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 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I want to place on record that my constituents feel as strongly as my hon. Friend’s constituents in Dumbarton about this: we have to ban trade with illegal settlements. Does he agree that although the Government have taken welcome steps, as he referenced, they must go further to ensure this trade is not allowed?
Like others, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on securing this this debate. Like her, I support a complete legal ban on all British trade with Israeli settlements in the occupied west bank. These settlements are illegal under international law, and Britain should not permit trade that helps to sustain or profit from activity that is clearly unlawful under international law. We have both a legal and a moral obligation to act. The settlements form part of a broader pattern of land confiscation, home demolitions, movement restrictions, settler violence and the denial of basic human rights. These policies are being actively encouraged by the Netanyahu Government and are intended, at least in part, to extinguish any realistic prospect of a future Palestinian state. If we genuinely support a two-state solution, want to respect our obligations under international law and recognise our common humanity, then Britain must act. Palestinian children in the west bank are among those suffering most from the escalating levels of settler violence. According to UNICEF, 70 Palestinian children were killed in the west bank between January last year and May this year, which is roughly one child every week. The wider trend is equally alarming. According to the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, March this year saw the highest number of Palestinians injured in settler attacks for two decades. Illegal settlements now physically occupy nearly 10% of the west bank, while settlement regional councils exercise control over approximately 40% of the territory. This has dramatically reduced the land available for Palestinian housing, infrastructure and economic development. The World Bank has repeatedly highlighted how restrictions on Palestinian access to land undermine economic growth and development. Without meaningful action to curb settlement expansion, poverty will deepen in the west bank, and the prospects for peace will recede further still. Large areas of Palestinian agricultural land have been confiscated for the direct benefit of settlers. It is clear that this is not accidental or incidental, but a deliberate policy that enjoys the active support of the Israeli Government. Last September, Prime Minister Netanyahu stated, “there will be no Palestinian state”, while advancing the E1 settlement expansion plan, which would effectively split the west bank in two. In its 2024 advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice concluded that Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are contrary to international law and stated that other countries, clearly including us, have obligations not to support or assist in the maintenance of the unlawful situation created by the settlements. A comprehensive ban on settlement trade would therefore be a practical and necessary step towards meeting those obligations and challenging continued settlement expansion.
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not, just because of time. Britain would not be acting alone. Spain has already introduced a ban, while Ireland, Belgium and the Netherlands have either committed to or are advancing similar measures. If they are willing to act, why are we not? Others have already identified the fact that there is a comparable restriction on goods originating from illegally occupied Crimea and other Russian-occupied territories in Ukraine, so the principle of a ban is neither novel nor unprecedented, and, with the appropriate care and consultation, could take place here in the UK. We have the means to act and the responsibility to do so. A ban on trade with illegal settlements is both justified and overdue.
Given that we have celebrated the Leader of the House’s birthday, may I draw his attention to the upcoming birthday of H & E Smith in my constituency? It is one of the last standing embossed and glazed tile manufacturers, and anyone who travels on the underground in this country will see many of its work on display. As it is one of the last companies standing, keeping artisan skills and abilities alive is proving difficult. May we have a debate in Government time about how we keep skills alive in such long-standing, but reducing, traditional manufacturing industries, so that there is a future and another 100 years of companies such as the one in my constituency to celebrate?
At the outset of this Adjournment debate on ceramics, I declare my interest as a member of the GMB trade union and chair of the all-party parliamentary group for ceramics, for which the secretariat is provided by Ceramics UK. I also want to place on the record the support that has recently been given to the sector under the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary. The £120 million that has been provided is a massive boost to a sector that had all but been forgotten and was worried that it was on a managed decline towards the end of a ceramics manufacturing base in the UK. We know that there is work to do with that money. The sector and the unions are coming together as we speak, and they are working with the Business Secretary’s officials to make sure that every penny of the money that he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been able to find for us goes towards protecting jobs, safeguarding manufacturing and making sure that the sector has a viable future, as it is so important to the constituency that I represent.
The sector is also important to my hon. Friends’ constituencies in other parts of Staffordshire. I will rehearse some of the figures, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course, given that I am a proud MP who represents a brickworks, you will be aware that ceramics offer a multitude of benefits to our economy. The sector employs 20,000 people, generates around £2 billion for our economy, and is responsible for £600 million-worth of exports. One can walk around pretty much any part of the country and come across a ceramic product that is made in the UK, be it bricks, tiles, tableware, or steel that is made using refractory-grade ceramics. I say this often, but I will say it again: we cannot make steel in this country without ceramics, so everything that the sector does contributes towards the greater good of UK plc.
I agree with my hon. Friend, who has been pursuing that for a long time. The ceramics industry is a great example of where procurement rules could be geared more towards supporting domestic manufacturing, not least in bricks. If we are going to use Homes England money to subsidise, at cost to the British taxpayer, the building of the homes we need in this country, we should insist that the companies that build them are buying their bricks from British manufacturers. It is a circular economy, it is good for our environment, and bricks have a long-term life of over 150 years—much better than timber and cladding.
There are many wonderful 10-minute rule Bills and private Members’ Bills that support the ceramics sector, and my hon. Friend’s back British bricks Bill is one of them. More to the point, it makes economic and environmental sense, rather than importing bricks from around the world. We have the capacity in the UK to manufacture enough bricks to meet the housing targets that the Government have rightly set. We can also then ensure that the bricks reflect the sorts of build that we want in those communities—Staffordshire blue bricks in Staffordshire, and the sorts of bricks that are proudly made in Hampshire for your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an important part of who we are, and what places look like, that the materials that houses are built from reflect the materials available. The Minister will know that ceramics is now a huge part of our defence industry. The air filtration systems in nuclear submarines are made from a ceramic component that is serviced in Stoke-on-Trent. The ceramic coating necessary for small modular reactors, which will hopefully be made in Derby, is required because it can resist the heat that is generated at the speed at which they will revolve. The filtration systems for most metal products in this country go through a small ceramic piece—it looks like a fruit pastel—that filters out the impurities while withstanding the intense temperatures of molten metal. Without those small technical ceramics, the bigger manufacturing activities that we undertake in this country simply would not be possible, and that is before we get on to the advanced ceramic materials that are available for heat recovery and green technology advancements, and before we think about the biomedical implications. There are ceramic components that can now be used for hip and elbow replacements, which have much less likelihood of being rejected by the body because they are a natural compound and the bone grafting takes easier. There are countless opportunities for ceramics to play a real-world solution to the challenges we face. They are often hidden in plain sight; we just need to look for them. That is before we get to the beloved tableware and giftware that made my city so famous, and that we see across this place and in the tiles on our floors.
One last time.
I believe my hon. Friend is referring to the Copeland plate that he saw, which was made in the old Copeland factory not far from my current constituency office. Again, that demonstrates the soft power that we have in the export market. Mr Speaker himself commissions ceramic products from Stoke-on-Trent as part of the giftware he hands out when he receives dignitaries from around the world. I am proud that things made in Stoke-on-Trent find themselves gracing palaces around the world. The Minister will know, however, that it has been a tough time for ceramics. Ceramics is predominantly a gas-based industry, and the cost of gas power is almost three times what it was in 2019. In 2019, we were looking at about 40p per therm; today, it is 116p per therm. I genuinely appreciate that the Minister does not control the international wholesale gas price and, as I have on occasions disagreed with the Opposition, drilling will not necessarily bring down that price. However, it is nevertheless a fact that it costs three times as much today to fire a product, whether it be a brick or a plate, as it did in 2019. It has been estimated by the TUC and GMB through their “Save British ceramics” policy document that 78% of the heat capacity needed to meet the ceramics manufacturing base in this country could come from electrification. It is not impossible to electrify. However, the Minister will also know that electricity prices in this country are significantly higher than in our European counterparts. That is all before we get on to the issue of the illegal dumping in this country of products that are made using subsidised Russian gas through non-EU countries. We do have a genuine problem with the competitive nature of the products that we make based on the energy that they consume. That is where we have been talking to the Secretary of State and the Minister for Industry about the supercharger scheme. We were disappointed that ceramics in their entirety were not included in the British industrial competitiveness scheme. We welcome the fact that small technical ceramics have been included—that step has been genuinely welcomed across the sector. The pitch we want to continue to make today is for the rest of the sector to be considered for the supercharger scheme as part of the ongoing consideration that the Department is running. There is a perversity to the supercharger scheme. Industries that are part of it receive all the benefits of being in it, receiving discounts on some of the policy costs and some of the transmission costs; industries that are not in it not only do not receive those benefits, but actually pay towards those that are part of it. Being out of the scheme therefore means paying for the industries that are in it. We have the perverse nature of energy-intensive industries like ceramics subsidising the energy costs of energy-intensive industries such as steel, some of the chemical sector and some of the metal sector. That is not something the Government have done by design; it is just the way the system has developed over time, by trying to make it cost neutral to the Government and passing those costs on to higher energy users. That is unfair—it is. It means that the costs of the electricity that could be used in factories around Stoke-on-Trent and around the UK are higher because organisations that use as much energy as we do are getting a subsidy and a discount. That needs to be changed. The sector does want to move towards electrification. We really welcome the fact that part of the £120 million secured by the Secretary of State was for capital costs to allow factories to move towards heat recovery technology and towards electrification of processes, where possible. However, the challenge is that while the electrification process may be covered in some of the capital costs, the running costs of the electric process, compared with the gas process, means that the savings are marginal and, in some cases, it is more expensive. I know that the Secretary of State is working as quickly as he can, and I know that the Government say they are working at pace on trying to bring down those industrial electricity costs, but at the moment that is an impediment to realising some of the good work that we could do as a result of the investment that the Secretary of State has brought forward. I would just ask the Secretary of State to think about which of the SIC codes he would consider including in the supercharger scheme. Given that we have an ambition in this country to build 1.5 million houses, ensuring that every community has homes that my constituents and the constituents of my colleagues can move into must be part of that. If product code 23320—bricks and tiles in baked clay—could be included, that would benefit manufacturers in your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker, and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee). Manufacturers in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), home to Ibstock, would also benefit from that. Given that we want to try to encourage house building, this seems like an absolute no-brainer. There are also issues around product code 23200, which are refractory products. As I have said, to make steel in this country, refractory-grade ceramics that can withstand the intense heat of that process are needed. At the moment, we are becoming dependent on potentially importing those sorts of ceramics into the UK in order to make steel. Given that we are putting a significant amount of money into being able to increase the production of steel in this country because of our sovereign capability demands, it makes absolute sense that we insulate the supply chain for that process, which includes refractory-grade ceramics. Again, including those manufacturers in the supercharger scheme would be a huge benefit to them and make us less dependent upon imports. Given the geopolitical instability that we face, being able to do this by ourselves in our own country makes absolute sense. On house building, every house needs some form of bathroom. If my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) were here, he would talk about Armitage Shanks and the famous sanitaryware that it makes. Product code 23420 is ceramics and sanitaryware. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme tries to make a further intervention, I acknowledge that in his constituency, he has Silverdale Bathrooms, which makes sanitaryware. We should be supporting domestic manufacturers in this country to build the houses that we need. Without that support, we become dependent on imports. Finally, a product code that is close to my heart: 23410 —the ceramic household and ornamental object. I appreciate that including it in the scheme is a harder sell because of the strategic importance of those products to the country, but I say to the Secretary of State that one of the programmes that this Government have quite rightly introduced is Pride in Place, which is about saying to communities, “We know who you are, and we are proud of what you do.” When he visited Emma Bridgewater, he saw the pride on the faces of the workers who make the mugs, plates and tableware—and he had a go himself, and was very good. There is a sense of identity in having an industry reflected in a community, and it being supported and helped. While there may not be an immediate economic argument for the inclusion of tableware and giftware in the supercharger scheme, there is undoubtedly an argument about community identity and pride in place. This is about protecting jobs in communities like mine, which have lost so much over many years of de-industrialisation, while simultaneously saying to the thousands of workers who make the things that we eat off, give to our friends, and buy for weddings and birthdays, “We recognise the important social value of what you make and your contribution to the colour and joy of our lives.” I think that is a powerful argument that shows that ceramics should included in the supercharger. This is not a case of the sector simply asking for a handout. I think the Secretary of State would accept that the sector is doing what it can to decarbonise, and recognises that decarbonisation does not mean deindustrialisation. It recognises that it has to do more on heat recovery, and to ensure that it can sustain itself. The funding we have received has been an incredible benefit to the sector. The next step, to ensure that we go from surviving to thriving, is including the sector in the supercharger. I hope when the Secretary of State is able to make announcements about the review, which we hope is coming soon, he will lift the hearts of all the workers he met at Emma Bridgewater by saying, “You’re in the scheme, and we’ve got your back.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), the new farming and food Minister, and I published our new farming road map, which is the first ever long-term strategy for farming. It sets out a vision for a more productive, profitable, sustainable and resilient sector. The primary purpose of farming, as set out in the road map, is food production, which goes hand in hand with improving the environment. We are driving towards a lower-input, more nature-friendly farming system.
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. We are engaging with the National Farmers’ Union on this; we know it is a great concern for farmers. We have asked the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board to increase fertiliser price reporting, so it is now doing that weekly rather than monthly. We have already consulted on suspending tariffs for certain fertilisers, and we have rolled out an online tool to help farmers use fertilisers more efficiently.
I pay tribute to the work my hon. Friend does representing her local farmers, and I hope the Liskeard show goes well later this week. The Farming and Food Partnership Board, which has already been established, is working on two sector growth plans, starting with poultry and horticulture, to bring down barriers to growth. We are taking forward the road map’s vision to ensure that farmers are more productive and profitable; that is how we will proceed.
I could not agree more. I absolutely pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman’s local young farmers’ club. As he knows, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs supports the National Federation of Young Farmers’ Clubs, and we engaged with it on the drafting of the farming road map. We always have young farmers in our minds when we are designing policy, because we are committed to ensuring that the next generation can enter the sector. We are looking particularly in the road map at encouraging longer-term tenancies, which we know is an easier way to get into the sector. We have also asked the Law Commission to review legislation on farming tenancies. Like him, I am committed to ensuring that the next generation has a voice in our policies.
I reassure the hon. Lady that those farmers whose agreements are coming to an end towards the end of this year or early next year—there are obviously thousands—will be able to apply in the second window. We have made the technological advances necessary to ensure that that can happen. I know that issue has been raised with me in previous DEFRA oral questions, and we have taken it forward since then. We have a record farming budget for sustainable farming of £11.8 billion over the course of this Parliament. This is obviously not just about public funding; it is about how we work with the sector and how parts of the sector collaborate with each other. That is why we have put £30 million into a farmer collaboration fund and why we are also backing agritech.
I would take our record over the hon. Gentleman’s record any time. The Conservatives could not even be bothered to spend the farming budget when they were in power. They sold farmers down the river on various trade deals, but we have not; we have protected farmers in our trade deals. We have set out the first-ever long-term road map and vision for the farming sector, and we have worked closely with it. We commissioned Minette Batters, the former president of the NFU, to do an independent profitability review, and we are taking forward the vast majority of her recommendations. We are working in close partnership with the sector. That is all in stark contrast with what happened under the hon. Gentleman’s Government.
Dartmoor ponies are a vital part of our landscape and history. As the Environment Secretary, I have a duty to protect our native species, which obviously include Dartmoor ponies. I want to see the number of Dartmoor ponies maintained and the condition of Dartmoor improved.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on this important issue. I know there is a lot of concern in his local area and beyond about Dartmoor ponies, but I reassure him that under this Government, there will be no planned reduction in the number of Dartmoor ponies. I am working on solutions to support this fantastic native species, and I will set out further details on that soon. I would love to visit and see the ponies for myself.
I agree. Given that the Conservatives created this mess by rejecting some of the Fursdon recommendations, it is a bit rich of them to have a go at the current Government, as we are trying to clear up their mess on this issue and many others. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am well aware of the different issues on Dartmoor. A third of the moor is a site of special scientific interest, and we must ensure that we put measures in place to better enable the moor to recover, particularly during the winter. We must ensure that the grazing is more widespread, rather than concentrated in the SSSI. I have recently met with the Dartmoor Land Use Management Group to discuss these issues, and, as I have said, I will continue to pursue a solution that protects Dartmoor ponies and restores the environmental condition of the SSSI.
Innovation and productivity go hand in hand, and the Government are backing British agri-tech with real investment. Innovation is central to our farming road map, and I recently announced that we are boosting the farming innovation programme to £123 million this year. We are also working across Government—for example, with the Department for Business and Trade—to open up new export opportunities and drive growth, productivity and jobs across the sector.
My hon. Friend is right to say that the Government absolutely recognise the potential of agri-tech as a high-growth sector. That is why it is included in the Government’s industrial strategy. The UK is already a world leader in agri-tech, but we want to ensure that we maintain that leadership. Under this Government, we will continue to bolster our position and boost global exports, as he suggested. We are supporting British agri-tech innovations, such as automated fruit pickers, which are already being used around the world. We should be proud of our strong research base and our culture of farming innovation.
I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman that the centre is a UK national asset. I or the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), would be pleased to visit to learn more about what it is doing.
Since our last oral questions, we have recently published England’s first long-term farming road map, as I mentioned earlier, and we have opened the first application window for our reformed sustainable farming incentive. I visited the Groundswell agricultural festival to see regenerative farming in action, and I will be at the Great Yorkshire show next week. Our water delivery taskforce has recently unlocked the infrastructure needed to support nearly 20,000 new homes in East Anglia, and we are taking action to ensure that products on British supermarket shelves such as coffee and cocoa are not linked to illegal deforestation overseas. Like the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), I spoke at London Climate Action Week about our bold action to restore nature, and I welcomed the UN Secretary-General to Kew Gardens. Yesterday I announced the biggest ever investment in species recovery. Finally, we are a nation of animal lovers, as you know very well, Mr Speaker. I have today published the Government’s plans to reform the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 in order to deliver better outcomes for this great profession—the Act has not been updated since 1966—and our much-loved pets.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. We have worked in close partnership with farmers and stakeholders to shape the new SFI. I can reassure my hon. Friend, and Members across the House, that those farmers who have soon-to-expire ELM revenue agreements will be able to apply in the second window of SFI later this year, in September.
That is some brass neck, given that the whole issue of the Dartmoor ponies was created under the right hon. Lady’s Government. They rejected several of the Fursdon review recommendations and put the future of the Dartmoor ponies in doubt. We are having to clear up their mess, so I shall take no lectures from the right hon. Lady.
The right hon. Lady lectures us about regulators. We have a tighter grip on our arms-length bodies than the Conservatives did when they were in Government. I issued strategic policy statements to all ALBs earlier this year, writing to the chairs of those organisations to tell them about the Government’s direction of travel. Under her Government, the reason we saw record levels of pollution in our waterways was that they took their foot off the gas and took a blind eye to water companies polluting rivers. And they introduced a system of self-monitoring that was equivalent to Ofsted not sending anybody out to do any inspections of schools.
I can reassure my hon. Friend of that. He will have seen that I wrote to Ofwat setting out my early concerns that the creditors’ current proposal does not do enough to protect customers and the environment. The protection of consumers and the environment is at the forefront of all my thinking. I reassure him that we will always act in the national interest. We stand ready for all eventualities, including applying for a special administration regime if that becomes necessary.
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that it is a priority for the Government. I visited the University of Surrey’s veterinary medicine school yesterday, and we have been engaging with the sector, which wants to modernise the legislation. It is not fit for purpose—there are plenty of things available now that were not around in 1966, such as scans for animals. We are absolutely committed as a Government to modernising the legislation to the benefit of the profession—ensuring that we continue to drive up standards, celebrate good practice and root out bad practice—and to the benefit of pet owners, too.
I can reassure my hon. Friend that agricultural pollution is top of mind for me as Secretary of State and for the Water Minister, and the issue will form part of the clean water Bill. We need to crack down on water pollution from agriculture in partnership with farmers, making sure that they have the tools that they need to do the right thing, because agricultural pollution accounts for around 42% of overall river pollution.
This Government inherited record levels of river pollution. We have already passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, making pollution cover-ups a criminal offence; more than doubled the number of Environment Agency inspections to 10,000 a year; and, only yesterday, introduced automatic fines for polluting water companies. Our clean water Bill will stop water companies marking their own homework and deliver better outcomes for consumers and the environment.
I wish my hon. Friend and her team the very best of luck in this weekend’s boat race, and I share her outrage at the amount of pollution we are seeing in so many of our beautiful rivers. One of the things in our clean water Bill that is worth highlighting is the introduction of regional planning, to give local communities more say over the water system in their area.
I also share the hon. Gentleman’s outrage at the amount of pollution he is seeing in the environment, and recognise how much this impacts not only the local environment, but the people who live in his area. As he knows, the White Paper we published states that we will develop a clear transitional process for companies that wish to explore alternative forms of ownership, including not-for-profits and mutuals.
Without action, we face a possible water supply deficit of 5 billion litres a day by 2055. This is why projects such as the Teddington direct river abstraction scheme are vital, to help secure London’s water supply during droughts. Any discharges to the Thames from this scheme will be subject to strict water quality assessments.
I recognise that Ham and Kingston riverside is one of the first designated bathing water spots in the whole of London, which is quite exciting for the city. When we designate bathing water sites, the water quality is monitored regularly throughout the season. That information is made publicly available, and of course, any allowance for any abstraction scheme or water recycling scheme will be subject to strict environmental tests.
The level of pollution in the River Wye is unacceptable and we are working to accelerate progress to tackle it, including by funding a £1 million research programme to identify sources of pollution and develop practical solutions to improve water quality. We are also rolling out early pilots of regional planning, which involved a workshop with stakeholders in the Severn region on 15 May.
I recognise all the important work that my hon. Friend has put into this important campaign, and how much she cares about protecting this beautiful river. We will continue to work with the Environment Agency to explore all the available options, which include, of course, a water protection zone. Any designation must be evidence-led and targeted to ensure that the right measures are in place to tackle pollution effectively and to deliver lasting improvements to water quality.
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes), we are working with the EA to explore all the available options, which includes a water protection zone. It is an incredibly important issue, and I know how much the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) cares about it —I recognise that the Wye is a beautiful river. We have the £1 million research project, which is working directly with farmers and land managers. The EA has already conducted 1,246 farm inspections and issued 1,183 improvement actions around the River Wye since 2022.
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Last Thursday I met some of the water companies from the areas that will have the extreme heatwave, to be reassured that they will not run out of water during that period. Ofwat has also launched a public information campaign about the value of water. He will know from my previous answers that we have the water delivery taskforce, which is looking at water supply, house building ambition and growth to ensure that we have the water we need. It is one of the reasons we need to get on with building the nine reservoirs, as none have been built for the past 30 years.
My hon. Friend raises a hugely important topic, and Reuben’s story was extremely moving to hear at first hand. I extend my deepest sympathy to the families of all those who have been affected by sickness through using the water around England, and I share their anger, outrage and desire for change. We reformed the Bathing Water Regulations 2013 so that they are fit for purpose, and we are looking at water quality classification information. We also have the Environment Agency’s Swimfo website. We will continue to look at how we can best keep bathers safe.
The hon. Member is right to feel outraged at the amount of pollution and the situation with Thames Water. He will have heard the Secretary of State’s comments on what we are doing on Thames Water and her early views on the original deal put forward by the creditors to clean this up. That is why we took action with the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 to bring in tougher regulation, and why just yesterday we announced automatic penalties for companies that continue to pollute.