies’ investors who suffer; it is us.

    Hansard source
25. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Barry Gardiner

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    First, I reassure my hon. Friend that she is not an irritating Minister at all; I think she is generally held to be a very good Minister. Can I tempt her to enlarge slightly on what she said? When we talk about an SAR, people say, “Let’s start with Thames Water—it is the obvious one to start with.” Might the reason for the Minister’s hesitation to elaborate be that the Government are now looking much more holistically at what could be done with the whole water sector?

    Hansard source
26. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Bambos Charalambous

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. The current model for our water service is not working for customers and has not been working for quite some time. My constituents have watched their bills rise again and again while Thames Water falls further into debt and water bosses are rewarded with huge bonuses, despite failing to invest in critical infrastructure and allowing more sewage pollution into our rivers, lakes and streams. These failures in investment, infrastructure and environmental performance have undermined public confidence, and customers have been unable to take their business elsewhere, because the water companies operate through regional monopolies. I commend the Government for trying to tackle some of those issues, but tougher regulation is not enough to deal with a model that is fundamentally broken. Thames Water is in approximately £19 billion of debt, but the rescue deal on the table is a market-led recapitalisation by its creditors that will keep the failing private ownership model intact in exchange for environmental leniency. Water is an essential service and a natural monopoly, so it is reasonable to ask whether the interests of taxpayers are best served when the ownership of our water is determined by private investors. Bringing Thames Water into public ownership, either permanently or initially through a special administration regime, would allow the Government to write down debt on fairer terms than any creditor-led deal and to direct further revenue toward infrastructure and customers, rather than debt servicing and returns to shareholders. We must restore public confidence and end the era of profiting from pollution and prioritising shareholder returns over taxpayers. Our water services are too essential to be treated simply as another commercial asset. The water privatisation of the 1980s is a failed ideological experiment that has seen profits plundered into the pockets of hedge funds and offshore investors, while the sector has been starved of investment. Not a single reservoir has been built since 1992, and there has been under-investment in our antiquated pipes and overflowing sewerage system.

    Hansard source
27. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Bambos Charalambous

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    I support my hon. Friend 100%. We urgently need the infrastructure, because we have seen the impact of drought and the need for hosepipe bans as a result of not having the infrastructure in place. As I was saying, not a single reservoir has been built since 1992, and the underinvestment in our antiquated pipes and overflowing sewerage system is plain to see. This is not good enough. That is why public ownership is the only way forward, and why I urge the Government to put Thames Water back into public ownership as soon as possible.

    Hansard source
28. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Apsana Begum

    Battle of Cable Street: 90th anniversary

    It is an honour to lead this Adjournment debate. Let me say at the start that another colleague wants to speak, and I will take two very short interventions from Members I have had conversations with before the debate. Next month, on 4 October, thousands of people from east London will be marking the 90th anniversary of what is commonly known as the battle of Cable Street, when the Jewish community and allies stood together to march off Oswald Mosley and his blackshirts. The victory is held up today as a high water mark for so many causes, including anti-fascism, grassroots Jewish activism and cross-community solidarity. It echoes from 1936 to the present in so many ways. Antisemitism and hate crimes are again on the rise in Britain. Just last week, a man was charged after making a Nazi salute outside a synagogue. Of course, we must never forget the victims of the recent antisemitic attacks in north London—including the stabbings in Golders Green earlier this year—and the abhorrent Heaton Park terrorist attack a year ago, which took the lives of Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby. We are also seeing the return of far-right and racist agitators who seek, much like Mosely, to exploit the struggles of working-class people in this country and sow hatred, intolerance and division. In the UK, migrants and asylum seekers are a sharp target. The anti-migrant pogroms in Belfast were just one among many chilling incidents of racist violence in recent months.

    Hansard source
29. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Apsana Begum

    Battle of Cable Street: 90th anniversary

    The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct that communities must work with one another to deal with the challenges of our time—particularly the rise of racism and fascism, which we see across the world. Far-right parties are winning elections across western Europe, so we must look seriously and carefully at our own history and how we overcame those challenges in the past. Fascism was not defeated in Britain in a single day, but no day contributed as much as 4 October 1936. I am pleased that the Minister, a fellow London MP, is here, along with my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), in whose constituency Cable Street is now situated after the boundary changes in 2024. We are here to debate the 90th anniversary and understand how the battle came to be. By 1934, the British Union of Fascists was concentrating its efforts on building a menacing street movement in inner-city areas. In east London, the BUF had four large branches. Thousands of supporters were based in a diverse and economically struggling area, where the largest minorities were of Irish Catholic and east European Jewish heritage. About 100,000 Jews lived in east London, where shop signs were written in Yiddish and more than 100 synagogues and shtiebels were established. Fascists attempted to set Irish Catholic and Jewish communities against each other, accusing Jews of taking English jobs, smashing their market stalls and attacking and beating Jews returning from synagogue or from shopping. On 26 September 1936, Mosley announced his intention to march provocatively right through those Jewish neighbourhoods and hold rallies with his supporters, but within two days 100,000 signatures were collected by the Jewish People’s Council—a local grassroots campaign formed only that year—to petition the then Home Secretary for a ban on the march to “retain peaceable and amicable relations between all sections of East London’s population.” Local mayors and local MPs including one of my predecessors, the great Labour MP George Lansbury, handed in the petition, yet shockingly the then Home Secretary refused and instead decided to send 7,000 police officers to protect Mosley and the blackshirts. Just hours after the refusal was issued, the Jewish People’s Council began to distribute leaflets calling on citizens of London to make sure the fascist march would not take place. Far from being a spontaneous uprising, it took an extraordinary amount of effort to organise east London’s resistance. The Jewish People’s Council worked frantically to mobilise Jewish and non-Jewish communities locally, while Communist party, Independent Labour party and trade union branches all mobilised the area’s textile workers, dockers and railway workers.

    Hansard source
30. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Apsana Begum

    Battle of Cable Street: 90th anniversary

    The right hon. Member is correct. The debate is about recognising those really courageous, brave efforts. He speaks of his family’s contribution, as his parents were at the battle of Cable Street; over the years, I have spoken to him about his parents’ stories. By the time that the human blockade was formed, tens of thousands of protesters had gathered at Gardiner’s corner at Aldgate, hugely outnumbering the 4,000 fascists and their 7,000-strong police protection. It is important to remember that younger anti-fascists—children as young as 12—acted as runners delivering messages and directing for reinforcements. Far too often overlooked is the role of women, who leafleted and organised workers in the run-up to the march and in their thousands defended barricades on the day. To clear a path for the fascists, the police brutalised protesters with truncheons and attempted to charge their horses through their path. Hundreds of Jews and anti-fascists engaging in self-defence were seriously injured or arrested, and later accused by the police of having instigated the violence. Police were unable to force their entry via Aldgate or Whitechapel after huge confrontations there and eventually closed in on Cable Street. They broke through the first barrier at Cable Street, but fierce resistance pushed them back. By late afternoon, Mosley was instructed to retreat westwards. The police withdrew, and that evening celebrations erupted across the east end of London. As the daughter of migrants who moved to east London, I feel it is all too important to consider how community solidarity and resistance continued in the aftermath. The BUF did not disappear overnight, but anti-fascists were able to build on the battle to form a confident and united mass movement in the east end of London. Leafleting and public campaigning took place to keep out Mosley’s fascists in local elections held five months later, while initiatives such as the Stepney Tenants Defence League were pivotal in uniting the Irish and Jewish communities that Mosley had attempted to divide. Jews stood with Irish Catholics, and vice versa, against evictions and exploitation by landlords. They made it clear that their struggle was a class struggle, and this cut away at the remaining support for the BUF’s antisemitic politics in east London. For me and for anti-racists across east London and far beyond, this is an enduring inspiration. Many of those present spoke movingly about the cross-community solidarity that they saw at Cable Street that day. They included people such as Charlie Goodman. Charlie was arrested at Cable Street and after three months in prison went on to fight for the republicans in Spain. He spoke of the “Orthodox Jews with long silk coats and soft felt hats and the sidepieces standing shoulder to shoulder with Irish Catholics, dockers and Somali seamen…they all felt there was a need to be out there to stand on that particular day.” In other words, they knew that an injury to one was an injury to all. This, too, is how subsequent generations of east-enders have united in the face of hostile racist threats. Indeed, in the decades after Cable Street, east London’s Bangladeshi community, especially its youth movements and socialist and trade unionist allies, mobilised in response to the racially motivated murder of a 25-year-old textile worker, Altab Ali, in 1978. A huge demonstration marched Altab Ali’s coffin to Downing Street to demand their rights, while Bangladeshis and anti-racists together organised night patrols to protect communities from neo-Nazi threats. In the 1990s, communities on the Isle of Dogs in my constituency came together to confront the British National party. Trade unionists, the Bangladeshi community and allies once again organised huge demonstrations and mobilised across communities to challenge the BNP’s support base. Ahead of the 75th anniversary of the battle of Cable Street, the English Defence League was marched off Whitechapel, and even more recently the United Kingdom Independence party failed in its attempt to drive a crusade towards mosques last October and in its provocations again in January this year. Generation after generation of east-enders have had to confront attempts to divide our neighbours, to target, attack and intimidate them and to spread fear in our communities. As the historian, educator and author David Rosenberg has often reminded us, the anti-fascists at the battle of Cable Street did not have a blueprint, but they left us one with their sheer courage. As difficult as this may be for some, we must also pay attention to the catastrophically poor decisions from the police and political establishment at the time. The shameful decisions of the then Home Secretary amounted to tacit consent for the fascist assault in east London. His mounted police cracked skulls and arrested scores of protesters, some of whom received custodial sentences with hard labour for defending themselves and their communities. Six fascists were arrested, compared with 79 anti-fascists. Others, including the then Labour leadership, urged members to stay away from Cable Street that day. However, rank and file members, trade unionists and grassroots socialists all saw the necessity of defeating the blackshirts and continued to organise and mobilise. The victory at Cable Street has been memorialised in the iconic Cable Street mural, a major piece of public art unveiled in 1983 on the wall of the former St George’s town hall. It depicts a chaotic scene of mass resistance and street battles, and is itself a grassroots piece of cultural resistance with its own fascinating history. I would like to know whether the Government will be working to protect that cultural heritage, particularly as it has, sadly, been vandalised numerous times. I know that, unlike in 1936, the Government have invested resources into building community cohesion and inter-faith activities in my borough of Tower Hamlets, and I am pleased that my local council, along with local voluntary organisations, have been awarded Common Ground resilience funds to build social connections across communities, complementing numerous initiatives from the Mayor of London. Next month, on 4 October, east London will be standing together. Trade unionists, Jews, Muslims, Bangladeshis, Somalis, socialists and many thousands more will be at Cable Street once again to mark the history, legacy and values of all those brave people who stood together 90 years ago to say, “No pasarán! They shall not pass!” Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to them and to the organising committee, including the Jewish Socialists’ Group, who have done so much to immortalise the legacy of Cable Street, and tell us how the Government will honour the legacy of Cable Street and the anti-fascists of the day as we confront the rising antisemitism, racism and division of today? As my friend Rabbi Herschel Gluck OBE said: “Cable Street isn’t just a place on the map. It’s a concept. It’s an idea. The message of Cable Street is that we must never let evil pass.”

    Hansard source
31. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Antonia Bance

    Speciality Steel UK

    I welcome the direction that the Secretary of State has set out today. Wednesbury Bright Bar is part of Speciality Steel UK. It is a specialist steel-finishing plant that produces precision-engineered bright steel bar in the heart of the UK metal-finishing industry area. It is used for automotive and advanced manufacturing across the Black Country and beyond. This is not primary steel production, and it will need a clear strategy separate from that for the primary steel production, which is the business in Rotherham, in Stocksbridge and elsewhere in the country. What specific consideration will the Secretary of State give to securing the long-term future of Wednesbury Bright Bar as part of work towards the public acquisition of Speciality Steel UK, and how will this support the skills, jobs and manufacturing supply chains across the west midlands and beyond?

    Hansard source
32. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Anna Dixon

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening this petition debate so well and for representing the petitioners and campaigners here today. My constituency of Shipley is fortunate to be home to two beautiful rivers: the Aire and the Wharfe, where people walk, exercise, enjoy nature and spend time with family and friends. The rivers should contribute enormously to residents’ quality of life, but from Bingley to Burley in Wharfedale, residents are afraid to let their children paddle or swim in the rivers because of the health risks created by the illegal dumping of human waste. Just last summer, one of my constituents in Bingley, a boy of seven, was left fighting for his life with E. coli poisoning. He suffered multiple organ failure, and he needed emergency operations and kidney dialysis to beat the infection. It is absolutely disgraceful that, so much time after the first tragic death that was vividly depicted in a Channel 4 documentary, private companies are still allowed to abuse our rivers and put profit before people and nature. Why are we in this terrible situation? As others have said, in 1989, the Tory Government did what no other country has done—there is no international precedent for this—and put the stewardship of our most precious natural resource into the hands of private companies. We were told that private ownership would bring investment, efficiency and innovation. Instead, we have seen rising debt, rising bills and more pollution in our rivers. It is claimed that there is no evidence that public ownership leads to better outcomes, yet in Paris, where there has been remunicipalisation, there has been improved service quality and water quality, and a reduction in price. In fact, water bills in Paris are about a third lower than they are for my constituents under Yorkshire Water. We must act now to prevent further harm being done to children like the boy in my constituency by the likes of Yorkshire Water and Thames Water. I join others in urging the Government to put Thames Water into special administration and to be bold in bringing forward a water reform Bill that goes beyond the Cunliffe commission and sets out a legal framework that will enable us to build back a publicly owned water sector.

    Hansard source
33. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy McDonald

    Israel and Palestine

    I will confine my remarks to the subject of Israel and Palestine, and I declare my interest as co-chair of the all-party group on Britain-Palestine. I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement of 8 September, and particularly the Government having now made it clear that their official position is that Israel’s occupation of Palestine is unlawful—it is illegal. That is an important change, and it at long last brings the United Kingdom into line with the International Court of Justice 2024 advisory opinion, but, as the Minister said, the court’s conclusion was rooted in Israel’s entrenchment of its control, its clear intention to extend permanent sovereignty, and its expansionist settlement agenda. It is also welcome that the Foreign Secretary acknowledged the increasing evidence identified by bodies, including the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry, that war crimes appear to have been committed in Gaza, and we support the appropriate legal processes to establish responsibility for those crimes. On genocide, I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to full, robust and fair judicial processes, with final determinations made by competent courts, but the UK does not need to wait for a final determination before acting. The UN commission of inquiry stated in September 2025 that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and that state parties to the genocide convention had been on notice of a serious risk of genocide since at least January 2024. That serious risk itself triggers a duty to prevent genocide. The UK must therefore recognise that risk and act now: ending political, financial and military support that contributes to it; sanctioning those most implicated; committing to execute International Criminal Court arrest warrants; and supporting South Africa’s case at the ICJ. I welcome the Government’s commitment to refuse arms licences where exports materially contribute to the unlawful occupation, but the Foreign Secretary did not clearly confirm when I asked during last week’s statement whether existing licences will be cancelled where they meet that test. Will the Minister confirm that the new double lock will apply to existing licences, and set out the criteria by which the Government will determine whether an export contributes to the occupation? Colleagues will wish to know whether British arms exports currently available for the IDF in the west bank will no longer be licensed. I welcome the proposed sanctions on goods and services linked to illegal settlements I very much welcome that in the context of the previous ridiculous position of properties being marketed in this city for sale in the west bank. When that was raised, the wholly inappropriate response was to send in the Advertising Standards Authority, so I welcome the movement on that by Front Benchers. Will the Government confirm that these measures will cover all settlements, including existing settlements, that the ban on goods will apply to exports as well as imports, and that there will be no “re-export to settlements” clauses in contracts, as modelled on the guidance issued in respect of Russia? Finally, I sincerely hope that this reset will be furthered and sustained, as only by doing so can the commitment to a two-state solution be truly achieved.

    Hansard source
34. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Andy McDonald

    Israel and Palestine

    The Minister is setting out the criteria around the crime of genocide, but would she accept that the duty actually bites when the risk of genocide is known, not at the determination of legal processes? That is when the United Kingdom has a duty to act. I welcome the steps that have been taken thus far.

    Hansard source
35. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alistair Strathern

    Topical Questions

    T9. Shockingly, 16 to 19-year-olds face higher rates of domestic abuse than any other age group. With the worst corners of the internet peddling increasingly extreme attitudes to them around sex and relationships, surely we owe them better. That is why my private Member’s Bill builds on the inspiring campaigner Faustine Petron’s work to make it mandatory to ensure that young people up to the age of 18 have healthy spaces to explore these issues in school and at college. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how we can make that vision a reality?

    Hansard source
36. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alex Sobel

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    My hon. Friend is making an excellent argument. In 2025, our regional water company, Yorkshire Water, discharged untreated sewage into our regional waters for 285,000 hours. Does he agree that that shows the failure of the private sector?

    Hansard source
37. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alex Sobel

    Israel and Palestine

    I know of constituents who have moved from Israel to Leeds because of the actions of the Israeli Government, and who applaud what we have done in banning Israeli settlement goods and services. Many of us stand squarely behind international law and human rights, and commend the Minister and the Foreign Secretary for their actions.

    Hansard source
38. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alex Mayer

    Select Committee Chairs: Period of Leave

    I was somewhat confused about the concept that after the period of seven months had elapsed the decision was then given to the Chair of the Liaison Committee, when the Speaker would have already deemed that that individual was entitled to leave from the House generally. I wonder whether the Leader of the House could provide clarification on why that decision was taken.

    Hansard source
39. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Alex Ballinger

    Israel and Palestine

    Can I raise the “NAZA” film that was recently shown at the Venice film festival? It talks about the targeting systems that the IDF used in Gaza, and where it had specifically waited for Hamas fighters to return home so it could target them in a place they knew, but with huge civilian casualties. One whistleblower suggested that 500 civilians were killed in a strike on a single Hamas target. To give a UK example, something similar happened against three former British servicemen at the World Central Kitchen. Could the Minister reflect on that documentary and how we will get accountability for those former British servicemen who were killed with this awful targeting system?

    Hansard source
40. 14 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Afzal Khan

    Water Sector: Public Ownership

    My constituents in Manchester Rusholme have seen a £57 increase this year, yet it is safe to say that there has been very little to show for it. Just last week, United Utilities had to pay a further £900,000 in fines for dumping raw sewage. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must treat water reform as a strategic priority to tackle the cost of living crisis as well as the crisis in our waterways?

    Hansard source