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 11 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,942 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
My hon. Friend puts her finger on the issue. As I said in my statement, there are three principal reasons why I sent Ofwat my early concerns about the proposal, and one of those reasons is the delay of the investment that we need to ensure that there are improvements to environmental performance, which I know is an issue of concern across the House. I do not want customers to pick up the tab for that delay.
I do not always agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I do so on this issue. There has been real regulatory failure here—there has been a failure of the regulators, and a failure of the regulation itself. The Conservatives decided to cut the enforcement budget of the Environment Agency, and there has been a shift towards self-monitoring, which essentially means that the water companies have been marking their own homework. It is like telling Ofsted not to visit any schools—that is the equivalent of the regime that we saw under the Conservatives. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that customers and the environment need to be at the heart of the solution to this issue.
Absolutely, and I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. As I said in my statement, customers are front and centre in my consideration of this issue. It is completely unacceptable that farmers are suffering the consequences of the raw sewage crisis in our country, and they should not have their land contaminated. That is their livelihood, and it takes a great deal of work and cost to decontaminate the land.
Well, we have to see. I have sent a letter to express my early concerns about the situation, and the Government remain open to all eventualities. If there was a special administration regime, which some people are calling for, then the Government would obviously be financing a special administrator to run the company. That would have to happen, because we would have to have continuity of service. If the hon. Gentleman does not want that to happen, he has to suggest an alternative.
The clean water Bill will introduce a supervisory regime whereby the new regulator, which will have more teeth, will have a team of people for each and every water company, really getting a grip on the performance of each water company and holding it to account. What we have seen up until now, as I said to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), is the shift we saw 15 years ago towards a system where companies were basically marking their own homework. That cannot be right; that is not a proper regulatory system. That is just laissez-faire and letting companies get away with the sorts of pollution incidents that we have seen.
I thank the hon. Lady for welcoming the fact that I have sent the letter with my early concerns. As I said, there are two different ways for a special administration regime. One is insolvency, which is a matter for the directors of the company and would have to go through the courts. The other is the performance tsar.
Yes, we want Thames Water’s priority to be investing in the water infrastructure needed to improve the service it gives its customers and to drive environmental improvement.
The hon. Lady is right to point out that these are natural monopolies and that there is no competition. I do not think nationalisation is a silver bullet in this regard. I point out to her that the Government are facing big fiscal pressures in all sorts of other areas, but we stand ready for all eventualities.
It is because of my concern about the delays to improvements in infrastructure and the environment that I sent the letter to Ofwat. Can I reassure my hon. Friend on one point? I have never even considered the idea that the Environment Agency would let this company off any fines. The agency will continue to perform its duties in holding Thames Water and all other water companies to account, and will enforce against them should they breach their statutory obligations.
I am really sorry to hear about the sewage incident outside a local primary school. If the hon. Lady would like to take that up with me separately, I would be happy to follow it up. The Government are concerned about the underperformance of the company, which is why I expressed early concerns about this proposal. She is right to say that we need a solution that delivers for customers and the environment.
My hon. Friend is right to say there have been 15 years of failure, with the company letting down customers and businesses in his constituency. Chalk streams are an absolute priority for me, both as a Member representing a constituency in the Chilterns and as Environment Secretary.
As a country, we have failed to build a reservoir for 30 years. That cannot be right. On the specific reservoir to which the hon. Gentleman refers, we will have to look at the details, but as it stands the company is ongoing; it is a solvent company and it should continue to complete the projects that it started.
I thank my hon. Friend for conveying the concerns of his constituency of Harlow. [Interruption.] The Minister for Harlow? I did not know that we had created that position! The Government are prepared for all eventualities, and I reassure my hon. Friend that whatever happens, the Government will ensure continuity of service for his constituents with regard to water supply and waste water services.
When I served as the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, I worked on our plan to double the number of mutuals across the economy. More broadly, not just with regard to Thames Water, I would be happy to see more mutual ownership of water companies, but the question is how we get there.
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning chalk streams. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean), I have chalk streams in my constituency, and they are close to my heart. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) is right to say that Thames Water is the biggest water company in the country, with 16 million customers. The Government stand ready for all eventualities, including a special administration regime. The customers are at front and centre of my consideration of this issue.
As I have said previously, regardless of how the situation develops, the Environment Agency will continue to investigate pollution incidents and take enforcement proceedings against any company involved, including Thames Water.
As I said in answer to a previous question, through the clean water Bill the Government will seek to ensure that the new water regulator—which will be integrating the functions of Ofwat, the EA, the Drinking Water Inspectorate and Natural England—does not allow companies to get into the sorts of unmanageable levels of debt that we have seen.
We are working closely with Ofwat, which has been talking to the consortium of investors for two years. Through my officials, the Government have been in discussions with the consortium alongside Ofwat since November. I thank all the officials who have been involved in those discussions. We need to find a way forward that puts customers and the environment at its heart.
The political murder of Jo Cox was deeply affecting for many of us—and, frankly, none of us should ever recover from it. She was not only brave and principled; she was also funny. If I ever need to cheer myself up, I simply remember her throwing her little body into the interparliamentary tug-of-war and how very funny it was—and she knew it. My Committee and the Philip Rycroft review have found that the UK is already experiencing Russian disinformation warfare and that our defences to it are worryingly weak. We have both recommended a statutory, public-facing national counter-disinformation centre to ensure a co-ordinated response. The French have done it. The Swedes have done it. The Ukrainians have done it. I wonder whether the Minister can hold out hope that, someday soon, Britain might do it too.
If Members google “Caledonian Road”, which is in my constituency, they might think it is a river, but it is not. Over the past decade, Thames Water has delivered to Islington seven major floods. Since privatisation, it has delivered to shareholders £7 billion. Last year, it delivered to my constituents a 31% increase in water rates. Residents are fed up, businesses are fed up, I am fed up, and I am sure that the Government are fed up. How much more do we have to take before Thames Water is finally given the boot?
I am a retired ENT surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons.
Q I am an ENT surgeon. Why has there been no effective single patient record in the past? If there were such a thing, who would you give ownership of the data to? Sarah Woolnough: We have had developments over many years in the direction of a single patient record. We have shared care records; we have attempts in different parts of the country to move in that direction. On the one hand, we have been held back by legitimate concerns about trust, privacy and the right safeguards, but some practical barriers have also held us back. For example—and this is really important to make the single patient record a success—what does it take to ensure that we achieve interoperability, that the data is cleansed and that penalties are followed through if providers are not sharing data? We need to back up any legislative and policy intent with the resource and measures needed to make it happen. That is perhaps a bit of the history of why it has not happened. Sorry, what was the second part of your question?
Q Who would the data belong to? Would it belong to the patient or to the healthcare provider? Sarah Woolnough: My reading of the legislation is that perhaps this issue is not quite resolved; the legislation does not seek to shift necessarily from having the GP as the data controller. Of course, there will be concerns as the record is brought together nationally. Ultimately, the data should belong to people and patients, but they rightly want to feel that it is protected and safeguarded appropriately through the system. There are a couple of other points to make as we design this. This is a work in progress, so it is not neat in the sense that you cannot say, “This is exactly what a single patient record is, and this is exactly what it will be for evermore.” I think the policy intent is to build and develop it over time. To give one example, patients and the public being able to understand who has access to their records, and for what purposes, might be really helpful in the process of building trust and belief that their data is being well looked after.
Especially if it were the case that the patient were the data controller. Sarah Woolnough: Yes. Jacob Lant: Whoever ends up being the data controller, the most important thing is that patients have a right to express how their data is used. That is where it is really important to keep things like the national data opt-out up to date, and to ensure that it is clear and accessible for patients to express how their data is used for secondary purposes. That becomes much harder in a direct care scenario. If you restrict the sharing of data for direct care, you could inadvertently create a second-class system for people who are not in that. It is a really clear distinction. For secondary uses, we need a very clear opt-out, where people can understand how their data is used and express a preference.
Q Which organisations or people do you envisage running the neighbourhood health centres? Will they be run out of general practice organisations, or will the local authorities themselves be best placed to run them, so as to join up hospital care with community services? Councillor Wright: That is quite interesting; I was at a session this morning looking at communities, and there was a comment that for the NHS communities are about buildings, whereas for the local authority they are about people. I think it would be the ICBs and whoever they commissioned to provide neighbourhood health centres. I hope there would be enough input from the voluntary sector, the local authority, adult social care and public health—from everyone—but I see the ICBs as the commissioners and the people who organise them.
Q So the ICB will commission it, but somebody will have to run it. Who should run a neighbourhood health centre? Maria Higson: If we want to be as open to change as possible, my argument would be that that should be decided locally. Would it not be fantastic if, for example, some of them were led by VCSEs that worked in close partnerships and had clinics where GPs came in? You can envisage a whole number of different scenarios, led by local communities and local organisations. This plays back to the health inequalities point, but that is how you do it, although it relies on you being open to different models and not trying to do a one-size-fits-all, which is really tricky when you are trying to implement.
Q I am an ENT surgeon. What do you think about giving the patient ownership of the single patient record as well as discretion over whether the information in that record is revealed to the clinical team? Dr Byrne: It is an interesting idea, but I am not sure. I heard your question earlier about data controllership specifically in this regard. You will not necessarily like my answer. There are two ways of answering the question; perhaps straightforwardly, legally, but also clinically. I will start with the legal answer, which in some ways is easier. Data controllership in data protection law is a very technical term; it is determined by who is making the decisions about processing the means of the data. An organisation running and controlling an electronic patient record would be the data controller. Obviously, this is ultimately a question for the regulator and the Information Commissioner’s Office to determine, but that would be the legal position, nevertheless. Clinically, we have to come back to thinking about what a patient record is for. Primarily, it is to provide good care in the context of the clinician-patient relationship. If you prioritise the needs of either side of that relationship, I think it is problematic; the needs of one must not outweigh the needs of the other. The clinical record is there to enable clinicians to record what someone is presenting with, the difficulties they are having, what investigations are appropriate, the findings and what the plan is. It needs to be there for that tool to work. To take you on a slight thought experiment, if it was entirely held within a patient’s control—however loosely we use that term, legally or otherwise—and we could all amend, correct, change or add our diagnoses, findings and treatments, that might be clinically problematic. That may not be the answer you want, but it is the straight answer, if I am honest, from both a clinical and legal perspective.
Q I would love to amend the figures in my bank account—I would like to be able to go into my Lloyds bank account and add a nought to the end of the balance figure—but I cannot, because the bank controls that. But I am the one who has access to the data. Dr Byrne: I totally support that ambition. Patients and the public having more agency in their care, strengthening that relationship, and them being able to access their information through the NHS app is a great thing. That is hugely helpful, and there is real potential with the SPR to strengthen that. We have landed on agreement.
8. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her Department’s policies of international outbreaks of Ebola.
The Ebola outbreak now spans 29 health zones across three eastern provinces and is a reminder to us all that infectious diseases do not respect borders. With global health funding under significant pressure, does the Minister share my concern that we risk undermining the early warning systems that ultimately protect people here at home? Can he set out what steps the UK is taking to maintain its leadership role in global security?
I thank the Foreign Secretary for raising the case of my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal during her recent visit to India. Will she update the House on whether her discussions were positive? Are we any closer to securing Jagtar’s release and return home to West Dunbartonshire?
Q It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. Sir Jeremy, I want to turn to NHS England’s accountability, or lack thereof. I know you made the point that you did not want clinically advised decisions to be overly politicised, but I had the reverse in my constituency when a decision was made after the lease on a doctors’ surgery ran out. It could not be extended because of some rule in NHS England, but due to that lack of accountability, there was nothing that we could do. The surgery closed, and one in six of its patients was just redistributed to another surgery, so that accountability clearly failed in that space. If you are concerned that accountability ends up too close to the Department, where else should it land? I am quite comfortable with a Minister being accountable for that decision, because they are accountable to MPs, who are ultimately accountable to the people that it affects. Can you pare back your answer a little bit and talk about where that accountability should lie, and how we can ensure that it works? Sir Jeremy Hunt: That is a story I think every single Member of Parliament could repeat, and it is a fundamental flaw in the system. Do you not think it is completely ridiculous that you have to go to the Health Secretary, who is responsible for a budget of £160 billion—the largest healthcare system in the world—to sort out something like a GP surgery lease in your constituency? That is a perfect example of a problem that we should be able to sort out locally, and that is why I think the bureaucracy has got completely out of hand.
The Secretary of State is absolutely right: Thames Water has let down my constituents and Londoners more broadly with years of chronic under-investment, while paying record levels of bonuses and dividends. I recently visited my local sewage treatment works, and saw proposed improvements to increase storm surge capacity on site and to improve filtration levels to clean up our waterways. Will the Secretary of State assure me and my constituents that those much-needed planned improvements will not be further delayed by ongoing institutional uncertainty about the future of Thames Water, so that we can finally turn the page on 14 years of Tory neglect of our waterways?
T2. I have been contacted by members of the Tamil community across Bexleyheath and Crayford, who continue to press for accountability and justice in relation to atrocities committed during the civil war in Sri Lanka. They are very concerned about how the country’s Prevention of Terrorism Act is currently being used to silence voices, including that of Hiphop Sangee. Can my hon. Friend outline the measures her Department is taking to press for accountability for both the historical and current persecution of Tamils in Sri Lanka?
I think some Opposition Members are suffering from amnesia and have forgotten the asset stripping that happened, which has led to infrastructure failing across Bexleyheath and Crayford, and to the 30% increase in bills last year. We have tried every option to keep Thames Water organisationally solvent, but my patience, and that of my constituents across Bexleyheath and Crayford, is running out. Will the Secretary of State outline how ready we are as a Government if we need to take the company into special administration? In Bexleyheath and Crayford, our patience is running out.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins). I would like to start by making two relevant declarations of interest. I worked for the Office of Communications before entering Parliament and I am currently a fellow of the Institution of Engineering and Technology. Madam Deputy Speaker, you might have heard me mention on occasion that I was an engineer before coming into Parliament. As such, in 2010, I was desperate for issues around technology to come up in Parliament, as it was a subject I actually knew something about, but they rarely did. In the intervening 16 years, however, things have changed, and technology issues such as online safety, wi-fi on trains, sovereign technology and infowars are now raised regularly. I welcome the increasing role of technology in all our constituents’ lives, but this must go hand in hand with rigorous cyber-security to protect against threats from state and non-state actors. As I highlighted in my speech on Second Reading, the UK’s only cross-cutting cyber-security legislation is currently that inherited from the European Union. The previous Conservative Government failed to update these regulations, leaving us working under an outdated framework. I therefore really welcome this Bill, which seeks to expand the scope of existing cyber-security regulations to new sectors, strengthen the role of regulators and grant the Government new powers to respond to the threats posed by cyber-security breaches. We are only as secure as our weakest link, but I am afraid we still have a number of weak links left. Cyber-attacks are having a real financial impact on the UK and are happening at an increasing rate. According to the Institution of Engineering and Technology, cyber-attacks cost UK businesses an estimated £64 billion annually, with £37 billion in direct costs and £26 billion in indirect costs. Last year we also saw the well-documented cyber-attack that hit Marks & Spencer, leaving shoppers unable to buy online from the company for months. The company’s profits were almost wiped out, down from £390 million to £3 million for the first half of 2025. As a Sparks card holder myself, I was unable to use my card for six months and I fear I may have contributed to those figures. This brings me to my first amendment, new clause 20, which seeks to designate retail businesses as an essential activity, bringing them within scope of part 3 of the Bill. Retail is the UK’s largest private sector employer. It holds large amounts of consumer data but often relies on dated IT systems. Yet, as I noted on Second Reading, the existing scope of the Bill would not have prevented or even had an impact on the attacks on Marks & Spencer or Jaguar Land Rover, despite the significant disruption they caused to our constituents and our economic activity. Indeed, in November, the Bank of England cited the cyber-attack on JLR as a factor in its decision to hold interest rates. The Government’s plan to promote the new cyber governance code of practice to improve pre-operative preparedness in sectors such as retail is welcome, but voluntary measures alone will not deliver the consistent adoption of good cyber governance across economically significant sectors such as retail. According to the Government’s figures, only 9,680 Cyber Essentials Plus certificates were issued to small and medium-sized businesses between November 2023 and October 2024. There are an estimated 6 million small and medium-sized enterprises in the UK, so this is not going to address that challenge at the rate at which it needs to be addressed. I welcome the Opposition amendments that would bring retail businesses within the Bill’s scope, but I am concerned that they might be too extensive in bringing small and medium-sized businesses into its remit and placing a disproportionate burden on them. The revenue threshold of £12 billion in my new clause 20 provides the necessary specificity to ensure that only large retail businesses, including Marks & Spencer and Jaguar Land Rover, would fall under the expanded Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018. This would lead to faster incident-reporting responses and customer notification, alongside stronger powers, including those to deal with non-compliance. Turning to my new clause 18, we have already heard that the concentration of the UK’s public sector data within a small number of US-owned providers—Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure specifically—presents a structural risk to national resilience. Combined, AWS and Microsoft account for 70% to 80% of the public cloud market, according to the Competition and Markets Authority. Part of the issue is that that figure is an estimate. I have put down a series of written parliamentary questions over the last seven years to find out just how dependent the Government are on AWS and Microsoft. This data is not tracked across Government. Can the Minister say how he intends to assess a threat that the Government are not measuring? As set out in my Committee’s report entitled “Rewiring the state: Delivering digital government”, our national resilience is put at risk by the strategic lock-in that these companies have in many of our public services and Administrations. Major Departments, including His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the NHS, are under multi-year agreements that further entrench these cloud infrastructures within the Whitehall ecosystem. Included in my Committee’s report was evidence we heard from the Open Cloud Coalition, who suggested that the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology should consider a period of over-correction, including the mandatory re-competition of high-risk or large-scale contracts, to break cycles of vendor lock-in. The Government are rightly seeking to co-ordinate cloud contracting, but I believe that this should be done in a way that would ensure more, not less, competition. We would like to see the detail of how the all-of-Government cloud contract will prevent vendor lock-in, and I would like the Minister to outline his engagement with the CMA on the contract’s development. Not only does our reliance on these two cloud services raise practical issues—as seen with the AWS outage in October—but there are questions around data protection. Under the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act and the Patriot Act, the US Government can compel US companies, including AWS and Microsoft, to hand over data if held overseas—that is, in the UK. I am aware that the Minister might reference our sovereign hosting capability, Crown Hosting, but it hosts only 4% of Government legacy services. Will he please outline how the Government intend to ensure protection so that the public sector makes better use of the services provided by Crown Hosting? Could he also set out how he will ensure that the Government’s digital transformation ambitions cannot be derailed at any time by decisions based on the narrow interests of a foreign, commercial or state actor? He might choose to argue that this is highly unlikely, but I would point him to the recent decision of the US Government to withdraw foreign nationals’ access to Anthropic’s Fable 5 model. Finally, my new clause 19 calls on the Secretary of State to conduct a review into the risks posed by foreign state ownership or control of providers of cellular internet-of-things modules. I always like to mention that I was the first Member of Parliament to speak about the internet of things, in my debate back in 2011. Having worked in technology as an engineer, the threat posed by cyber-attacks on the internet of things was very real to me from the start of my parliamentary career. Indeed, in 2017 I wrote an article highlighting the threat of cyber-attacks on sex toys, in a vain attempt to raise the profile of the issue.
The right hon. Member does well to remind us that the impact of hostile action using CIMs, such as by turning on a kill switch, would be devastating across multiple sectors, including potentially the consumer sector, as well as security, automotive, transport and finance. That is why it is so important to consider this. I particularly draw the Minister’s attention to the list provided by the US Federal Communications Commission—the equivalent of Ofcom—of equipment and services covered by section 2 of the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act. The list dictates what technology is legally permitted to be authorised for import and sale in the US, and many companies on the list are owned or controlled by the Chinese state. I thank the Minister in the other place for meeting me and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), whose amendment I also support, and hearing our concerns about the supply of IOT devices. It was unfortunate that the Minister did not see the need for action, particularly given that the US has taken action against Chinese-made goods and that, during a trip of the British-American Parliamentary Group to the US just last week, we heard that further action is likely to be taken against cellular IOT modules specifically. That could mean UK products being banned from import into the US if they contain such CIMs. We have seen a rapid growth of those devices across transport, as we have mentioned, as well as energy and, importantly, water and health. I am concerned about the ability of our domestic British businesses to export into the US given those restrictions, as well as the impact on our security. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could set out whether he is looking into that concern. As was eloquently emphasised in the personal statements made by the recently resigned Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), and Armed Forces Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), the first duty of Government is the security of their citizens. That is true when it comes to our armed forces and our defence in the real world, and it is also true when it comes to our security in the virtual world. Those two overlap so much more than in the past. I welcome the Bill, but I have real concerns about the need to bring retail businesses such as M&S within its scope, the concentration of the UK’s public sector data in a small number of US-owned providers, the implications for technology sovereignty that that raises, and the risks posed by foreign state ownership of providers of cellular internet-of-things modules. I hope that the Minister will address those concerns and deliver the cyber-security and resilience that our constituents deserve.
My hon. Friend is right to say in his eloquent speech that raising awareness and having a debate about this issue is important, but the problems may not necessarily be the result of hostile actors. If the providers of the modules were to stop providing software updates, the modules would be more likely to fail and then become the subject of hostile attacks. So not only could the technology be killed by a hostile actor, but an increased dependency on software updates puts us at risk.
Will the Minister give way?
Let me take the Minister back to the question of bringing the retail sector into the provisions of the Bill. He seems to be saying that cyber-security and resilience require Government intervention only when there is an immediate threat to life. Will he clarify whether that is what he is saying? My understanding is that we need to keep our economy and citizens secure in all circumstances. On the question of proportionality, my new clause 20 seeks to bring in only very large businesses, so that the requirements of cyber-security on them are proportionate. We know that such businesses are not taking the measures to keep cyber-secure, as we have seen recently with Marks & Spencer, Jaguar Land Rover and others.