High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill
I call Grahame Morris.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill
Division off. Question agreed to. Ordered, That the following provisions shall apply in respect of the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill if proceedings on the Bill have not been completed before the end of this Session or any subsequent Session of this Parliament (each a “qualifying Session”). Suspension at end of qualifying Session 1. Further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended from the day on which the qualifying Session in question ends until the Session that follows it (“the new Session”). 2. If a Bill is presented in the new Session in the same terms as those in which the Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in the qualifying Session in question— (a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time; (b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the new Session; (c) any resolution relating to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 that is passed by the House in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session shall be deemed to have been passed by the House in the new Session; (d) the Bill shall be dealt with in accordance with— (i) paragraph 3, if proceedings in Select Committee were not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended; (ii) paragraph 4, if the Bill has been reported from the Select Committee but proceedings on the Bill in Public Bill Committee were not begun when proceedings on the Bill were suspended; (iii) paragraph 5, if proceedings in Public Bill Committee were begun but not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended (and see also paragraph 9); (iv) paragraph 6, if the Bill was waiting to be considered when proceedings on it were suspended; (v) paragraph 7, if the Bill was waiting for third reading when proceedings on it were suspended; (vi) paragraph 8, if the Bill has been read the third time and sent to the House of Lords. 3. If this paragraph applies— (a) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of such Members as were members of the Committee when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in the qualifying Session; (b) any instruction of the House to the Committee in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session shall be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill in the new Session; (c) all petitions submitted in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn, and any petition submitted between the day on which the qualifying Session ends and the day on which proceedings on the Bill are resumed in the new Session in accordance with this Order, shall stand referred to the Committee in the new Session; (d) any minutes of evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session shall stand referred to the Committee in the new Session; (e) only those petitions mentioned in sub-paragraph (c), and any petition which may be submitted to the Private Bill Office and in which the petitioners complain of any amendment proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in the new Session, shall stand referred to the Committee; (f) any petitioners whose petitions stand referred to the Committee in the new Session shall, subject to the rules and orders of the House, be entitled to be heard upon their petition by themselves, their counsel, representatives or parliamentary agents provided that the petition is prepared and signed in conformity with the rules and orders of the House; and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through counsel or agents in favour of the Bill against any such petition; (g) the Committee shall require any hearing in relation to a petition mentioned in sub-paragraph (f) above to take place in person, unless exceptional circumstances apply; (h) in applying the rules of the House in relation to parliamentary agents, any reference to a petitioner in person shall be treated as including a reference to a duly authorised member or officer of an organisation, group or body; (i) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day minutes of evidence taken before it; (j) the Committee shall have power to make special reports from time to time; (k) three shall be the quorum of the Committee. 4. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee. 5. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee in respect of those clauses and Schedules not ordered to stand part of the Bill in the qualifying Session. 6. If this paragraph applies— (a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee, and (b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for consideration. 7. If this paragraph applies— (a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee and to have been considered, and (b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for third reading. 8. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages in this House. Other 9. If proceedings in Public Bill Committee are begun but not completed before the end of a qualifying Session, the chair of the Committee shall report the Bill to the House as so far amended and the Bill and any evidence received by the Committee shall be ordered to lie upon the Table. 10. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3 above, each of the following is a relevant earlier Session— (a) Session 2021-22; (b) Session 2022-23; (c) Session 2023-24; (d) except where the qualifying Session is this Session, each Session of this Parliament before the qualifying Session; (e) where the new Session is the first Session of the next Parliament, each qualifying Session 11. In paragraph 1 above, the reference to further proceedings does not include proceedings under Standing Order 224A(8) (deposit of supplementary environmental information). 12. In paragraph 3 above, references to the submission of a petition are to its submission electronically, by post or in person. That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House. High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill: Select Committee Ordered, That the following provisions shall apply in respect of the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill stands committed by virtue of paragraph (10)(a) of the Order of 20 June 2022 (carry-over): 1. The Committee is to have five members. 2. The members of the Committee are— (a) those who are members of the Committee by virtue of paragraph (10)(a) of the Order of 20 June 2022 (carry-over), and (b) two other members who are to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. 3. Any alteration to the membership of the Committee shall be on the nomination of the Committee of Selection. 4. In carrying out its functions under paragraphs 2(b) and 3, the Committee of Selection shall have regard to the principle that— (a) three members of the Select Committee are to be Members from the party represented in His Majesty’s Government, and (b) two are to be Members from opposition parties.—(Heidi Alexander.)
- Hansard source
Tolled Crossings and Regional Connectivity
Order. Interventions must be brief, but as it is so long before 10 pm, Members could make a speech if they so wish.
- Hansard source
Tolled Crossings and Regional Connectivity
I call Ben Maguire.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T9. The Government have said that we should be bolstering our preparedness for war. Can the Minister tell us when the defence readiness Bill will be ready and when he expects it to gain Royal Assent?
- Hansard source
China and Japan
The Prime Minister has failed to stand up for Britain’s interests. From what we have seen, he could not even make it across Beijing’s red carpet without being guided along the way. What did the Prime Minister expect to receive in return for approving the Chinese super-embassy, and did the Chinese give it to him?
- Hansard source
Ajax: Initial Operating Capacity
8. What steps he is taking to ensure the delivery of initial operating capability for the Ajax programme.
- Hansard source
Ajax: Initial Operating Capacity
The Minister knows that I have a keen interest in this topic. There were 33 injuries sustained during Exercise Titan Storm. General Dynamics achieved initial operating capability for Ajax on 23 July, and between then and Exercise Titan Storm on 22 November, there were three other exercises: Exercise Scorpion Cyclone, Exercise Cyclone Storm and Exercise Tradewind. I asked the Minister a written question last year about how many injuries were sustained, but I am yet to receive a response. How many noise and vibration injuries were sustained on those three exercises? Will he confirm whether there were any injuries prior to his signing off IOC on 5 November?
- Hansard source
China and Japan
I want to follow up on the questions from the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), and from the hon. Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), on the global combat air programme. The funding for the next round of GCAP is going to run out in a matter of months. That will affect Edgewing and the British phase of the programme. It has been reported that contract for the next phase of GCAP has been delayed, due to the delay to the defence investment plan. Will the contract be signed before the defence investment plan is published?
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Families
It is over a year since I raised the subject of the 5,700 women who were wrongly and unfairly dismissed from the armed forces for falling pregnant while in service. Will the Minister please update me on what she has done in that time to ensure that they get their caps and berets back? They absolutely deserve that, because we should be supporting those in the armed forces who want to have families.
- Hansard source
China and Japan
When John Major went to Beijing, he spoke clearly and said, “We will not forget Tiananmen Square.” In contrast, the Prime Minister refused to say Jimmy Lai’s name until he was wheels up. I have never said that we should not engage with Beijing; I have said that we should not give it a propaganda visit. It is extraordinary to abrogate the responsibility of the Chinese Communist party, whose actions we had to respond to, therefore pausing trade talks, as if it has done nothing wrong. Finally, the Prime Minister met with Cai Qi, the man responsible for running two spies who were undermining this Parliament, but he excluded that from his statement. Why doesn’t he tell us why he thought it was acceptable to meet this man and what he got out of it in the British interest?
- Hansard source
US Department of Justice Release of Files
I am afraid that it is untenable to suggest that what was already known of Mandelson’s simpering after the conviction of Epstein was not enough to make it inappropriate for him to be ambassador, and I did object to that from day one, on that exact basis, as Hansard shows. I am afraid that a number of questions to the Cabinet Secretary—to whom I wrote on 5 December, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies)—still have not been answered, so I would be grateful for the answers today. Did Mandelson receive a taxpayer-funded severance payment after stepping down as ambassador? If so, how much was it? Will details of his contract be published, in the name of transparency? Was any non-disclosure agreement signed, and when did Lord Mandelson’s salary formally cease? These are not unreasonable questions, but almost two months on, I have had no response from the Cabinet Secretary. That gives me enormous concern.
- Hansard source
US Department of Justice Release of Files
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The crimes of Jeffrey Epstein were truly terrible—paedophilia, sex trafficking, child prostitution. It was an awful abuse of power, and it is of course a great embarrassment to our country that its most senior ambassador should have been caught up with a man like him. In this latest set of releases from the US Department of Justice, it is clearer than ever that theirs was a relationship built not just on affection, but on the transfer of money from Epstein to Mandelson’s family and the transfer of information from Mandelson to Epstein. In some cases, this was apparently market-sensitive information that Mandelson received only by dint of being a member of the Labour Government. So we of course welcome the belated announcement that there will be an investigation into Mandelson’s conduct while he was a Minister, but this should have happened long ago. I say that because we know that, in February last year, Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister, wrote to the Cabinet Secretary explicitly asking for an investigation into the “veracity of information contained in the Epstein papers about the sale of assets arising from the banking collapse and communications about them between Lord Mandelson and Mr Epstein.” That investigation never happened. In any case, I am afraid that the investigation announced today alone will not do. It is not enough to consider Mandelson’s historical conduct; there also needs to be an investigation into his behaviour while he was our ambassador in Washington. Given that he abused his previous position, it is entirely conceivable that he abused his most recent one. For example, I understand that on 27 February last year, Mandelson arranged for the Prime Minister to meet Palantir, a client of Mandelson’s company, Global Counsel. How many more such meetings were there, and what other information was shared? We all have a right to know. Likewise, the Government cannot hide from their responsibility in having made Mandelson their ambassador in the first place. This was a political appointment, and it happened only because of political pressure. So one of two things must be true: either there was the most terrible failure of the vetting system, or the Government chose to brush that vetting information away. Both are very serious, but the Government must now be honest with us about which it was. It seems very unlikely that the Government’s vetting system broke down entirely. Indeed, on 10 September, the Prime Minister told the House that “full due process was followed during this appointment”.—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 859.] Can it really be the case that this “full due process” did not pick up the extent of the relationship? On 3 November, Olly Robbins, the then permanent secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, told the Foreign Affairs Committee: “Back before Lord Mandelson was announced as the appointee, there was a process...within the Cabinet Office to make sure that the Prime Minister was aware of Lord Mandelson and the issues around his appointment...we can confidently say that the relationship with Epstein was indeed surfaced”. So the Government knew that Mandelson had a long-maintained and unhealthy relationship with Epstein, yet they continued with their appointment anyway. The question is: who in No. 10 knew what and when? The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has a duty to tell this House precisely what the Prime Minister knew when he made the appointment, and to disclose the documents that the Prime Minister saw. If the Prime Minister genuinely did not know, somebody must have done. Who was it? Was it his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who is reported to have personally pushed the appointment? Was it the now Deputy Prime Minister, who was then the Foreign Secretary and who would have been party to some of the information? It is time for the Government to be open and clear with us all. Something went very badly wrong with this appointment. It has caused very great embarrassment to this country and it is time that someone took responsibility.
- Hansard source
Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories
Having listened to all the excellent preceding speeches, I have to say that occasions such as this make me proud to be a Member of the British Parliament. I congratulate everyone who has spoken with such a united voice. If I may, I will just make some brief elaborations on the opening comments and superb contribution of the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). He referred in particular to the non-recognition of the Baltic states, and it is worth looking at that a little more closely. The Baltic states were occupied and incorporated into the Soviet Union for approximately half a century; never did this country recognise that. If those of us who saw the Soviet Union at the height of its power in the mid-1980s had been told that one day the Governments in exile of those three absorbed republics would be able to step forward and pick up the torch of democracy owing to the collapse of their overlords, we would have said, “Well, we would love to think that would happen, but do we honestly think it is going to happen in our lifetimes? Probably not.” But it did, and when it did, the implosion was dramatic, unexpected and complete. [Dawn Butler in the Chair] Yet there are some people who regard the break-up—the dissolution—of the Soviet empire as a geopolitical disaster. Hon. Members know to whom I am referring in particular: Vladimir Putin. Given that that is Putin’s attitude, one thing that we can certainly deduce from the present situation is that there is no such thing as a peace deal to be had with Vladimir Putin and his cohorts. The fact is that if there is a deal of any sort—if there is a ceasefire—it is for one reason and one reason only: that Putin feels at the time of such a deal or a ceasefire that he cannot successfully go further. If then there is a cessation of fighting for a while, we can be equally sure that the moment Putin thinks he can go further, he will start all over again. So there is absolutely nothing to be gained, in terms of good will, or a basis for future relationships or stability, by giving any concessions to Putin whatsoever in terms of land exchanges or recognition of occupation. Let me turn to another parallel with the 1930s—the fact that Putin made one big error. He signalled by his early occupation of Crimea what his intentions were, but he was not then able to carry them out for quite a few years, in which time the defensive capability of the Ukrainians had massively increased with the surreptitious help, I suspect, of certain western powers, including ourselves. As a result, Ukraine was able to put up a much stronger defence than anybody who was not part of that secret rearmament and training programme would have anticipated.
- Hansard source
Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories
Yes, that is entirely the sort of contribution that I have in mind. As a result of that, when Putin was ready to take his next bite, the Ukrainians were able to prevent him, yet many people, including me, thought the most that we could probably do was to offer the Ukrainian Government a Government-in-exile headquarters in London when the whole country was overrun. The whole country was not overrun. Hopefully, the whole country never will be overrun, but those parts of it that have been overrun must never be recognised as belonging to the successors of the Soviet Union—namely the gang around Vladimir Putin, the killer in the Kremlin.
- Hansard source
Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), who has been tireless in raising the issue of our support for Ukraine. I was delighted to hear from him that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) has received the Order of Merit; it is richly deserved. I was proud to receive it when I chaired the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine, and I know that the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley was equally proud. It is a great honour. The hon. Member began his remarks by saying, rightly, that this is day 1,435 of the full-scale war, but he also rightly pointed out that Russia’s attack on Ukraine began with the annexation of Crimea 12 years earlier. It was arguably even before that, when Russia made it clear that it believed Crimea was Russian territory and its Parliament voted that Sevastopol was a Russian city. The annexation took place in a flagrant breach of the Budapest memorandum, of which we were a signatory along with Russia and the United States. It was a breach of international law. As I have said before, I think the rather feeble response from the west to the annexation contributed to Russia’s belief that it could go further in attacking Donbas. After the annexation of Crimea, we had the little green men and the separatist movement in Donbas, but we knew—the evidence was overwhelming—that they were not separatists. They were armed, funded and directed by Russia. Indeed, after the horrific shooting down of MH17 on to the territory by separatists, we had intercepts to show they were clearly operating under the command of Russians. During that time I visited several parts of Ukraine, including those now under occupation. I went to Mariupol, a city on the Black sea. Even then, it was being squeezed by the Russians as a result of the blockade of the Kerch strait to prevent ships from reaching Berdyansk and Mariupol. Since then, Mariupol has been almost completely destroyed, with 75,000 civilians killed in the battle with the Russians. This was an area that Russia claimed wanted to be liberated. It argued that the people were Russian speakers who felt Russian, that their allegiance was to Russia and that they were somehow going to be freed from Nazi oppression in Kyiv. It is the Russian propaganda playbook. It had absolutely no basis in truth, and the fact that so many Russian-speaking citizens in Donbas have been killed in the war proves the cynicism of the Russians. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) talked about the conditions in Donbas. I just had a quick check. This weekend in Donetsk, the temperature will be between minus 11 and minus 18. People can expect to receive water every four days. They are predominantly elderly people, the young people having largely fled, and the conditions there are utterly appalling. What is happening in the occupied territories is horrific, and the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley is absolutely right to raise it. As well as the ongoing fighting, we know that atrocities are being committed, as mentioned by the hon. Members for Leeds Central and Headingley and for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith). We had a meeting yesterday with Dr Jade McGlynn of the war unit in King’s College London, who has done a lot of research about Ukrainians’ plight. We heard that an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 Ukrainians have been detained or have disappeared. We were told that 92% of those who have been released have reported being tortured, ill-treated and systematically abused, with sexual violence used as a deliberate method of humiliation, initially triggering men but then also women. I want to put two questions to the Minister, one of which relates to those atrocities. On the statute book, we have sanctions available for deliberate abuse of human rights. There is a list of individuals who have been identified as perpetrators of these abuses. Will the Minister look at extending sanctions to the people carrying out these appalling crimes? My other question relates to a specific location in the Donbas area: Zaporizhzhia, which has one of the biggest nuclear power plants in Europe. It closed down in September 2022, but there are reports that the Russians intend to reactivate its first reactor. The head of the Ukrainian nuclear energy service has said that that risks “nuclear catastrophe”, that the Russians do not know about the safety systems, they do not have the details of the plant, and that to do so is reckless and potentially incredibly dangerous. We are told that it forms part of the discussions taking place between America and Russia but, given Chernobyl—also a Ukrainian nuclear power plant, and we know what happened there—I should be grateful if the Minister would say anything about that specific issue, or at least raise it.
- Hansard source
Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories
I am listening with great interest to my right hon. Friend’s speech. He will remember Operation Orbital, during which the UK provided training and supplies to the Ukrainian armed forces in anticipation of the attack that then followed.
- Hansard source
Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories
I, too, have been to the Museum of Occupations in Vilnius. It is a remarkable fact that it is in the building that was occupied by the Gestapo, which was then simply taken over by the KGB, who continued to murder people in the basement. That tells us something about the similarity between the atrocities carried out by the Nazis and those carried out under communism.
- Hansard source
Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories
Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman for opening the debate, and remind all Back-Bench colleagues that you should continue to bob, please, if you wish to speak. Given the level of interest, if everyone can confine themselves to about five minutes each, we should get everybody in.
- Hansard source
Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories
Order. As hon. Members will see, we have four speakers remaining. I want to start the Front-Bench speeches at about 2.28 pm, so that probably means that Members have about four and a half minutes each, I am afraid.
- Hansard source
Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories
I congratulate the hon. Member on his work on Ukraine and on securing the debate. He is talking about the occupied territories, and I want to raise an issue that we have discovered. In the occupied territory of Alchevsk, there are currently 100,000 people without heating or any form of support, not because of attacks by Ukrainian missiles; it is down to Russia’s incompetence and failure to even look after the territories that they have occupied. Does that not show their lack of care for areas they say should be part of Russia? It is another nail in their coffin of lies. They do not have any interest at all in individuals; they just want the territories, and it is an abomination.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
I congratulate the Government on one of their policies: the launch of a UK town of culture. Often, the Government find themselves having to pull their business. I hope that when they are next in that position, they can organise a debate on the UK town of culture. Stone town council is putting in a bid for Stone, which is a great town. It has the Crown Wharf theatre and one of the best food festivals anywhere in the country, and it would be a great recipient of this title. I hope we can have a debate on this issue in Government time.
- Hansard source
River Habitats: Protection and Restoration
Will the hon. Member give way?
- Hansard source
River Habitats: Protection and Restoration
At the risk of delivering more “flim-flam”, I should say that the hon. Member has just told us that it was the Water (Special Measures) Act that announced the ban on company bonuses. Would he concede that that was actually introduced, in regulations, by the last Conservative Government? In fact, his Government have just put a regulation into statute; that did not actually change the law at all.
- Hansard source
River Habitats: Protection and Restoration
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this debate; it is a welcome opportunity to talk about the importance of our rivers and the vital need to protect and restore them. He is right to say that we need to improve the health of our rivers. This has been a good debate. I enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns). She is correct to describe our rivers and streams as the “veins and arteries” of our environment. I noted she said that she wants water companies to be taken into public ownership, but she did not say how she would pay for it. I am left wondering if it is Green policy to confiscate those assets from the shareholders, or to pay compensation. If it is to pay compensation, how much and who pays for it? Dare I say, that is an error that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), also fell into. She said that she was in favour of a radical policy, but did not explain how she intended to pay for it. I enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes). I agree with him on the need for more dredging of our rivers. It is unacceptable that the Environment Agency has withdrawn from main river maintenance. The hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) described rivers as amazing ecosystems, and I agree with him. I also agree that when water companies break the law, they should be punished swiftly and severely. The hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) described the beauty of the countryside as one of the joys of life. I am with him on that, even though he and I may not agree on many other things. I congratulate my Somerset constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead, on leading for her party in this debate. She said that farmers are “custodians of the natural world”, and I agree. Next time she speaks on water, I hope that she will give us the price tag for her party’s policy of renationalising the water industry. The River Parrett flows through my constituency. It is rather too high for comfort at the moment. Some of my constituents are watching the water level with concern. I sincerely hope that their homes are not flooded over the next few days. The Parrett hosts an abundance of species, from heron to eels—anyone who is lucky may even see an otter. It is also important for the wider ecosystem, including roe deer, which we are fortunate enough to enjoy having in Somerset. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to support a local campaign in my constituency to save the Pawlett Hams in the first weeks after I was elected to Parliament. Pawlett Hams is a beautiful natural habitat, bounded on three sides by the Parrett, which impacts that environment. I was pleased that that campaign was successful in defeating EDF Energy’s proposal to create an unwanted saltmarsh there. I raise this because I understand the importance and beauty of our rivers, and I know how passionate many of our constituents are about preserving and protecting them. The previous Government started the process of improving the health of our rivers, but there is much more to be done. Their plan for water introduced the water restoration fund, which channelled environmental fines and penalties into projects that improve the water environment. The Environment Act 2021 introduced legally binding targets to reduce the length of rivers polluted by harmful metals from abandoned mines, to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution from agriculture in the water environment by at least 40%, and to reduce phosphorus loadings from treated waste water by 80%. We also substantially increased the monitoring of water quality. When Labour left power in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were being monitored; today, that figure stands at 100%. It is thanks to that progress that we now understand the scale of the problem. In terms of their ecological health, only 15% of our rivers enjoy “good” status. That is not good enough. There are various reasons for pollution, including sewage treatment works, waste water, storm overflows, agricultural pollution, and urban and transport run-off. Invasive species are also threatening native animals. Between 1960 and 2019, the number of non-native freshwater species more than doubled, from 21 to 46. I invite the Minister to comment in her response on what work the Government are doing to support the restoration of wetland or freshwater species, which have experienced a decline. Despite their promises to fix the water system, the Government’s recent water White Paper was surprisingly slim. That is disappointing, given the detailed and thorough examination of the sector by Sir Jon Cunliffe’s independent review. The Government have said that their transition plan will be published this year. When she responds, can the Minister guarantee that it will actually be published this year, and that it will be published when Parliament is sitting, not on the last day before a substantial recess—or, in fact, during a recess? Will she also acknowledge that, for all her Government’s talk about improving water quality, the Water (Special Measures) Act, which they passed last year, consisted of regulations already announced by the previous Conservative Government that they repackaged as a statute.
- Hansard source
River Habitats: Protection and Restoration
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I do not think it is for the Government to regulate the salaries of the private sector. It was the Conservative Government that introduced the necessary regulations that enabled those water companies that were failing to be prevented from paying dividends and bonuses. He might argue that we came to that a bit late, and I might agree with him. However, he should acknowledge that we were the ones who took that action, and it is those regulations that form the basis of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. I want to take this opportunity to ask the Minister about our canals. Members may have seen the recent incident involving the collapse of a canal embankment in Shropshire. Two narrowboats were left at the bottom of a trench in the canal bed, with a third left hanging over the edge. Many other boats were left grounded. I understand that the cause of the breach is still being investigated, but what assessment has the Minister made of the age and structure of the UK’s canal network, and the impact that have on the natural environment? Is she satisfied that the current funding is adequate? To conclude, Britain’s rivers and waterways are an integral part of our environment. It is important that we improve their quality, and we will scrutinise the Government to ensure that they keep the promises they made at the election.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
I thank the frontline staff at the Environment Agency, drainage board and council who are working hard to tackle flooding in Somerset. This year, water levels have risen faster than they did in the 2013-14 floods. Currymoor used to fill in 10 days; this week, it filled in four. Communities in Fordgate and Moorland are watching nervously as water levels continue to rise. Can we have a debate on how the Environment Agency approaches these incidents? Why is it using out-of-date trigger points to dictate its response? Why were the emergency pumps at Northmoor operational only last night? Why is the EA actively withdrawing from main river maintenance, and why are we allowing building on floodplains without proper mitigation?
- Hansard source
Prison Capacity: Annual Statement
I thank the Minister for his statement. He said that the release of prisoners will depend on their behaviour while inside. Can he confirm that his definition of good behaviour will include mandatory attendance at education and training, which should result in reduced reoffending, and can he advise the House how he will achieve that, given that the Government will commission 25% less education in the coming year? He says the reason for that is that the price has increased. Well, that is because the Government only contract very large quantity contracts. Were he to delegate those budgets to prison governors and give them the freedom to use local suppliers, rather than relying on two or three enormous providers that have the Government over a barrel, the price would fall.
- Hansard source
Industrial Energy Costs
I have a fantastic Yorkshire brick company in my constituency. Unfortunately it had to go into administration, but it was rescued. As welcome as the supercharger scheme is, the problem was that the company did not qualify because it did not meet the business level test, so it did not get any Government support. Can the Government engage directly with ceramics manufacturers, which are huge users of electricity, gas and various other products, because if we export products to be made elsewhere, the carbon footprint is often much bigger than if we had made them locally?
- Hansard source
Holocaust Memorial Day
The hon. Gentleman is making a fascinating opening speech, and I congratulate him on securing this debate. Could I ask him to re-emphasise the point he has just made, which is that such a grouping of an entire religion, race or ethnicity with the actions of a Government is an entirely antisemitic act?
- Hansard source
Holocaust Memorial Day
Again, my hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. Does he share my horror and disgust that yesterday, a member of the public thought it was entirely appropriate to dress as a prisoner of one of the concentration camps? Surely this is the hatred he is describing.
- Hansard source
Holocaust Memorial Day
I think it is important that I start with some of the realities as vividly as I can. Six million Jews were murdered in a deliberate attempt at the extermination of European Jews. I think it is shameful that the BBC did not speak about Jews in its opening report about Holocaust Memorial Day. One million of those Jews were children. One million were killed in the forests by bullets. In order for the Nazi regime to save bullets, they would make mothers hold their babies to their heads so they could shoot both at the same time. One of the reasons the gas chambers were put in place was not just to mechanise mass murder, but because the German authorities recognised that there was a large psychological impact on the soldiers who were getting covered in brain matter and blood from murdering children. They decided that they must stop the people doing their bidding feeling like that; it was far simpler to herd the Jews into gas chambers and then get Jews themselves to remove the bodies and put them into the furnaces. Dehumanisation happened in order for millions of people to accept what was going on, and I very much doubt that there were a great many people in Germany who did not have an idea of what was going on—none truer than in Bavaria, the region where Nazism had its roots. As has been described, there was a long history of growing antisemitism; with those decades and decades of hatred, when Germany faced tough economic circumstances coming out of the first world war—feeling that it had been punished by the whole of Europe, despite not losing any territory—and Adolf Hitler looked for a scapegoat, one was easy to find. Germany paid a price for that—not just in terms of the price of the war and what happened, but because it led to an incredible brain drain of academic talent. Albert Einstein is one example. It drove huge intellect—scientists, engineers, doctors—out of Germany, because among those who were murdered, as has been mentioned, were academics and anybody who might challenge the regime. I am afraid that we are now seeing levels of hostility in the United Kingdom that mean that many people are thinking that they might be better off leaving. Beyond the absolute moral outrage of the issues of 80 years ago happening in front of our eyes today in the 21st century, our country will be far poorer for that. Leeds has a large and proud Jewish population. They are strong and resilient. Jews have been in Leeds for more than 150 years. They have added hugely to the businesses, community and fabric of society that Leeds has become. I am proud that I have so many friends in the Jewish community, including, I am proud to say, the Lord Mayor of Leeds, Councillor Dan Cohen. However, they are frightened. They find it difficult to go into Leeds city centre on Saturdays during protests. They want to stand up to what is being said, but get pursued down the street and have vicious abuse thrown at them. I stand here today not just to remember the Holocaust, but to say that remembrance is not enough. Speeches today, including the opening of my speech, have outlined what happened in the Holocaust; other Members have outlined the causes that led up to the Holocaust. But we are sitting back and not naming and shaming those who are encouraging the root where this started. I have said this before in this Chamber and I am going to say it again today. There is a councillor in my city of Leeds, Councillor Mothin Ali—who has now become the deputy leader of the Green party—who put out social media on 7 October 2023 praising Hamas and what they had achieved. He was not a councillor at that point, but he was a candidate. There is a complex issue between what is freedom of speech and what is agitation, but there can be no doubt, frankly, that he agitated a mob that forced the Jewish priest of the University of Leeds, Rabbi Deutsch, into hiding. The leader of the Green party on Leeds city council, Councillor Penny Stables, who is a councillor in my constituency, brushed that aside. She said that it did not matter what he had said before he was elected, as he was not a councillor. I really have to take issue with that. As we have heard, it is the acceptance of people making these comments that eventually leads to history repeating itself. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) made some very important points. He talked about fake news and how things are twisted. I cannot remember who it was, but another Labour Member said that Ofcom must take a much stronger view with regard to content being put online. We know what is poisoning children’s minds, but that is a different debate. I was knocking on doors and I met a gentleman, who must have been retired. He started off by absolutely laying into me for my support for Israel defending its security and saying what a disgrace of a human being I was, and then he said to me, “You know as well as I do, because you will have seen the video footage, as I have, that Hamas had nothing to do with 7 October. It was the Israelis who murdered their own people so that they could invade Gaza.” He said that to me as a fact, with absolute conviction. That is the level of hatred being generated because the Israelis are Jews. Let us call this out. This is beyond politics; this is Jewish hatred. Huge protests have been taking place. People have a right to protest and to condemn what they see going on in the world, but where are the protests about what is happening in Sudan or against the Iranian regime, which may well have murdered a five-figure number of people?
- Hansard source
Holocaust Memorial Day
There is a lot of evidence to back that up. The phrase passes me by, but there is a sphere of influence that Iran wanted to put in place through Iraq and Syria, with Hamas and Hezbollah as its proxies to run things, and we have debated in this Chamber so many times the malign influence of Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the proscription of that body that that is undoubtedly true. We have tolerated things for too long. We tolerated streams of cars along Marylebone Road, many years ago, beeping their horns and claiming that the Jews should be murdered and the women should be raped. That did not get the crackdown that it needed. On the flipside—I will not go over this again, because we know what happened—we see West Midlands police deciding that it was far easier just to ban Israelis. Let us remember that the fans were not all Israelis; there were plenty of British citizens who are fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv who wanted to go to that football match. Rather than protecting the laws that fans who go to a country should respect, people in authority thought, “It is far easier just to stop them.” How did we get to that point? For an easy laugh, we decided, “The Jewish community is so small, and there are lots of people who hate it, so it is easier just to say, ‘You can’t come’.” That is shameful. I have given notice that I am going to name the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). When he led the Labour party—a great and highly respected political party in our country, with much history —I am afraid that he gave a safe space to antisemitism. I praise the Prime Minister for the action he took in driving antisemitism out of the Labour party. I look around, and I look at the agitation of the councillor I have named and of the people associating themselves with some political parties, and I say this: it is the responsibility of the leadership of the Green party to follow the example of the Labour party in how it addressed the creeping in of antisemitism into its party. I am not saying that it is the policy of the Green party to be antisemitic—I am not saying that at all—but it must address the issue far more seriously than it has done, because I see a repeat of the years from 2015 to 2019. As I bring my comments to a close, I want to mention the actions of Leeds city council. The protests that take place in Leeds are one thing—the police give permission, and we have powers in place so that when there is hate speech and laws are broken, people can be arrested and prosecuted—but West Yorkshire police has made it clear to Leeds city council that when protesters want to use its land, it should charge them rent. The reason West Yorkshire police wants that is that it attaches an organisation to what is happening. Leeds city council has refused to do that; it is giving permission to bodies to protest, but it is not using the system, which is in place, to charge for the use of land. West Yorkshire police has said that it will be able to crack down on hate speech, violent speech and incitement to violence if it has somebody held accountable. That accountability on its own may temper what is happening. There was a speaker called Dr Rehiana Ali—quite frankly a vile individual—at one of those rallies, and she called for the targeting of the Jewish schools in Leeds. That has nothing at all to do with the war in Gaza. Schoolchildren—let alone British citizens or anybody, quite frankly, who is not running the Israeli Government—have nothing to do with the actions of the Israeli Government. That is antisemitism as raw as it gets, but it was difficult to bring her to justice, because it was difficult for West Yorkshire police to be able to prosecute directly. I believe that the Met Police prosecuted in the end. Let me finish on a point about Sudan, Iran and the Russians in Ukraine. The one thing that they all have in common is that they are not Jewish. That shows the level of antisemitism in this country. If we are dealing with a Jewish community, people think, “Let’s whip up a mob. Let’s say what we like. Let’s watch authorities like West Midlands police stand back and think it is easier to just stop the problem happening.” The road to hell is paved with alleged good intentions.
- Hansard source
Holocaust Memorial Day
In talking about the events that happened, we have spoken about the dehumanisation. The Holocaust Educational Trust runs visits to Birkenau-Auschwitz, as part of which, at the end, family photographs and things like that are displayed to rehumanise people. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has been able to attend, but I think it is one of the most exceptionally moving things anyone could witness.
- Hansard source
Holocaust Memorial Day
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the gravestones that mark massacres in Bosnia and elsewhere. They emphasise the importance of Holocaust Memorial Day and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, because millions of people were cremated so that there was no evidence of genocide.
- Hansard source
Railways Bill (Seventh sitting)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I will speak to a few of the amendments and new clauses, including those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, as well as some of those tabled by the Liberal Democrats, because some of their ideas are worth noting. It is obvious why I would support amendment 224, which yet again seeks to include in the Bill more mention of rail freight. As someone who is keen on looking at how we can use rail, and even sea, for freight, I emphasise the necessity of ensuring that it is a central part of the Bill. The Government speak about wanting to tackle climate change and bring net zero into play, but that will be hampered if the rail freight network is not strongly represented in the Bill. I appreciate that the Minister will say that it does mention rail freight, but we do not feel it is explicit enough, and we want to ensure that we get it nailed into the Bill wherever we can. Amendments 260 and 261 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) would require the rail strategy to consider local need, in particular in respect of level crossings and integrated transport. That is something that the Select Committee on Transport, which I am a member of, is also looking at. Indeed, we had our first hearing on integrated transport yesterday, and one thing that came across strongly to me was that we should really have been looking at an integrated transport strategy before this Bill was introduced, because how rail and buses—I have had the privilege of serving on Bill Committees on both subjects—slot into such a strategy is really important. Therefore, having something on the face of the Bill that pushes towards ensuring that we have regard for integrated transport is important.
- Hansard source
Railways Bill (Seventh sitting)
Yes, absolutely. Indeed, amendment 260, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, would require the forthcoming rail strategy to have specific regard to level crossings. Fortunately, I do not have anything like what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham describes, where a level crossing splits an entire town in half, but I presume that the Government will not want to invest in bridges everywhere there is a level crossing, so having at least some regard for level crossings in the rail strategy, and ensuring that one thing does not negate the other, will be essential. I entirely agree with my hon. Friends. Amendment 137, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, relates specifically to rural communities, and no doubt it overlaps with amendment 260. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston, he has highlighted the importance of good rail connectivity in our rural communities. Again, that came up in the Transport Committee’s oral evidence session yesterday: how do we make sure that we are not just weighting the system in favour of urban areas, and make sure that due and serious regard is given to rural communities? My rural community has only one station, and we are keen to see more stations that will serve rural communities, both in my constituency and others. But ultimately, if we really want to see that modal shift away from cars to the railway, we have to make sure that everybody stands a fair chance of accessing it. I will turn to new clauses 28 and 29, again in the name of hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage. The first is about technology and the need for connectivity on the railway. As somebody who does the right thing and uses my mobile phone rather than Great Western Railway’s wi-fi to connect to the internet—because that is what the parliamentary security people tell me to do—I am entirely reliant on my 4G network to work on the train. I sit there for three and a half hours one way and three and a half hours back, if I am lucky—I have that to look forward to later on today—and I rely on that time to complete my work. I am sat in Bill Committees half of the week, so that time on the train, doing my constituency work and reading in preparation for this Committee, is essential. When there is no decent wi-fi or 4G connection, that is a problem. I am sure the Minister is well aware of the very exciting pilot that GWR has been doing using Formula 1 technology, which is right up my street, as those who know me well will appreciate. It is excellent. Effectively, it uses that thing no one likes because it technically belongs to that American Musk guy—is it Skylink?
- Hansard source
Railways Bill (Seventh sitting)
That is it. It still works, though, and provides a very good internet signal. I suppose that is a question for the Minister: what regard is he giving to such pilots? That might not be on the face of the Bill, but a large part of the population will want to know we have talked about how to ensure that connectivity on Great British Railways is up to date. Connectivity means getting from A to B, but also the ability to work using the internet. I completely agree with the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage on that point. I will just briefly speak to new clause 29, on Sunday working arrangements. I have mentioned this already, but those far-flung parts of the country that rely on a possibly hourly service into London that connects all the way through the south-west region need the guarantee of Sunday services. I have to leave at 6.55 am to get here. If I want to get here for an early start on a Monday, I have to leave the night before—if there was no train available, I would lose nearly a whole day just to get to London for a meeting on a Monday morning. It is a privilege to be able to do that, but I would rather not, and more frequent trains would help.
- Hansard source
Railways Bill (Seventh sitting)
The Minister’s comments imply that a 15-year strategy would be fixed in concrete and could not be amended. I am assuming that the 30-year strategy will be fluid and flexible to take into account the circumstances that he has just mentioned, such as—God forbid—a future pandemic. I feel the way he has described the amendment is not entirely in the spirit of what was meant, so it is worth reflecting that. Ultimately, we all want a flexible railway; we are just trying to say that the strategy could last for 15 years instead of the current 30.