5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Members who made a speech should make the effort to return to the Chamber to hear the shadow Minister and the Minister speak, so no doubt they will be rushing in. I believe it is the Minister’s debut at the Dispatch Box —I wish her well.
In his reference to the wider steel industry in his statement, the Secretary of State mentioned Scunthorpe. He knows that I have consistently supported the Government in the actions they have taken to keep the works going. I think he is a little too eager to criticise the previous Government; I gently remind him that for about 18 months they paid the wages and the bills at Scunthorpe to keep the jobs there. I appreciate that we get written statements, but when does he anticipate being able to come to the House and give an oral statement about the future of Scunthorpe?
I was unable to attend the House last week when the Foreign Secretary made his statement on Israel and Palestine, so I wanted to take this opportunity to put on record my support for what he proposed. On the day of the announcement, I tuned into Radio 4’s “Six o’clock News”. Included in the headlines was a sentence from what the Foreign Secretary had said. Also broadcast were some of the comments made by the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), when he, too, supported what the Foreign Secretary said. He added how much he admired the Jewish people and their faith, but deeply regretted what is happening on the west bank. It is in that context that I make clear that I share my right hon. Friend’s views of the Jewish people. He said he was a Conservative Friend of Israel. I, too, put myself in that category. My criticisms are of the Israeli Government. After the appalling events of 7 October, it was inevitable that there would be a response from the Israelis, and rightly so, but tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed, many of them children. Surely, it would have been possible to target the leaders of Hamas without the loss of those innocent Palestinian lives? I can understand the determination of Israel to take an extremely robust approach to defending itself, when there are those in the region who want to wipe the country from the face of the map. Its actions in that respect are justified, but I ask the Israeli Government why that involves repeated violations of international law. If the international community seriously believes in a two-state solution, we need to call out Israeli policy for what it is: action to prevent that ever happening.
I was aware that Ministers in Israel had indicated that. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As I say, if the international community is serious in its support of a two-state solution, it needs to call out the fact that Israel is deliberately implementing policies to thwart that. I can understand and fully support Israel as the home of the Jewish people. They should therefore recognise the desire for the Palestinian people to have their own homeland. When I was elected in 2010, my focus was entirely on my constituency. I was determined to earn myself a second term. During the five years of the coalition Government, if memory serves me correctly, I undertook just two foreign trips. I was mindful of the fact that the Israel-Palestine issue might well come to the fore and that I might have to make a decision on it, so I travelled to Israel. My first visit was actually to Gaza. Interestingly enough, when we got to the border we had a call from the consulate in Jerusalem advising us not to cross the border, but having got that far, we were determined and insisted on crossing over. I witnessed the tragedy of what the residents there had to face—it is much worse now, of course—and the events I witnessed had a considerable impact on how I viewed this seemingly never-ending dispute. In October 2014, I was one of 39 Conservative Members who supported a motion to recognise Palestine. Sadly, only three of those Conservatives remain, one of whom, the Father of the House, I mentioned earlier. I appreciate that to some extent it is only symbolic, but nevertheless it is extremely important. Returning to last week’s announcement, how effective it will be remains to be seen. One thing is certain: public opinion is broadly supportive. The views expressed in my inbox, and by those who visit my surgery to raise the issue, are most certainly critical of Israel—I should be more specific and say the Israeli Government. One particular constituent I have in mind is so passionate about the issue—she comes to see me on repeat occasions—that she will be absolutely delighted. Though I say to the House, as I said to my constituent, who regularly travels to London to take part in the many demonstrations, and contrary to the views expressed by a Member earlier, I do not think that the continued demonstrations are actually beneficial to the Palestinian cause. Israel is an ally, a democracy and a nation that, as I said at the outset, has every right to exist and to defend itself. I fully support that, but its Government need to recognise that they are losing further support. If they continue with their illegal acts, that will only continue.
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her return to the Cabinet. The two main points that parents of children with SEND in my constituency would make to her in her new role concern the time that it takes for the education, health and care plans to be decided, and the number of specialist school places that are available both in Shropshire and in Telford and Wrekin. What plans has she to improve the position, and to intervene when local authorities are not performing?
There is a central inconsistency in the Secretary of State’s argument. He talks about steel as a strategic asset, and I of course agree with that, but so are oil and gas, yet the Government do not seem to be coming forward with any proposals on that sector. He mentioned in his oral statement that the Government are going to pay this from “existing Government budgets”, but in answer to a question, he said that the money would possibly “fall on the Exchequer”, so how much is this going to cost? He also mentioned that he would prefer for the business to remain in the private sector, which is encouraging to hear, so does he have an indicative timetable for when it might go back on the market and be sold?
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. We have had a good debate, and I want to single out a number of contributions to it. I apologise to those who have not made the list, but I am slightly time-constrained. The hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) called on the Government to go further and include F-35s in the sanctions programme. The hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) gave us his personal experience as a kibbutznik; he has seen peaceful co-existence, and that should give us some hope. The hon. Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) made an extremely powerful and well-informed speech. He created balance in our debate, and I applaud his moral courage in doing so. The hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) rightly reminded us of the unspeakable actions of Hamas on 7 October, and expressed what I believe is a view held widely across the House on settlers and settler violence. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) again brought personal experience to our debate, including of visiting Gaza. The hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) spoke of the extraordinary danger faced by journalists and aid workers trying to do their work in Gaza. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) ranged widely in his speech, and I was pleased to hear him refer to the unacceptability and absence of religious hate speech on the many marches he has attended. The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley)—quite rightly, in my view—put his contribution in the context of the elections in Israel. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) brought a healthy dose of reality and realism to our proceedings. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), while welcoming the Government’s recent moves, called on them to go further and faster, as did many Members from across the House. Finally, the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) chose her words incredibly carefully when she described the Government’s approach as being “close to getting the balance right”. Naturally, this conflict holds interest for many people, both inside this House and outside. We cannot forget the harm that both British Jews and Muslims have suffered because of this conflict, and no conflict in another part of the world should be allowed to feed hatred at home. The Conservative party believes that settlements are not helpful to the aim of long-term peace. We urge Israel not to take steps that could make a two-state solution more difficult, and to use its legal system to clamp down on settler violence. I believe that, across the House, there is general consensus that there should be a two-state solution that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. However, His Majesty’s Opposition believe that, in banning goods from Israeli settlements, the Government are enacting a policy that they know will not work. Just 13 weeks ago, two Ministers—the right hon. Members for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), and for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant)—wrote to the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee rejecting this very policy, because the economies of Palestine and Israel are too interconnected. The fear is that innocent Palestinians and Israelis will suffer as a result. We must avoid performative actions, and instead use what influence we have. That is why the banning of goods, which led to the closure of the British consulate, is so unhelpful. Foreign policy cannot be detached from security policy and decisions. Israel is one of our most important intelligence partners, and co-operation has helped protect British citizens from terrorist attack and hostile activity over many years. Indeed, we continue to share security concerns about Iranian activity and regional instability, making intelligence co-operation strategically important. While we welcome the Israeli intelligence services giving us assurances that that information sharing will continue, the fact that this was put into question in the first place is troubling. To finish, I have a number of questions for the Minister. It was revealed last week that the Prime Minister had not yet spoken to Prime Minister Netanyahu since taking office. If we are not even talking to the Israelis at the most senior level, how are we supposed to influence Israeli policy in the west bank? The Government cannot simultaneously say that they want to influence Israel and then weaken the channels through which they can do so. Can the Minister explain how a ban on trade with settlements would be implemented in practice, and whether the Government have assessed claims that such a move could amount to a de facto boycott of Israel? There is no way to stop the British flow of goods into settlements without banning trade with Israel more broadly. Is that under consideration? Finally, 25% of pharmaceuticals used in the UK are reportedly made in Israel. Has the Foreign Secretary braced himself for potential retaliation, and what message does he give the British people who are worried about delays to essential medications? If we go by the track record of the House, this will, quite rightly, not be the last time we debate Israel and Palestine. My only hope is that when we next do, we take a similar tone to the one we took tonight.
I speak to many families in Broxbourne who are struggling with the SEND system. Unfortunately, until there are more SEND school places, they will continue to struggle, as children with SEND need to be in the right educational setting. What is the Department doing to create more SEND school places for families today, as they are needed now, not in the future?
On behalf of my party, may I send our condolences to the Prime Minister on the death of his father? I want to ask the Secretary of State a very simple question. Does she think it is acceptable for young girls to be required to wear a hijab to school as part of their school uniform?
I am delighted by that answer. Thank you. This is not a hypothetical situation. A school in Barnet that has recently become state funded says that it is compulsory for girls as young as seven to cover their heads as part of the uniform. Given the Secretary of State’s very welcome repudiation of this, will she intervene to stop the school’s policy?
My constituents want clean rivers, reliable water, functioning sewerage infrastructure and value for money. What they want is not necessarily a change in the ownership of water companies, but proper regulation, proper investment and proper accountability. Thames Water lost 136 litres per property per day in 2024-25—the worst performance in England and Wales—and South East Water, which also covers my constituency, lost almost 106 litres per customer per day. How can we ask customers to conserve water, as we have been doing over the past few months, when Thames Water and South East Water are losing so much of it? Likewise, sewage discharges, especially those into the River Wey in my constituency, are disgraceful, although we know about them only because the previous Conservative Government started measuring them.
I am afraid I do not know every word in the 2024 Labour manifesto, but I believe that a lot of what the hon. Gentleman is saying is in it, and I would encourage him to ask the Minister those very questions. I have joined the River Wey Trust for water testing, and I know that Thames Water is now undertaking phosphorus removal upgrades at the Farnham treatment works serving my constituency. However, a key question I want to ask the Minister is, will they be delivered in a timely manner? On infrastructure, when I last met Thames Water representatives, they told me it had inaccurate records for around 30% of its infrastructure. How can a modern water company properly manage its network if it does not even know what infrastructure it has? South East Water provides drinking water for the majority of my constituency, and it has received a £22.5 million Ofwat fine, yet leaks in my constituency take weeks to be sorted. Those are symptoms of an ageing network that requires proper investment and maintenance, and that is not cost-free. Nationalisation does not repair pipes, make treatment works cheaper or remove the need for investment; it transfers the financial risk—potentially £100 billion—to taxpayers, and it still requires regulation, which is clearly failing at the moment. I draw the attention of right hon. and hon. Members to what has happened to South Western Railway since it was nationalised: cancellations are up, trains are shorter and delays have doubled. Why would my constituents believe that the nationalisation of water would be any more successful than this Government’s nationalisation of the railways?
I will not, because lots of other people want to speak—I apologise. My constituents are not asking whether the water companies are private or public; they are asking why their water company loses water through leaks, allows sewage into the River Wey and sometimes struggles even to maintain basic infrastructure. Is not the real test of this Government whether they can force these companies to perform better, as they promised in their manifesto, rather than simply changing their ownership? The choice is not between doing nothing and nationalisation. The challenge is to ensure that we have strong regulation, proper investment and real consequences for failure, without putting the bill on the taxpayer.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I start by offering our sincere condolences to the Prime Minister on the very sad passing of his father. He and his family are in our thoughts and prayers. I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening the debate and congratulate him on his powerful contribution. We heard many powerful contributions from across the House. Normally at this point, as the shadow Minister responding, I would put my lifejacket on, get in a canoe and start paddling round everyone’s constituencies. However, so many Members have spoken today that I would use up my entire time allocation by name-checking every one, so I will just thank everyone for their powerful contributions and for speaking on behalf of their constituents to raise issues about the unacceptable behaviour and performance of many of the water companies. Every family, household or business uses water. We all need it. It is a life-giving, essential resource. We all have an intrinsic interest in water: how much we pay for it, what services we receive, the performance of our local water company, and the sustainability and future of our water supply. The petition we are debating today reached over 208,000 signatures. I thank all those petitioners and the more than 300 people in my Epping Forest constituency who signed it and expressed their clear dissatisfaction with the current state of our water sector. For too long, customers have seen water companies in the news for the wrong reasons: from awful environmental pollution spills to unacceptable water outages affecting tens of thousands of consumers. In fact, during this summer’s extreme heat in August, many thousands of people and properties in my constituency of Epping Forest, including in Loughton, Chigwell, Buckhurst Hill, and Epping, were left completely without water for up to a week, let down by Thames Water because of burst pipes and failing infrastructure. Vulnerable constituents were left in distress; homes were without water, with people unable to flush their toilets or bathe; parents were left without water to make up bottles for their babies; and livestock owners were panicking over getting water to their animals. Communication and logistics from Thames Water were very poor. Priority service customers were openly saying that they had been told they would not receive any bottled water, despite being priority customers to whom companies have specific duties. As we have heard across the House today, the response by Thames Water in many situations has been wholly unacceptable. Bottled water was provided in too few locations that were not convenient to get to outside Epping Forest, and those who could get there faced agonisingly long queues in the scorching summer heat. It happened in the hottest week of the year. Other locations that did become available in my constituency either ran out of bottled water or were closed early. To add insult to injury, that all took place in the context of the news of Thames Water’s new chief financial officer receiving a £1 million welcome package. My constituents and constituents across the country rightly ask how that can be justified when Thames Water failed to provide basic services while bills continue to rise. A staggering hike of a 36% has already been greenlit by the water regulator for 2025 to 2030, and there is more to come following the announcement over the summer. I know that my constituents and those who have faced water outages across the country would be grateful if the Minister could explain what steps she is taking to ensure that water companies step up to the plate and properly prepare for such crises, so that our constituents are not left in such distressing circumstances again. It is a pleasure to serve opposite the Minister, as I have in a number of debates and Bill Committees, and I know that she is genuinely engaged in this matter. I raised those issues with her over the summer, and I hope she can take it forward and listen to the voices of our constituents in these important matters. In rural and semi-rural areas, we must not forget that water is also vital for livestock such as farm animals, horses and ponies, and I declare an interest here as a veterinary surgeon. As an illustration, a 500 kg horse needs around 25 litres of water a day—that is not on a hot day—and a lactating dairy cow needs upwards of 100 litres. I assure hon. Members that that is no small amount; that is a lot of bottled water. In these situations, water companies do not step up. It is local communities, livery yard owners and farmers who roll their sleeves up and help each other to get valuable water to these animals. I have raised the issue with the Minister before and I hope that she can take it forward and put pressure on the water companies. When we get these outages, which are sadly now predictable and will occur, animals as well as people need to be looked out for. We have heard today about the people, and I have highlighted the situation of vulnerable people in my constituency who have not been able to live their lives with their basic needs met, but there are other situations to consider. I urge the Minister to put pressure on water companies when we get outages, as we have seen this summer in my constituency and in many constituencies across the country. We have frequently debated at the Dispatch Box in this Chamber and the main Chamber the question of people in Kent and Sussex who have had unacceptable water outages from South East Water. I press the Minister once again to explain to the House what steps she and the Government are taking to ensure that a market-based solution can be found for the Thames Water situation.
I will not give way at this point. His Majesty’s official Opposition have been clear: we are not cheerleaders for this water company, but we do not want to see Thames Water fold. Although the water supply would continue, that would carry the serious risk of higher bills for customers and would not solve all the issues facing the company. Bizarrely, a few months ago the third party led legal action that could have sunk the company. With them, Reform—strangely their allies on this issue—appear to be happy for the company to go under, exposing taxpayers to billions and pushing consumer water bills sky-high. That is billions of pounds that we as a country simply just cannot afford, as the Government have admitted. Outages such as the one I described in Epping Forest also highlight the real and present impacts of climate change and increased demand. We have outdated water infrastructure designed to cope with significantly less demand than it is now required to. Changing weather risks more leaks, bursts and breakages. The water outages that tend to follow have knock-on implications for people, schools, businesses and healthcare. It is important to know the economic and social costs of the outages that have occurred over the last few months and years. Will the Minister take this opportunity to provide some reassurance that existing infrastructure is being assessed to prevent leakages or bursts in the first instances and hold water companies to account for that? The work of the previous Conservative Government in this area means that we now understand the severity of the situation surrounding the performance of water companies in the first place—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh but I remind them that, when Labour left office in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were monitored. The previous Government worked proactively to increase that percentage: by the end of 2023, it had increased to 100%. It went from 7% to 100%. This is basic science: it is only when something is measured and vital data is collected that the extent of the problem can be seen. It was the Conservative Government that started that, and that started to put in place measures to address the situation—something they, and indeed the new Labour Government, have found to be complex and not easy to solve.
I am not giving way. [Interruption.] I am just giving hon. Members some facts about where the problems—
Furthermore, the previous Conservative Government’s landmark Environment Act 2021 introduced significant changes to how water quality is managed and monitored in England and Wales. The Act mandates enhanced reporting, monitoring and treatment compliance measures from businesses. It also establishes long-term goals to limit pollution and protect natural water resources from wider range of potential pollutants. I am sure that, in considering what action the current Government have taken, the Minister will cite the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025—I was on the Bill Committee shadowing her, and I really appreciated her constructive work. It is encouraging to see the current Government adopt some of the measures the previous Government had already introduced, such as banning water company bonuses for bosses if the company had committed serious criminal breaches that damaged the environment. However, it was disappointing that they failed to support the constructive amendments the Opposition tabled, including to ringfence funding from enforcement fines for bespoke water restoration funds; to guarantee that companies fix the environmental damage they cause locally; to require Ofwat to create rules on financial reporting in its renumeration and governance rules; to reduce consumer bills if companies were hit with enforcement fines; and to ensure that companies do not leverage too much debt. Those were sensible, constructive amendments that the Government voted down. Indeed, there is a recurring pattern of the current Government attempting to claim credit for measures introduced by the previous Government. The current Government have repeatedly claimed to have secured £104 billion of investment in the water system, but £93 billion of that had already been submitted by water companies in October 2023—under the previous Government. The Independent Water Commission published its final report in July 2025. It was a comprehensive document containing 88 recommendations. Since then, the Government published their water White Paper in January 2026. In May 2026, the King’s Speech included the promise of a clean water Bill. Given that there has been a change in Prime Minister since then, I would appreciate clarity from the Minister about whether the Government plan to proceed with special administration orders for water companies such as Thames Water, as was first suggested. Furthermore, are they going to do that as bespoke individual actions or as part of a nationalisation programme? Will that form part of a clean water Bill? Can she confirm when we will see that clean water Bill come before Parliament? A well-functioning, properly regulated water system is achievable if there is the political will to make it happen. The public want change, as has been proved by the petition today. His Majesty’s official Opposition are ready to work constructively with the Government on ensuring that that is done for the benefit of people right across the country.
We are extremely fortunate to have a monarchy, particularly this monarchy. Since the reign of George III, the profits from the Crown Estate have accrued to the Treasury; in return, the institution of the monarchy receives a grant, which we are debating today. Part of that is an annually determined proportion of the profits. However, for things other than exceptional expenditure, such as on Buckingham Palace, the institution presumably requires some sort of stability and certainty about the receipts necessary to carry out its functions. Is it logical for the grant to be a proportion of profits, which will inevitably vary year by year, because they are a commercial matter?
The Minister will have to be very careful about what we say and do because of the effect on Jews in this country. In that regard, what assessment has he made of the Campaign against Antisemitism’s findings on Jew hate in our national health service? Does he agree that everybody needs to be assured that when they are at their most vulnerable, they will be dealt with equitably, without reference to their colour, creed, race or anything else? Yet we find that patients are being abused simply because they are Jewish, and that Jews working in the NHS are being disadvantaged.
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and I echo his opening remarks. I pass on my own condolences to the Prime Minister and my deepest sympathies to the Hamill family on this most challenging of days. The killing of Robert Hamill was a tragedy, and the Opposition condemn all heinous sectarian violence. Robert Hamill was beaten to death in his own town. His death should never have happened, and his killers should be brought to justice. His family have been waiting 29 years, and Sir Edwin Jowitt did not live to see his own report published. This inquiry took too long. It has long been argued by some that the police did nothing to prevent Mr Hamill’s murder, and yet the report found: “In the event…we have found no wrongful act or omission which facilitated Robert Hamill’s death.” The failings of the police were because of a lack of due diligence; there was no overarching conspiracy in the events that led up to his death. The report highlights police failures of investigation, which were entirely wrong. The case of Atkinson led to a conviction for perverting the course of justice, and we condemn those actions entirely. We believe that 12 months served is not enough for such a crime. Those in the RUC who shamed themselves dishonour the many thousands of officers who served with integrity, standing between bombs, bullets and civilians. It is clear that the inquiry found that this was a case of negligence and that there was no overall conspiracy in the RUC to prevent a proper investigation. Those who murdered Robert Hamill could still be walking the streets today; we find it deplorable that they have not been brought to justice. May I take the opportunity to thank all those who have been involved in the report? I would like to ask the Secretary of State a number of questions. First, thousands of people served in the RUC in one of the most difficult policing environments imaginable. Does he agree that the vast majority of them carried out their duties with exemplary skill and bravery and deserve our thanks? Secondly, does he accept that the central finding of the report—that no officer in the Land Rover acted wrongfully —is a majority finding from which the inquiry’s own chairman dissented? Further, how have the Hamill family been supported throughout the process of publication? This is one of the last of the core inquiries to report. What is the Government’s assessment of what those inquiries have collectively cost, what they have delivered and what they tell us about the inquiry model as a route to legacy truth recovery? This inquiry had cost £33 million by the time it was initially completed in 2011, and it took a further 15 years to reach the public. What lessons do the Government draw for the Omagh bombing inquiry and the inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane? The Finucane inquiry is already behind schedule. How will the material gathered by the inquiry—more than 20,000 documents and evidence from 174 witnesses —be preserved? Will it be made available to the body now handling legacy cases and to the Public Record Office in Northern Ireland? Finally, do the Government consider the questions raised by the report to be closed by its publication or do they accept that there is unfinished business in relation to the Director of Public Prosecutions’ role, which the family had to go to judicial review to have considered? I finish by joining the Secretary of State in condemning all sectarian violence.
I call Richard Tice on a point of order in connection with the code of conduct to rectify a failure to declare.
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. There will be no further points of order on that issue.
Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is expecting this, but it is important that he focuses his remarks on the Sovereign Grant Bill, and not wider issues to do with the monarchy, patriotism or why he joined the Labour party.
Order. I reiterate that we are going to stick to the scope of the Sovereign Grant Bill, which is very specifically only about the amount of the sovereign grant and how it is to be determined in future years. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the grant goes to the King.
Order. Apologies, and I appreciate that I am now leaping to my feet with monotonous regularity, but it would be more appropriate for the amendment to be discussed in Committee than on Second Reading.
I remind Members that in Committee Members should not address the Chair as Deputy Speaker. Please use my name when addressing the Chair. Madam Chair, Chair and Madam Chairman are also acceptable. Clause 1 Amount of Sovereign Grant for the financial year 2027-28 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 20, at end insert— “(3) Section 6 of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 is amended as follows. (4) After subsection (4) insert— “(5) The Royal Trustees may not make any proposals to increase the percentage specified in Step 1 (as amended by Section 2 of the Sovereign Grant Act 2026) for determining the amount of the Sovereign Grant, unless— (a) they have commissioned the National Audit Office to undertake a value for money assessment of the proposed change, and (b) the National Audit Office’s report has been laid before both Houses of Parliament, and (c) a motion approving the change has been debated and approved by resolution of the House of Commons.”” This amendment would ensure that any future increase to the percentage of Crown Estate profit used to calculate the Sovereign Grant is subject to independent assessment and an affirmative vote in the House of Commons. Clause 2 stand part. Clauses 3 and 4 stand part.
We now come to the motions relating to Select Committee Chairs, period of Leave; Select Committee participation; the Committee of Privileges report; and Standing Orders, machinery of government changes, which will be debated together. There is a small error on the printed Order Paper in the motion on Standing Orders, machinery of government changes. Under section B: Related Provisions, paragraph (2), sub-paragraph (ii), the Committee names should be swapped around. A corrected version of the motion is available from the Vote Office and the online version of the Order Paper has been corrected.
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motions: Select Committees (Participation)— That with effect from 30 November 2026:— (1) Select committee members may in the circumstances set out in paragraph 2 below participate in any select committee proceedings through electronic means of communication in accordance with guidance to be determined and published by the Liaison Committee, which must take into account the need for cyber security. (2) The circumstances in which this Standing Order applies are: (a) when access to the estate is significantly limited or prevented entirely, or (b) when reasonable adjustments need to be made for an individual committee member on the grounds of health and wellbeing, following the conclusion of an assessment process as set out in the Liaison Committee guidance. (3) A Member participating through electronic means in accordance with this Standing Order shall count towards the quorum of the Committee. (4) The provisions of this Standing Order apply to meetings held under the provisions of Standing Order No. 137A (Select committees: power to work with other committees). (5) This Standing Order applies to all select committees appointed under Public Business Standing Orders, the Modernisation Committee, and such other select committees as the House directs. (6) That this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the present Parliament. Privileges— That this House agrees with the Committee of Privileges First Report of Session 2026–27, Matter referred on 4 September 2025: Actions of the Charity Commission (HC 315), and endorses its conclusions and recommendations. Standing Orders Etc. (Machinery of Government Changes)— That the following amendments and related provisions be made in respect of Standing Orders: A: Select Committees Related to Government Departments (1) That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended in the Table in paragraph (2) as follows— (i) leave out items 1, 3, 14 and 19; (ii) insert, in the appropriate place, the following items: “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade” “Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade” 11 “Digital, Culture, Media and Sport” “Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport” 11 “Science and Technology” “Government Office for Science” 11 “Women and Equalities” “Office for Equality and Opportunity” 11 B: Related Provisions (2) That all proceedings of the House and of its select committees in this Parliament, including for the purposes of calculating any period under Standing Order No. 122A (Term limits for chairs of select committees)— (i) relating to the Business and Trade Committee shall be read and have effect as if they had been done in relation to the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee; (ii) relating to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee shall be read and have effect as if they had been done in relation to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee; and (iii) relating to the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee shall be read and have effect as if they had been done in relation to the Science and Technology Committee. C: Liaison Committee (3) That the Resolution of the House of 4 December 2024 (Liaison Committee: Membership), be amended, in paragraph (2)— (i) by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”; (ii) by leaving out “Culture, Media and Sport” and inserting “Digital, Culture, Media and Sport”; (iii) by leaving out “Science, Innovation and Technology” and inserting “Science and Technology”. (4) That Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended, in paragraph (6), by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”. D. European Committees (5) That the Table in paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 119 (European Committees) be amended in respect of European Committee C, by leaving out: (a) “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”; (b) “Culture, Media and Sport” and inserting “Digital, Culture, Media and Sport”; and (c) “Science, Innovation and Technology”. E. Scrutiny of orders and draft orders (6) That Standing Order No. 18 (Consideration of draft legislative reform orders etc.) be amended in paragraph (1), by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”; (7) That Standing Order No. 141 (Scrutiny of regulatory and legislative reform orders etc.) be amended in paragraph (1), by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”; and (8) That Standing Order No. 142 (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders) be amended in paragraph (1), by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”. F. Planning: national policy statements (9) That Standing Order No. 152H (Planning: national policy statements) be amended in paragraph (2)(a) as follows— (a) by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”; (b) by leaving out “Science, Innovation and Technology” and inserting “Science and Technology”.
I welcome the Minister to his place and congratulate him on his appointment. The Government are right to focus on the importance of parity between vocational education and academic education. However, when comparing the academic year 2025-26 with 2023-24, the number of people who have started apprenticeships has dropped by 9% and the number who have completed has gone down by 17%. With reference to the Minister’s point about vocational pathways, will he update the House on what steps the Government are taking to ensure that they are linked with the needs of industry, so that this in itself does not become an academic exercise?
T6. Special educational needs and disabilities provision and access to education, health and care plans continues to be a worry and concern for many parents in Worcestershire. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the adequacy of SEND provision in Worcestershire, and what steps are the Government taking to improve it? If she does not have a comprehensive answer, perhaps she could write to me.
On behalf of Conservative Members, I send my thoughts to the Prime Minister, following the tragic passing of his father. I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. In her statement to the House following the insolvency of Speciality Steel UK in September last year, the then Minister for Industry, the hon. Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), stated that the Government would pursue every avenue to keep the company’s sites producing, as part of the Government’s wider work to grow a resilient domestic steel industry. We can all agree that the compulsory winding-up order against Liberty Speciality Steels created a great deal of uncertainty, especially for the more than 1,000 workers employed there. I am keen to hear how the Government have kept their promise to stand by the entire workforce throughout this process, including while overseeing bids to sell former assets. Will any redundancies follow nationalisation? However, continuous operational failures have already pushed businesses into a state of chronic uncertainty; a failure to file accounts for more than six years led to a separate prosecution by Companies House, and there was an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into suspected fraud, fraudulent trading and money laundering. The Secretary of State said that the official receiver wanted to gain a better understanding of the company’s business and the conduct of its directors in the period leading up to the liquidation. Can he give an update on any investigations into conduct that the Government have undertaken, and on any steps taken to recover money belonging either to the business or to the British taxpayer? Despite the rhetoric about the Government supporting the UK steel industry, all that the industry has experienced is increased pressure and apprehension. From the steel strategy, which is likely to lead to ever higher costs for taxpayers, to the introduction of the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism, which fatally weakens our national resilience, the survivability of steel producers is becoming more difficult. Indeed, a manufacturer in my constituency told me some months ago that it will likely dissolve by Christmas if the Government do not change course. Energy prices are also a significant hurdle for steel plants. The Government’s Clean Power 2030 action plan risks making things worse; it could force rapid change without ensuring the infrastructure or investment to support it, while increasing costs for manufacturers and threatening jobs in key industrial communities. Nearly 92% of global steel production faces no comparable carbon pricing. Only the UK, the EU, Canada and New Zealand, covering just 8% of global output, apply prices in the £30 to £70 per tonne range, but we expect our industry to compete with countries that pay a fraction of that, or nothing at all. The Secretary of State will say that the Government are helping to address the burden of high bills for manufacturers via the British industrial competitiveness scheme, but unfortunately their efforts are too little, too late. Having a strong steel industry is vital to our national security and resilience. Traditional bulk commodity steelmaking is vital to our national infrastructure, and modern advanced steel manufacturing is a vital foundation for sectors such as aerospace, defence, nuclear and automotive, all of which are critical, given rising geopolitical tensions. I understand that another issue facing Speciality Steel UK was having the capital to buy raw materials that would allow the continued production of advanced steels, such as the landing gears produced at Stocksbridge. Could the Government therefore outline what support has been given to maintain site operation through this process, and whether advanced steel manufacturing will be a priority following nationalisation? Circling back to the Government’s commitment to pursue every avenue, can the Minister explain how much consideration has been given to private investment as a solution? How much was spent on private sector solutions before the decision to nationalise, and what was the main basis for that decision? Considering that a preferred bidder had been identified, it is surprising that the Government have moved away from this completely. Indeed, at the Business and Trade Committee on 22 June, the Department’s director for materials and industry noted that “significant investment” was required, and stressed that the majority of this should come from the private sector. Other than a new Prime Minister who is ideologically committed to nationalisation, what has changed? Will the Minister outline the terms asked for by the private bidder that the Government were not willing to agree to? If the business has unique capabilities and demand is there for its products, does that not imply that the barrier to a viable private sector buyer is either the Government’s own ideological obsession with nationalisation, or an economic climate in which it is increasingly impossible to run a successful manufacturing business in Britain?
10. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of independent fostering agencies on fostering sufficiency in England.
The Minister will know that there is an increasing number of vulnerable children who desperately need good-quality foster care. At the same time, there is a crisis in the recruitment of those foster carers. Will he undertake to set up a commissioning system that includes not only local authorities but independent fostering agencies, so that these vulnerable children can get a safe place where they are cared for, which they desperately need?
7. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of changes to block funding and the inclusion fund on mainstream schools’ ability to meet the needs of pupils with SEND.
Following a recent visit to Tushingham-with-Grindley primary school, the headteacher raised concerns with me that for many small, rural schools like Tushingham and Shocklach Oviatt, the new inclusion fund does not compensate for the impact of changes to the school’s block funding. Not every child with SEND needs one-to-one support, but many need teaching assistants and other staff to help them regulate, access learning and benefit from targeted support. If school budgets are being squeezed, it is often that support that ends up being reduced. How will the Minister ensure that the funding changes do not inadvertently reduce the support that children with SEND need to thrive in mainstream schools?
I start by expressing our condolences following the death of a member of our armed forces in Ukraine on Saturday. I thank them for their service and say to their family that we hold them very much in our hearts. As we approach the anniversary of Hamas’s barbaric 7 October terrorist attacks next month, we also approach three years of war. Two hundred and fifty-one people were kidnapped that day, over 1,200 murdered and hundreds raped. It was not until this January that the remains of the final hostage were brought home—may their memory be a blessing. After three years of immense suffering, recent months have, on paper, hinted at real progress towards peace: a UN Security Council resolution, a road map and transitional committee, and the first Palestinian legislative election since 2006 scheduled for November. Yet on the ground, neither the Israeli nor Palestinian people feel any safer. Hamas remains armed despite promises to the contrary, and Iran remains a destructive force, willing to sacrifice the futures of whole nations through its proxies in Palestine, Yemen, Lebanon and Iraq, creating instability to ensure the survival of its own despotic regime. As the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), set out last week, there is much we agree on across this House, and even where differences of approach exist, we share a deep concern that current events are taking Israelis and Palestinians towards a darker future. We are acutely aware of the immense suffering in Gaza and the fragility of attempts at peacebuilding. We agree that some Israeli Ministers have espoused unacceptable, dangerous and hateful rhetoric, even targeting our own country in recent weeks, and that groups of settlers in the west bank are engaging in illegal acts and violence, often encouraged by this same rhetoric. We also know that most in Israel reject this and seek a peaceful future, and we must keep them in our minds and not mistake the loudest voices as the most representative. Before I turn to the Government’s decisions, let me say something as a friend of Israel, as someone who has worked with Israel to defeat shared enemies such as Daesh. We have learned from failures in Iraq and Afghanistan that how you prosecute the operation to defeat terrorists determines whether you build and secure peace for your people in the long term. You do not defeat an insurgency by creating conditions in which the next generation is recruited. My fear is that three years on, Hamas is still armed, still governing and still recruiting. Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, then spokesperson for the IDF, said, “Hamas is an idea,” and that those who believe that it can be eliminated by force alone are mistaken, and he is right. You cannot bomb an ideology out of existence; you must allow an alternative and create the space for political transition. That is not a moral nicety; it is the operational lesson of every counter-insurgency campaign our country has ever fought, including those we have lost. The defeat of Hamas is important to our security here in the UK, and these lessons cannot be dismissed if we are to create a safer future for us and if the region is to find peace. We all want a better future for the Israeli and Palestinian people, but to do so, we must have constructive channels of communication open with our partners in the region. As Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron was able to secure additional aid to Gaza and to open new crossings by using our relationship to benefit those most in need. It is imperative that the Government maintain those relations to reflect the strategic importance of this relationship and to allow us to continue to influence events as friends. I believe the world is a better place when Britain is at the table, and more clarity is needed on the Government’s position. The Board of Peace’s efforts have largely been rejected, at least on sequencing. Hamas will not disarm first, Israel will not withdraw first, but the Government have said nothing about the British view of what the sequencing should be, and that silence benefits no one. With Israeli elections next month and Palestinian elections in November, there is a small glimmer of hope that they will bring more moderate voices to the fore. That is why we remain concerned that the sanctions announced by the Government so close to the Israeli election may empower the very voices most opposed to peace. Before the Foreign Secretary’s announcement, Israeli news was awash with headlines that Netanyahu allegedly failed to pass on a warning from the President of the United Arab Emirates to Israeli intelligence 10 days before the Hamas attack. Britain’s sanctions wiped that off the news cycle; it is no longer being discussed. Given that Israel, a true democracy, is about to go to the polls, did the timing not warrant more reflection? I have spent years arguing that this country imposes sanctions without plans ever to lift them in order to punish, rather than to deter or change behaviour. Let me ask Ministers what I would ask of any sanctions regime: what must change for these measures to be lifted, and will that be published and made clear so that they can achieve the effect they wish to see? Turning to the Palestinian elections, there is a real possibility that Hamas could win a share of power. If Hamas win the Palestinian elections, will the Government give diplomatic accreditation to one of their representatives as ambassador? We must all speak honestly and accept that the odds are stacked against any Palestinian moderate while Tehran funds, arms and outbids all of them. A Hamas election victory could mark the first time the British Government accredit an ambassador appointed by a proscribed terrorist group. Will the Minister confirm in winding up that under no circumstances will the Government accept a Palestinian ambassador drawn from Hamas? I also ask for a written ministerial statement before 6 November setting out the accreditation criteria. The Iranian state continues to support Hamas to use violence to advance its political aims. It is therefore vital that the Palestinian Authority security forces can maintain the peace needed for an election to take place, so it is deeply regrettable that, following the Foreign Secretary’s statement last week, the UK training advisory mission to Palestinian security forces has been terminated when it is most needed. What efforts have the Government made to replace our contribution, be it with Jordanian or EU or other authorities and forces? Likewise, the closure of our consulate in Jerusalem severs our main diplomatic channel to Palestinians in Jerusalem and the west bank when the situation is getting worse and the west bank should occupy more of our debate in this place. The Jordanians are doing an important job to protect the stability that there is, but Christian communities, among the oldest in the world, are being harassed, attacked and driven from their homes. How are the Government now going to assess the situation there and speak up for those being persecuted? The Minister responded just now to a question from his Back Benches about the strike on the World Central Kitchen. James Henderson, John Chapman and James Kirby, three British veterans, were killed by Israeli fire while delivering food in Gaza. Their families are still waiting for the unedited drone footage to be handed to the coroner and for a resumption date for the inquest. Can the Minister give more clarity on what the Government are doing to secure that footage and that date, and on when we will get answers about how, in January 2024, an Israeli airstrike hit a residential compound in a designated safe zone in Gaza where British surgeons working for Medical Aid for Palestinians were living? Thankfully, none were harmed. This conflict sits within a wider regional destabilisation that threatens us all. It is indisputable that the Iranian regime is by far the biggest sponsor of global terrorism, and Iran must never achieve its goal of nuclear armament, because a nuclear-armed ayatollah is concerning enough, but who among us can truly say that we trust that that regime would not share such a weapon with the Houthis or with Hezbollah? We would be one step from nuclear-enabled terrorism. Just last week, the Houthis briefly captured the pivotal Perim island in the Bab el-Mandeb strait. Although Yemeni Government forces repelled the attack, that must serve as a warning. Taken with the Houthi strike against the Saudi east-west oil pipeline, there is a real and escalating risk that Bab el-Mandeb will, like the strait of Hormuz, come to be closed. If the situation at both does not calm, the coming winter will be marked by rising inflation, economic hardship, medicine and food shortages, an energy crisis and worse. Given that, we must counter the Houthi threat and assist Saudi Arabia and other partners in maintaining maritime freedom. The previous Prime Minister did at least work earnestly to establish an international coalition aimed at protecting the flow of trade. The Prime Minister now needs to convene this group, otherwise he will walk into a winter of discontent. The British people need him to take action. What contingency plans have been drawn up if the Houthi campaign continues and the Bab el-Mandeb strait and Saudi pipeline infrastructure are degraded? Given this context, the choice to delay the decision on the Jackdaw gas field in the North sea is mistaken. We must not put our heads in the sand, because the reality is that next year we may find ourselves in a three-theatre conflict: Ukraine; the strait of Hormuz; and—which would be the greatest shock to the global economy and the cost of living in my lifetime—Taiwan. We must be prepared. Britain did not choose this conflict, and we cannot choose to be unaffected by it, but Government action is needed to protect our economy, our supply chains and our people, because Iran and its proxies continue to target us directly, feeding and funding a national emergency of antisemitism in our country, and working to undermine our freedoms and security. Just last week, another two individuals were arrested on suspicion of assisting Iranian intelligence; that takes the total to 15 in the last two years. The Government must also take action to shut down blatant propaganda operations on our streets: Al Masirah, the Houthis’ main television station; LuaLua TV, which has an Ofcom broadcasting licence; and the Islamic Centre of England in Maida Vale, whose director has to be appointed by the ayatollah himself. There are various cut-outs across our country currently sponsoring visas and giving terrorists not a back door but a front door into our country, and we must end this game of whack-a-mole and unplug the machine. That means we must designate Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security. It is in our interests to see a lasting peace in Israel and Palestine, and indeed across the whole region. We have an historical obligation not to look the other way, and the suffering of 7 October, Gaza and the west bank pain us all. The consequences of that day continue to reverberate and grow ever more pressing for us. We hope for the best and there are small glimmers of hope, but action is needed to protect us here in the UK by assuring and shoring up our interests in the region. So let us prepare for the worst and ensure that, if it comes, we have the means, the will and the vision to weather the storm.
To add to the hon. Gentleman’s point, he may not be aware that the Government have also closed the atrocity prevention centre that was set up in the Cabinet Office. I spent two years fighting for its introduction. Its whole point was to identify the signs of ethnic cleansing very early on, so that the Government could send experts in to improve the Foreign Office’s response. Does he not agree that that closure is concerning, given that we see more conflict around the world, not less?
This petition calls on the Government to abandon their plans to force a local government reorganisation designed by the cities of Lincoln and Leicester across our rural communities in Rutland, Stamford and the Harborough and Stamford villages. In every single proposal, the Government are imposing the least popular option on our communities. That is why in the last few weeks there have been 1,326 hand-written signatures from residents, on top of 7,249 online, as part of 40,000 people across Leicestershire. Therefore, 8,573 are rejecting the Government’s plans for our communities. The 1,326 petitioners “therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and reject the current proposals for local government reorganisation” being imposed on us. Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the United Kingdom, Declares that the petitioners oppose Government plans to break up local government across Leicestershire, Rutland and Lincolnshire by imposing the proposals of the cities of Leicester and Lincoln; further declares that residents of Rutland and the Harborough villages oppose being forced into a sprawling Leicestershire Council serving over 578,000 people; further declares that residents of Stamford and South Kesteven oppose being forced into a council serving 574,000 people stretching from Gainsborough to Stamford; and further declares that residents of the Harborough villages of Thurnby, Bushby, Scraptoft and Stoughton do not consent to being taken over by the City of Leicester. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and reject the current proposals for local government reorganisation in Leicestershire, Rutland and Lincolnshire. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003240]
I support the motions in the name of the Leader of the House and thank him for his opening remarks. The motion on privileges asks this House to agree with the findings in the report by the Committee of Privileges, of which I am the Chair, relating to the Charity Commission taking legal action to prevent the laying of two reports before Parliament by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Before I go further, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who, as Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, first brought this matter to the House’s attention and moved the motion to refer it to my Committee just over a year ago, on 4 September 2025. Our report deals with a rather technical but very important matter that concerns us all: parliamentary privilege. We must not forget that the case arose from serious complaints and allegations made against a number of charities, including the alleged concealment of child sexual abuse. The PCA reported on those complaints and made recommendations to the Charity Commission. Having concluded that the injustice had not been remedied and was not likely to be remedied, she decided to lay reports before Parliament, as was her right under section 10(3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. It was not the role of my Committee to reach a judgment on the substance of the cases, and so we did not do so. Our role was to consider matters of parliamentary privilege and, in this case, the obstruction of the provision of information to Members. Before touching on the details of the case, I should acknowledge at the outset that, as the Leader of the House said, the commission has already accepted and acted on one of our recommendations. On 14 July—the day that we published our report—the chair of the Charity Commission, on behalf of the board, wrote to Mr Speaker, the Chair of PACAC and me, as Chair of the Privileges Committee, with an unreserved apology. The chief executive officer, Mr Holdsworth, apologised in writing to Mr Speaker. The letter to me has been published on the Committee’s website. I welcome the fact that the commission has finally acknowledged its error, albeit at a regrettably late stage. I hope it will not try Members’ patience if I remind them of the findings and significance of the report. Although it has seemingly technical issues at its heart, it is about the flow of information to this House and is therefore of the greatest importance to the House—to each and every one of us—and its ability to function. The Charity Commission interfered with the flow of information when it sought to prevent the PCA from laying reports before Parliament using the powers given to her in legislation. To make matters worse, the commission refused for a very long time to accept that this was a privilege matter and persisted in its efforts to prevent publication. That was despite repeated written advice, including from Speaker’s Counsel, that its legal action was improper interference with the House’s right to be informed, and could not be considered by the courts as it would have entailed impeaching and questioning proceedings in Parliament, contrary to article IX of the Bill of Rights. That is deeply regrettable, especially given that the reports related to the commission’s failure, as the PCA saw it, to implement properly the recommendations arising from its handling of the very serious complaints to which I referred. At the same time as agreeing to refer the matter to my Committee, this House ordered that the PCA’s reports be laid. That resolved the immediate issue: the interference with the provision of information to the House, as a result of which the courts ruled that the case was academic and the legal merits were unarguable. It remained for my Committee, however, to consider whether the behaviour of the commission was a contempt of Parliament and to come to a view on whether reports laid under section 10(3) of the 1967 Act are indeed proceedings in Parliament, as Speaker’s Counsel had advised. In conducting our inquiry on behalf of this House, we took evidence from Speaker’s Counsel, the PCA herself and three representatives of the commission: its then interim chair, Mark Simms; its CEO, David Holdsworth; and its head of litigation, Felix Rechtman. Although we were grateful to all the witnesses for giving evidence, our report was highly critical of Mr Holdsworth, in particular, especially for repeatedly insisting, both in his oral evidence and elsewhere in correspondence, that it was never the commission’s intention that Parliament should not see the information in the reports. The Committee could not see how that claim could be squared with the commission’s pre-action letter, which specifically sought to quash the decision to provide Parliament with that information. In the light of that, we recommended that Mr Holdsworth and the board of the commission should apologise to the House. As I said, and as the Leader of the House confirmed, those apologies have now been made. The inquiry sought to establish something that has never been explicitly considered by the courts, not even in this case, since the judge ruled that the legal merits were unarguable: namely, whether reports to be laid under section 10(3) of the 1967 Act are in fact proceedings in Parliament. That is crucial to the rights of Parliament, since article IX of the Bill of Rights confers on proceedings in Parliament protection from being “impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.” That is one of our most foundational constitutional principles. If such a report is a proceeding in Parliament, any attempt to obstruct its laying could be a contempt of Parliament. The Committee found that such reports were intimately connected to the House and were therefore proceedings in Parliament, and so covered by article IX. It consequently found that any attempt to prevent the laying of a paper before one or both Houses was capable of being a contempt, and that in this particular case the commission had clearly committed such a contempt. It is deeply regrettable that the Committee had to consider this case at all. I very much hope that the Charity Commission, and indeed other public bodies, learn the lessons so that we avoid a repeat of these unfortunate events. I thank the other members of the Privileges Committee, the Clerks—especially the Clerk of the Journals, who is soon to be Clerk of the House—and Speaker’s Counsel for helping us to navigate what was at times an incredibly difficult subject procedurally. I hope that my speech and that of the Leader of the House have demonstrated to all of us, however, that it was also one of great importance to the proper functioning of the House of Commons. I hope that Members will agree to the motion.