What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
12,868 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Does my hon. Friend agree that we need Thames Water to go into special measures, so that it can invest in infrastructure? In my constituency, Thames Water has closed a road for three weeks in Horsell because it has not invested, and it dumped over 1,115 hours-worth of sewage last year into our River Wey. That lack of investment is why we need what he is calling for today.
The Liberal Democrats want a closer, more sensible relationship with our European friends and neighbours, so there is plenty to welcome here. I congratulate the Minister and his team on being able to secure some of the things we see today. Scrapping mobile roaming charges—charges that had to be changed when we left the European Union—will significantly boost support for consumers and the small businesses who trade across Europe. The Minister is aware that the European Union is our biggest single trading partner in services. Some 37% of our services trade is with the EU, so repairing our relationship with the EU is the biggest single thing we can do to boost trade in our financial and professional services. I know the Minister agrees: when he was in front of the Select Committee recently, he told colleagues that if he had the choice, he would rejoin the European Union. It is disappointing that the Government have not moved more on the European Union and followed the Liberal Democrats’ plan for a defence and growth partnership, cutting the red tape and barriers that British businesses face. According to TheCityUK, exports of financial services have declined by 5.9% since 2019, at least in part due to Brexit frictions. I would like to ask the Minister a specific question in relation to e-gates. We welcome the news about the changes to e-gates but, given the serious risk of disruption with the entry and exit systems, will he tell the House when our constituents can expect the same clarity and certainty for airports across the European Union, so that we can really make a positive change?
I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) on securing this debate on a fantastic subject. What I am about to say is specific to the highlands and Scotland, but it is relevant, to a lesser extent, to all hon. Members in the Chamber. I have written a brilliant report called “Remote Scotland: Spiralling towards Unviability?”—I imagine everyone will be scrambling for a copy after the debate. It is about education; childcare; health and social care; energy demographics; centralisation; housing; work and economy; transport; and digital connectivity—all subjects that have been covered in this debate. Isolation comes as a result of many of the issues that I will point out, and deprivation, as has been mentioned, is much less obvious in a small, pretty croft house on the lochside than in a deprived inner-city housing estate. An 82-year-old widow in Gairloch wrote me to say that she is living in her croft house in the winter and paying as much to heat it as she receives in her state pension of £182 per week. There is no daily bus to the town, she does not have a car, her carer comes intermittently and her daughter lives near Glasgow. She is both isolated and deprived. I will focus on four things. Being part of the EU was extremely important for remote areas. They received funding commensurate with the additional costs of delivering infrastructure and services across a remote, dispersed and sparsely populated area. A week before his election, Boris Johnson promised that not a penny of funding for rural areas would be lost as a result of Brexit. That money funded skills training, community projects and infrastructure, including roads and bridges. Between 2000 and 2018, EU structural funds contributed €1.2 billion to the highlands and islands, while in the past three years, the UK shared prosperity fund contributed £9.4 million to the highlands and islands—that shows the disparity. Boris Johnson’s Government broke his promise immediately, and the Labour Government have not replaced the shortfall. Centralisation of services in the UK, and in Scotland in particular, has seen powers move from councils back to Whitehall and Holyrood. In the highlands, powers and funding have also been moved back to Inverness city, at the expense of Wester Ross, Skye, Caithness, Sutherland and Lochaber. Capital investments, such as city deals, have been hogged by cities. In January 2024—before I joined it—the Scottish Affairs Committee produced a report showing that the cost of living premium in remote Scotland was up to 30% higher than in urban Scotland. As hon. Members will know, mains gas is really available only in towns and cities, at 7p per kilowatt. Those in rural areas pay for electricity, which costs 26p per kilowatt—four times as much—to heat their houses. Food costs a great deal more in rural shops than in supermarkets. Of course, the distances to central services such as banks, doctors and medical centres are far greater. The rest of the UK has not had the renewables boom. Scotland has, except that has produced very few local jobs, little legacy housing and minimal community benefit. It is not a boom. Scotland as a whole received only £30 million of community benefit in 2025, and the highlands, which are covered in wind farms, got only £7 million. Westminster could have legislated for community benefits at any time over the last 20 years, but it did not. Rural Britain will be generating electricity for urban Britain, but at the moment there is precious little in it for rural communities. We have a major demographic crisis; it has come up in debates before. In primary and secondary schools all the way up the west coast, the school roll has dropped by 50%. The school in Portree on the Isle of Skye was built less than 20 years ago for 1,000 children, but fewer than 500 children go to it. The small schools do not get science, technology, engineering and mathematics coverage; they do not get the physics, mathematics or computing teaching that the big urban schools get. That means that parents with children who are gifted in those subjects move into the cities, so there is a downward spiral at those schools. The University of the Highlands and Islands is a brilliant concept, but, again, it does not teach science, technology, engineering and maths in Fort William or Portree, say. Our kids leave—they go to Inverness or Glasgow, never to return—so we have a greatly ageing population. The highlands has seen a 71% increase in the number of over-75s, and that is set to increase by a further 34% in the next five years. We have had an 18% fall in the number of care homes, despite the rising number of elderly people; there are only 45 care beds in Skye for a population of 10,000. NHS Highland is paying £77,000 a day for delayed discharges. In short, people in rural coastal communities earn less money. Their housing, food, heating and fuel for their vehicles cost more, and public transport costs more because of the distances. They have less access to public services, find it harder to access equivalent education, and their young leave. When they need care as elderly people, it is often not available, and if it is, it is more expensive. Remote Scotland is spiralling towards being unviable, and neither the Westminster Government nor the Holyrood Government are stepping forward to support it.
After close inspection of the detail on Pride in Place, we found that 50% of the evaluation was based on data that was not available even to MPs. We could not understand in any way how the distribution of that money was decided, and it completely avoided what many of us thought were relevant data.
Might the Minister comment briefly on the Government’s approach to water? In the recent heatwaves, South East Water reported that water usage went up by 15% because people were taking extra showers and so on. She will know that South East Water has had huge problems with resilience in the network; that pushed it right to the brink. What are the Government doing to get a grip on this so that we build in resilience to areas such as Kent, which will be in a water deficit by the end of 2027?
We actually have examples of water companies lying. We had South East Water coming to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in January and giving false evidence—so much so that the Chair considered bringing it back for being in contempt of Parliament.
We have a similar problem with South East Water, which is probably the second-worst water company in the United Kingdom after Thames Water. With South East Water, too, this Labour Government have been too timid. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government, by acting, or not acting, in the way that they are, they are privileging shareholders over consumers?
Does the Minister think that the Secretary of State exercised those duties well when, under the Blair Government, Macquarie was allowed to come into Thames Water and South East Water and asset strip those companies?
My constituent Gary is one of the victims of the infected blood scandal. He was a pupil at Treloar’s College, and 120 boys from Treloar’s were given contaminated blood. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to those boys who have fought so hard for justice, and does she agree that it has taken far too long?
The hon. Member is giving a very powerful speech. Water shortage is a very big issue for our farmers as well. At the moment, it is extremely difficult for a farmer to get planning permission for a small on-farm reservoir. It is a big investment for the farmer, so it is a big deal that it takes so long. We really need to make that process easier because food security is as important as energy security or any of the other issues.
I represent Horsham, an adjacent constituency, and very much experience the same problems, so the issue is not rare. I have many cabin crew in my area who say the same thing. One of the people affected is trying to get leave to remain, but the visa application is made extremely complicated by going back and forth out of the country, so I very much support the hon. Member and emphasise to the Minister that it is not a small problem.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. Time and again, everybody in this debate has come back to the word “community”, and I believe that coastal communities do it like nobody else. Although my Chichester constituency is affluent, that affluence often means that funding does not make it to the pockets of deprivation that are present, especially those on my coast. People look at somewhere like Chichester and say, “They don’t need the support,” so those communities are far more likely to fall between the cracks. I represent the coastal communities of Pagham, the Witterings and Selsey. Selsey translates directly to “seal island”, because even though it is part of the mainland, there is one road in and out, so if there is an accident on that road, it is literally an island. The people there do community like nobody else. When I think of Selsey, I think of the Selsey Care Shop, the Selsey Venture Club, the Selsey Beach Litter Ninjas and the Selsey Sea Bathing Society. All those charitable organisations and communities come together to support each other in tackling poverty in the area, as well as the isolation and loneliness. The other thing that happens in Selsey is that the population doubles during the summer, because of all the holidaymakers who come to enjoy our beautiful coastline. Despite that doubling of its population, Selsey does not receive extra police officers to patrol the streets or extra support for an ambulance service, and there are not suddenly fewer cars on the road in Selsey. No extra resource comes in and no extra infrastructure is provided. Instead, it is the community that ends up stepping up and providing support. When we think about isolation and hidden deprivation within our coastal communities, I have to say that I see those things all the time in places such as Selsey. I am grateful that we have amazing charitable organisations that help the people affected and try to fix the problems where so often statutory services have failed.
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that chairs of inquiries and inquests already have the power to hold closed sessions in private if they are looking at information that is sensitive or potentially poses a risk to our national security? That already exists, and the measures in the Bill do not impact that at all—it is already done on a daily basis in inquiries.
I wish to speak to the amendments and new clauses tabled in my name on behalf of my party. Up and down the country, those who have been failed by state institutions, unheard and ignored for years, will today be relieved that this hurdle has been cleared and the Hillsborough law can finally progress. I pay tribute to those campaigners, many of whom are with us in the Gallery, for their courage and perseverance through years of campaigning, and for never saying, “That’ll do”, and instead making sure that the Hillsborough law was delivered in full. This is known affectionately as the Hillsborough law, but it represents many victims and their loved ones. Be it the Post Office scandal, the Manchester Arena attack, the contaminated blood scandal, Grenfell Tower, nuclear weapons testing veterans, the pelvic mesh scandal, LGBT veterans, or any of the many others, those individuals have stood up for the voiceless and demanded change. These are scandals in which countless individuals have lost their lives or livelihoods, or suffered life-changing injuries.
My hon. Friend has been a tireless campaigner on behalf of her constituents and the victims of the contaminated blood scandal, and she is right to highlight how long it has taken to get here. I commend the Government for ensuring that we eventually got to this point. These scandals have been uncovered despite the best efforts of public institutions to keep them buried. Institutions that should have been transparent and accountable instead used public money to protect their reputations and deflect blame. Every single victim deserved better. The efforts of campaigners are what have brought us to the point at which we can begin to level the playing field and address the imbalance between the power of the state and that of the ordinary individual. That is why we Liberal Democrats have, at every stage, welcomed the provisions in the Bill, but it was clear at the beginning of this year that there were major gaps in relation to the carve-out for the security services that needed to be addressed. Campaigners rightly pointed to the role that the intelligence services have played in the past in covering up mistakes and failing to take accountability. Last week there were reports that MI5 had lied in court about Agent X, who had violently abused his partner. Likewise, last year we had the Stakeknife inquiry—Operation Kenova—which raised serious questions about the running of, and collusion with, British informants, while once again highlighting the immense difficulties of obtaining information from the security services. It is clear that these organisations have at times suffered from the same protectionist, inward-looking faults that other public organisations have suffered from. It would have been completely unacceptable for there to have been a carve-out, especially considering that mechanisms already exist to allow for information with national security implications to be heard behind closed doors. The breakthrough announced over the weekend is welcomed by the Liberal Democrats and will come as a relief to all those wanting to see this Bill progress. I commend Members on the Government Front Bench who secured it, and those no longer there, particularly the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who worked so hard to get the legislation to the place it is today. I know from her contributions in debates, her willingness and openness to meet me and Liberal Democrat colleagues to hear our concerns, and her engagement with campaign organisations and families, that she has fought to deliver the Hillsborough law as it was intended by those involved in the campaign. The Bill Committee took place eight months ago, so it was fun going through all the notes to remind myself exactly what was said. I pay tribute to hon. Members from across the House who scrutinised the legislation, including my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt). I know they sought to ensure that victims and their loved ones remained at the centre of the Bill and that their concerns regarding the drafting were heard. We have worked alongside them to ensure that no stone has been left unturned in seeking to secure the best possible outcomes in this legislation. Our amendments are all aimed at tightening the gaps that we can see in the legislation. First, there is the importance of whistleblowers, who, in many of the tragedies mentioned today, have provided vital information at great personal risk for the public good. The Liberal Democrats have long called for stronger whistleblowing protections to ensure that wrongdoing within organisations and public bodies is swiftly exposed and brought to justice. Amendment 3 ensures that public authorities involved in an inquiry or investigation demonstrate that they have taken steps to ensure that individuals can safely disclose information relevant to that investigation. Amendment 6 would require that a public authority’s code of ethical conduct includes information about to whom a person can make a protected disclosure and how that person will be protected. The Minister talked about additional guidance being provided with the legislation, so will she, when she sums up, set out whether there will be an expectation that that will include how to make a protected disclosure? We would have liked this Bill to go further on whistleblower protection, but much of what we proposed was considered out of scope for the Bill. I urge the Government and the new Administration to look more widely at what can be done to protect those who attempt to expose wrongdoing in the future. A statutory duty of candour in the NHS has existed since 2014, yet we know that there remains a culture of retiring or firing staff who dare to speak up. Our new clause 2 would create an offence for anyone who wilfully destroys relevant records after a major incident that could lead to an inquest or inquiry. New clause 3 is aimed at providing a national oversight mechanism through the publication of an annual independent report on compliance with the Act, as has been mentioned multiple times already in the debate. Many hon. Members spoke of the need to have an overnight mechanism, and similar amendments have been tabled by the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) and the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter). Amendments 1 and 2 would ensure that the legislation is fully up to date with modern investigations by making it clear that digital messages must be provided as evidence to investigations. The Bill includes provisions for the inclusion of subcontractors under the duty of candour, but we do not believe that they go far enough. Amendment 4 would therefore extend those provisions to all subcontractors throughout the chain of provision. We need only look at the way local authorities subcontract to understand that most working within the public sector are subcontractors of subcontractors of subcontractors. We believe that the scope needs to be extended to include those. The extension of non-means-tested legal aid to bereaved families at inquests is also long overdue and greatly needed. For too long the system has been weighted against ordinary people seeking justice. Those attempting to bring these scandals to light have faced well-resourced and highly motivated public bodies intent on protecting their reputations, but we do not believe that the provisions go far enough and we will be seeking to amend them in the other place. Amendments 11 and 12 would ensure that public officials do not escape their responsibilities when they cease to hold public office, and that they remain accountable for their actions even if they have since resigned, retired or been shuffled out.
I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing this important debate. I want to speak up for Ilfracombe in particular, and the challenges that will be familiar to coastal communities everywhere. Devon county council has identified Ilfracombe as one of the most vulnerable towns in Devon. Its remote location leaves it badly cut off from wider public services, economic opportunities and emergency intervention. That pattern will be all too familiar for those in this room. What I can never accept are shameless articles, such as the one recently published in a national tabloid newspaper that I will not name, punching down at Ilfracombe. Trashing a small town’s reputation for clicks is not journalism; it is monetising misery and it is not fit for tomorrow’s fish and chip paper. I have spoken with local business owners who pour their hearts and souls out into Ilfracombe trying to make things better, and the very last thing that they need is a hatchet job in the national press. Just yesterday, it was reported that a local teenager, Bradley Blackmore, bravely rescued another boy from drowning. Well done, Bradley. Ilfracombe can boast award-winning manufacturing businesses and several promising new housing schemes supported by North Devon council and the Ilfracombe Community Land Trust, delivering safer social housing for local people. Every year, crowds flock to Ilfracombe for the maritime festival. This August, a daring soapbox derby will again raise thousands for charity, and I am proud to say that Ilfracombe has just been shortlisted for the first ever UK town of culture awards, one of only 15 towns in the country on the list. I ask the Minister whether the Government will consider re-inventing the coastal communities fund or coastal revival fund for the new generation. How should we talk about challenges without damaging the reputation of coastal towns that deserve our help? How do we deliver what the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) called “good growth in every postcode”?
The recent heatwave has also caused an increase in A&E corridor care, something that NHS emergency departments were not built to cope with—let alone the corridors. In May this year, 69,504 instances of corridor care were recorded, increasing to 72,955 in June. Corridor care is dangerous in its own right, but there have also been reports of temperatures up to 40° in British hospitals. One Surrey consultant was reported in The Guardian as saying: “This heatwave has pushed patient care into concerning territory. In the heat, corridor care has become more serious and more unsafe.” No one should be treated in an inhumane space, so will the Secretary of State consider Liberal Democrat plans to end corridor care for good and ensure that the hospital building programme is accelerated?
The NHS Resolution annual report for the year to March 2026 shows that maternity made up almost £35 billion of the £60 billion set aside for future negligence payments, and £1.3 billion—or 40%—of the total clinical negligence payments last year. The Secretary of State has promised to put in place an action plan by the end of the year, but the recommendations of Baroness Amos and Donna Ockenden have already been published. Will he accelerate implementing those national recommendations and putting in place a maternity commissioner, because mothers cannot afford to wait and neither can the taxpayer?
The hon. Member highlights infrastructure issues, which my constituents are experiencing in Epsom and Ewell. Commuters to London have faced repeated train cancellations and delays, affecting their livelihoods and businesses. Does the hon. Member agree that it is really important that we improve the resilience of transport infrastructure so that people can continue to go about their daily lives and go to work, and that businesses can continue to function?
I start by paying tribute to the victims and survivors who have got us to this point, and to the many hon. Members across the House who have shared personal testimonies and those of their constituents from many different disasters, including Hillsborough. If the House will allow me, I will change the context of the debate a tiny bit and talk about amendment 149, tabled in my name, which seeks to include water companies in the scope of the code of conduct and duty of candour.The amendment has been sponsored by 33 Members from across the House. Under the Bill, privately owned water companies do not have to follow the same code of conduct as publicly owned water companies in Scotland or Northern Ireland, which is absurd. Although privately owned water companies operate under the Water Industry Act 1991 and are designated as statutory undertakers, they exercise public functions of fundamental importance to health, the environment and daily life; they hold exclusive regional monopolies, meaning that consumers have no alternative provider; and they benefit from statutory powers and privileges normally associated with public authorities.
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We have seen docudramas such as “Dirty Business”, in which water companies have sought to evade scrutiny. This amendment would correct that anomaly. The companies are supposed to perform the same public functions with the same public impact, but without the discipline of market competition. In the Bill, publicly owned water companies such as those that exist outside of England and Wales must follow standards of ethical conduct, including following the principles of integrity, accountability and openness. They must adopt a code that sets the standards expected for those who work at the authority, and make people aware of the consequences of failing to act in accordance with it. There must be a clear way for people not working at the authority to complain about their conduct. Requiring companies in England, such as Thames Water, to adopt such a code of conduct by law is one clear and immediate way the Government could reduce the problems we currently see with such companies. Constituents of mine tell me just how much they struggle to raise a complaint with Thames Water and are often ignored when they do so. They include Judy Washington, whose case I raised directly with the Prime Minister at PMQs. Time and again, we have seen Thames Water prioritise its own shareholders and debt, taking more from consumers in bills and delivering less in quality of infrastructure and water. These actions would simply not be acceptable under the code of conduct in this Bill. There would be ethical standards for these companies to follow and clear consequences for subverting these goals. By holding these companies to the same standard, we can reinforce the public interest obligations inherent in their statutory role and ensure consistent ethical standards across all providers of essential services. If the Government are serious about holding the water companies to account, they must close the loopholes that allow them again and again to escape judgment for their wrongful actions. It should not be one rule for them and another for everyone else.
I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for rugby in schools. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. It is a privilege to bring this important debate to the Chamber. Rugby is far more than 80 minutes on a Saturday afternoon: it teaches young people that success is earned collectively rather than individually; it instils discipline, respect, resilience and leadership; and it provides a place where people of every shape, size and background have a role to play. There are few sports where a prop, a scrum half and a winger can all become international stars despite having entirely different physiques, skills and strengths. Rugby’s greatest asset is not Twickenham; it is not the premiership, and it is not even the England team or the Red Roses. It is the thousands of volunteers who open the clubhouse on a cold Saturday morning, mark out the pitches before dawn, coach the under-7s, wash the kit, cook the burgers, pull the pints, organise the fixtures, referee junior matches and somehow still find time to mow the grass. Across my constituency of West Dorset, we are fortunate to have extraordinary clubs, including Bridport, Dorchester, Puddletown and Sherborne. Those clubs are about more than rugby; they are community hubs. They bring together generations: parents become coaches and grandparents become supporters. Every membership subscription paid, every burger bought after a match, every pint served in the clubhouse and every raffle ticket sold helps to keep those clubs alive. A thriving grassroots ecosystem produces world-class athletes, and world-class athletes inspire the next generation to pull on a pair of boots for the first time. But our grassroots game cannot be taken for granted. Over the last 24 years, 174 amateur clubs have disappeared. Many more are under immense financial pressure. Changing rooms are ageing, clubhouses need investment, facilities are often unsuitable for women and girls, and volunteer numbers are hard to sustain. Many clubs that once fielded six senior teams now struggle to put out two. Youth sections increasingly struggle to field full teams at the weekend. We need to support our grassroots teams by encouraging children to start rugby in the first place, and the best place to do that is schools. If we want world-class international rugby tomorrow, we must invest in grassroots and school-level rugby today. Research has found that physical activity improves classroom behaviour, attention, reading and mathematical performance. Another study found that children who consistently participated in organised sport experienced lower absenteeism, better attention, stronger memory, higher educational attainment and were more likely to progress to university. Importantly, team sport produces some of the strongest educational benefits. Rugby teaches young people to solve problems together, as well as teaching communication, leadership, decision making under pressure, discipline, trust and resilience when things inevitably go wrong. Those are precisely the skills employers tell us they struggle to find. The Confederation of British Industry found that 61% of employers were dissatisfied with young people’s resilience and self-management, while nearly one third identified poor teamwork skills. Rugby develops those qualities. It teaches young people how to win graciously, how to lose with dignity, how to lead and follow, how to respect officials even when disagreeing with a decision and, perhaps most importantly, that individual brilliance only succeeds when it serves the team.
The hon. Member must forgive that my speech is weighted towards English rugby, as he is absolutely right that the important role rugby clubs play in a community is true in all four parts of the United Kingdom. Research has now described the evidence linking organised sport with improved psychological wellbeing as compelling. Researchers found that with more physical activity they saw improved classroom behaviour and concentration, stronger social relationships, attention, readiness to learn and cognitive function, healthier body composition, improved mood, reduced stress, increased blood flow to the brain and increased oxygen delivery. There is strong evidence that physical activity is associated with lower anxiety, lower depression, better mood, greater happiness, higher self-esteem, greater life satisfaction and better body image. I could go on. We often discuss young people’s mental health in this House, and rightly so. Rural areas like West Dorset have worse access to services, and children often struggle to get the help that they need, but we should also recognise that sport is one of the most effective preventive public health interventions available to us. Children who are active are significantly more likely to become active adults, which means lower long-term healthcare costs. During the 2023-24 season alone, rugby generated over £2.03 billion in value, including £707 million through improved physical and mental health, more than £823 million of wider social value, and over £500 million in economic growth. The Rugby Football Union’s all school programme, originally established as part of the rugby world cup legacy, introduced rugby into hundreds of state secondary schools. Independent research found remarkable outcomes. 73% of participating schools reported improved confidence among pupils; 49% reported improved resilience; and nearly one third even reported improvements in academic performance. Participants themselves reported improved leadership skills, greater confidence, better behaviour, reduced stress and improved self-esteem. The Sky Sports living for sport programme has supported more than 500,000 young people to gain access to sport. More than 90% of teachers reported improvements in pupils’ confidence, self-esteem and teamwork. Teachers also reported an improvement of 71% in pupils’ attendance, 72% in academic attainment, 78% in behaviour, 83% in engagement with learning and 85% in engagement with school life. These are exactly the qualities we should want every young person to develop. They demonstrate why Government support for rugby and sport should never be viewed as just about exercise. It is also about the tangible benefits that follow. For too long, access to elite rugby in England has been dominated by a relatively small number of independent schools. Although those schools have made enormous contributions to the game and continue to develop exceptional players, the current pathway is simply too narrow and based on privilege. Talent exists in every city, town and village in this country, but opportunity does not. If English rugby is to reach its full potential, we must ensure that a child’s postcode or their parents’ income no longer determines whether they have the opportunity to excel. The numbers demonstrate the challenges and the opportunity. Independent schools educate about 7% of pupils in England, yet continue to produce a disproportionately large share of professional rugby players. That is not because talent is concentrated in one part of society; it is because access to coaching facilities, fixtures and clear development pathways often are. Independent schools are more likely to have experienced staff, and sometimes ex-professional. That means that their students have far easier access to such facilities and better opportunities to perfect their sporting skills, compared with those at many state schools. There are thousands of children attending state schools who have never picked up a rugby ball, not because they lack the ability or enthusiasm, but simply because the opportunity has never been presented to them. If we are genuinely seeking to improve England’s competitiveness on the international stage, the answer is not simply coaching the same group of players more effectively. It is finding talented young people who currently sit entirely outside the system. That is why I welcome the work being undertaken by the RFU. The All Schools programme shows what can be achieved when rugby is brought into state education. Hundreds of schools that previously had little or no rugby provision are now introducing the sport to thousands of young people. Government can play an important role by ensuring that schools have access to suitable facilities, qualified coaches and meaningful links with local community clubs. School sport should never operate in isolation. The stronger systems are those where schools, clubs and governing bodies work together. That now needs to become the norm, rather than the exception. We also need to look at a model that does not place the burden on teachers to become professional sports coaches, alongside their already demanding and vitally important jobs. We have world-class universities with outstanding sports coaching degrees. We should use that pipeline to develop a new generation of professional coaches, who can support schools, take the pressure off teachers and help build the next generation of athletes across different sports, including rugby. We should also recognise that not every young person wants or is initially able to play full-contact rugby. Providing a non-contact version of the game—the T1 rugby initiative—removes many of the barriers that might otherwise prevent young people from becoming involved. It offers an accessible introduction to rugby values, teamwork and skills, while giving participants confidence to progress if they wish. Importantly, it also enables schools with limited experience of rugby to introduce the sport safely and inclusively. One of the greatest successes in English sport over recent years has undoubtedly been the rise of the Red Roses. Their success in winning the rugby world cup and wider participation present an extraordinary opportunity to build on that momentum. When girls are inspired by watching the Red Roses, there must be somewhere local for them to play the following weekend or through the week at school. Evidence shows that children from more deprived backgrounds are less likely to participate in organised sport, despite often benefiting the most from doing so. If we genuinely believe that rugby builds confidence, resilience, leadership and teamwork, those opportunities should be available to every young person, regardless of background. Sport should never become another form of inequality. That is why partnerships between schools, local authorities and community clubs are so valuable. Community clubs already possess qualified volunteers, coaching expertise and strong local networks. Schools possess young people eager to participate. The challenge is ensuring that those two worlds connect more effectively. We should make it as easy as possible for schools to signpost pupils towards their nearest club and equally as straightforward for clubs to engage with local schools and introduce children to the game. That is particularly important in rural constituencies such as West Dorset. Our geography means that opportunities can sometimes be harder to access. Transport presents challenges, schools are more dispersed, volunteer recruitment can be more difficult. That is why clubs such as Bridport, Dorchester, Puddletown and Sherborne, continue to play such an important role in growing our game. With greater connection with local schools, they can play an even greater part. When state schools have been given the right funding and offered support, they have demonstrated exactly what is possible. A powerful example is Northampton school for boys. In the 2025-26 season, NSB achieved the historic breakthrough by winning the national schools cup, defeating Epsom college in the final, and ending a 20-year absence of state school winners. That reflects a deeply embedded and highly effective rugby programme, with 19 players currently part of Northampton Saints under-18 academy and seven players earning England under-18 international honours. Earlier in the same season, NSB also secured the SOCS Daily Mail schools trophy, becoming the first state school ever to lift that title. Taken together, those achievements represent a watershed moment for state school rugby. For decades, these competitions have been dominated by independent schools. Before NSB’s success, the last state school to win the national cup was St Peter’s high school in Gloucester in 2006. NSB has shown that when state schools are properly supported with access to coaching and facilities, integrated into local clubs and provided with clear talent pathways, they can compete at the highest levels. Their success challenges long-standing assumptions about where elite rugby talent comes from, and demonstrates that excellence exists across the entire education system when opportunity is made available. We can already see the impact of widening those pathways in the players who have reached the very top of the game. Sadia Kabeya of the Red Roses attended a state school. Ellis Genge, a British and Irish Lions player, also came through the state school system. They are outstanding examples of players who did not follow the traditional route into rugby, yet have become some of the exciting and influential figures in sport. Their success shows exactly what can be achieved when talent is given the opportunity to flourish. We must make it easier for more young people to follow that path, because when we do, the game of rugby benefits enormously from the skills, diversity and character that those players bring. Investment in changing rooms, floodlights, sports kit, state school pitches and time in children’s weeks would unlock years, if not decades, of increased participation. It would enable clubs to expand youth sections, to create better facilities for women and girls and to host schools’ disability rugby and walking rugby. Rugby contributes more than £2 billion annually to England through improved health, stronger communities and economic activity. Those benefits are felt in every constituency. Healthy young people place less pressure on the NHS. Young people engaged in sports are less likely to become isolated. Communities with thriving sports clubs tend to have stronger volunteer networks and greater civic participation. Businesses would benefit from healthier, more confident and more resilient workforces in the future. Investment in grassroots rugby and sport more widely delivers dividends across multiple Government Departments. It benefits education, health, local government and the economy. I hope Ministers will continue working closely with the RFU, schools, local authorities and community clubs to develop a genuinely long-term strategy for growing participation. We should ensure that every child has access to rugby during their education, strengthen links between schools and local clubs, and continue supporting the growth of women’s rugby. We should invest in community facilities in schools and clubs that are fit for the next generation, because every England international once pulled on an oversized shirt at their local club, every professional player began with a volunteer coach, and every packed stadium begins with a child picking up a rugby ball for the first time. If we continue investing in those first opportunities, the future of English rugby will take care of itself. Will the Minister work across Government and with governing bodies to deliver the new school sport partnerships and enrichment framework, and provide early clarity on the objectives, priorities, delivery models and timescales? Will the Government ensure that schools have the capacity, facilities and support to deliver high-quality sport, so that every child can participate, especially in deprived communities? Will they guarantee sustainable funding, sufficient staffing and strong professional development for school sport partnerships? Will the Government support investment in the wider school workforce to help deliver activities such as rugby? Will they reaffirm the importance of PE and commit to a minimum of two hours of high-quality PE each week? Will they ensure that the curriculum recognises the wider benefits of team sports? If we get this right, we will not only secure the future of English rugby across codes; we will strengthen our communities, improve the health of our nation and give every child the chance to grow, belong and thrive through sport.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing this important and timely debate. Pig farming is an important part of our rural economy in West Dorset. Alongside several family-run pig farms, we are home to a large integrated producer and businesses that support local employment, veterinary services, feed supplies, agricultural engineering, haulage and food processing. We are also fortunate to have Dorset’s last remaining independent abattoir, which processes around 100 pigs a week and provides a vital local route to market for small family farms. Since August 2025, the standard pig price has fallen from around 208p per kilogram to approximately 178p. However, many independent producers have said that they are receiving far less—in some cases, only 130p to 140p per kilogram. Some farmers are losing as much as £50 on every pig they sell. That is unsustainable. Once again, it is independent farmers who have borne the greatest burden. Around half of the UK’s pig herd is owned by independent producers. If they disappear, rebuilding the capacity will take many years. We should remember that the United Kingdom is only about 58% self-sufficient in pork. We should never accept a situation where British farmers, who produce to some of the highest welfare standards anywhere in the world, are undercut by cheaper imports produced to standards that would not be permitted here. No future trade agreement should weaken UK food safety, undermine British farmers or lower our animal welfare standards. West Dorset farmers are proud of the standards they have achieved. Every farmer I have spoken to wants to see further improvements in animal welfare. I want to see, as they do, an end to farrow crates and to inhumane or distressing methods of slaughter, such as carbon dioxide stunning for pigs, through the implementation of DEFRA’s 2025 recommendations by the end of this Parliament. We should work together to prevent unnecessarily painful practices in farming, but it must be properly funded. Farmers operating on small, or in many cases, non-existent, profit margins cannot absorb further mandated changes unless they are properly funded and accompanied by practical support. One pig farmer in my constituency told me that they fully support moving towards better systems, but estimate that a realistic transition could take up to 15 years. For many family farms already carrying debt from previous reforms, unfunded regulation is not an option. If we move too quickly without proper support, we risk reducing British production and replacing it with imported pork products produced to lower welfare and food safety standards. Small and medium-sized abattoirs continue to disappear at an alarming rate, with fewer than 200 now remaining across the United Kingdom. Rising inspection costs, energy prices, waste disposal costs and increasing regulatory burdens have all contributed to their decline. For independent pig farmers in West Dorset, our local abattoir is essential infrastructure. Without it, transport distances increase, haulage costs rise and farmers lose access to local markets. Supporting local processing capacity is therefore every bit as important as supporting primary production. Farmers manage more than 70% of our land. They underpin our food security and sustain the economies of rural communities such as West Dorset. All they are asking for is fair markets, fair treatment, practical regulation, acknowledgment of all their hard work and the confidence to invest in their future.
I begin by echoing the words of the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) in paying tribute to the Hillsborough campaigners. Our whole country owes them a debt, and I want to speak about that, but I want to do so in the spirit of cross-party support and working that this moment demands. I want to pay tribute personally to the Prime Minister for the work that he has done on this, having to overcome the difficulties, as we know, with the security issues. I also want to pay tribute—I hope this is not the last time—to the right hon. Member for Makerfield, who is welcome back in this House. He has for many years paid a very personal role in this campaign, so it is very fitting that he is in the House tonight to see this law passed. I echo the tributes that he has paid, and that others will no doubt pay, because people have campaigned for many years for this moment. The enormous debt of gratitude we owe them for their courage, tenacity and determination is one that I hope this historic moment gives proper credit to. But let us remember, as others have said, that it is not just the Hillsborough scandal; it is Grenfell, it is Windrush, it is Horizon, it is Orgreave, it is infected blood, it is covid, it is the nuclear test veterans, and the other scandals that have been mentioned. The right hon. Member for Makerfield was right to add Primodos to the list. I hope, by the way, when he takes the office we expect him to take soon, that he will put right those scandals. We will hold him to that in a cross-party manner. There are many tragedies and scandals that have been compounded by state cover-up. This is an issue of rights between the state and individuals: victims, survivors and families having to fight for years or even decades just to expose the truth and win the justice they should have had straight away. All too often, when things have gone wrong, we have seen a tendency to cover up mistakes, to close ranks, to protect institutions and, so often, to lie. Victims and families have spent years campaigning tirelessly against a system and an establishment that have tried to find countless ways of saying no. Thanks to those campaigners, we now take a big step closer to ending that culture of cover up, ensuring that no one has to fight so long and so painfully to get truth, justice and accountability. There is more to do, and not just on the individual scandals but on the need to protect whistleblowers. That is an issue the Liberal Democrat party has raised and we want to work cross-party with the Government to ensure that we set up an independent office for whistleblowers, so that people come forward to expose scandals and ensure justice happens more quickly. Many of the people who will benefit from this law will not recognise and will not even know how hard—how painfully hard—the campaigners have had to work over so many years. It is important that we remember that. It is truly remarkable, having suffered so much pain and injustice, that they kept going. What has been achieved in the Bill is something that will change the very nature of power in our country. It will make the lives of so many people better. I thank the campaigners. I say to them, from the bottom of my heart, thank you. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) for securing this timely debate. I grew up on a sheep and beef farm, and when I was about 11 years old, I bought 13 pigs from market to take home. They became more like pets; I used to play football with them—
No, I used to play football matches with them. They were a lot of fun, and I learned that of all livestock, they are potentially the most intelligent and certainly some of the most affectionate animals. I had a particularly interesting visit to Sparsholt agricultural college in Winchester with the National Pig Association. I used to love going there when I was a vet to treat the animals; now I go there as an MP to look at its teaching and facilities. It has a fantastic indoor, high-welfare unit that delivers piglets without the use of farrowing crates, and I pay tribute to the staff there for their teaching and the welfare standards that they maintain. To touch on something that many Members have spoken about today, one of the top issues threatening the pig industry is biosecurity at the border. I have been to Dover and met the vets and border inspectors there who look at the potentially illegal meat coming in and the tonnes of it that get seized. The crazy thing is that currently, if I were caught smuggling meat into the UK, I could not be arrested and my vehicle could not be seized, but the meat would be confiscated and my vehicle would have to be cleaned, because it would be a biosecurity risk. The only deterrent to trying to smuggle illegal meat into the UK would be that I might get my van cleaned for free at the taxpayer’s expense. That is absolutely ridiculous. I totally understand that enforcing biosecurity at such a busy border is difficult and comes with huge challenges, there are not even suitable deterrents in place for people who get caught. I urge the Minister at the very least to look at implementing some. One thing that the pig industry has done phenomenally well is to reduce antibiotic use by 72% since 2015—just over 10 years. That is hugely important, not only for animal welfare, but for public health. Antimicrobial resistance is like a slow pandemic; it never gets media attention, but it will kill 39 million people by 2050 if we do not take action. It is important that we do not undercut our high animal welfare and farming standards with products from countries that have lower standards. Countries that use antibiotics as growth promoters are not only farming with lower welfare standards, but contributing to this huge public health crisis, so we must do our bit to tackle that issue. The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) mentioned labelling. It is hugely important that we can identify where meat has been produced. Consumers are currently being hoodwinked; they believe that they are buying products from animals reared in the UK, but it turns out that they were only processed in the UK. They want to support British farmers and high animal welfare standards, so it is completely wrong that they are being hoodwinked into buying products that potentially undermine UK standards. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) made a very important point about the lack of small abattoirs in the UK. Their closure is a huge animal welfare issue, as animals have to be transported further than necessary to be slaughtered, and a huge economic problem too. I urge the Minister to see how the Government can work with the pig industry to move away from the CO2 stunning of pigs. It is a big welfare concern, and the British Veterinary Association and others are keen for the industry to make a sustainable transition away from it. It causes a lot of concern to a lot of constituents, and it really upsets me as a vet. Finally, I urge the Minister to meet the National Pig Association as soon as possible to look at supporting UK farmers, maintaining high animal welfare standards and improving our nation’s food security.
As an Opposition MP myself, I must say that my party and I have been critical of the handover of power that has taken place in the Labour party, but this particular moment, on Third Reading, should belong to the families. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] We can do our party political point-scoring whenever and wherever we like, but does the hon. Member not agree that this moment should belong to the families?
Quality and consistency of care are vital in improving cancer outcomes. How will the cancer manuals support earlier diagnosis, and will they include specific guidance to improve outcomes for children and young people?
Residents in Wokingham are absolutely sick of the failures of Thames Water’s management. In 2025 alone, Thames Water committed 74 sewage spills, for a duration of 684 hours. That means that Thames Water dumped sewage for the equivalent of 456 football matches, and there were certainly no clean sheets. No waterway in Wokingham is safe—
Fewer than half of the children in my constituency have seen an NHS dentist in the last two years, exacerbating health inequalities. The supervised toothbrushing programme is being evaluated for its effectiveness, but I hear uptake is low. What other measures does the Minister plan to introduce to tackle oral health inequalities for children? Will she commit to reviewing NHS dental provision in my constituency?
I have given the Government evidence that hundreds of children with special educational needs and disabilities are avoidably killing themselves because of public authority negligence and misconduct, including my constituent Jen Bridges-Chalkley. Does the Minister agree that the first step in tackling this problem is knowing how many of these suicides there are? We cannot do that unless we have a national oversight mechanism and a preventable death tracker that measure it.
I will discuss the future of Thames Water, starting with Thames Water’s record of pollution and environmental failure, and how it impacts everyone in my Witney constituency. Thames Water serves the constituency and embodies the systemic failure of the national water sector. Last year, Thames Water pumped sewage into rivers and lakes for 107,822 hours. West Oxfordshire is very much ground zero for sewage. We have the Thames, the Evenlode, the Windrush, Shill brook and the Cole. We also have WASP, or Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, which has been so active in going after Thames Water’s bad behaviour. It has mapped the illegal sewage spills at Thames Water sewage treatment works and found that, between 2021 and 2025, there were 1,231 illegal spills just in the Witney constituency, and 271 illegal spills in just one sewage treatment works, Faringdon. West Oxfordshire district council has done great work in trying to hold Thames Water to account, as has WASP, which inspired the Channel 4 programme “Dirty Business”, which many hon. Members will have seen, so well done to Peter, Ash, Geoff and Vaughan. Despite Thames Water’s appalling record, residents have seen their bills skyrocket. I have constituents whose bills have gone up by 50% and 70%; I even have one whose bill has gone up by 93%. That is outrageous, but those bill hikes are not making the situation any better. That is because Thames Water’s financial situation is disastrous. Thames has nearly £20 billion of debt.
I completely agree, and Thames Water’s full-year accounts are out at 7 am tomorrow morning. We will see just what they tell us. It is going to be ugly, not least because the company’s equity is worthless. The largest equity shareholders wrote down their shareholding to zero value and withdrew their board members more than two years ago. When Thames Water’s creditors sought to take on another £3 billion of debt last year, I was given permission to intervene in the High Court and speak for the interests of Thames Water’s 16 million customers, who are paying all these outrageous costs and interest expenses, but would otherwise have had no voice in court. This Labour Government have slow-peddled for the last two years, and have refused to draw a line under decades of Tory bad behaviour by putting Thames Water into special administration. This approach is costing customers an absolute fortune. Thames Water paid £338 million just in interest expenses in the six months to September 2025. That is £133 million more, just in interest expenses, than it paid in the same period the previous year. Labour is taking this hands-off approach despite the company’s multiple breaches of its operating licence. Let me illustrate some of those breaches. As I have stated, the company has carried out more than 1,000 illegal spills over four years. It must hold two investment-grade credit ratings as a condition of its operating licence, but it last held any investment-grade credit rating two years ago, in July 2024, and it has undergone a change of ultimate controller; yet the Minister, the Secretary of State and Ofwat have repeatedly refused to answer on that point.
Absolutely. The consumers are getting the raw deal, and there is no end in sight. To qualify as an ultimate controller—it is a defined term—a party need only have material influence over Thames Water. The creditor consortium right now is negotiating bilaterally with the company, and has put in £3 billion, but somehow that does not make it meet the criterion. It is ridiculous, and frankly, seeing this failure play out was probably the single moment when I most despaired of government and the rule of law. I repeatedly ask the same question, and repeatedly do not get an answer. I find it really, really bad.
I thank my hon. Friend. Rather than having customers pay hundreds of millions of pounds of debt at ludicrous interest rates of nearly 10%, Thames Water should be taken into a special administration regime, which is commonly known as bankruptcy on insolvency grounds. I urge the Government to pursue a SAR on the basis of insolvency, as this is a more straightforward way to secure special administration than on a performance basis, and it will give the special administrator additional powers and a stronger position in relation to the creditors. The Water Industry Act 1991 sets out triggers linked to financial insolvency. Among them is the company being unable, or likely to be unable, to pay its debts. The Secretary of State and Ofwat both have discretion to apply to the High Court for a special administration order if that condition is triggered. I understand that the Government currently do not have, and have refused to publish, a SAR assessment policy. That is despite the Cunliffe review concluding that there is a need for “broad, judgement-based tests within a clear policy, that has been set out in advance, of how the regulator will assess failing companies against these tests, the factors it will take into account and the indicators it will consider.” That is from paragraph 793, recommendation 59, of the final report. Clarity around those tests and when a SAR will be used would benefit the water sector and its investors. Importantly, it also increases the Government’s negotiating leverage with the class A creditor consortium by further increasing the credibility of the threat of a SAR. I am interested to hear from the Minister why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is so reluctant to publish those tests. A SAR process would allow Thames Water’s debt to be written down substantially, very likely into single-digit billions. This write-down is crucial, and it is not punitive. The write-down should be sufficient for the company to leave the SAR with a balance sheet that is strong enough to manage the huge spend that will be required over the next decade or so on treatment works and pipe networks.
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That is what is going on up and down the catchment writ small, with treatment works deferred despite being crucially needed. In Aston, we have sewage running down the street year after year, and it is the same in Standlake. It is just disgusting, and there is no end in sight. A SAR process would allow the Government to use the period while Thames Water is in a SAR to put much of the good work from the Cunliffe review into new legislation, and to do the legwork to enable the company to exit as a mutual. Crucially, a SAR would not ultimately cost the Government anything—this really matters—because they will recoup all the funding spent on a SAR, as this new funding injected by the Government would be super senior to all other funding. I am very grateful to the former DEFRA Secretary, Steve Reed, for setting out in a letter to the—
My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the former Secretary of State for setting out in a letter to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in June last year that “we expect that any Government funding required during a SAR would be recouped after the conclusion of the administration”. The current Secretary of State set out the same point in a parliamentary debate on 16 June. It is also worth noting that the Tories—there are not any in the Chamber—continue to refuse to acknowledge this, and that Teneo, Thames Water’s own expert adviser, stated the same in its report to the High Court in December 2024.
I agree 100%, and that is what is so depressing; by continuing to demonstrate that the regulators have no teeth, we create a bigger and bigger problem for ourselves. The alternative to a SAR—a deal with the creditors, which, extraordinarily, seems to be the Government’s preferred option at this point—should not be countenanced. Giving these businesses, now operating as London & Valley Water consortium, yet more control of the company at ludicrously high interest rates would allow this downward spiral to continue. The Government must and can change course by using their power to ask for a SAR under existing legislation. There is now the opportunity for Thames Water to exit special administration as a mutual, owned and run in the interests of its customers, and to break the cycle of financial mismanagement and egregious environmental failings once and for all. Legislation sets out that a water company insolvency SAR can conclude in two ways: rescue, whereby the company is restructured, debts are written down or converted, and the existing legal entity continues in a modified form; or transfer, whereby the regulated undertaking is sold or transferred to a new owner. That does not require a competitive auction, as the legislation provides for a transfer approved by the Secretary of State and Ofwat.Nothing in the legislation states that either route requires a competitive sale, as the overriding objective in a SAR is continuity of public service, not maximising creditor returns. The Government could therefore set out at the point of SAR entry, or shortly after, that a mutual is the preferred exit route for Thames, and make that clear in the special administrator’s mandate. Work would need to be done in parallel with the SAR process to incorporate and put in place the governance framework for a new mutual, as well as more broadly updating water regulations to take into account the Cunliffe report’s recommendations. Ofwat could then work towards a licence transfer to the mutual, rather than running a market sale. In conclusion, I have some questions for the Minister. If she is unable to answer them now, I would appreciate an answer in writing if possible. Have the Government sought legal advice on the SAR process from a specialist law firm? I appreciate that FTI Consulting has been instructed for many months, but that is not a substitute for legal advice. A proper, specialist understanding of the SAR as a legal process, and of the litigation risk—perceived or actual—of applying for a SAR, is critical. Will the Government commit to publishing a SAR assessment policy, and does the Minister agree that the creditors consortium has material influence over Thames Water, and therefore meets the ultimate controller test? Will the Minister act with Ofwat to enforce the appropriate penalties on Thames Water for having undergone that change without having given notice, and will she provide an update on the negotiations between Ofwat and Thames Water? Will the Minister now take the London & Valley Water deal off the table, and work with the Secretary of State to apply to the court for Thames Water to be put into special administration? Finally, in response to a question about whether she would consider the Liberal Democrat call for water companies to be mutually owned public benefit companies, the Minister said: “I would be happy to see more mutual ownership of water companies, but the question is how we get there.”——[Official Report, 16 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 728.] Given that, will she confirm her Department’s position on mutual ownership models for water companies? What are the Department’s plans for exploring how we get there?
I agree that social prescribers do a fantastic job. I recently met members of Veterans Outdoors near Totnes, and visited the Vounder Therapy Garden at the Eden Project through the parliamentary knowledge schemes. Those organisations are doing incredible work, turning lives around, particularly for those with mental health challenges, but their projects receive absolutely no funding, although the National Academy for Social Prescribing has identified a return of up to £8.56 for every £1 invested. How does the Department expect them to survive and broaden their reach without funding? Given their cost-effectiveness, will the Government commit themselves not just to funding the link worker and the social prescriber, but to encouraging integrated care boards to fund those amazing projects?