142 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Will the Minister tackle the point that I made in my speech? There is a possibility of people being denied disability benefits, as the result of separate work for which he is responsible, and potentially falling into the cap by losing the exemptions. That worries me greatly with respect to my own constituents.
I welcome the ambition in the White Paper, particularly to ensure that young people are supported earlier. It has to be the right aim that more young people can be supported within mainstream settings. Is the Secretary of State committed to understanding the reasons for the big increase in the number of young people who cannot be supported in mainstream school and to providing the necessary funding and support to schools? Does she accept that, at the same time, there is not currently enough capacity in alternative provision for young people for whom mainstream school is not working?
<Question HRSContentId="{743C69C0-B349-40A9-A915-EE9E99BECC42}">T6. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{46B3BE21-FBAA-4AD4-9A28-532C1039CDB1}"></QuestionText>In the past seven months, I have been contacted by 18 constituents who have faced unacceptable delays in getting responses from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency about licensing issues where a review by the medical team is required. Each time I have intervened and each time the issue has been resolved, but it is not the mark of a functioning system that an MP has to intervene in every complaint to get a response. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that constituents can get a response from the DVLA without having to mobilise their MP every time?</Question>
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing this debate. He shares my passion for tackling water pollution, which is why we work together on the all-party parliamentary group on water pollution, which I set up when I joined this place to represent the interests of my constituents and citizens across the country who are passionate about the issue. I did so in recognition of the fact that, unfortunately, the all-party parliamentary water group has a secretariat run by the water industry. It was therefore vital to get citizens’ voices into Parliament on this issue.
I thank the hon. Member for that clarification, and I am delighted to hear that in this Parliament that has been changed. Historically, it was run by the water industry, which is why it was necessary to set up a new group. I will confine my comments today to the two elephants in the room: ownership and agriculture. They are effectively missing from the Independent Water Commission. They are effectively missing from the water White Paper. That is frankly extraordinary. Why did the Government prevent the Cunliffe commission from looking at those two crucial issues? Without addressing them, we cannot tackle the problems in the water sector. Privatisation of water has comprehensively failed. Privatised water companies have paid £85 billion in dividends to shareholders since privatisation, and they have racked up debts of £65 billion. All the while, leaks have been proliferating, infrastructure has been crumbling, there has been a failure to build reservoirs, and customers have been paying hand over fist for poorer and poorer service. It is completely unacceptable. Nearly every river in England is polluted. England’s bathing water quality is the fifth worst in Europe. England’s surface water quality is the seventh worst in Europe. Over 1 trillion litres of water were leaked in 2024. I have already mentioned the £85 billion paid to shareholders and the £65 billion of debt. Privatisation will cost customers a further £22 billion over the next five years, because that is the return on capital that has been set by Ofwat. Around a third of customer bills now service corporate debt, and Ofwat allowed bills to go up by 26% this financial year alone—an average of £123 per household. That is a failing water system. No other country in the democratic world has privatised its water system to the degree that we have in this country. It is clear that a market-based approach to the water sector simply does not work. Water is a natural monopoly. Customers have absolutely zero choice. Water is a public good and should be in public hands, so that it works for public benefit. Why did the Government prevent the Independent Water Commission from even looking at that question?
We need to bring water companies into public ownership, because only by running water for public good will we tackle the scandal that has been caused by privatisation in recent decades. Some 82% of the British public want water to be in public ownership. That is more than the percentage who want the railways to be in public ownership, so why are the Government so opposed to it? They are very fond of citing completely imaginary figures about the supposed cost of doing so, but Thames Water, for example, apparently has a market <span id="286WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="286WH"></span>value of £4 billion, judging by the last market offer, and faces a repair bill of £23 billion, so in effect its value is nil. We could take it into public ownership at zero cost and run water for public benefit. The second lacuna in the work of the Independent Water Commission and the water White Paper is agriculture. Why did the Government prevent the Independent Water Commission from looking at agricultural pollution? We know that diffuse agricultural pollution is half the problem, so we cannot ignore it. It is another elephant in the room, and we have to focus on addressing it, together with farmers, who are crying out for support to do that. To give the Independent Water Commission some credit, it did actually look at the issue and mentioned it in its conclusions. It says on page 20 of the final report that “agriculture has the most significant environmental impact on water bodies in England and Wales.” In fact, almost the very next sentence cited the River Wye in my North Herefordshire constituency, where problems relating to diffuse agricultural pollution have led to huge economic, social and environmental problems. A few pages later, the Independent Water Commission said that the Government’s water strategy “should be cross-sectoral, setting out in one place the requirements on all the sectors impacting on or interacting with the water environment…including agriculture”. Yet on only one of its 50 pages did the Government’s White Paper talk about agriculture. That is not a comprehensive, joined-up strategy. As the Independent Water Commission pointed out, “achieving a future environmental target for water…will depend more and more upon reducing the contribution of agricultural pollution.” We must work with our farmers—the stewards of our land—to tackle this problem. It is more than half the issue, and the Government can no longer ignore it. I beg the Minister to please give it the same attention that we rightly give to the water and sewage companies. Without a comprehensive approach, we will simply fail to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas.
The co-founder of Palantir, Peter Thiel, maintained a close financial and personal relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. There are profound ethical concerns about the web of connections between Thiel, Epstein and Mandelson. The hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) is absolutely right: the MoD’s contract with US-based spy-tech giant Palantir absolutely stinks. Will the MOD now cancel that contract? Will we get a fast and independent inquiry into the Government’s contracts with Palantir, as it currently has several billion pounds-worth of further framework contracts with the UK Government? Will we find out whether Mandelson shared privileged information with Palantir? If it is true that Palantir is hosting a party in Mayfair tomorrow for MOD officials, as <em>The Times</em> has alleged, will the Minister get that stopped?
<Question HRSContentId="{0E69B5B3-93BE-49BD-B34B-C0C947FBB038}">T8. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{6EE4C4E9-55BD-4AF7-88DC-DEF9BBD5A283}"></QuestionText>I hope the Secretary of State has seen the reports that show that the proposed Rosebank oil field, as well as being a climate catastrophe, risks breaking international law. If approved, Rosebank’s profits could flow to Delek Group, a company accused by the UN of supporting illegal Israeli settlements. If he cannot comment on Rosebank specifically, can he tell me what steps his Department is taking to ensure that all UK oil and gas projects respect international law?</Question>
A Government in thrall to men and corporations drunk on power is the rot at the centre of the Mandelson scandal. When people operate in the shadows, they think they can act with impunity. Of all seven Nolan principles, openness can help to build back the most trust. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree that we must drive out corporate influence and money, and as a start, will he cap political donations, and ask all MPs and peers to follow my example in releasing logs of all lobbying meetings, so that people can know that we work for them?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I have notified another Member of the House, whom I intend to name in my speech. I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for introducing the debate so comprehensively and effectively on behalf of the Petitions Committee and the more than 115,000 petitioners. I share their concern about the influence of Russia over British politics. We urgently need to defend UK democracy from a sustained pattern of attempted foreign interference. In June last year, the Government’s strategic defence review called Russia “an immediate and pressing threat”. It absolutely is. We see that in the conviction of Nathan Gill, Reform’s former leader in Wales. He was sentenced to jail for 10 and a half years for accepting Russian bribes for influence in politics. We also see it highlighted by the light of disinfectant that has been provided by the partial release of the Epstein files. They show a sinister web of crypto and far-right politics in Putin’s orbit, and the way in which that extends into UK politics. It is clear that Reform UK is peddling the same agenda in the UK and is seeking to form the next Government. This is a clear and present danger to UK politics. We cannot overstate the threat to our values, democracy and way of life. The Gill conviction came more than five years after the 2020 Russia report from the Intelligence and Security Committee, which called Russian influence in the UK “the new normal”. The US had the in-depth Mueller inquiry into interference in their 2016 elections straight after. It is an unforgivable gap in the British state’s response to the Russian threat that a similar inquiry still has not been undertaken into the Brexit referendum. The Tories stopped that happening here. Why have the Labour Government not made it happen? Mueller found that Russia had sophisticated techniques in setting up legitimate-looking English language accounts, which distributed thousands of pro-Brexit messages in 2016, raising serious questions about Russian internet troll farms. The ISC found credible evidence of interference in UK elections. Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson used to dance on the head of a pin over successful and unsuccessful Russian interference, but this needs to be investigated properly and urgently before we have another general election in the UK. The Rycroft review is welcome and important, but we also need a proper, in-depth, Mueller-style probe into what happened in 2016 and since. Time is short, the clock is ticking and our democracy is under constant threat.<span id="247WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="247WH"></span> I turn to the Epstein files. The girls and women affected by the heinous crimes committed by Epstein and his cronies are at the forefront of all our minds. Justice for them must be paramount in any action that the UK Government take. The Epstein files make it clear that Gill was not one bad apple, but part of something much bigger and darker: a web of pro-crypto, far-right, Russia-linked anti-democratic forces. It is an oblique and shady movement, in which the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) appears to be embroiled deeply. A message from Steve Bannon, former head of the Trump campaign and former White House chief of staff, was explicit in telling Epstein: “I am now adviser to Front; salvini/the league; afd; Swiss peoples; orban; land; farage”. He crowed: “next may is European Parliament election—we can go from 92 seats to 200—shut down any crypto legislation or anything else we want”. He was explicit about his project and about the part of the hon. Member for Clacton within that project. We need to recognise this threat. We see far-right parties across Europe all using the same playbook: attack migrants, distract, create fear, benefit from crypto and grab power. It is dangerous, disgusting and part of a plan. The files reveal Epstein messaging Palantir chief Peter Thiel to say of the chaos caused by the referendum that Brexit is “just the beginning”. That is why the Mueller-style probe is so important. Palantir itself is now enmeshed in hundreds of millions of pounds of public contracts in the UK, including in the NHS and the Ministry of Defence, facilitated in part by Peter Mandelson and Global Counsel. This is absolutely unacceptable. It is vital that we stand up for democracy. It is vital that we stand up against the dangerous idea, “Oh, they’re all the same,” the idea that the word “politician “is inherently bad, and the unfair idea that all MPs are on the make. Some clearly are, but I absolutely believe that the majority are not. That sort of narrative exactly serves the anti-democratic Bannon-Putin-Farage agenda. But to stand against that, we must act.
I absolutely agree that Russian money is used in all sorts of manners to undermine our democracy. Rather than splitting hairs over the meaning of war, I will say that it is clear that we are in a fight for the life of our democracy, and that is why I am so passionate about the need for us to work collectively, cross-party, to face the challenge and resist the use of misinformation and disinformation, and the misuse of money, to poison our politics. Let me turn to the actions that we need to take. We have a crucial opportunity coming up, because we are expecting the publication of the elections Bill. This House will have an opportunity to make law that could strengthen <span id="248WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="248WH"></span>our powers to counter the forces of dirty money, misinformation and disinformation that undermine trust in our politics. Will the Government use the forthcoming Bill as an opportunity to introduce the measures that are urgently needed to prevent Russian influence? Will the Minister ensure that we ban all crypto donations to political individuals and parties? Will he urgently introduce a cap on political donations? It is, frankly, mind-blowing that we still do not have one. Will he introduce annual spending limits, to stop massive spending around the edges of election times? Will the Minister stop MPs having any second jobs? We have the grotesque spectacle of Reform MPs, for example, raking in hundreds of thousands fronting things like GB News, clearly peddling the kinds of messages and propaganda that serve the interests of the crypto/far-right/Kremlin axis. Will he act on the recommendations of Gordon Brown by establishing a new anti-corruption commission with power to seize assets and introducing confirmation hearings for top jobs? Why have we had to wait so long for this? Will the Minister ensure that there is meaningful enforcement when the rules are broken? Frankly, £20,000 fines are a joke. We need much stronger financial and criminal penalties. We have structural weaknesses in election law, which the hon. Member for South Norfolk referred to, including the vulnerability of the Electoral Commission to political attack. Will the Minister re-establish the complete independence of the Electoral Commission and ensure that it has stronger powers?
The hon. Member makes an excellent point with which I agree entirely. Finally, in respect of the elections Bill, we need to face the fact that the threats to public trust in our democracy not only derive from the influence of Russia and dark money, misinformation and disinformation, but relate to structural weaknesses in the way we do politics in this country. There is an urgent need for electoral reform. We need a system in which every person’s vote counts equally. Will the Minister commit to setting up a national commission on electoral reform so that we can ensure a genuinely fair voting system in which every voice is heard, and so that we do not have the spectacle of foreign money, from Russia or other influences, drowning out the voices of real individual citizens in this country? If we want future elections to be free and fair, and if we want proper democratic mechanisms for control of our own destiny as a country, we need to know what attacks were made in 2016. We need to understand the mechanisms that have been used to undermine our democracy so far, so that we can protect ourselves from the continuing disinformation campaign that endangers our democracy now. We urgently need to put in place steps through the elections Bill to rebuild trust in UK democracy and protect ourselves from foreign interference.<span id="249WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="249WH"></span>
<Question HRSContentId="{F42CD62A-B9F0-41F9-BFAF-7EDE30FC0508}">5. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{DE93DD6E-8930-4E8E-B03B-552621070350}">What assessment she has made of the potential impact of proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain on the number of people living in poverty. </QuestionText></Question>
Some 300,000 children living legally in the UK will face a decade of living in limbo under the Government’s earned settlement proposals, according to new research out this week by the Institute for Public Policy Research. Those children’s wait for settled immigration status will be extended by at least five years, during which many families will face no-recourse-to-public-funds restrictions, and we know that that raises the risk of homelessness and destitution. How does the Minister reconcile that poverty-increasing measure with the Government’s new child poverty strategy, which states: “Reducing child poverty is a moral imperative”?
The 2024 Labour general election manifesto promised “Immediate reform of the House of Lords”, noted that “reform is long over-due and essential”, and said, “Labour is committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber”. Given the Mandelson scandal and the unacceptable spectacle of a tiny number of unelected peers blocking the will of the majority of elected Members in this House, may we have an urgent debate in this Session and in Government time on how the Government will bring forward and realise their promises of fundamental Lords reform so that we can begin to rebuild trust in our country’s democracy?
I very much thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement, her visit, the new sanctions and aid that she has announced, and for her clear, personal passion to keep the spotlight on the horrific suffering of women and children, in particular, in this conflict, as well as her clear determination to bring together the international community and this country to do what we can to reach a ceasefire. I draw the Foreign Secretary’s attention specifically to the role of gold in financing the conflict. It is reported that, since the war began, gold production has grown more than tenfold, and that the vast majority is being smuggled out of the country, illicitly financing the arms imports fuelling the conflict. The countries involved include cross-border flows to Egypt and the UAE. What concrete measures is the UK taking—diplomatic, regulatory, sanctions—with partners, including those two countries, to highlight, call attention to and stop the illicit gold trade that is fuelling this horrific conflict?
I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) for securing today’s debate. In June last year, I secured a debate in Westminster Hall on the same topic, and the arguments that I set out at length then still hold; indeed, they have been deepened and strengthened by events since. The Green party has long been clear that the actions of the Israeli Government in Gaza constitute genocide, but I agree with the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) that it is important to be clear about language, so I will make very specific arguments with respect to the genocide convention. Under the convention, the UK has a legal obligation to assess the risk of genocide, and to act to prevent it when that risk is clear. Article I specifies that the contracting parties undertake “to prevent and to punish” genocide. By definition, prevention has to happen before an event has happened, or before it is completed; it cannot wait for a court case after genocide has conclusively taken place. Does the Minister therefore accept that the UK has a duty under article I of the genocide convention to prevent genocide when a serious risk is identified? Article II sets out a range of acts that, if “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part” a specific group, constitute genocide. Five acts are specified; only one of them needs to be occurring for it to be concluded that genocide is taking place, and there is very widespread agreement that at least four of those acts are happening in Gaza. They include “Killing members of the group…Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group” and “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. What else is cutting off water and preventing the delivery of food, lifesaving medicines, fuel and power? The fourth is “Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”. The wholesale destruction of healthcare in Gaza is clear evidence that this is occurring.<span id="515" class="column-number" data-column-number="515"></span> It is not just me or the International Court of Justice who says that; the International Association of Genocide Scholars, Médecins Sans Frontières, Amnesty, B’Tselem, Oxfam, Human Rights Watch, the UN commission of inquiry and hundreds of British lawyers say it, as we have heard. Why does the Minister not accept the conclusion of that wide swathe of people that genocide is indeed taking place, or at least that there is a plausible risk, which therefore entails his obligations under article 1? Article III(e) of the genocide convention specifies that complicity in genocide is punishable. Let us be clear about UK complicity: we have the export of arms, including F-35s, the sharing of intelligence and continued participation in settlement trade, which is participation in the proceeds of crime—that is, land seizure. What more evidence do the UK Government need that genocide is taking place and that we are complicit in it before they take the long-overdue actions that are in their power?
The Government’s own national security assessment warns that biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse pose serious risks to the UK’s long-term food security and may intensify natural disasters. Given that Parliament has not yet had the opportunity to debate this assessment, will the Secretary of State support my call for a dedicated debate, so that the risks and the actions across Government can be properly scrutinised by this House?
I welcome the national cancer plan, and in particular the Minister’s focus on early diagnosis and ending the scandal of postcode inequality. Cancer Research UK has highlighted that limited funding could significantly impact on progress against the plan, so can the Minister assure us that she is allocating funding in order to meet her own rightful ambitions, and say whether she is engaging with Cancer Research UK and others in the sector on the funding that is needed?
The hon. Member is making a strong case. The number of dentists leaving the NHS across the UK is driven by chronic underfunding and the failed dental contract. Last month, the Minister suggested that long-term fundamental reform might only be introduced from 2027 onwards. Does the hon. Member agree that that reform must be brought forward as soon as possible and that we need clarity on when? Does he also agree that the one-third cut in real terms of the dentistry budget that we have seen since 2010 must be reversed by this Government?
I thank the Minister for highlighting the need for the dental workforce to be strengthened. We have a dental desert in East Anglia. The University of East Anglia stands ready to open a new dental school. It has permission from the General Dental Council but is awaiting the funded undergraduate dental places that will be needed to start training new dentists from 2027. Can the Minister set out how those places will be made available on the basis of regional need, so that dental deserts such as the east of England can start to build a sustainable dental workforce?
<Question HRSContentId="{01755BDC-CB05-4551-8298-7A3BB05DF35D}">T4. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{21732913-0151-4C82-8E6F-55E017935F4C}"></QuestionText>Despite all that President Trump is doing to wreck global stability, our Government still spend billions a year on digital technology contracts, including with US tech giants. Will the Secretary of State immediately put together a UK digital sovereignty strategy to build our resilience and security, as France and Germany are doing?</Question>
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it appears that the Prime Minister turned a blind eye to what was already known about Peter Mandelson’s association with the appalling sex offender Jeffrey Epstein because, effectively, he wanted to cosy up to Donald Trump? Does he not agree that it looks very much like the wording of the Government’s amendment— “except papers prejudicial to…international relations” —effectively says that the Government do not want to release anything that might affect the Prime Minister’s ability to cosy up to Donald Trump? Does he therefore agree that the Government must withdraw their amendment to the motion? Furthermore, does he agree that we need to do more than just deal with this; we also need to address the lack of public trust in politics and in this House? To do so, we need to deal with things like political donations, the pollution of misinformation, and the urgent need for reform of the other place and, indeed, of electoral mechanisms in this Chamber?
The Minister has set out the difference between national security matters and issues which may be embarrassing to the Government—let’s face it, practically anything could damage international relations with Donald Trump; who knows what he is going to take offence at—but the process he has just outlined implies that the Cabinet Secretary will scrutinise every bit of information before deciding whether it gets released or whether it gets to the ISC. How long will that take? Will he give us an assurance on the volume of material he anticipates sending to the ISC and the timetable? What will be the deadline for releasing that material, either into the public domain or to the ISC?
<Question HRSContentId="{B5D2E12F-B3AF-4FF2-93E3-7EBA8F6D671B}">11. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{7D70D386-296A-43D1-A07E-C59F889E8C54}">If he will take steps to reduce the length of time people are held on remand for protest-related offences. </QuestionText></Question>
I am disappointed that the Minister has not acknowledged the real harm and suffering that is going on, which is an obvious consequence of the escalation by Ministers of the number of crimes with which people taking protest action are being charged. Does he not agree that incarcerating people for long months and years without trial for offences that are in essence political has no in-principle place in a democracy such as ours?
The Government have drawn this Bill too narrowly. It will, as Members have mentioned several times, leave at least 150,000 children in larger families with no extra help at all. For example, Maryam, highlighted by the Z2K charity, is a lone parent of three. She fled from domestic abuse and relies on us for her income while she restarts her life. Abolishing the two-child limit alone will not improve her life one bit, because she is affected by both the two-child limit and the overall benefit cap. In December, after this policy change was finally announced—about 18 months after the Government should have taken action—I asked Ministers how many families and children would be excluded from the extra help, and they told me that that information was not available. It is beyond me how they could decide that this policy would leave out children without knowing exactly how many. DWP data shows that there are nearly 1,000 families subject to the benefit cap in my constituency, but I was not told—and I still do not know—how many of my families will be excluded from the provisions in the Bill. We do know how many children in total will be left out and not helped. The impact assessment for the Bill says that 50,000 families will see no gain at all, and that another 20,000 families <span id="201" class="column-number" data-column-number="201"></span>in the first year will only partially gain before the household benefit cap kicks in for them too. In total, at least 200,000 children will not get the help they need from the Government. The benefit cap, like the two-child limit, was always unjust. Introduced by the Conservatives who used headlines and misrepresentations, they drove up stigma and demonisation—demonisation of children in poverty and their parents. The Conservatives failed to see that social security is security for everyone, and that this spending pays back in wider benefits that the Treasury and the country will see. We should not limit lives through prejudice,
I thank the hon. Member for pointing out yet again that some of us in this House voted to move on this issue many, many months ago, and it is about time that the Government caught up. I utterly reject the racist agenda of Reform’s objections. The fact is that the Bill is not wrong, but it fails to do right by far too many children, so what will the Government do to fix that? The scope of the Bill could be widened by the Government to remove the benefit cap. This could be done through a motion, if not by a simple amendment to the Bill—and I have been trying on that score as well. It is down to the Government to listen to Members who have spoken on this issue today. I quite simply ask them whether they will now act.
The Government narrowed the scope of the last benefits Bill, and it could widen this Bill to take in the wider benefit cap, too. The Chancellor who could find the money for that is right next to the Minister. Can the Minister explain why, despite the interest in lifting the overall benefit cap in the Chamber today, according to the impact assessment the only options assessed were doing nothing or this very narrow measure?
I share the huge concern and outrage expressed across the House at the brave Iranian citizens who have been so brutally repressed by the regime. It is essential that the UK does everything possible, within the framework of international law, to support their struggle for freedom. I welcome the new sanctions that the Minister has announced on the Iranian leadership. On those principles of international law, will the Minister confirm that the UK will not support or enable in any way, including through intelligence sharing, any violation of international law by the United States or any other power in Iran?
On that point, last week more than 45 migrant rights groups described the earned settlement proposals as “fundamentally racist and classist.” Does the hon. Member share my deep concerns that the proposals will hit the most vulnerable the hardest, and create a discriminatory, two-tier system in which wealth and certain jobs or nationalities are prioritised over others?
The hon. and learned Member is making a really important case. In my constituency, the care sector is one of the largest employers, but local providers tell me that the proposed changes could drive 10% to 20% of people out of it. Does he agree that, before proceeding with these changes, the Government must do a proper impact assessment on the care sector and address the fact that, if the NHS has different criteria for allowing settlement routes, that could punish the care sector, which is particularly struggling already?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for securing this debate and all colleagues here today. As the Minister is well aware, protecting and restoring river habitats is a subject very close to my heart and the hearts of my constituents in North Herefordshire; I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak about that further today. I thank the organisations behind the Making Space for Water campaign, too.<span id="505WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="505WH"></span> Our rivers must not be seen as drains. They are the veins and arteries for what is the lifeblood of our land and everything that lives on it. They are integral to our collective health, our communities, our environment and our economies. They are essential channels for the circulation of that lifeblood of fresh water. We ignore them and pollute them at our peril. If we make space for water, we get multiple benefits. It helps us to be resilient to flooding, protects us from the risk of drought, helps farmers to deliver food security—crucial for us today—and, of course, helps to boost nature and biodiversity resilience. I will speak first about flooding. That affects my constituency of North Herefordshire horrendously frequently and it is only going to get worse. I have already spoken numerous times in the House about the fact that climate change is increasing the severity and frequency of flooding incidents. If we make space for water, if we give room to our rivers, we will of course enable ourselves as communities to be more resilient. We saw the devastating effects of the floods last November in Monmouth and Skenfrith, just over the border from my constituency. We know that if we invest in Making Space for Water and looking after our rivers, that will have numerous protective benefits for us all as an economy. I have seen that in practice myself, on an Environmental Audit Committee visit last year to the Netherlands. People there are really innovative on this issue. They have a huge project called Room for the River, through which they have taken it hugely seriously. They have started by identifying the problem and what the solutions could be, and then ensured that there is public support and Government commitment behind that. I have strongly urged the UK Government to take a similarly strategic approach to managing water and flood resilience in our communities, because this problem is only going to become more and more challenging. It has devastating effects on people’s lives. I turn now to river pollution. One of the first things I did when elected to the House was to set up the all-party parliamentary group on water pollution. That is such a significant issue across the country and especially in my constituency of North Herefordshire. The hon. Member for South Dorset referred to the outrageous pollution caused by sewerage companies and the profiteering that has happened for decades at the expense of the natural environment and, indeed, the pockets of consumers, citizens and bill payers. It is clear to me and to the rest of the Green party that water should be in public hands. This is a natural monopoly. It is a service that should be provided only for the public good. It is absolutely right that the Government are taking action to tackle the problems caused by the water and sewerage companies. Yet, as I have emphasised previously, if we look only at the water and sewerage companies, we are not looking at half the problem—in fact, more than half the problem, because we know from the Government’s own data that agricultural water pollution is an even bigger contributor to water pollution than is sewage. Yet in last week’s White Paper, it merited only one page of the 48-page document. That is deeply disappointing. It signals that although the Government talk about cleaning up our rivers, lakes and seas, they are not taking a holistic, joined-up approach to this problem. We cannot deal with these issues in isolation.<span id="506WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="506WH"></span> Agricultural water pollution is even more of a problem in my constituency; more than 70% of the phosphate pollution, which has had a devastating effect locally, comes from agricultural run-off. That has impacts on nature—in the suffocation of important species such as ranunculus, for example. It has impacts on people, who no longer feel able to swim in the rivers that they have swum in for their entire lives. It has huge impacts on the economy. We have had a planning moratorium in North Herefordshire in the Lugg catchment since October 2019, which has cost the economy at least half a billion pounds. Huge amounts of effort have gone into trying to resolve the issue locally, and I pay tribute to the work of the council and the local citizen scientists, who have done everything they can to address it. However, without proper Government support, local actors are stuck. People care passionately about this. The citizen scientists in the Wye catchment have done about 50,000 water sample tests since 2020—in just the last five years. That is an amazing piece of work. Farmers are stepping up and doing fantastic work themselves, out of their own pockets and motivation, coming together under the auspices of initiatives such as the Wyescapes project. That brings together 49 farmers throughout the Wye and Lugg catchments to work together on a proposal for a landscape recovery scheme. But they need Government support. At the minute, we have a White Paper with just one page on agriculture. We have a diffuse water pollution plan on the Wye catchment, published at the end of last year, that says that, even with perfect implementation of all available measures, we will get nowhere close to solving the pollution problem that is totally gumming up our environment, communities and economy in North Herefordshire. I ask the Minister: what more will she do? It is clear that we urgently need more. We need more support for farmers, we need funding for projects like Wyescapes, and we need a commitment on a proportion of the funding that has been committed to landscape recovery under the revised environmental improvement plan. How much of that will go to river corridors? How much of it will go to projects like Wyescapes? We also need more funding and teeth for the Environment Agency, to make sure that there is a level playing field for all people in the area. Fundamentally, we need a water protection zone for the River Wye. We need the Government to ensure that that option is fully and properly assessed. Our rivers are the veins and arteries of our communities, economies and environment. They are not drains. They are essential to the health of our environment. We need Government support for citizens and farmers, and everybody else working to protect and restore our river habitats.
I thank the Minister very much for the update, and I agree that working together is important. I have written to the Minister to request a meeting between her, me and other MPs across the parties—Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem—in the Wye catchment. In that spirit of working together, will she commit to having that meeting soon?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you advise me on what course I can take when a Member of this House repeatedly uses speeches to misrepresent members of the public, who are not able to be present to speak for themselves?
The right hon. Member is giving a most powerful speech. On her point about false narratives, I wonder whether she agrees that it is so important to distinguish between legitimate criticism of the actions of a state, and hate directed towards people because of their religion. It is worrying to have heard remarks in today’s debate—a debate on the Holocaust, of all things—that seemed to blur the line between those two things.
Regional funding must not come at the expense of local authority funding and all devolved funding must recognise the realities in the places where funding is needed, yet under the so-called fair funding review, in just three years Herefordshire council will see a reduction in UK Government fundings to 78% of current levels. The Government have also removed the remoteness adjustment for anything except social care, but rurality does of course matter for bin collections, school transport and many other aspects. Will the Chancellor look again at the fair funding review, which is unfair for so many places, like Herefordshire, and ensure that remoteness is properly adjusted for in the calculation?
Leaseholders in Bristol Central are being ripped off. I am disappointed that the Minister and the Government will not enforce peppercorn ground rents immediately, although a £250 cap is an improvement and the movement towards commonhold is really welcome. However, there are big problems for leaseholders that are still unaddressed. Will the Minister please commit to tackling the soaring insurance premiums that have left homes unmortgageable and leaseholders trapped, unable to sell and move in the wake of the cladding scandal?
Will the Home Secretary give us some clarity on the bespoke legal framework on police AI, please? Will its scope be commendably narrow, getting police use of facial recognition under control while clearly outlawing other uses, which would match the EU’s AI Act, or will it be too narrow, leaving other public authorities, such as potentially the Border Force, local authorities and the private sector, in the ungoverned wild west of uses that we see now?
My constituent has been trying for more than five months to get a response from the DWP about his UC claim. Having now taken up the case, I too am experiencing unacceptable delays—it is now 15 weeks and counting, when the supposed turnaround is 15 days. Can the Minister please say what action he is taking to ensure that the DWP responds to constituents and to MPs within reasonable timescales?