Water Sector: Public Ownership
I call Becky Gittins. [Interruption.] Sorry, I have the wrong name on my list. I call Sarah Hall.
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Water Sector: Public Ownership
I apologise again to the hon. Lady. I call Darren Paffey, I think.
- Hansard source
Water Sector: Public Ownership
I thank the hon. Gentleman and all Back-Bench speakers for managing a very restrictive time limit.
- Hansard source
Water Sector: Public Ownership
Order. The hon. Gentleman has made it perfectly clear he is not giving way. All points of view in this debate must be heard, and heard respectfully. If the shadow Minister is not giving way, there is little point in continuing to bob unless he changes his mind.
- Hansard source
Water Sector: Public Ownership
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to everyone who has spoken. I also thank those in the Public Gallery for attending this evening. I know some of you had to be patient to wait for a seat, so thank you for that. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 762640 relating to a referendum on public ownership of the water sector.
- Hansard source
Speciality Steel UK
We know that Speciality Steel has been severely impacted by high electricity costs, and we know just what that means from people in Scunthorpe, the constituency next to mine, which is a very heavy user of electricity. They are paying 50% more for their electricity than is being paid in France, for instance. However, the Government insist on phasing out the blast furnaces. Once we have electric arcs in Scunthorpe, people there will have to use twice as much electricity, paying much more. Does the Secretary of State agree that we cannot reindustrialise Britain simply through public ownership, but must reduce our energy costs? Will he take steps, over the next year or two, not to worry about green energy and all that, but just to reduce our energy costs to a level roughly equivalent to that in France?
- Hansard source
Student Loans
I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks regarding the Prime Minister’s father. Despite the Secretary of State previously calling the student loan system “egregious” and saying that reviewing that system was a top priority—she has just said that it is at the top of her in-tray—the Treasury’s response to the Treasury Committee rejected a series of recommendations that would have alleviated some of the burden on those on plan 2 student loans. What exactly is the Secretary of State’s plan to fix the student loan system?
- Hansard source
Pupils with SEND: Mainstream Schools
Six months ago, the previous Secretary of State revealed the Government’s plan to carry out SEND reforms. Since then, we have had a new Prime Minister and a new Secretary of State, who last week stated her intention to carry out those reforms. Yet there has been little detail on how the Government will fill the £2 billion black hole in the SEND budget, despite fiscal pressures on the Government continuing to increase, as we all know. When will the legislation come to the House, and where will the money come from? Parents, teachers and children deserve answers.
- Hansard source
Young People not in Education, Employment or Training
I thank the Secretary of State for her commitment to this issue, and the hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) for his focus on maths. On Friday, I visited Allerton Steel, a steel fabricator in Northallerton. That business does a great job of providing high-quality apprenticeships for young people every year, regardless of the cycle, and I was lucky to meet David, Oliver and Jacob—it was wonderful to see their passion and excitement about their futures. Will the Secretary of State join me in wishing them well, but also commend businesses such as Allerton Steel and the local companies up and down the country that are ultimately the ones providing these opportunities for our young people?
- Hansard source
Sovereign Grant Bill
I thank the Minister for his speech. This follows a recent debate on ways and means that his colleague the Exchequer Secretary had with my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild). I do not wish to repeat the points that were made on that occasion. His Majesty’s official Opposition are supportive of this Bill. As the Minister laid out, the 2011 settlement has run its course; it did well for its time, but some aspects of it were due for reconsideration. As he said, the recent significant programme of upgrades to royal residences for public purposes has now reached its conclusion—I think this year is the final year of the additional funds—so it is timely for us to look for a change in structure. I thank the Minister’s colleague the Exchequer Secretary, because on the 11th of this month, he wrote in reply to questions from my colleague, answering questions about some of the points that we may get into in detailed consideration of the Bill. One of the substantial changes of principle in this Bill is that the ongoing ratchets that were effectively put in place by the 2011 Act have essentially become a backstop of £99.9 million. In his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) about potential variability, the Minister has given us some confidence about the ability to plan; we know that there will not be an absolute reduction. However, questions remain about extraordinary circumstances in which the Treasury would be able to reduce the settlement in any one year. I think that the Liberal Democrats will be asking that question in reverse—about changes to the percentage that may occur—but those are matters that we can discuss in Committee. His Majesty’s official Opposition recognise the tremendous work that His Majesty the King and the royal family do on behalf of our nation. We understand the power that that provides our nation with in our international relations, and the comfort that it gives to the people of this nation, and we support the Second Reading of this Bill.
- Hansard source
Sovereign Grant Bill
I thank the Minister for his clear exposition of the Bill’s clauses. He emphasised the importance of the 2026 royal trustees’ review. The interesting thing is that it is their forecast of their needs over the next five years on which a lot of the mechanism rests. Notwithstanding some comments made by Government Back Benchers, a lot of the intention of the Bill is about financial restrictions on expenditure, rather than there being excess expenditure in the future. I am grateful for the Minister’s letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper); in his summing up, will the Minister give a bit more comfort and clarity on some of those matters? If I am right, the £99.9 million is the estimate of what is required this year, based on a review of what the forecast requirements may be through to 2031-32. Will the Minister explain how those financial assessments were made? What discount rate was used to work out what the estimates might be? I am not questioning it, and I do not need a precise figure; what I am looking for is some comfort from the Minister that he feels that those financial projections, that model and the work of the trustees give him adequate confidence in the baseline of £99.9 million. That leads, in turn, to why we have 20.5% variability over the next five years. In the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway, I was also interested to hear about the use of other income. In his letter, the Minister said: “The Household forecasts that this income will increase by around 25% over the review period, based on recent performance, detailed modelling and increased visitor capacity… If income were lower than forecast, there is no expectation that the Grant would increase above £99.9 million per year.” Can the Minister confirm that, essentially, the other income is being treated as supplementary to what we see as the duty of the sovereign grant? I would be grateful to the Minister for reconfirming what he put in his letter. In clause 3, I am interested in proposed new section 6(5) to the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, stating that the reserve fund will be: “no lower than 10% and no higher than 50%”. What is of interest there is the duty to change the amount of the sovereign grant. There is an issue about to what extent that reserve, at 10% to 50%, is going to cover reasonable expectations of expense. That gets to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway made earlier about long-term plans. If significant capital expenditures are due, then the reserve, by its very nature, will be quite variable during the period. I would like some comfort from the Minister that the range of 10% to 50%—which sounds, on face value, to be reasonable—was correct in the modelling. There is just one slight concern about the Treasury’s thinking on this. When my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) asked about powers to adjust the grant between reviews and the circumstances in which they might be used, the answer from the Treasury was: “These powers are intended for exceptional circumstances and are not expected to be used routinely”, which, of course, is the definition of exceptional. However, the letter does then go on to talk about major fire, flood and so on, saying that in those circumstances, “Any adjustment would require Parliamentary approval through secondary legislation.” Could the Minister advise on whether or not that approval will be subject to the affirmative procedure? I think that other Members may want to raise that as well.
- Hansard source
Sovereign Grant Bill
I thank the Minister for presenting the Bill, but most importantly I thank His Majesty the King for his gracious service, on behalf of all Members of this House and all people of this country and the territories and nations overseas. I hope that he will use the sovereign grant as wisely and sagaciously as his governance over us allows. I support the Bill.
- Hansard source
Young People not in Education, Employment or Training
The Government continue to point the finger at schools for the number of those not in education, employment or training, when that is one area that is performing comparatively well. Meanwhile, in Labour-led Wales, which ignored the Conservative Government’s education reforms, school standards have fallen and the NEETs crisis is even worse than in England. Why are the Government blaming schools for NEETs when the bigger problem is the collapse of entry-level jobs for young people?
- Hansard source
Safe Reopening of Mount Batten Beach and Peninsula
Along with almost 1,700 signatures from a similar online petition, I present this petition of residents from across Plymouth, Plymstock and the rest of my South West Devon constituency about the ongoing closure of Mount Batten beach and peninsula. This important city beach, accessible by public transport and used by thousands, has been closed since 10 July 2026, when significantly high levels of asbestos fibres were discovered in the sand. Fencing has been erected around the entire area. Since then, over 140 local residents have attended a meeting to raise their concerns about what this closure means for the local community, including businesses located at the beach, and campaigners have continued speaking out about the need to find a way to reopen the beach. The petition calls on Plymouth City council and the Government to do all they can to ensure that measures be taken to see the beach safely reopened and safeguarded for future generations. The fight continues. Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of South West Devon and the surrounding area, Declares that the continued closure of Mount Batten Beach peninsula is having a significant impact on local residents, sea swimmers, watersports users, businesses and the wider community; further declares that residents want to see the site reopened safely as soon as possible; further notes that specialist expertise is required to identify the source of the asbestos contamination and determine the steps needed to enable the safe reopening of the site. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government and Plymouth City Council to do whatever it takes to secure the necessary specialist expertise as soon as possible, provide the community with clear answers on the next steps, and work at pace towards the safe reopening of Mount Batten Beach and peninsula. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003237]
- Hansard source
Curriculum and Assessment Review
Over the weekend, the Secretary of State backtracked on an interview she gave to The Observer where she said she wanted to reintroduce coursework. For the record, we were very pleased to hear that, but in the same interview she made a number of other commitments, including reducing the number of exams that children take at age 16 and introducing a GCSE in football coaching. Which of those commitments does she still stand by?
- Hansard source
Proposed Leicester City Council Boundary Expansion
In the Government’s own consultation about the expansion of Leicester, nine out of 10 people said that they were against it. Now, with millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money wasted so far, Ministers are having to do a complete reworking of this whole chaotic, undemocratic process, amid accusations of gerrymandering. Despite this, the Mayor of Leicester and the Government want to press on regardless. Local people do not want this, so I present this petition, which is part of a county-wide petition that has gained 40,000 signatures. I would like to thank everyone who signed it. We are making progress. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to halt and reconsider any proposals for the expansion of Leicester City Council's boundaries, and to ensure that the views of local residents are fully considered before any changes are implemented, thereby protecting the character, identity and independence of the aforementioned communities. And the petitioners remain, etc.” And I agree. Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Harborough, Oadby & Wigston, Declares that the petitioners oppose any proposal to extend the boundaries of Leicester City Council in a manner that would incorporate the communities of Great Glen, Wistow, Newton Harcourt and Little Stretton into the City of Leicester; and further declares that these communities possess distinct identities, histories and local governance arrangements, and that any boundary changes which remove them from their existing district and parish structures would undermine local representation and community cohesion. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to halt and reconsider any proposals for the expansion of Leicester City Council's boundaries, and to ensure that the views of local residents are fully considered before any changes are implemented, thereby protecting the character, identity and independence of the aforementioned communities. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003239]
- Hansard source
Israel and Palestine
Order. After the next speaker, I will have to impose a speaking limit to get in the remaining 10 people in the next hour. Please bear that in mind, if you have to correct your speeches.
- Hansard source
Israel and Palestine
As a result of the interlude, Back Benchers are now on a five-minute speaking limit.
- Hansard source
Israel and Palestine
Members who made a speech should make the effort to return to the Chamber to hear the shadow Minister and the Minister speak, so no doubt they will be rushing in. I believe it is the Minister’s debut at the Dispatch Box —I wish her well.
- Hansard source
Speciality Steel UK
In his reference to the wider steel industry in his statement, the Secretary of State mentioned Scunthorpe. He knows that I have consistently supported the Government in the actions they have taken to keep the works going. I think he is a little too eager to criticise the previous Government; I gently remind him that for about 18 months they paid the wages and the bills at Scunthorpe to keep the jobs there. I appreciate that we get written statements, but when does he anticipate being able to come to the House and give an oral statement about the future of Scunthorpe?
- Hansard source
Israel and Palestine
I was unable to attend the House last week when the Foreign Secretary made his statement on Israel and Palestine, so I wanted to take this opportunity to put on record my support for what he proposed. On the day of the announcement, I tuned into Radio 4’s “Six o’clock News”. Included in the headlines was a sentence from what the Foreign Secretary had said. Also broadcast were some of the comments made by the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), when he, too, supported what the Foreign Secretary said. He added how much he admired the Jewish people and their faith, but deeply regretted what is happening on the west bank. It is in that context that I make clear that I share my right hon. Friend’s views of the Jewish people. He said he was a Conservative Friend of Israel. I, too, put myself in that category. My criticisms are of the Israeli Government. After the appalling events of 7 October, it was inevitable that there would be a response from the Israelis, and rightly so, but tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed, many of them children. Surely, it would have been possible to target the leaders of Hamas without the loss of those innocent Palestinian lives? I can understand the determination of Israel to take an extremely robust approach to defending itself, when there are those in the region who want to wipe the country from the face of the map. Its actions in that respect are justified, but I ask the Israeli Government why that involves repeated violations of international law. If the international community seriously believes in a two-state solution, we need to call out Israeli policy for what it is: action to prevent that ever happening.
- Hansard source
Israel and Palestine
I was aware that Ministers in Israel had indicated that. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As I say, if the international community is serious in its support of a two-state solution, it needs to call out the fact that Israel is deliberately implementing policies to thwart that. I can understand and fully support Israel as the home of the Jewish people. They should therefore recognise the desire for the Palestinian people to have their own homeland. When I was elected in 2010, my focus was entirely on my constituency. I was determined to earn myself a second term. During the five years of the coalition Government, if memory serves me correctly, I undertook just two foreign trips. I was mindful of the fact that the Israel-Palestine issue might well come to the fore and that I might have to make a decision on it, so I travelled to Israel. My first visit was actually to Gaza. Interestingly enough, when we got to the border we had a call from the consulate in Jerusalem advising us not to cross the border, but having got that far, we were determined and insisted on crossing over. I witnessed the tragedy of what the residents there had to face—it is much worse now, of course—and the events I witnessed had a considerable impact on how I viewed this seemingly never-ending dispute. In October 2014, I was one of 39 Conservative Members who supported a motion to recognise Palestine. Sadly, only three of those Conservatives remain, one of whom, the Father of the House, I mentioned earlier. I appreciate that to some extent it is only symbolic, but nevertheless it is extremely important. Returning to last week’s announcement, how effective it will be remains to be seen. One thing is certain: public opinion is broadly supportive. The views expressed in my inbox, and by those who visit my surgery to raise the issue, are most certainly critical of Israel—I should be more specific and say the Israeli Government. One particular constituent I have in mind is so passionate about the issue—she comes to see me on repeat occasions—that she will be absolutely delighted. Though I say to the House, as I said to my constituent, who regularly travels to London to take part in the many demonstrations, and contrary to the views expressed by a Member earlier, I do not think that the continued demonstrations are actually beneficial to the Palestinian cause. Israel is an ally, a democracy and a nation that, as I said at the outset, has every right to exist and to defend itself. I fully support that, but its Government need to recognise that they are losing further support. If they continue with their illegal acts, that will only continue.
- Hansard source
SEND: Cross-Government Work
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her return to the Cabinet. The two main points that parents of children with SEND in my constituency would make to her in her new role concern the time that it takes for the education, health and care plans to be decided, and the number of specialist school places that are available both in Shropshire and in Telford and Wrekin. What plans has she to improve the position, and to intervene when local authorities are not performing?
- Hansard source
Speciality Steel UK
There is a central inconsistency in the Secretary of State’s argument. He talks about steel as a strategic asset, and I of course agree with that, but so are oil and gas, yet the Government do not seem to be coming forward with any proposals on that sector. He mentioned in his oral statement that the Government are going to pay this from “existing Government budgets”, but in answer to a question, he said that the money would possibly “fall on the Exchequer”, so how much is this going to cost? He also mentioned that he would prefer for the business to remain in the private sector, which is encouraging to hear, so does he have an indicative timetable for when it might go back on the market and be sold?
- Hansard source
Israel and Palestine
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. We have had a good debate, and I want to single out a number of contributions to it. I apologise to those who have not made the list, but I am slightly time-constrained. The hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) called on the Government to go further and include F-35s in the sanctions programme. The hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) gave us his personal experience as a kibbutznik; he has seen peaceful co-existence, and that should give us some hope. The hon. Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) made an extremely powerful and well-informed speech. He created balance in our debate, and I applaud his moral courage in doing so. The hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) rightly reminded us of the unspeakable actions of Hamas on 7 October, and expressed what I believe is a view held widely across the House on settlers and settler violence. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) again brought personal experience to our debate, including of visiting Gaza. The hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) spoke of the extraordinary danger faced by journalists and aid workers trying to do their work in Gaza. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) ranged widely in his speech, and I was pleased to hear him refer to the unacceptability and absence of religious hate speech on the many marches he has attended. The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley)—quite rightly, in my view—put his contribution in the context of the elections in Israel. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) brought a healthy dose of reality and realism to our proceedings. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), while welcoming the Government’s recent moves, called on them to go further and faster, as did many Members from across the House. Finally, the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) chose her words incredibly carefully when she described the Government’s approach as being “close to getting the balance right”. Naturally, this conflict holds interest for many people, both inside this House and outside. We cannot forget the harm that both British Jews and Muslims have suffered because of this conflict, and no conflict in another part of the world should be allowed to feed hatred at home. The Conservative party believes that settlements are not helpful to the aim of long-term peace. We urge Israel not to take steps that could make a two-state solution more difficult, and to use its legal system to clamp down on settler violence. I believe that, across the House, there is general consensus that there should be a two-state solution that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. However, His Majesty’s Opposition believe that, in banning goods from Israeli settlements, the Government are enacting a policy that they know will not work. Just 13 weeks ago, two Ministers—the right hon. Members for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), and for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant)—wrote to the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee rejecting this very policy, because the economies of Palestine and Israel are too interconnected. The fear is that innocent Palestinians and Israelis will suffer as a result. We must avoid performative actions, and instead use what influence we have. That is why the banning of goods, which led to the closure of the British consulate, is so unhelpful. Foreign policy cannot be detached from security policy and decisions. Israel is one of our most important intelligence partners, and co-operation has helped protect British citizens from terrorist attack and hostile activity over many years. Indeed, we continue to share security concerns about Iranian activity and regional instability, making intelligence co-operation strategically important. While we welcome the Israeli intelligence services giving us assurances that that information sharing will continue, the fact that this was put into question in the first place is troubling. To finish, I have a number of questions for the Minister. It was revealed last week that the Prime Minister had not yet spoken to Prime Minister Netanyahu since taking office. If we are not even talking to the Israelis at the most senior level, how are we supposed to influence Israeli policy in the west bank? The Government cannot simultaneously say that they want to influence Israel and then weaken the channels through which they can do so. Can the Minister explain how a ban on trade with settlements would be implemented in practice, and whether the Government have assessed claims that such a move could amount to a de facto boycott of Israel? There is no way to stop the British flow of goods into settlements without banning trade with Israel more broadly. Is that under consideration? Finally, 25% of pharmaceuticals used in the UK are reportedly made in Israel. Has the Foreign Secretary braced himself for potential retaliation, and what message does he give the British people who are worried about delays to essential medications? If we go by the track record of the House, this will, quite rightly, not be the last time we debate Israel and Palestine. My only hope is that when we next do, we take a similar tone to the one we took tonight.
- Hansard source
SEND Specialists: Schools
I speak to many families in Broxbourne who are struggling with the SEND system. Unfortunately, until there are more SEND school places, they will continue to struggle, as children with SEND need to be in the right educational setting. What is the Department doing to create more SEND school places for families today, as they are needed now, not in the future?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
On behalf of my party, may I send our condolences to the Prime Minister on the death of his father? I want to ask the Secretary of State a very simple question. Does she think it is acceptable for young girls to be required to wear a hijab to school as part of their school uniform?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
I am delighted by that answer. Thank you. This is not a hypothetical situation. A school in Barnet that has recently become state funded says that it is compulsory for girls as young as seven to cover their heads as part of the uniform. Given the Secretary of State’s very welcome repudiation of this, will she intervene to stop the school’s policy?
- Hansard source
Water Sector: Public Ownership
My constituents want clean rivers, reliable water, functioning sewerage infrastructure and value for money. What they want is not necessarily a change in the ownership of water companies, but proper regulation, proper investment and proper accountability. Thames Water lost 136 litres per property per day in 2024-25—the worst performance in England and Wales—and South East Water, which also covers my constituency, lost almost 106 litres per customer per day. How can we ask customers to conserve water, as we have been doing over the past few months, when Thames Water and South East Water are losing so much of it? Likewise, sewage discharges, especially those into the River Wey in my constituency, are disgraceful, although we know about them only because the previous Conservative Government started measuring them.
- Hansard source
Water Sector: Public Ownership
I am afraid I do not know every word in the 2024 Labour manifesto, but I believe that a lot of what the hon. Gentleman is saying is in it, and I would encourage him to ask the Minister those very questions. I have joined the River Wey Trust for water testing, and I know that Thames Water is now undertaking phosphorus removal upgrades at the Farnham treatment works serving my constituency. However, a key question I want to ask the Minister is, will they be delivered in a timely manner? On infrastructure, when I last met Thames Water representatives, they told me it had inaccurate records for around 30% of its infrastructure. How can a modern water company properly manage its network if it does not even know what infrastructure it has? South East Water provides drinking water for the majority of my constituency, and it has received a £22.5 million Ofwat fine, yet leaks in my constituency take weeks to be sorted. Those are symptoms of an ageing network that requires proper investment and maintenance, and that is not cost-free. Nationalisation does not repair pipes, make treatment works cheaper or remove the need for investment; it transfers the financial risk—potentially £100 billion—to taxpayers, and it still requires regulation, which is clearly failing at the moment. I draw the attention of right hon. and hon. Members to what has happened to South Western Railway since it was nationalised: cancellations are up, trains are shorter and delays have doubled. Why would my constituents believe that the nationalisation of water would be any more successful than this Government’s nationalisation of the railways?
- Hansard source
Water Sector: Public Ownership
I will not, because lots of other people want to speak—I apologise. My constituents are not asking whether the water companies are private or public; they are asking why their water company loses water through leaks, allows sewage into the River Wey and sometimes struggles even to maintain basic infrastructure. Is not the real test of this Government whether they can force these companies to perform better, as they promised in their manifesto, rather than simply changing their ownership? The choice is not between doing nothing and nationalisation. The challenge is to ensure that we have strong regulation, proper investment and real consequences for failure, without putting the bill on the taxpayer.
- Hansard source
Water Sector: Public Ownership
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I start by offering our sincere condolences to the Prime Minister on the very sad passing of his father. He and his family are in our thoughts and prayers. I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening the debate and congratulate him on his powerful contribution. We heard many powerful contributions from across the House. Normally at this point, as the shadow Minister responding, I would put my lifejacket on, get in a canoe and start paddling round everyone’s constituencies. However, so many Members have spoken today that I would use up my entire time allocation by name-checking every one, so I will just thank everyone for their powerful contributions and for speaking on behalf of their constituents to raise issues about the unacceptable behaviour and performance of many of the water companies. Every family, household or business uses water. We all need it. It is a life-giving, essential resource. We all have an intrinsic interest in water: how much we pay for it, what services we receive, the performance of our local water company, and the sustainability and future of our water supply. The petition we are debating today reached over 208,000 signatures. I thank all those petitioners and the more than 300 people in my Epping Forest constituency who signed it and expressed their clear dissatisfaction with the current state of our water sector. For too long, customers have seen water companies in the news for the wrong reasons: from awful environmental pollution spills to unacceptable water outages affecting tens of thousands of consumers. In fact, during this summer’s extreme heat in August, many thousands of people and properties in my constituency of Epping Forest, including in Loughton, Chigwell, Buckhurst Hill, and Epping, were left completely without water for up to a week, let down by Thames Water because of burst pipes and failing infrastructure. Vulnerable constituents were left in distress; homes were without water, with people unable to flush their toilets or bathe; parents were left without water to make up bottles for their babies; and livestock owners were panicking over getting water to their animals. Communication and logistics from Thames Water were very poor. Priority service customers were openly saying that they had been told they would not receive any bottled water, despite being priority customers to whom companies have specific duties. As we have heard across the House today, the response by Thames Water in many situations has been wholly unacceptable. Bottled water was provided in too few locations that were not convenient to get to outside Epping Forest, and those who could get there faced agonisingly long queues in the scorching summer heat. It happened in the hottest week of the year. Other locations that did become available in my constituency either ran out of bottled water or were closed early. To add insult to injury, that all took place in the context of the news of Thames Water’s new chief financial officer receiving a £1 million welcome package. My constituents and constituents across the country rightly ask how that can be justified when Thames Water failed to provide basic services while bills continue to rise. A staggering hike of a 36% has already been greenlit by the water regulator for 2025 to 2030, and there is more to come following the announcement over the summer. I know that my constituents and those who have faced water outages across the country would be grateful if the Minister could explain what steps she is taking to ensure that water companies step up to the plate and properly prepare for such crises, so that our constituents are not left in such distressing circumstances again. It is a pleasure to serve opposite the Minister, as I have in a number of debates and Bill Committees, and I know that she is genuinely engaged in this matter. I raised those issues with her over the summer, and I hope she can take it forward and listen to the voices of our constituents in these important matters. In rural and semi-rural areas, we must not forget that water is also vital for livestock such as farm animals, horses and ponies, and I declare an interest here as a veterinary surgeon. As an illustration, a 500 kg horse needs around 25 litres of water a day—that is not on a hot day—and a lactating dairy cow needs upwards of 100 litres. I assure hon. Members that that is no small amount; that is a lot of bottled water. In these situations, water companies do not step up. It is local communities, livery yard owners and farmers who roll their sleeves up and help each other to get valuable water to these animals. I have raised the issue with the Minister before and I hope that she can take it forward and put pressure on the water companies. When we get these outages, which are sadly now predictable and will occur, animals as well as people need to be looked out for. We have heard today about the people, and I have highlighted the situation of vulnerable people in my constituency who have not been able to live their lives with their basic needs met, but there are other situations to consider. I urge the Minister to put pressure on water companies when we get outages, as we have seen this summer in my constituency and in many constituencies across the country. We have frequently debated at the Dispatch Box in this Chamber and the main Chamber the question of people in Kent and Sussex who have had unacceptable water outages from South East Water. I press the Minister once again to explain to the House what steps she and the Government are taking to ensure that a market-based solution can be found for the Thames Water situation.
- Hansard source
Water Sector: Public Ownership
I will not give way at this point. His Majesty’s official Opposition have been clear: we are not cheerleaders for this water company, but we do not want to see Thames Water fold. Although the water supply would continue, that would carry the serious risk of higher bills for customers and would not solve all the issues facing the company. Bizarrely, a few months ago the third party led legal action that could have sunk the company. With them, Reform—strangely their allies on this issue—appear to be happy for the company to go under, exposing taxpayers to billions and pushing consumer water bills sky-high. That is billions of pounds that we as a country simply just cannot afford, as the Government have admitted. Outages such as the one I described in Epping Forest also highlight the real and present impacts of climate change and increased demand. We have outdated water infrastructure designed to cope with significantly less demand than it is now required to. Changing weather risks more leaks, bursts and breakages. The water outages that tend to follow have knock-on implications for people, schools, businesses and healthcare. It is important to know the economic and social costs of the outages that have occurred over the last few months and years. Will the Minister take this opportunity to provide some reassurance that existing infrastructure is being assessed to prevent leakages or bursts in the first instances and hold water companies to account for that? The work of the previous Conservative Government in this area means that we now understand the severity of the situation surrounding the performance of water companies in the first place—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh but I remind them that, when Labour left office in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were monitored. The previous Government worked proactively to increase that percentage: by the end of 2023, it had increased to 100%. It went from 7% to 100%. This is basic science: it is only when something is measured and vital data is collected that the extent of the problem can be seen. It was the Conservative Government that started that, and that started to put in place measures to address the situation—something they, and indeed the new Labour Government, have found to be complex and not easy to solve.
- Hansard source
Water Sector: Public Ownership
I am not giving way. [Interruption.] I am just giving hon. Members some facts about where the problems—
- Hansard source
Water Sector: Public Ownership
Furthermore, the previous Conservative Government’s landmark Environment Act 2021 introduced significant changes to how water quality is managed and monitored in England and Wales. The Act mandates enhanced reporting, monitoring and treatment compliance measures from businesses. It also establishes long-term goals to limit pollution and protect natural water resources from wider range of potential pollutants. I am sure that, in considering what action the current Government have taken, the Minister will cite the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025—I was on the Bill Committee shadowing her, and I really appreciated her constructive work. It is encouraging to see the current Government adopt some of the measures the previous Government had already introduced, such as banning water company bonuses for bosses if the company had committed serious criminal breaches that damaged the environment. However, it was disappointing that they failed to support the constructive amendments the Opposition tabled, including to ringfence funding from enforcement fines for bespoke water restoration funds; to guarantee that companies fix the environmental damage they cause locally; to require Ofwat to create rules on financial reporting in its renumeration and governance rules; to reduce consumer bills if companies were hit with enforcement fines; and to ensure that companies do not leverage too much debt. Those were sensible, constructive amendments that the Government voted down. Indeed, there is a recurring pattern of the current Government attempting to claim credit for measures introduced by the previous Government. The current Government have repeatedly claimed to have secured £104 billion of investment in the water system, but £93 billion of that had already been submitted by water companies in October 2023—under the previous Government. The Independent Water Commission published its final report in July 2025. It was a comprehensive document containing 88 recommendations. Since then, the Government published their water White Paper in January 2026. In May 2026, the King’s Speech included the promise of a clean water Bill. Given that there has been a change in Prime Minister since then, I would appreciate clarity from the Minister about whether the Government plan to proceed with special administration orders for water companies such as Thames Water, as was first suggested. Furthermore, are they going to do that as bespoke individual actions or as part of a nationalisation programme? Will that form part of a clean water Bill? Can she confirm when we will see that clean water Bill come before Parliament? A well-functioning, properly regulated water system is achievable if there is the political will to make it happen. The public want change, as has been proved by the petition today. His Majesty’s official Opposition are ready to work constructively with the Government on ensuring that that is done for the benefit of people right across the country.
- Hansard source
Sovereign Grant Bill
We are extremely fortunate to have a monarchy, particularly this monarchy. Since the reign of George III, the profits from the Crown Estate have accrued to the Treasury; in return, the institution of the monarchy receives a grant, which we are debating today. Part of that is an annually determined proportion of the profits. However, for things other than exceptional expenditure, such as on Buckingham Palace, the institution presumably requires some sort of stability and certainty about the receipts necessary to carry out its functions. Is it logical for the grant to be a proportion of profits, which will inevitably vary year by year, because they are a commercial matter?
- Hansard source
Israel and Palestine
The Minister will have to be very careful about what we say and do because of the effect on Jews in this country. In that regard, what assessment has he made of the Campaign against Antisemitism’s findings on Jew hate in our national health service? Does he agree that everybody needs to be assured that when they are at their most vulnerable, they will be dealt with equitably, without reference to their colour, creed, race or anything else? Yet we find that patients are being abused simply because they are Jewish, and that Jews working in the NHS are being disadvantaged.
- Hansard source
Robert Hamill Inquiry Report
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and I echo his opening remarks. I pass on my own condolences to the Prime Minister and my deepest sympathies to the Hamill family on this most challenging of days. The killing of Robert Hamill was a tragedy, and the Opposition condemn all heinous sectarian violence. Robert Hamill was beaten to death in his own town. His death should never have happened, and his killers should be brought to justice. His family have been waiting 29 years, and Sir Edwin Jowitt did not live to see his own report published. This inquiry took too long. It has long been argued by some that the police did nothing to prevent Mr Hamill’s murder, and yet the report found: “In the event…we have found no wrongful act or omission which facilitated Robert Hamill’s death.” The failings of the police were because of a lack of due diligence; there was no overarching conspiracy in the events that led up to his death. The report highlights police failures of investigation, which were entirely wrong. The case of Atkinson led to a conviction for perverting the course of justice, and we condemn those actions entirely. We believe that 12 months served is not enough for such a crime. Those in the RUC who shamed themselves dishonour the many thousands of officers who served with integrity, standing between bombs, bullets and civilians. It is clear that the inquiry found that this was a case of negligence and that there was no overall conspiracy in the RUC to prevent a proper investigation. Those who murdered Robert Hamill could still be walking the streets today; we find it deplorable that they have not been brought to justice. May I take the opportunity to thank all those who have been involved in the report? I would like to ask the Secretary of State a number of questions. First, thousands of people served in the RUC in one of the most difficult policing environments imaginable. Does he agree that the vast majority of them carried out their duties with exemplary skill and bravery and deserve our thanks? Secondly, does he accept that the central finding of the report—that no officer in the Land Rover acted wrongfully —is a majority finding from which the inquiry’s own chairman dissented? Further, how have the Hamill family been supported throughout the process of publication? This is one of the last of the core inquiries to report. What is the Government’s assessment of what those inquiries have collectively cost, what they have delivered and what they tell us about the inquiry model as a route to legacy truth recovery? This inquiry had cost £33 million by the time it was initially completed in 2011, and it took a further 15 years to reach the public. What lessons do the Government draw for the Omagh bombing inquiry and the inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane? The Finucane inquiry is already behind schedule. How will the material gathered by the inquiry—more than 20,000 documents and evidence from 174 witnesses —be preserved? Will it be made available to the body now handling legacy cases and to the Public Record Office in Northern Ireland? Finally, do the Government consider the questions raised by the report to be closed by its publication or do they accept that there is unfinished business in relation to the Director of Public Prosecutions’ role, which the family had to go to judicial review to have considered? I finish by joining the Secretary of State in condemning all sectarian violence.
- Hansard source
Point of Order: Rectification Procedure
I call Richard Tice on a point of order in connection with the code of conduct to rectify a failure to declare.
- Hansard source
Point of Order: Rectification Procedure
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. There will be no further points of order on that issue.