debates/debates2025-01-28b conversation_21
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-01-28)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-01-28b conversation_21

Andrew Rosindell:With an ever-increasing prison population and monumental delays being experienced in the courts and throughout  the justice system, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to address the significant delays that arise from the period of time required to download and analyse digital material? \p Shabana Mahmood: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We believe that much more can be achieved through the increased use of AI and other digital technology to speed up some of the paper processes that create delays across the criminal justice system. As chair of the Criminal Justice Board, I have asked for a cross-system criminal justice response on this and I will update the House in due course. \p Carla Denyer: No doubt we all agree that preventable deaths should be prevented, and tragedies like Hillsborough and Grenfell must not be repeated because we fail to make changes, so what consideration has the Secretary of State given to creating a national oversight mechanism to ensure that lessons are learned from every state-related death? \p Shabana Mahmood: The Government will shortly be publishing the Bill that campaigners refer to as the Hillsborough law, which will reflect issues relating to the duty of candour, which this Government are committed to, and I know that campaigners are making representations to the Home Office on the national oversight mechanism that it is currently considering. \p David Davis: Can the Secretary of State explain to the House in what circumstances the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are allowed to deny access to evidence, after a trial has concluded, to a defence lawyer who is seeking to appeal, as has happened in the Lucy Letby case and, I believe, in others? \p Shabana Mahmood: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, as Justice Secretary, I am not able to interfere in any independent decisions made by the police or the Crown Prosecution Service, but he has made his point and I will ensure that it is dealt with by the appropriate individuals—either the Home Secretary or the head of the CPS. \p Nick Timothy: There are serious questions about the transparency of the police, the CPS and the Government in the days and weeks following the Southport attack. In written answers to me, the  Government have refused to provide the dates when the Prime Minister was told that Rudakubana possessed ricin and an al-Qaeda training manual. Can the Justice Secretary tell me why? \p Shabana Mahmood: The Prime Minister has responded to the other questions that have been raised. The appropriate information was made available at the appropriate time to either the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary. It was right that the Government did not give any commentary that could have collapsed the trial. On the specific charge relating to ricin, that decision required Law Officer approval, which was sought and immediately given. \p Will Forster: I know that the Justice Secretary is aware of the tragic case of my constituent Sara Sharif. Will she consider reforming family courts and ending the presumption in favour of parental contact despite the fact that there were safeguarding concerns? \p Sarah Sackman: That case of that little girl, Sara Sharif, is one of the most tragic of recent times, and I know that that view is shared right across the House. That is why a safeguarding review is under way to look at all the agencies that were involved and should have been protecting that little girl from those who ended up killing her. We are looking at the presumption: there is a review, and we will consider the findings of that review and publish our response in due course. \p Lisa Smart: My constituent, who is a British citizen and the mother of two young children, faces the prospect of being forced to return to Poland to accompany those children under the Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction, having fled escalating domestic abuse. If she does, her inability to speak the language or work will leave her entirely dependent on her abuser, even though he is barred from contacting her. Will the Minister work with me to ensure that domestic abuse is explicitly recognised as a valid defence against return orders of this type? \p Sarah Sackman: I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and I invite her to write to me about that specific case, which sounds like it throws up a very difficult set of factual circumstances that I would like the opportunity to consider. \p Chris Philp: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the Government’s extremism review reported on today. \p Dan Jarvis: In our manifesto, the Government set out our commitment to redoubling efforts to counter extremism, including online, to stop people being radicalised and drawn towards hateful ideologies. A number of strands of activity have been established to progress this work, which, among other things, have led to the appointment of an interim Prevent commissioner, Lord Anderson, to drive improvements. We have published plans to introduce youth diversion orders to tackle young people at risk of terrorism.

Many documents produced across Government as part of commissioned work are not implemented and do not constitute Government policy. This work did not recommend an expansion in the definition of extremism, and there are not and have never been any plans to do so. To be clear, the leaked documents were not current or new Government policy.

As we have said repeatedly, Islamist extremism followed by far-right extremism are the biggest threats we face. Last week, the Home Secretary set out our plans to carry out an end-to-end review of Prevent thresholds on Islamist extremism, because we are concerned that the number of referrals is too low. Ideology, particularly Islamist extremism followed by far-right extremism, continues to be at the heart of our approach to countering extremism and terrorism.

But, as the horrific Southport attack shows, we also need more action on those drawn towards mixed ideologies and violence-obsessed young people. As the Home Secretary set out in the House last week, there has been a troubling rise in the number of cases involving teenagers drawn into extremism, including Islamist extremism, far-right extremism, mixed and confused ideologies, and obsession with violence. This includes a threefold increase in under-18s investigated for involvement in terrorism. Some 162 people were referred to Prevent last year for concerns relating to school massacres. Our Five Eyes counter-terror partners have also warned about the growing radicalisation of teenagers and young people.

We will continue to drive work to counter the most significant extremist threats in the weeks and months ahead, as the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have already set out. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Home Secretary. \p Chris Philp: Yesterday evening, Policy Exchange put into the public domain the Home Secretary’s review into extremism, or at least a version of it. It contained some deeply concerning proposals that I would like the Minister to directly address.

The report apparently says that the definition of extremism, for the purposes of Prevent and other programmes, could be extended to include the spreading of misinformation, the so-called online “manosphere” and misogyny. First, does the Minister agree with Prevent reviewer William Shawcross that we need to focus the attention of Prevent and counter-terrorism policing on  those with extremist ideologies and not risk diluting attention with these much wider issues? Ninety-four per cent of terrorism-caused deaths since 1999 were caused by Islamist terrorism. Does the Minister agree that combating Islamist terrorism is more important than policing the manosphere? The wider issues referenced, such as violence against women and girls and more general violence obsession, are, of course, serious. However, they are best dealt with by the police, the criminal justice system, social services or mental health services, which have the power to section people that pose a risk.

Secondly, will the Minister commit to retaining the changes to non-crime hate incidents made by the last Government? Police should not be looking into matters or recording personal data where there is no imminent risk of criminality. To do so would waste police time and infringe freedom of speech. Any move away from that will enable the thought police to stop anyone telling uncomfortable truths that left-wing lawyers do not like.

Finally, the report the Home Secretary commissioned repeats the Prime Minister’s previous smear that campaigning against rape gangs, which we now know consist of Pakistani-heritage perpetrators, is far-right. The report also says that commenting on elements of policing policy is extremist and far-right. That is nonsense. Campaigning against rape gangs is not extremist or far right, and commenting on policing, whether we agree or not with the comments, is simply the exercise of free speech. Will the Minister categorically disown those remarks, which were contained in the Home Secretary’s report? \p Dan Jarvis: Let me gently remind the shadow Home Secretary that his remarks refer to a leaked report, which, I could not have been clearer, does not and will not represent Government policy. The work, as I understand it—because it is not entirely clear which version of the report was leaked—did not recommend an expansion in the definition of extremism, and as I said to the House earlier, there are not nor will there be any plans to do so.

The shadow Home Secretary mentioned William Shawcross. Again, I will gently remind him that this Government have implemented all but one of the recommendations in the Shawcross review. He also asked about non-hate crime incidents. Again, the Home Secretary has been very clear about that: a consistent and common-sense approach must be taken with regard to non-hate crime incidents. The Government have, again, also been crystal clear that our top priority for policing is to deliver on the safer streets mission, rebuild neighbourhood policing, restore public confidence and make progress on the ambition to halve knife crime and violence against women and girls. \p Clive Efford: I must be careful here, Mr Speaker, because I think you were right to allow this urgent question. However, can my hon. Friend the Minister explain just exactly why we are here? It seems to be— \p Lindsay Hoyle: I think I can answer that: it is because I have decided. We do not need to pursue it any further. \p Clive Efford: The shadow Home Secretary seems to have come here to ask questions about a document that is not Government policy and to stand there making  indignant statements about issues that are not Government policy either. Does my hon. Friend not think that we should be taking a much more level-headed approach to this issue than that which has been displayed by the Conservative party? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations, which I entirely agree with. This Government and Ministers are always happy to come to this place to discuss and debate Government policy. The leaked report is not Government policy. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Lisa Smart: There is no place for extremism or hatred of any form in our society. It is right that the Government work with communities to stamp that out, not least after the previous Conservative Government seemed to seek out opportunities to sow more and more seeds of division.

From what we have heard about the extremism review report, it does not bring the right answers forward and risks being counterproductive.

Now it is up to the Government to develop a counter-extremism strategy that is strong, effective and alive to the modern challenges facing our society. That includes addressing an increasingly complex online world and its role in inciting extremism. I would welcome more details from the Minister on how the Government will do this. To be effective, the work must also properly engage communities. Will the Minister set out how communities will be consulted on any upcoming counter-extremism strategies? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the hon. Member for her entirely sensible and reasonable questions. She is absolutely right to say that there is no place for extremism in our society. This Government will work across party, across Government, and use all available levers to ensure that we have the right resources in the right place to tackle what is an increasingly challenging threat. She is right that an important element of that is the work that we need to do and are doing with regard to the online space. She will be aware that the Online Safety Act 2023 will come into force soon, and we have consistently said that we will look very closely at how effective that will be, and that where we need to make changes we will of course do so. As she can imagine, the conversations continue with the social media companies. We expect them to do the right thing, and where there is illegal content online, to remove it at pace.

The hon. Member is also right to stress the importance of working with communities. That is why counter-extremism work is done properly across Government, with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as a key partner. \p Chris Murray: I thank the Minister for his unambiguous statement. I had a feeling that he was going to say something along those lines, because I read a similar unambiguous statement from the Home Office in this morning’s newspapers. Therefore, I do not understand how the shadow Home Secretary has struggled to follow the Government’s position. Does the Minister agree that the correct way to deal with extremism is to focus on what drives it? As we heard in the House last week in relation to the  Southport attack, weaponry, including knives, has a devastating effect across the country. What steps is the Home Office taking to restrict access to knives and weaponry for those with extreme views? \p Dan Jarvis: My hon. Friend raises an important matter. Over the weekend, the Home Secretary announced stricter age verification checks and a ban on doorstep drops to protect people from knife crime. These measures are set to be included in the Crime and Policing Bill, which is expected to be introduced to Parliament by the spring. Under these new rules, a two-step system will be mandated for all retailers selling knives online, requiring customers to submit photo ID at the point of sale and again on delivery. Delivery companies will only be able to deliver a bladed article to the person who purchased it, and it will also be illegal to leave a package containing a bladed weapon on a doorstep when no one is in to receive it. \p James Cleverly: In the early years of Margaret Thatcher’s Government, Lord Scarman was commissioned to write a report on what were—they did not use this phrase at the time—concerns among the black community about two-tier policing. In response to those concerns, the police listened, changed their procedures, and engaged in consultative work with those communities, so why is it that when communities complain about two-tier policing under this Government, they are branded far-right extremists? \p Dan Jarvis: The right hon. Gentleman will have worked throughout his time with our police forces—not just as former Home Secretary, in that great office of state, but elsewhere—and I very much hope that he shares the admiration and respect— \p James Cleverly: Answer the question. \p Dan Jarvis: I am answering the question. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman shares the admiration and respect that we on these Benches have for the incredibly difficult and challenging work that the police do. I have to say that those who seek to progress a narrative of two-tier policing do no favours to our police forces. All they seek to do is make it more difficult for those extraordinary men and women who step forward to serve in our police force to do a very important job. \p Jo White: In all the commentary overnight on this leaked advice, I was struck by one comment from the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), that was reported on GB News. He said:

“Of course violence against women and girls and some of the other issues raised in this report… warrant attention by the police”

—“warrant attention”? Is it any wonder that sexual violence was allowed to become endemic under the previous Government and that the best a previous Home Office Minister could say is that it warrants attention? \p Dan Jarvis: The shadow Justice Secretary was a Home Office Minister for a considerable period of time. It might be worthwhile if he reflects on the record of his Government while he was a Minister. \p Richard Tice: So this report that has just been leaked was commissioned by the Home Secretary after the Southport horrors last July. The truth is that it has come out and all the recommendations have basically been immediately written off by the Home Secretary. Does that not confirm that the people in her Department are completely out of touch with her wishes and those of the British people? \p Dan Jarvis: Not at all. The hon. Member is simply not correct. This work was being progressed before the dreadful incident in Southport. I am sure, and I certainly hope, that he will appreciate that Secretaries of State will routinely commission advice from civil servants. Some of the recommendations of that advice will be accepted and agreed; some will not, but it is routine practice in government to ask civil servants to look very closely at particular issues. Ultimately, it is for Ministers to decide, and Ministers will decide. \p Oliver Ryan: As interesting as it sounds, I have no idea what a “manosphere” is. As far as I am concerned, the only real question that the Security Minister needs to answer is what action the Government are taking to ensure this kind of disgraceful, politically motivated leak to a former Tory adviser cannot happen again, especially on issues of national security. We proudly have an impartial civil service, so will he ask the Cabinet Secretary to order an immediate leak inquiry and put on gardening leave those Tory advisers and civil servants who are still working in Downing Street and those who are regarded as close associates of Andrew Gilligan? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful point. It is standard procedure in circumstances such as these that the Cabinet Secretary orders a leak inquiry, and that would be the right way to proceed under these circumstances. \p Robbie Moore: In Keighley, we have seen how labelling legitimate concerns around grooming gangs as far-right has distorted conversations, silenced victims and inadvertently given space to bad faith actors. It is therefore incredibly concerning to see this report written by Home Office officials using similar language, calling grooming gangs an “alleged” problem and once again framing this issue through the lens of the far right rather than the eyes of victims. Does the Minister agree with the language used in the report around grooming gangs? If not, how can he, or the Home Secretary, have faith in the Home Office officials? \p Dan Jarvis: The hon. Member has been consistent in raising his concerns in this particular area. I hope he will understand that I was clear earlier that many documents are produced across Government as part of commission work that are not implemented and that do not constitute Government policy. To be absolutely clear with him, this is a leaked document, but the work did not recommend an expansion in the extremism definition. These are not Government plans; this is not Government policy. \p Mike Tapp: If the Conservatives now consider it okay for public servants to leak documents relating to national security, I hope they will not object if we see leaks on matters relating to their time in  charge, such as the risks arising from Russian donors to the Tory party and to our great country—whatever happened to British values? Does the Security Minister agree— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Shelbrooke, your voice has continued even though I don’t see as much of you these days. \p Mike Tapp: Thank you, Mr Speaker—I am not surprised Conservative Members are wound up by that. Does the Security Minister agree that at least one party in this House needs to behave within our values when it comes to security, and that security leaks are wrong? \p Dan Jarvis: All leaks are wrong, but let me take this opportunity to say that I am actually very proud of the civil servants in the Home Office, who work extremely hard day in, day out to keep our country safe from a diverse range of threats. A number of Conservative Members here have worked in the Home Office, and I very much hope that they share my view that we should be extremely grateful to those civil servants who work around the clock to keep our country safe, and I am grateful for their efforts. \p Caroline Voaden: The horrendous events in Southport show that people who do not fit the profile of Islamist or far-right extremism can still present serious risk. Does the Minister agree that there is a real danger in the promotion of misogyny and opposition to feminism online and that to combat the scourge of violence against women and girls, which sees one woman murdered almost every three days in the UK, the Government must take misogyny seriously as a form of extremism? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She makes an incredibly important point, and hopefully she will know and understand how seriously this Government take those issues. We made an ambitious manifesto commitment to halve violence against women and girls over 10 years. That is something that, as Ministers in the Home Office with the Home Secretary and the Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), we are working at pace to address. We take these matters very seriously, and she is absolutely right to identify the particular challenges that exist online. The Safeguarding Minister will have more to say about this in due course. \p Rachel Taylor: I am grateful to the Security Minister for his words today. He has successfully exposed the reports about the leak as the nonsense they are. But there are serious issues here, including around how we respond to the rising level of youth violence and extremism and the increasing availability of online material that fuels that obsession with violence and death. Will he tell us how the intelligence services are approaching this challenge and what more the Government can do to stop young people disappearing into this dangerous abyss? \p Dan Jarvis: My hon. Friend raises an important point, and the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have both recently referred to this, including during their statements on 21 February. She is right that there has been a troubling rise in the number of cases involving  youth men, boys and teenagers who are being drawn into extremism. As I said to the House earlier, that includes a range of different areas, including Islamist and far-right extremism, but also there is a particularly concerning rise in those drawn into what is referred to as mixed and confused ideology, and those young men and boys who have an obsession with violence. This threat is not unique to the United Kingdom; it is being experienced internationally, but I assure her that the intelligence services and our law enforcement partners are working with Government at pace, along with our international partners, to look at what more we can do in this particular area. \p Bernard Jenkin: May I first echo the Minister’s point that we should be grateful to those civil servants who are working night and day to protect us from terrorist threats? I suppose we should also be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for denouncing the document, which certainly emanated from his Department, without making any personal criticism of those civil servants. But does that document not demonstrate that a large body of opinion has completely lost its way on how we deal with extremism and terrorist threats? I urge him to encourage the Department to return to what Prevent is intended to achieve and not get distracted by all this political correctness, given that most of the country have no idea what a “non-hate crime incident” is. We need to return to proper language that people understand, or the Government themselves will be driving people’s disillusion and despair about these matters. \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as always, for his observations, and for his point about civil servants. He talks about political correctness; having served together in the House over many years, I hope he knows the Home Secretary and me well. Fundamentally, this must be about the threat. We will leave no stone unturned to ensure that we have the appropriate level of resource in the right place at the right time, so that the ever-evolving and complex nature of the threat we face—both in the United Kingdom and abroad—is appropriately addressed by our law enforcement agencies. I give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance that we will continue to work around the clock to ensure that we protect the public. \p Mark Ferguson: I thank the Security Minister for clarifying the timeline of when this report was commissioned. We should remember that since it was commissioned, we have seen the brutal, sadistic murders in Southport and the riots that came after them. Clearly, we are living in a time of rising and worrying extremism, which should concern Members on all sides of this House. Does the Security Minister therefore agree that Members on all sides of this House should be working together to deal with extremism, rather than playing political games? \p Dan Jarvis: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I hope the House knows that it is always my default setting—if you want to put it that way—to try to work collaboratively with Members across this House. I give my hon. Friend and the House an absolute assurance of the seriousness with which we take these matters. I think Members will understand that it is right  to commission civil servants to look very carefully at the profound nature of the threat that we face, and to bring forward policy suggestions and solutions for how we as a Government are best placed to address them. That is what is happening, but this Government will always do the right thing to ensure that we protect the public. \p Pete Wishart: We have to tread very carefully when we enter into this territory. The leaking of this report has already raised alarm bells with a number of different groups, and has given the right another opportunity to spread division and further disinformation. What reassurances can the Minister give campaign groups, environmentalists and those who have taken up campaigns that they will not be included when he finally brings forward his plans in the future? \p Dan Jarvis: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that this Government will always approach these matters in a level-headed and consensual way. It is the case that previous Governments sought to use these issues as a political football. \p Chris Philp: indicated dissent. \p Dan Jarvis: It is the case that previous Governments were, on occasion, motivated as much by a desire to score political points. That will never be the approach of this Government. We are motivated only by a desire to protect the public. \p Amanda Martin: I echo the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray). Just this weekend in my own constituency, we had an incident in our community with young people and knives. Although I cannot comment on that particular incident, I am extremely concerned about the availability of knives, particularly to our young people. Does the Minister agree that the sale of knives is too easy, particularly online, and can he tell me and my constituents what the Government are doing to restrict that availability and the fear it spreads in our communities? \p Dan Jarvis: The Government share my hon. Friend’s concern about the availability of knives online. That is why—as I said to another hon. Member a moment ago—just this weekend, the Home Secretary announced stricter age verification checks and a ban on doorstep drops, in order to better protect people from knife crime. We will do everything that we possibly can, working with online retailers and the police, to ensure that the availability of knives is very significantly reduced in order to protect the public. \p Desmond Swayne: The repudiation of the contents of this report is a step back from thought crime, but the danger remains of two steps towards it. Is it not outrageous when individuals are harassed by the police when they have not broken the law? \p Dan Jarvis: The right hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that, of course, the police should and will be guided by the law. As an experienced Member, I am sure he will have worked very closely with the police over many years. My experience of working closely with the  police is that they make the right judgments for the right reasons, but where there are issues that require further attention, the Government will of course look at those matters. \p John Slinger: It seems that advice to Ministers on national security issues has been leaked to a former Tory special adviser, and as a result of that leak the Security Minister has been summoned to the Chamber to answer questions, even though the leak does not represent Government policy and the Minister has made it clear that the advice has been rejected. Does he agree that this sets a dangerous precedent and may encourage more disgruntled individuals to commit politically motivated leaks, and that it shows that His Majesty’s official Opposition are sadly sinking into the mire of populism, which can only undermine our national security and, indeed, our democracy in the future? \p Dan Jarvis: As I hope I have made crystal clear, I am always happy to come to this House to debate and discuss matters relating to national security. I will do that whenever the House wishes me to do so, but on this particular occasion—as I think I have also been crystal clear about—this leak is about something that does not represent Government policy. \p Iqbal Mohamed: There is no place for extremism in our society or country, from anyone. Prevent unfairly associates certain ethnic minorities and religious groups with extremism, and the programme’s vague definition of extremism has led to inconsistent implementation, with concerns about overreach. What steps are the Government taking to address the discrimination and failings in the Prevent programme and make it impartial and effective, to prevent extremism and violence across all of society? \p Dan Jarvis: The hon. Member is right to say that there is no place for extremism in this country—of course that is the case—but I do not agree with his characterisation of the Prevent programme. That programme consists of some extremely dedicated and hard-working public servants, but the hon. Member will know that the Home Secretary has announced the appointment of an interim Prevent commissioner, Lord Anderson. He will be looking very closely at how the Prevent programme works and how it can be made to work more effectively in the future. \p Mark Pritchard: When tackling extremism—whether violent or non-violent—is the Security Minister satisfied that the current division of labour between counter-terrorism policing and the security service is understood well enough by those two organisations, and is delivering and working well? \p Dan Jarvis: I am always very grateful to the right hon. Member—he speaks with real experience and authority on these matters, and he raises an important and reasonable question. Yes, I am happy to give him that assurance; I work incredibly closely with both counter-terrorism police and operational partners on a daily basis. Of course, we look at these things very closely and keep  them under review, and if we think that we need to change the balance in any particular area, we will not hesitate to do so. \p Lee Anderson: If the Security Minister thinks that there is not two-tier policing in this country, then quite frankly, he needs to get out more. This report states that anybody who calls out two-tier policing is a far-right extremist and that grooming and rape gangs are an “alleged” problem. Does the Minister agree? \p Dan Jarvis: The point I was seeking to make earlier, which I am happy to reiterate to the hon. Member, is about the importance that we on the Labour Benches attach to supporting the police. We think that the police do an incredibly difficult job, and while the hon. Member might think that I need to get out a bit more, perhaps he might consider spending a bit of time with police officers on the beat in his constituency and in his area. If he were to do so, I am quite confident that he would see that they are exceptional people doing difficult work under difficult circumstances. There is a real risk that seeking to progress this narrative undermines the important work of the police. \p Andrew Murrison: It is good to see the Minister at the Dispatch Box to distance himself from the conclusions of a report commissioned by his Department, but reports do not leak themselves. Why does he think that whoever leaked this does not agree with him that there is “Nothing to see here”? \p Dan Jarvis: Ultimately, that is a matter for the leaker, but as I have said, it is standard procedure in circumstances such as this for the Cabinet Office to initiate a leak inquiry. I think that would be the right course of action under these circumstances, so if I were the leaker, I would not be too comfortable at the moment. \p Jeremy Corbyn: In drawing up a policy, the Minister needs to consult with representatives of all communities, particularly those suffering the worst attacks by the far right in Britain, so can he assure us that he will be meeting the Muslim Council of Britain and other Muslim organisations, and that the policy of non-co-operation with the MCB has been brought to an end, despite statements by his office that there was no plan to do so? \p Dan Jarvis: The right hon. Gentleman is right that the Government have a responsibility to consult with all communities. Of course, that work is shared across Government, which is why we work very closely with other Departments, not least the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which is progressing its own bits of work on all this. On his specific point about liaison, there is not a change to the Government policy with regard to that. \p Bradley Thomas: Can the Minister explain why the review appears to focus on the symptoms of extremism rather than its underlying root causes? Can he assure the House that that mindset is not directing policy in the Home Office? \p Dan Jarvis: I can assure the hon. Member that the mindset that directs policy in the Home Office is what the Home Secretary and I think is in our national interest. The Home Secretary and I will use every tool and every lever at our disposal to ensure we keep the public safe. That is what we get out of bed every morning to do, and that is what we will continue to do. \p Jim Allister: I trust the Minister will agree that terrorism in all its forms is always deserving only of punishment and repudiation, never of glorification, particularly by political leaders. Does he therefore agree that it is beyond reprehensible that the First Minister of Northern Ireland, Michelle O’Neill, continues to attend IRA celebrations of the actions of IRA terrorists? Just before Christmas, she laid a wreath and spoke at the commemoration for three IRA terrorists who blew themselves up with their own bomb. What message does that send on extremism to future generations? \p Dan Jarvis: I hope the hon. and learned Member will understand that I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to delve into matters in Northern Ireland in the context of this response. But his remarks at the beginning of his question about there never being an excuse or justification for terrorism are a point of consensus around which we can all unite. \p Nick Timothy: The Security Minister recently told me that it remains Government policy not to engage with the Muslim Council of Britain. Last week, the Minister for Social Security and Disability attended the MCB annual leadership dinner. Did that Minister breach Government policy, or is engagement with the MCB now tolerated after all? \p Dan Jarvis: The hon. Member asked me a question previously at Home Office orals, specifically in the context of engagement by the Home Secretary and her Ministers. \p Chris Philp: Answer the question! \p Dan Jarvis: The shadow Home Secretary is chuntering from a sedentary position, but I was literally shown the Hansard transcript before this urgent question. [Interruption.] If he will allow me, I will respond to the question.

The hon. Member asked me previously about engagement with the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers. I clearly cannot account from the Dispatch  Box for other Ministers’ activities. However, I am happy to look at the circumstances he has raised. I am happy to confirm to him that Government policy has not changed, and if there are specific points I need to come back to him on, I am very happy to do so. \p Shockat Adam: Extreme misogyny associated with far-right ideology is a major factor in extremism. It should be dealt with, to counteract the one women killed every three days in this country, and to ensure that the horrendous Southport killings, the five killings by Jake Davison in Plymouth and the 51 massacred in Christchurch, New Zealand do not happen again. No one wants violence—ideological or political. Does the Minister agree that our obsession with focusing solely on Islamism has left repeated Governments blindsided to real threats facing us from elsewhere? \p Dan Jarvis: The hon. Member is right to say that extreme misogyny is, frankly, a disgusting blight on our country. That is why this Government made a manifesto commitment to halve the levels of violence against women and girls. It is an ambitious commitment that has not been made previously. As I told the House earlier, the Home Secretary and the Safeguarding Minister are working at pace to seek to address these issues. It is a big priority for the Government, and we intend to make good on the commitments we have made. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his answers and, in particular, welcome his commitment to supporting the police, which he has mentioned a few times. I have great concerns that the revival of non-crime hate incidents will mean more work for our overstretched police forces, and that it will mean getting involved in a war on offensive words, rather than the war on drugs, the war on terrorism or the war on violence against women and children. Will the revival of non-crime hate incidents come with a substantial increase in police funding, and if so, where will that come from? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the hon. Member, as ever, and I am very grateful for the support that he has provided to the police over many years. Let me seek to reassure him, because the Home Secretary has been clear that a consistent and common-sense approach must be taken to non-crime hate incidents. The Government have been crystal clear that our top priority for policing is delivering on our safer streets mission. \p Siân Berry: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if she will make a statement on Government policy on airport expansion. \p Mike Kane: I know that the hon. Member feels passionately about the issue of airport expansion, but I would like to make it clear that the press stories that have generated this urgent question are speculative and I cannot comment on their contents—[Interruption.] But we do have a world-class aviation sector in the UK. The Government are committed to securing the long-term future of the aviation sector, and we recognise the benefits of the connectivity it creates between the UK and the rest of the world. It is a sector that I am incredibly proud of. In 2022 the air transport and aerospace sectors directly provided around 240,000 jobs in the UK, of which just under 1,000 were in aerospace. In 2023 the air transport and aerospace sectors directly contributed around £25 billion to gross domestic product, of which around £14 billion was from the air transport sector and around £11 billion was from aerospace.

We have been clear that any airport expansion proposals would need to demonstrate that they contribute to economic growth, are compatible with the UK’s legally binding climate change commitments, and meet strict environmental standards on airport quality and noise pollution. There is currently no live development consent order application for a third runway at Heathrow airport, and it is for a scheme promoter to decide how it takes forward any development consent order application for that runway. The Government would carefully consider any development consent order application for the third runway at Heathrow, in line with relevant planning processes. The Secretary of State is currently considering advice on Luton airport and Gatwick airport expansions. As these are live applications, I cannot comment on them further today.

I understand the concerns of many Members of the House about how airport expansion may be compatible with our climate change targets. I would like to assure them that the Government have committed to delivering greener transport through sustainable aviation fuel and airspace modernisation. This will help meet the UK’s net zero targets, and it supports the Government’s mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower. Airport expansion will need to be considered carefully alongside these commitments. \p Siân Berry: I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and I thank the Minister for his response. It is vital that Parliament is not sidelined when the Government form new policies, especially policies that could wreck our climate ambitions.

Does the Minister understand that expanding London’s airports and building a third runway at Heathrow would be vastly irresponsible in the midst of approaching climate breakdown, and would literally be flying in the face of the Climate Change Committee’s advice? How can Ministers even be considering that, when 2024 was the year that we went over 1.5° warming—the limit that  we committed to not breaking in the Paris climate agreement? How can Ministers see catastrophic wildfires in California, deadly floods in Spain last year, and devastating floods this year in the UK, and still pursue a wrong policy?

Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero told the Environmental Audit Committee that

“any aviation expansion must be justified within carbon budgets”.

Can the Minister explain why we are hearing trailed announcements of multiple airport expansions, exactly in the month before new advice from the Climate Change Committee is delivered? The committee could not have been clearer in previous reports that without a framework to manage aviation demand, we should not expand airports. Has he seen research from the New Economics Foundation estimating that approving airport expansion plans for Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton airports alone will serve to cancel out the carbon savings of the Government’s clean power action plan?

The Government’s arguments that I have seen appear to rest on the idea that there are new technologies ready to go that will cut carbon emissions and allow large airport expansions. In reality, does the Minister accept that such innovations, many of which are still not ready for commercial use, cannot be relied upon? Will he act in line with the science and our climate commitments, do the responsible thing and rule out a reckless airport expansion policy? \p Mike Kane: There is always a trade-off to be had, if applications come forward, between noise, carbon and growing our economy. We recognise that Heathrow has operated at over 95% capacity for most of the past two decades, which has presented limited opportunities for growth in route networks and passenger numbers. We live in an interconnected world, where people want to visit their family members and do business across our planet. This Government have moved faster in the first six months than the previous Government did in 14 years, by introducing the sustainable aviation fuel mandate, so that 2% of all fuel sourced from 1 January this year must come from a renewable source. Where was the hon. Member when we introduced that in this House? It is one of the most forward-thinking, sustainable measures that we have brought to this place. In the next few months, as part of His Majesty’s legislative agenda, we will be introducing the revenue certainty mechanism to create a world-class SAF industry here in the UK. I hope to see the hon. Member supporting the Government from the opposition Benches as we clean up our transport sector, our aviation sector and our economy as a whole. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Transport Committee. \p Ruth Cadbury: A third runway at Heathrow has significant implications for UK-wide growth, for our carbon commitments, and for the 600,000 people who will live in the new 54 dB corridor of significant noise pollution, as well as air pollution. Does the Minister agree that such an announcement should be made in the context of a national aviation strategy? If he does, when will we see it? \p Mike Kane: I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee for her question. The airports national planning framework under the last Government has not been updated for some time, and we will shortly bring forward proposals to do that as part of our package. While there is currently no development consent application for Heathrow, we have been clear that expansion proposals would need to demonstrate that they contribute to economic growth, are compatible with our climate change targets, and meet strict environmental standards for air quality and noise pollution—the four tests. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Gareth Bacon: In recent days we have heard that the Chancellor is about to announce her support for airport expansion at Luton, Gatwick and Heathrow. His Majesty’s Opposition are supportive of airport expansion because we recognise the huge economic benefits that would bring. For Luton and Gatwick, as the Minister has said, planning processes are well under way, but the situation at Heathrow is rather different.

A completed third runway at Heathrow would undoubtedly bring economic benefits, which we would support, but delivering that will not be straightforward because there are major logistical barriers to its construction. Those include, but are not limited to: hundreds of thousands of additional people being brought on to Heathrow’s flightpath; the potential for significant disruption to the M25 and M4, which could harm the economy for years to come; the fact that a large incinerator is in the way and would have to be demolished; and the need to address local concerns about noise and air pollution. The uncertainties do not end there, because to date Heathrow has not applied for a development consent order, and neither has it confirmed that it intends to do so.

That all leaves the Minister with many questions to answer. What assessment has he made of the impact of building a third runway on the M25 and M4, which are two of the busiest motorways in Europe? How certain is he that any proposed plan will have the support of affected communities? What is the estimated cost, and who will pay not just for the runway construction, but for the massive additional work that will need to be done, including, among other things, rerouting motorways, demolishing the incinerator and rebuilding it elsewhere? Perhaps most importantly, what assurances can he provide that there will be an application for a development consent order?

I sincerely hope that the Minister can answer those questions, because if he cannot it will be clear that this is not a serious policy, but rather a panicked and rushed attempt by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to distract attention from the state of the economy, which is currently withering under this floundering Labour Government. \p Mike Kane: Well, the brass neck! The last Government crashed the economy, sending mortgages through the roof, and called an early election to avoid having to make difficult decisions. Transport policy should be enabling growth as a priority in this country, so that we can bring about the change that the British people voted for. For 14 years we had a Government who had become so sclerotic in aviation, and indeed maritime—that  is also part of my brief—that no decisions were brought forward on decarbonising the maritime or aviation sectors, or making the difficult decisions that this country needs to make. As the hon. Member rightly says, there is currently no development consent order before us, and that is for Heathrow or a related party to bring forward. \p John Martin McDonnell: For me and for you, Mr Speaker, there is more than an element of déjà-vu in this debate. The Minister has said that what we have heard is speculative, but the Chancellor’s statements seem to be more authoritative than that. Has the Department provided the Chancellor with an assessment of where the 8,000 to 10,000 people in my constituency who will have their homes demolished or rendered unliveable will live if Heathrow expansion goes ahead? Has the Minister mapped for the Chancellor the flightpaths of the additional quarter of a million planes flying over the homes of people in those marginal seats of Uxbridge, Watford, Harrow and elsewhere? Has he advised the Chancellor on some of the figures that are being bandied about regarding the economic benefits, which seem to derive from Airports Commission figures that are out of date and that his own Department rubbished very thoroughly in recent years? \p Mike Kane: My right hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for his constituents, but there is no DCO at the moment and we do not know the impact—that will be a matter for Heathrow or a third party to bring forward. I would like to hear a more full-throated support for our airspace modernisation plan, which will improve resilience, capacity and flexibility when it comes to aircraft noise over affected communities. When it comes to growth, my constituency, as you well know, Mr Speaker, has seen £2 billion of the Manchester MIX scheme at Manchester airport, with the development of the Hut Group and the most advanced Amazon fulfilment centre on the planet. We know that aviation brings growth and jobs. We know that there is a trade-off to be had, and we will have those conversations if a development consent order is brought before us. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Paul Kohler: The Minister gave an admirably Delphic yet still disappointing answer. While we must grow the economy, we must not do so at the expense of the environment. Expanding Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton airports will drive, or even fly, a coach and horses through our climate commitments, adding 92 million tonnes of carbon dioxide to our carbon footprint by 2050. Do not just take my word for it: the Mayor of London; his previous deputy Mayor for transport, now the Transport Secretary; the Environment Secretary; the Chief Secretary to the Treasury; and the Prime Minister have all previously been opposed, as is the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. Can I ask the Minister three questions? First, why has his boss, the former London deputy Mayor for transport, changed her mind? Secondly, how can the Government reconcile this massive growth in carbon emissions with our climate commitments? Thirdly, why, if the Government are looking to grow our economy, are they not re-engaging meaningfully with Europe by negotiating a customs union? \p Mike Kane: That last one floored me ever so slightly. “Delphic”, the hon. Member says—or ambiguous and obscure, which is slightly like Liberal Democrat policies on aviation. They are one foot in, one foot out, shake it all about. They say one thing to one community under a flightpath, and another thing about jobs to another community under a flightpath. Whatever I say will end up on the Focus leaflets, but they cannot have it both ways. They cannot support growth, jobs, airspace modernisation and sustainable aviation fuels and then say to their constituents, “Look what this terrible Government are doing.” We have a firm plan for aviation in this country, and we are going to carry it out. \p Andrew Slaughter: Does the Minister agree that plans for the third runway have gone cold over the past decade, since the airport commission? As he says, there is not even an application for a development consent order. Does he agree that there is no chance of spades in the ground this Parliament? If there were, that is when the problems would really start. \p Mike Kane: For too long and on too many issues, this nation just has not made the tough decisions. When it comes to airport expansion, our world-class aviation sector, admired across the world, and decarbonising our sector, we are making huge progress—more in the past six months than in 14 years under the Tories. We will continue on our mission of renewing the national airport strategy, and will look at development consent orders as they become live. That is a quasi-judicial matter, and I cannot comment on Luton and Gatwick, as Members know. We will wait to see whether Heathrow or a related party brings forward a development consent order. \p Roger Gale: Manston airport in Kent in my constituency has been fallow and the subject of legal action for far too long, but that is happily now behind us. We hope and expect that within the next few weeks, there will be announcements on funding that will lead to the development of a state-of-the-art net zero airport in Kent. Manston does not appear to feature in the Government’s plans. Can the Minister assure me that his eye is on that ball, and that Manston will become part of the growth programme? \p Mike Kane: I have spoken to the right hon. Member about Manston in opposition and in government. We wait to see what will be brought forward there, but it could be an exciting opportunity, particularly for cargo; we could have zero emission vessels shipping content into the port of London. We will wait and see whether the airport comes with a development consent order, and we will judge that on its merits. \p Rupa Huq: I am old enough to have been there the last time this question was voted on. In the spirit of Gordon Brown and his tests over the euro, we applied tests of our own on capacity, carbon commitments, minimising noise and environmental impacts, and ensuring benefits for the whole UK. Can the Minister tell me whether those sensible tests still apply? Can he add another one, about costs to the public purse and deliverability, for my constituents, who will be the most affected? They want a better, not a bigger, Heathrow. \p Mike Kane: I re-emphasise that there is no development consent order for Heathrow at the moment. We know that for all airports, surface access is essential. The public transport penetration rate within an hour is key to the markets that airports can access from across the planet to support their growth. We have a world-class transport system in the south-east, but in any development consent order, Heathrow or its related parties will have to prove how we can get new people to that site. \p Munira Wilson: If, as we expect, the Chancellor announces her support tomorrow for a third runway at Heathrow, that will be a massive U-turn from the Prime Minister’s previous position, and it is patently clear that a third runway will fail all of Labour’s four tests—on growth across our regions, on climate, on air pollution, and on noise pollution. The economic and environmental cases are in tatters, and no airlines want to foot the bill for a third runway. Will the Minister concede that any such announcement would simply be virtue signalling by a Chancellor in search of growth where she will not achieve it, and would damage our environment and our communities at the same time? \p Mike Kane: I support the Chancellor’s pursuit of growth. For too long, we have been stagnant, and we know that this area can provide growth. I have seen that in my constituency, as I have pointed out. Where was the hon. Member when we talked about sustainable aviation fuels? Where was she when we committed £63 million to the advanced fuels fund to help the SAF industry grow in this country? We have announced £1 billion for the Aerospace Technology Institute to look at zero emission flights. Would it not be great if, one day, a Minister could stand here and say that all internal flights will be zero-emission? I want to leave my successor, whoever they are, the opportunity to say that within the next decade. \p Deirdre Costigan: Many of my constituents in Ealing Southall work at Heathrow or in its supply chain, and they will welcome the good-quality, well-paid jobs that airport expansion will bring. However, I have other constituents who worry about the environmental impact of any expansion. In taking any decision on this matter, will the Minister ensure that he balances the need for growth and for good-quality local jobs against the need to minimise air pollution and noise pollution? \p Mike Kane: What a terrific question. [Interruption.] Well, it is. It hits the mark, in that there is a trade-off between noise, carbon and growing our economy for our people. Airports create high-paid, trade-unionised jobs, not just because of the aircraft that come in and out, but because of the ground handling services. We know that aviation communities are much better off because of the jobs that are created, and we have to balance the trade-off in the years ahead as we make tough decisions to grow our economy. \p David Simmonds: I remind the Minister that sustainable aviation fuel is not an answer to poor air quality, which is the main reason why attempted expansion at Heathrow has failed in the past. It is also the reason for the Chancellor’s trenchant opposition to the expansion of Leeds Bradford airport, which would affect her constituency. Having  been around since the days of the terminal 5 planning inquiry, I find it clear that the business case for Heathrow expansion rests on significant costs being imposed on taxpayers. They would be expected to foot the bill for the impact on the M4 and the M25, and for the loss of a waste incinerator that provides energy for many local authorities. Can the Minister assure the House that any DCO for Heathrow that comes forward will be subject to no less rigour and no less consultation than those brought forward in the past? \p Mike Kane: I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that. SAF was stuck in the muck under the last Government; we waited years for announcements, and we have done more on that in six months than Tory Administrations did in 14 years. We are investing in cleaning up aviation fuel and funding technology on contrails, so that the air people breathe is always as clean as we can make it. \p Danny Beales: In a spirit of cross-party collaboration, I praise the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for expertly outlining some of the logistical challenges of Heathrow expansion. It is a surprise and a shame that the Tories did not answer those questions before voting for expansion in 2018 when in government. Does the Minister agree that any future application for Heathrow expansion—we do not yet have one—must address and solve those key issues, look at those logistical challenges, and say how expansion is compatible with our climate commitments, and with local concerns about air quality, pollution, noise and congestion? \p Mike Kane: My hon. Friend is exactly right. Our four tests remain, and they have to be passed. Again, we are speculating that a development consent order will come before us. I am sure that he, as a doughty campaigner for his constituents, will make his voice heard. \p Sarah Olney: The economic benefits of the expansion of London airports remain unproven. On Heathrow, the Department for Transport’s updated appraisal report shows that the net present value of a third runway ranges from just £3.3 billion to minus £2.2 billion, while Heathrow’s finances are of severe concern, due to the significant debt that it has incurred. What new economic analysis have the Government considered that makes a third runway at Heathrow viable when considered alongside their commitments on climate, noise and air quality? \p Mike Kane: I say again what I said earlier: capacity in London is at 76% on average, and at 95% at Gatwick and Heathrow. What is the Liberal Democrat answer to that? Do we not want people to fly across the world to bang the drum for British business? Do we not want them to visit their friends and family? Are the Liberal Democrats for constraining people’s flying? There are a lot of questions, but no answers from Liberal Democrat Members. \p Clive Efford: I voted against the framework for Heathrow airport in 2018 because I was not satisfied that the legislation before us would deal with air quality, noise, climate change and surface access issues. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are to go ahead with a third runway at Heathrow, we  must satisfy ourselves in this House that those issues have been addressed, and that they cannot be set aside by developers once they have permission to go ahead? \p Mike Kane: My hon. Friend is exactly right. Those tests must be met, including through the development consent order. Just for the record, I voted for the framework in 2018, because I thought that it passed those tests. \p Alec Shelbrooke: Many of my constituents in Wetherby and Easingwold use Leeds Bradford airport, and the same will be true of the constituents of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood). For years, I have wanted expansion of Heathrow so that morning flights from Yorkshire could come down to Heathrow airport, allowing transatlantic flights to be boarded in Yorkshire. May I urge the Minister, when considering the expansion of Heathrow, to always give firm attention to regional airports, especially Leeds Bradford airport in Yorkshire? It would allow the economy to grow significantly if people could check in at Leeds and get off in New York. \p Mike Kane: I could not agree more with the right hon. Member, though it pains me to say it. We have five great northern runways stretching from John Lennon to Manchester, Leeds Bradford and Newcastle, and we should be focusing on regional connectivity in particular. On Leeds Bradford, my recollection is that because of the lack of decision making by the last Government, confidence was lost in its development. Let us see if we can get a framework for improving connectivity at Leeds Bradford, including for those in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood). \p Scott Arthur: I came to London yesterday by rail, as usual, and I must say that both Lumo and London North Eastern Railway are doing a fantastic job of getting people out of planes and on to trains between Edinburgh and London. [Interruption.] I always like to talk about trains. I am concerned that any increase in air capacity will take people off trains and help them make less sustainable transport choices. Will the Minister commit to speaking with the Rail Minister to understand any impacts of airport expansion on that service? \p Mike Kane: My hon. Friend is exactly right: we have to join up the modes of transport. We have had a broken transport system as a result of 14 years of complete under-investment. Whether we are talking about rail connectivity to Glasgow, what will happen if a Heathrow development consent order comes forward, or just getting Northern trains working across the north of England, linking up Leeds Bradford, Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle will be a key start to improving jobs and growth at those airports. \p Jeremy Corbyn: In order to meet the problem of increasing demand for flights, what are the Government doing to improve rail connections with western Europe, including direct trains to Germany as well as Holland? \p Mike Kane: I think that that involves fixing the problems with Eurostar. We are seeing others coming into that market, and European Union colleagues are running overnight long-distance train services, which are reducing the need for aviation across the continent and reducing carbon. We should be ambitious as a country that we can tap into that network. The right hon. Gentleman is right on this matter. \p Chi Onwurah: Newcastle International airport tells me that Heathrow expansion would mean increased access to global markets for north-east businesses, new destinations for north-east tourists and easier access to our brilliant north-east universities for students from around the world. More broadly, given that air travel’s 5% of emissions are dwarfed by road travel emissions, does the Minister agree that the important work that his Department is doing to promote electric vehicles and the work that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is doing on the decarbonisation of the electricity network is fundamental to demonstrating to my constituents that addressing climate change is not about saying no to travel and transport, but about saying yes to an economy that works for people and the planet? \p Mike Kane: We have made tough decisions about the phasing out of internal combustion engines up to 2030. When I visited Newcastle airport, I saw a wonderful operation—it is also producing solar energy to power its operation. We need better connectivity between Newcastle and London, and I have raised that with carriers. If we are to develop our offshore wind, carbon capture and green energy technology, it must be linked up with the cruise industry, Newcastle airport and the great north-east coast that provides so many jobs, services and industries for people across our nation. \p Julian Lewis: I have been enjoying the Minister’s lively presentation, but then I do not live under a potential new flightpath. Are the Government consulting their Back Benchers about the possibility of aviation and airport expansion versus net zero? If so, will they be advising them to clean up what they have said on this subject on the internet before it is hoovered up by the Opposition in preparation for the next general election? \p Mike Kane: There has been a lot of AI news in the press today. I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that I grew up under a flightpath in my home town in Wythenshawe and Sale East. I grew up under the BAC-111s, the Tridents, the Concordes and the Guppys. [Interruption.] I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Withington (Jeff Smith) agrees with me. I remember how dirty, noisy and smelly those planes were. Technology has come forward leaps and bounds, and the noise envelope around most of our airports has reduced considerably. Through our investments, we hope to improve the technology further under this Government and the next. \p Nick Smith: This weekend, The Sunday Times featured a great cartoon by Morten Morland showing the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Energy Secretary tearing up a Whitehall office looking for the growth lever. I am a supporter of  the Welsh freeports programme and airport expansion where there is environmental mitigation. Will the Minister please say more about the Government’s sustainable aviation plans and the use of low-carbon tech to help economic growth? \p Mike Kane: I thank my hon. Friend for his support for growth at our ports, which includes our maritime ports. There is £63 million for the advanced fuels fund and £1 billion for the Aerospace Technology Institute to look at net zero emissions. We have already introduced—it was almost the Government’s first act out of the gate; it came into force on 1 January—the SAF mandate, so this year 2% of all fuel will have to be from a sustainable source, and we will shortly legislate on the revenue certainty mechanism to kick-start the SAF industry in the UK. The Government could not have done more in the six months we have had in office. \p Monica Harding: I note that the Minister did not mention noise pollution in his statement. As he grew up under a flightpath, I hope that he enjoyed the noise. Eight routes currently pass over my constituency, sometimes after midnight. My constituents struggle with the noise—one said that it was like having an uninvited dinner guest every night. It not only disturbs sleep but has profound health implications. With that in mind, is the Minister going to ignore the health impacts of a third runway? \p Mike Kane: I cannot comment on the third runway because there is no development consent order before us, but the hon. Lady makes an extraordinarily valid point about noise. That is why the Liberal Democrats should get behind us and support airspace modernisation. We have an analogue system in a digital age, which was designed more for the days when Yuri Gagarin went into space than for today. We can give people under flightpaths more choice in future by differentiation, if we have a better system of airspace modernisation. \p Christopher Vince: My local airport, Stansted, is a huge employer for residents in my constituency, and it is has led the way in developing sustainable aviation fuel. Does the Minister agree that sustainable aviation fuel is vital to achieving our decarbonisation targets? \p Mike Kane: Sustainable aviation fuel is vital to meeting our climate targets. I commend Manchester Airports Group, which includes Stansted and East Midlands, and Manchester in my own constituency, on its work to decarbonise. It is ahead of the game. It flies one in six people in and out of the UK. When it gets it right, that represents a huge emissions reduction. \p Andrew Murrison: Does the Minister agree that one of the many benefits of a third runway at Heathrow is that it would require the removal of one of the largest waste incinerators  in the country? When this matter comes before him,  will he ensure that there is no reprovisioning of this monster in a densely populated area, but that we see its deletion altogether so that we deal with waste in a truly sustainable way? \p Mike Kane: There is no DCO currently. If one comes forward, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will make his voice heard. \p Toby Perkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for repeating what we heard from the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero at the Environmental Audit Committee yesterday: that no plans will be approved unless they are in line with the Government’s environmental commitments.

My hon. Friend cannot comment on Gatwick and Luton because they have a live DCO, and he cannot comment on Heathrow because it does not have a live DCO, which is handy. Let me ask him about something that he can comment on. What changes will we make to ensure that any airport expansion plans are in line with our environmental commitments? Can he explain more about what the offsets will be to ensure that the Government are able to meet the commitments that he has confirmed they will make? \p Mike Kane: I thank my hon. Friend for his chairmanship of the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I was a proud member for many years, looking at the circular economy, which this Government are taking forward. The Government have committed to delivering greener transport, including through SAF, airspace modernisation and the other measures that I laid out. I am proud of that range of measures. The Front-Bench across this Department are decarbonising the transport sector further and faster in the first six months of this Government than in 14 years of the last. \p Christine Jardine: The Minister has made a great deal of the position of my party on Heathrow airport. As he is such a fan of our Focus leaflets, I am sure he will know from my own that I have consistently raised airport noise, opposition to the expansion of Heathrow, sustainable aviation fuel and airspace management in this place. How will he make the airspace management plan fit with any forthcoming emissions and capacity management framework? We have yet to hear from the Government about that, but the Liberal Democrats consider it vital to the future sustainability of the air transport industry in this country. \p Mike Kane: I am generally very grateful for the Liberal Democrats’ support for airspace modernisation. It is complicated and difficult. We are throwing our hat over the wall in trying to reach it. It will be easier in certain parts of our country than others, but we have already taken action. We set up the airspace modernisation design service. We are bringing the best and the brightest together. If we can make the planes fly in a straight line, we will use less carbon. It is the lowest of low-hanging fruit for carbon reduction in the aviation sector, and we are moving at pace on it. \p Jo White: I welcome this Government’s commitment to the aviation sector. The closure of Doncaster airport on 30 December 2022, with the loss of 800 jobs and the smoothest access to flights in the country, was devastating. The reopening of the airport has been a long-fought campaign that has the backing of my constituents in Bassetlaw. Today, they will be saying: “Bring the flights and the infrastructure to our area.” Will the Minister put his shoulder to our campaign? \p Mike Kane: Without a doubt. People are proud of their airports. Mine was 80 years old a few years ago, and I saw people turn up in droves to show their pride in aviation in this country. I felt sorry for the people of Doncaster, Sheffield and the environs when they lost their airport. I commend the mayor, the council and the local MPs who have lobbied me relentlessly on this matter. The council now has a deal with the operator, and the first flight took off very recently. I wish them every luck with it, and they will have my full backing to do what needs to be done. \p Martin Vickers: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) and others, I want to focus on the role of our regional airports. Surely the Minister would agree that the expansion of some of them could help the Government’s growth agenda and provide a boost to local economies. With improved rail connections, many of our regional airports could serve travellers to and from London. The work involved could be completed long before a DCO for Heathrow could be concluded. \p Mike Kane: Airports near the hon. Member’s constituency will have a key part to play for workers across our nation with respect to the decarbonisation agenda and sustainable fuels, because Immingham sits within his constituency. That will be key to the UK’s plans to decarbonise our economy, along with good rail connectivity. Airports are a market within the private sector—planes want to go to particular places—but if we can expand and grow our economy across all our regions, as we hope to, I hope that this will be a golden age for all our airports. \p Jonathan Brash: My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was correct to say that this feels like déjà vu. Here we are again, debating huge transport infrastructure expansion in the south-east of England while constituents right across this country, especially in the north-east, think, “What about us?” Does the Minister agree that if expanding transport infrastructure in this country is the key to growth, that growth must happen everywhere? \p Mike Kane: I agree. As I have said, airports that make the right decisions in the next few years on improving the airspace and improving their connectivity through surface access all have the potential to grow like my airport has grown exponentially. I urge Members to get behind their airports and support their growth and decarbonisation agendas. \p Adrian Ramsay: Globally, half of aviation emissions are a result of flights taken by the wealthiest 1%. In the UK, 70% of flights are taken by the richest 15%. Is expanding aviation capacity not a matter of fairness? It will facilitate the very richest, who are already frequent flyers, to be able to fly more, while the noise, carbon emissions and air pollution impacts will be inflicted on the most ordinary people in society, including the poorest at home and around the world. \p Mike Kane: I think it was Woody Allen who said that 80% of success in life is turning up, and I must gently ask once again where the hon. Gentleman was when we were introducing the sustainable aviation mandate in this House. I hope he will be here when we introduce the revenue support mechanism in the months ahead and decarbonise our aviation sector.

I think people have the right to go on holiday at least once a year, to do business across the planet and to visit friends and family. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman’s policies are. If he wants to send them to me, I will put them on one of my Labour roses. \p Sally Jameson: Following on from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White), does the Minister agree that it is important to also support regional airports in the north, including Doncaster airport? The reopening of the airport is supported by all my neighbouring parliamentary colleagues. Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), I am working with Doncaster council and the South Yorkshire combined authority to get this critical piece of transport infrastructure back. The growth agenda will be a success only if places like Doncaster feel it too. It is important that the people of Doncaster and South Yorkshire can take off once again. \p Mike Kane: I have to say, my hon. Friend is so tenacious on this matter that I sometimes go pale when I meet her in the Division Lobby, because every day she asks after it. She is such a campaigner on it. I saw her go around party conference lobbying the industry and airlines to do what her constituents sent her to Parliament to do and to try to come up with a solution for her local airport. I can only commend her tenacity to the House. \p John Milne: Will the Minister confirm what compensating measures the Government will take, if airport expansion is to go ahead, to ensure adherence to carbon budgets? They must have already been agreed on by now. \p Mike Kane: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his considered approach in all these matters. I was pleased to receive him at the Department the other day to talk about a particular constituency issue that related to Gatwick. We do not have a development consent order, but noise and pollution are the tests to meet our climate commitments, and they will remain the tests. It will be up to the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), and Members across this House to hold the Government’s feet to the fire on this matter. \p Chris Webb: The reopening of Blackpool airport for commercial flights is a top priority for my constituents, as I have raised previously with the Minister. Does he agree that we need to work with our regional airports to deliver the growth and the jobs we need in places such as Blackpool that were forgotten about by the previous Government over 14 years? \p Mike Kane: What a breath of fresh air my hon. Friend was in his by-election, and he is now on these Benches, campaigning for his airport in Blackpool.  I am really looking forward to visiting the airport and to my night out there—I hope that will come with fish and chips on the prom, as well. \p Alison Bennett: The expansion of Heathrow feels a bit like the Schrödinger’s cat of expansion at the moment—it is both happening and not happening, depending on what one’s perspective is today. I realise that the Minister will not be tempted to comment on Gatwick either, as it is a live DCO process. Given that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), and the Minister have both asserted that growth is an inevitable consequence of airport expansion, can I ask the Minister what evidence he has to support that assertion? \p Mike Kane: I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but I do not think I will take any lectures from Liberal Democrat Members about sitting on the fence. Theirs is the politics of licking their finger, putting it in the air to see which way the wind is blowing, and then putting it in a leaflet. There is no development consent order for Heathrow yet. I am sure the hon. Lady will have her opportunity to raise her concerns at a later date in this place. \p Peter Swallow: I could not agree more with the Minister when he points out that any airport expansion has to be part of the overall picture of upgrading Britain’s broken transport networks. Bracknell sits on the Reading to Waterloo train line, which passes through Feltham, just south of Heathrow. Journey times on the line have not improved since the ’70s, and there is no direct connection to Heathrow. Will the Minister assure me that any plans to upgrade airports will be part of the overall picture of an integrated plan? \p Mike Kane: My hon. Friend is exactly right. I am not usually quite so divisive at the Dispatch Box, but we inherited such a broken system it is almost untrue, such are the things we are finding out about the sclerotic nature of the previous Government. The Roads Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), is investing £1.6 million in fixing potholes, while the Minister responsible for buses, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), has invested £1 billion in buses. We are moving fast. We are fixing things and we are delivering. \p Lisa Smart: As a fellow Greater Manchester MP, the Minister will undoubtedly know that Manchester airport welcomed 30 million passengers through its doors last year, and that 84% of those passengers came to and from the airport by car. He will rightly acknowledge the valid concerns across the House today about the impact of airport expansion on carbon emissions. The carbon footprint of Manchester airport comes only partly from air travel, as a lot of it comes from road travel. What update can the Minister give my constituents on surface access improvements at Manchester airport, so that they can get to and from the airport, whether as passengers or to work, by bus or by train? \p Mike Kane: Well, the Conservatives built a road, but it just floods all the time—maybe we can start by dealing with that. The hon. Lady is right that Manchester airport is in my constituency. Mine is actually the most  visited constituency in the north of England; in fact, 30 million people visited it last year alone, although they may not have stayed as long as I would have liked. The airport has been on an incredible journey, especially with its decarbonisation. I hope to meet the airport operators shortly to continue that journey with them. \p Laurence Turner: It is right that in this debate we all champion our local and regional airports, including Birmingham International. However, the reality is that no other airport is a serious rival to the long-haul hub capacity that Heathrow provides, and its exhaustion of that capacity is a block on growth in every region of the UK. Does the Minister agree that redirection of that pent-up demand to Schiphol and Dubai is no good for the national accounts and no good for the environment? \p Mike Kane: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is a very good campaigner for his local airport and for the public service obligation flights out of that airport. Not making these tough decisions does not mean there is no carbon—it simply means that customers vote with their feet and go to Schiphol, Frankfurt or Charles de Gaulle to hub out to their destinations. We have to look at things in the round when we are talking about decarbonising the UK aviation sector. \p Caroline Voaden: Given the hugely contradictory evidence on whether expanding airport capacity will boost GDP growth, will the Minister explain how the Government can justify prioritising airport expansion over much-needed substantial investment in green travel and public transport, which would benefit the economy in the long term and benefit a far wider group of people in this country than the very small group of wealthy frequent flyers who will benefit from airport expansion? \p Mike Kane: I am hearing that Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches are against wealthy people and against our constituents flying, in some cases. There is no bigger champion of active travel in this House than me—except for my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell—and I hope to do a lot more on that when it comes to ports and airports. All people, regardless of their income, should have a choice about how they get around. We had a broken system over the past 14 years, which meant people had no choice. Now, they are getting better buses, their potholes are fixed, and we are investing more in active travel than ever before. \p Mark Ferguson: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) made an excellent point about hub airports. At the moment, there are 19 flights between my local airport in Newcastle and Heathrow, but 30 a week between Newcastle and Amsterdam. I dare say that some people from the north-east may wish to sample the unique delights of Amsterdam, some will certainly be using Amsterdam as a hub airport, instead of Heathrow. That is bad for our economy, bad for passengers, and, because it is further away than Heathrow, bad for the environment, too. Is it not right that we build hub capacity in this country because it is the best thing to do environmentally? \p Mike Kane: I also understand that you can have a good old party on the ferry from the port of Tyne to Amsterdam—I do not know whether my hon. Friend has taken it. He is exactly right. If we do not invest in a hub airport in the UK, people will go point to point outside the UK to transfer to the places they want to go to. That is worse for carbon emissions than us taking responsibility for the decisions we need to make to decarbonise our aviation sector. \p Sammy Wilson: I welcome the support the Minister has given to the Chancellor today. He has made it quite clear, if the speculation turns into reality, where he will stand on the issue. That is important, given the need for hub airports to export our goods, build business links and give people the personal freedom to travel across the world. But is he concerned, given the Energy Secretary’s obsession with net zero, the large number of Members who seem to be more concerned about long-term climate predictions, uncertain as they may be, than the immediate needs of growth and jobs in this economy, and the potential for lengthy court battles because of our statutory commitments to carbon dioxide reduction, that no investor will look at these projects but will instead continue to look at hub airports in the rest of Europe? \p Mike Kane: I thank the right hon. Member, who I know is a campaigner on this. I keep a close eye on all matters of connectivity to Northern Ireland. Investor confidence in aviation is huge: investors are queuing up and looking for opportunities. We must ensure those opportunities come with jobs and growth, but also that they are clean and decarbonise our sector. I say stick with the plan. We will decarbonise the grid and our UK economy, but we can grow it at the same time—the two things are not contradictory. \p John Slinger: Does the Minister agree that it would be irresponsible to kick the can down the runway on airport expansion and other major infrastructure when this country is desperate for growth? We need a Government willing to take the tough decisions to overcome the blockers and get things built in the national interest and in the interests of citizens all around our country. \p Mike Kane: I cannot agree more. The Government’s defined mission will be growth. The aviation sector is one where we can grow the economy, because it provides the connectivity and the high-skilled, trade unionised jobs that support families and careers right across our country. \p Wera Hobhouse: Before the Minister asks me where I was during the sustainable aviation fuels debate, I was here. Having 22% SAF by 2040 still means 78% fossil fuels in aircraft fuel—an awful lot. My constituents are impacted by Bristol airport expansion. I meet regularly with my local group Stop Bristol Airport Expansion group. They want to know what impact assessment has been made of the cumulative effect of the additional carbon emissions that will be created by all the proposed airport expansion plans taken together. \p Mike Kane: I thank the hon. Member. She is actually right, and well done to her for being there during the SAF debate and supporting the Government.

At the moment, the technology does not exist to fully decarbonise aviation. We are looking at hydrogen, we have the advanced fuels fund and we are investing £1 billion in the ATI, but, as the Prime Minister announced recently when he went to Merseyside, we are investing billions in carbon capture and other technology to offset those emissions. That is what we will have to do in the near future, but I envisage a day when we will have aircraft in our skies, particularly internally in the UK, with zero emissions coming out of their tailpipes. \p Mark Sewards: I welcome the Government’s commitment to growth. I also welcome their commitment to taking the difficult decisions required to generate it. We know that any conversations about a third runway will focus on the south, but I would like to ask about the north. May I ask the Minister, in my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire, if the project is approved, what will be done to ensure that all regions benefit from the proceeds of the growth generated? \p Mike Kane: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and, even from this Lancastrian, for his chairmanship of the APPG for Yorkshire. I will say a couple of things. We have five great northern runways, and we need to begin to improve their capacity and connectivity. That is key to regional economic growth. Hopefully, whoever comes forward with the DCO for Heathrow will, as they have in the past, look at spreading the wealth and at logistic hubs right not just around our country, but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. \p Victoria Collins: My local communities, including Flamstead, Markyate and Wheathampsted, are already plagued by Luton airport and very worried about expansion. If the Minister cannot answer questions about evidence for a positive impact on growth and the economy, can he at least guarantee that the Government will listen to their own climate experts and have a framework in place before any airport expansion? \p Mike Kane: Yes, is the answer. We will come forward, very shortly, with a policy framework. We have not had one for many years. It is more than time to update it—the hon. Lady is right. \p Jim Shannon: I very much welcome the Minister’s answers—they have been both confident and progressive, which is encouraging for me as the MP for Strangford. My constituents have expressed some concern about the impact on the environment of the potential expansion, but it has been highlighted to me that building for planes to land, so they do not have to  circle, is highly beneficial for the environment. Will the Minister confirm that our environmental obligations have been fully considered in any decisions that are made for the potential expansion of Heathrow? Will there be—I know the Minister will say yes, but I want him to say it on the record—more domestic connections with Belfast International and Belfast City airports? \p Mike Kane: The hon. Member is such a doughty campaigner that I think he had an urgent question in the House a few weeks ago when his plane was cancelled! “Well done,” is all I can say. That day we had a really good question and answer session on connectivity in Northern Ireland. We have two great airports in Belfast, and Derry/Londonderry’s airport serves the north-west. His first question is about planes flying in a straight line—an obscure piece of policy, which is in our manifesto, called airspace modernisation. We can cut up to 10%, 20% and, I am told in the case of some easyJet flights, even 30% of carbon emissions by just getting planes to go in a reasonably straight line and not circle around. It introduces resilience at airports and makes the passenger experience much better. I hope those on the Opposition Benches will support the policy when it comes to this place. \p Luke Taylor: I thank the Minister for his very full answers to questions, which mean I am now on the seventh or eighth version of my question. [Laughter.] There are two points I would like to explore. First, on emissions, SAF will only ever be a transitionary fuel. What effort are the Government making to engage with industry to develop truly zero-carbon power plants, and harness our incredible industry and our companies that can take advantage of the opportunity to lead the real zero-carbon hydrogen electric power plants? Secondly, on noise, the Minister mentions airspace modernisation, which will mean some residents facing greater noise frequency and impacts. Does he agree that the answer to the first question, on next generation power plants, is actually the answer to the second question on noise? Please, will he give us a proper answer on what the Government are doing to take advantage? \p Mike Kane: That is the problem when a new Member is called last, but he is agile—mentally on his feet—to get that in. We are investing in hydrogen zero-emission technology, with £1 billion for the ATI. I hope the hon. Gentleman is sat on the Opposition Benches in the months ahead when we implement the revenue certainty mechanisms, so we can kickstart a new age of SAF production in the UK that will bring jobs and growth right across our great country. \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the Minister for his responses. \p Anneliese Dodds: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will update the House on the ceasefire agreement in Gaza and detail our latest efforts to get aid to those in desperate need.

This is a fragile ceasefire, but it brings much-needed hope for Israeli and Palestinian people. The agreement to end the fighting and release the hostages is what this Labour Government have been pressing for from the moment we came to office. I thank Qatar, Egypt and the US for their tireless efforts, and echo the Prime Minister in wishing Emily Damari and the other former hostages well as they begin to recover from their horrific ordeals. We continue to call for the immediate release of all those still waiting to be reunited with their loved ones, including the remaining hostages with links to the UK.

Civilians in Gaza have endured suffering that defies belief, and this deal brings hope that they can start to rebuild their lives. In the days since the guns were silenced, Israel has opened up mechanisms to surge in aid. The UN and aid organisations have been working tirelessly to deliver the humanitarian aims of the ceasefire agreement. After so much time waiting at the border—delays that I saw for myself in December—trucks are now streaming in. Partners on the ground report that more than 200,000 food parcels have been dispatched to more than 130 distribution points since the ceasefire. This Government have been at the forefront of the humanitarian effort in Gaza since we came to office—overturning the suspension of funding to UNRWA, and then boosting our support; assisting UK-Med field hospitals to help the injured; working with Egypt to support those medevac-ed out of Gaza; and providing vital resources to UNICEF and the World Food Programme.

Today I am pleased to announce that the UK is investing in the ceasefire. UK support will be distributed to the UN and key medical partners, so that tens  of thousands of civilians receive the healthcare, food  and shelter that they need. That support will amount to £17 million to get more aid into Gaza and restore services. The figure also includes £2 million for the World Bank to support the construction and restoration of critical water and energy infrastructure. The UK has already helped about 284,000 people in Gaza to access water, sanitation and hygiene services. Today’s uplift brings our commitment for the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Palestinian refugees in the region to £129 million this financial year.

I am also pleased to announce that, this morning, Jordanian air force helicopters started landing in Gaza with UK-funded medical supplies and logistical support from UK armed forces. I thank Jordan for its excellent commitment to getting aid in, in such challenging circumstances, and we will continue to support our Jordanian partners in this initiative. However, more action is needed. The air bridge to Gaza is no substitute for road routes, which must remain open. We also call on Israel to allow in more essential items such as tents, mattresses and medical equipment. As people start to move home, basic services need to be put back in place, and unexploded bombs and mines cleared. Without that, even more lives will be lost—and, of course, the UN and humanitarian agencies must be able to operate freely.

The Government have repeatedly stated the need for UNRWA to continue its lifesaving assistance to the people of Gaza, Jerusalem and the west bank. The Knesset legislation taking effect on 30 January risks impeding the progress made since the ceasefire; Israel must allow the agency to continue to operate. The legislation does not and cannot change the fact that Israel has a responsibility under international law to facilitate humanitarian assistance. As the UN Security Council heard last week, 1 million Gazan children need support to process their traumatic experiences—their suffering cannot be understated—and about 15,500 patients need medical evacuation, according to the World Health Organisation. Routes must be opened for them to obtain that treatment.

The UK and the wider international community stand ready to support Palestinians as they begin to rebuild their lives, their homes and their communities. We are under no illusions about the scale of the challenge ahead. The overwhelming majority of homes in Gaza are damaged or destroyed, the economy has collapsed, and basic services, including energy and water, have been knocked out. We are therefore working with partners urgently to find the best ways in which to finance and support recovery and reconstruction efforts. It is essential that the coming surge of assistance is properly co-ordinated, and with the access and security to reach those in need. The Palestinian Authority has a crucial role to play, and we are providing technical and financial assistance to the authority, including assistance to support the urgent recovery of basic services.

The UK has always been clear about the fact that this ceasefire is just the first step. We must build confidence on all sides to help sustain it, progress through all its phases, and turn it into a lasting peace that assures the security of Israelis and Palestinians alike. We in the UK will focus all our efforts on keeping up the momentum, using every diplomatic channel available. As Members will know, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the Middle East kept up the drumbeat of engagement during their visits to Egypt and the United Nations last week. We will keep up the pace until every hostage is released, aid reaches all those in need, and Palestinians are able to rebuild their homes and their lives. I commend this statement to the House. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Foreign Secretary. \p Priti Patel: Since the savage terrorist attacks of 7 October 2023, all of us in this House have called for the release of all hostages held by Hamas as the only way of reaching a sustainable end to this abhorrent conflict, and to alleviate the enormous scale of the humanitarian suffering. We now feel both the anxiety and the hope of the families who have waited, anticipating the release of the remarkably brave women hostages who have been returned thus far under the ceasefire agreement, including, of course, the British-Israeli hostage Emily Damari. I pay tribute to the families of all the hostages for their unwavering campaigns to secure the release of their loved ones. They should never have been put through this unimaginable nightmare. We did, very sadly, learn yesterday that eight hostages would not be returning home alive, having been killed   at the hands of Hamas. That was devastating news for hostage families who continue to face unbearable uncertainty in the days and weeks ahead.

There is a long road ahead, and—as we have already heard from the Minister—we want the ceasefire agreement to hold, but we stress that every single hostage must be released. The important issue of humanitarian access remains, and, as the Minister has said, we must ensure that the House receives relevant updates both on the hostage releases and on every single diplomatic tool that Britain has when it comes to removing the barriers to getting the hostages out and also getting the right amount of aid in.

We all saw on our television screens yesterday the scenes of thousands of Gazans returning to the north, where, as we recognise, the situation is extremely difficult. Can the Minister give a breakdown of the volume and type of aid that the UK is sending, and how its impact will be measured? Notwithstanding the deliveries by helicopter that she mentioned, is she confident that British aid is getting over the land borders as expected, and is being effectively distributed to help those in need? As for the £17 million that she mentioned, can she clarify whether it is new money or part of money that has been released from previous funding allocations? Can she also tell us which organisations the money will support?

The Minister rightly referred to UNRWA. While no one can doubt the size of its distribution network, we cannot ignore the problems within the organisation. It is in no one’s interests to pretend that they have not happened. We know the facts: UNRWA staff and institutions have been infiltrated by Hamas, and there have been shocking allegations of UNRWA staff involvement in the 7 October attacks. Following the United Nations’ internal investigations and the subsequent sackings, the Colonna report and reforms need to be implemented in full. Is the Minister overseeing that in order to give our public, as well as donor countries, more confidence in UNRWA and the efficacy of its progress on the vetting of its personnel, and on procedures to protect the neutrality of its operations and facilities? Will she share with the House the evidence of the work that has taken place? In July, the Foreign Secretary announced £21 million for UNRWA, and the Prime Minister announced £13 million last month. What measures are in place to ensure that every penny of British taxpayers’ money is going to those most in need and not being abused by Hamas?

Without losing focus on the challenges of the immediate term and phase 1 of the ceasefire, the Government also need to be thinking about what comes next and laying the right foundations for the reconstruction and development that needs to take place in Gaza. This is a huge task. What discussions have the Government had with regional neighbours? What role does the Minister envisage for the UK? Will Britain be contributing financially? Is she pushing for multilateral institutions to be involved?

On the future governance of Gaza, I have said that I would like to hear more about the Government’s day one plan. The Foreign Secretary previously told the House:

“There cannot be a role for Hamas.”—[Official Report, 16 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 516.]

I echo those words, but the sickening sight of Hamas gunmen parading around hostages just last weekend caused great alarm. What steps are being taken to end the reign of terror that Hamas have unleashed?

The Minister mentioned the Palestinian Authority. If they are to assume responsibility in Gaza, what action will be taken to ensure that they are reforming? They must make serious, measurable and tangible reforms on education, welfare policy and democracy.

Finally, everyone in the House knows that the root cause of so much suffering in the middle east is Tehran and the Iranian regime. Could the Minister speak about the efforts this Government are making to work with the international community on a robust strategy towards the Iranian regime? \p Anneliese Dodds: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her support for the approach being taken by the UK Government. I agree with her about the savagery of the 7 October attacks and the suffering that has been undergone by the families of the hostages. I met the brother of Emily Damari when I was in Tel Aviv. It is difficult to find the words to reflect on that experience and what he was going through at that time. I met the families of other UK-linked hostages when I was in Tel Aviv, and their suffering continues as they await the return of their loved ones, which we are all hoping for fervently.

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for underlining the need for the ceasefire to hold. We need to see that move through phase 1 into phase 2. It is imperative that those measures are held to by all sides and that we see all hostages being released and then, as she said, the surge of aid into Gaza that is so needed. We will keep the House updated on the diplomatic measures we are taking; we have been doing that consistently across our team in the FCDO, and we will continue to do that.

The right hon. Lady asked whether we are confident that aid will get to where it is needed. Yes, we are. Much of the contribution we have announced today is going from the crisis reserve into the pool arrangement, which is a system designed to ensure that support is going directly into shelter, food and medical supplies. It is critical we ensure that that support is available directly.

The right hon. Lady asked about UNRWA. We have spoken about this before, but to reiterate, when the UK resumed its support for UNRWA, we were very clear that the findings from the Colonna report had to be implemented. In fact, £1 million of the £21 million that we provided to UNRWA at that point was earmarked to support that reform programme. I have discussed this directly with the head of UNRWA, and I know that my colleagues have done so repeatedly. I have also discussed it with UNRWA staff in the region, and I saw for myself that work, particularly around neutrality, when I was in the west bank, so I can assure the right hon. Lady of the UK Government’s commitment in that regard.

The right hon. Lady asked about reconstruction and what conversations we have been undertaking in that regard. We have been working with the international community and having many discussions with partners bilaterally about this. Of course, the most important thing is for the ceasefire to hold—I know she would agree with that—but when it comes to reconstruction and recovery, we have been particularly working with the World Bank. She may be aware that it conducted a rapid needs assessment, which is a very helpful process, and that is being updated.

We have also been having those discussions intensely with the Palestinian Authority. The right hon. Lady will be aware that Sir Michael Barber, who has incredible expertise, has been supported by the UK Government to work with the PA. I have seen his work, and I discussed it directly with the PA when I was in the west bank. It is, indeed, aiming at those measurable, tangible reforms, precisely in the areas that she mentioned.

Finally, the right hon. Lady asked me to underline the UK Government’s position that there will be no role for Hamas. Absolutely, I will do that again from the Dispatch Box, and the Foreign Secretary has made that very clear indeed. \p Debbie Abrahams: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Could she expand on the technical and financial assistance that the UK is providing to the Palestinian Authority? We know that there are tens of thousands of tonnes of unexploded ordnance. What is happening about that? Finally, what interventions have the Government made about the imminent closure of the UNRWA warehouse on the west bank? \p Anneliese Dodds: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those issues, as she has done consistently. First, in terms of how the UK is working with the Palestinian Authority on these issues, that support has included financial assistance around the reform programme but also the direct technical support around the reform programme that is necessary. Substantial reform is needed. There is a clear plan that has been driven by the Palestinian Authority, but we are determined to provide that technical support, and we have been doing so.

The issue of unexploded ordnance is of huge concern, particularly as we see people coming back to their homes, because there is a great danger that, in doing so, they will be impacted. There is a need for education and awareness raising around this, but there is also a need to remove that materiel; that is very important. The UK has been working with other countries and internationally on how we can ensure that that is the case, so that these communities are safe to return to.

Finally, my hon. Friend asked about the storage of UNRWA supplies. We are very clear, as we have been before, that UNRWA must have a key role in delivering humanitarian support and health and education services to Palestinians, whether that is in Gaza, the west bank or the wider region. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Monica Harding: I join colleagues in supporting efforts to uphold the ceasefire agreement and release the hostages. I wish to express my heartfelt condolences to the families of the eight hostages who have been killed by Hamas while taken hostage, and I join Members of the House in calling for the immediate release of all those still waiting to be reunited with their loved ones.

I want to denounce statements made suggesting that Palestinians should be forcibly displaced from their homes to other regions in the middle east. The only clearing out that should be taking place is of the unexploded ordnance across Gaza, where UN de-mining experts estimate that 5% to 10% of all ordnance is unexploded.  What support are the UK Government providing for the safe de-mining of the region and for the unaccompanied children, of whom there are estimated to be 17,000?

Israeli legislation ceasing UNRWA’s operations is due to take effect this Thursday, posing a huge risk to the humanitarian response and the delivery of education and primary healthcare. Dismantling UNRWA now, outside a political process, will undermine the ceasefire agreement, sabotage Gaza’s recovery and weaken the international humanitarian response. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure the continuity of humanitarian aid to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, given the ongoing existential threat to UNRWA’s operations? \p Anneliese Dodds: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the points she has made. I wish to join her in expressing sincere condolences to the families of those eight hostages who will not be able to be back with their families, as is their right, and as so many of us hoped would be the case. Their families must be suffering intensely now.

The hon. Lady’s point about displacement is well made. The UK position is very clear: the UK believes that international humanitarian law must be held to and that it must be feasible and, indeed, a reality that Gazans are able to return to their homes, including in northern Gaza. That has consistently been the UK Government’s position.

The hon. Lady asked about mine clearing and unexploded ordnance. As I said, it is really important that those areas are safe for people to come back to. I spoke with some specialists in this area last week. I know how meticulous and difficult the work of removing unexploded ordnance is. The UK is actively engaged with experts and considering what role we might be able to play, but above all, we are ensuring that there is a co-ordinated approach to this across our partners and international institutions.

The hon. Lady asks about children. The situation for children has been a priority for the UK Government, as it was for the previous Government. We have ensured that support from UK-Med is provided for children. Unfortunately, we have seen the pressure on children’s health coming through. The UK was heavily involved in seeking to deal with polio through the vaccination campaign, and we will continue to ensure that we do what we can to support children, particularly following the trauma that they have experienced.

Finally, on the issue of UNRWA, the hon. Lady is absolutely right: the deadline is coming up speedily and is in two days’ time. The UK Government remain absolutely committed to our position that no other organisation can operate at the scale or depth of UNRWA. It is absolutely essential for providing both direct humanitarian supplies and health and education services to Palestinians, and we will continue to make that very clear, as we have done repeatedly, to our Israeli counterparts, multilaterally and to our other partners as well. \p Laura Kyrke-Smith: I am glad to hear of the uplift in funding for Gaza, and I share the Minister’s serious concerns about the effective ban on UNRWA coming into force this week. Of course, 60% of the food that has entered Gaza during the ceasefire has been delivered through UNRWA, which plays a vital lifesaving and stabilising role in the west bank by providing education to 50,000 Palestinian children, as well as healthcare, clean water and rubbish collection. What  reassurances has the Minister had from Israel that if UNRWA can no longer operate, there is a viable and humane alternative way of getting support to the Palestinians? \p Anneliese Dodds: Like other Members of the House, my hon. Friend has considerable experience of these issues, with a background in humanitarian services. The UK Government are very clear that UNRWA underpins the entire humanitarian response in Gaza. It has a vital role in delivering the uplift in humanitarian assistance that we need to see following the ceasefire and, as she rightly mentioned, education and health services. We are opposed to the Knesset legislation that was previously passed, and we call on Israel to work urgently with international partners, including the UN, so that there is no disruption to this vital work. \p Andrew Mitchell: May I commend the Development Minister on her statement to the House today? I think she would agree that it continues the drive and commitment of the last Government. I particularly applaud her for making it clear that the policy of the British Government is that any plans for the future governance of Gaza will involve a reformed Palestinian Authority and categorically rule out any role for Hamas. In a week when we have seen the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz and the release of terrified young hostages, does she agree that it is deeply depressing that antisemitism is alive and well, and often expressed through hatred of Israel? \p Anneliese Dodds: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks, and I am indeed grateful for the work undertaken by the previous Government when it came to humanitarian support in this area. Obviously, we have sought to build on that and deepen it, and to make sure that we are at the forefront of our responsibilities in this area. I am happy to confirm that he summarised the position of the UK Government when it comes to the future of Gaza. It must be a future that is determined by Palestinians and Gazans themselves, with the PA having a role, but not Hamas.

On the issue of antisemitism, in this week of all weeks, we must redouble all our efforts to ensure that we never forget the horrors of the Holocaust, and that we always resolve to combat any form of prejudice and discrimination, including antisemitism. \p John Martin McDonnell: May I thank our colleagues on the Front Bench for the work that they have done, and for the commitment that they have shown? To ensure that we do our best to deliver, today’s focus on Gaza is critical, but my concern is that Gaza could easily be destabilised by what is happening in the west bank, particularly the invasion of the Tulkarm refugee camp in the last few days and the killing of further Palestinians. May I ask our Government to make representations to the Israeli Government to show restraint and to prevent the further loss of Palestinian lives through attacks by the IDF? \p Anneliese Dodds: As my right hon. Friend rightly says, stability in the west bank is crucial to ensuring that the fragile ceasefire in Gaza can last. All sides must work to ensure a lowering of tension in the west bank at  this time. I can reassure him that we have continued to call on the Israeli authorities to exercise restraint, adhere to international law, and clamp down on the actions of those who seek to inflame tensions, which is in no one’s interest. \p Andrew Murrison: Before the current crisis, construction in Gaza was made much more difficult by the surprisingly long list of proscribed materials, which included things like drain pipes, which Israel feared could be used as componentry for weapons and was understandably uncomfortable with. What can we do to ensure that the strip can be rebuilt, with all the materials that will require, while giving Israel reassurance on diversion of materials by Hamas—or what remains of it—and other Iranian proxies? \p Anneliese Dodds: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for asking that critical question. He is right to suggest that a key enabler of Gaza’s recovery will be the ability to get goods and materials in at the required pace and scale. Our position is that the enabling conditions for early recovery must be provided in the coming weeks, including secure access corridors, which are really important, and the resumption of basic services. \p Melanie Ward: I welcome the Minister’s statement and the announcement of additional vital UK support for Palestinians at this crucial time, and I join her in recognising the central work of Jordan. Will she join me in condemning the legislation passed against UNRWA by the Israeli Knesset, which jeopardises the entire international humanitarian response in Gaza? What concrete action will our Government take if the Israeli Government move ahead with implementing that legislation at the end of this week? \p Anneliese Dodds: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining the role of Jordan. On both my visits to Jordan, I saw for myself how committed the Jordanians have been to ensuring that aid gets into Gaza. We are really grateful to them for that, and for the partnership that they have shown with the UK.

When it comes to the legislation on UNRWA, the UK Government have been very clear that the decision by the Knesset was wrong. It will undermine the ceasefire and prevent the delivery of much-needed humanitarian aid, and prevent the delivery of education and healthcare. That is why, once again, we call on Israel to change tack and not implement the legislation. \p Brendan O'Hara: Over the weekend, President Trump inserted himself into the debate on the future of Gaza and its people by saying,

“You’re talking about probably a million and a half people, and we just clean out that whole thing.”

Is it the Government’s view that he was talking about the forced displacement or ethnic cleansing of almost 2 million Palestinians from their land? If that is not the Government’s understanding of what he meant, what exactly is their interpretation of what President Trump said? \p Anneliese Dodds: The UK Government recognise the critical role that both the current and previous Administration in the US played in obtaining the ceasefire, as well as the efforts of Qatar and Egypt. On the hon. Gentleman’s question about whether Gazans are able to return, they must be allowed to return. That is very clear under international humanitarian law, as he knows. \p Florence Eshalomi: I thank the Minister for coming to the House with this statement. I am sure that Members across the House are watching to ensure that this agreement lasts, and that people can return to their home and build some sort of future. Tomorrow I am due to meet the Kennington Bethlehem Link, a voluntary group in my constituency dedicated to helping Palestinians caught up in the conflict. It has raised with me the alarming situation in the Aida camp, an UNRWA-funded refugee camp between Bethlehem and Jerusalem. Sadly, the Israel Defence Forces have repeatedly vandalised the camp and intimidated workers. The Minister has outlined the situation on UNRWA funding. Given that Israel is due to sever ties with UNRWA later this week, can she please look at urgently directing any support that the UK can give to the Aida camp? \p Anneliese Dodds: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the critical role of UK civil society in supporting people, whether in Gaza, the west bank or the broader region. That really is incredibly important. I am also grateful to her for raising the issue of aid workers’ safety. This has been the most deadly conflict for a very long time—in fact, I believe since records began on these matters—for humanitarian workers. Of course, the UK Government will look closely at where our support is being provided, as I said to the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), and ensure that it is getting to where it is needed. \p Bob Blackman: We saw horrendous scenes at the weekend of Hamas terrorists parading the brave hostages before they were returned, and shooting fellow Palestinians for alleged collaboration. Also, the Hamas leader and his team have vowed to return to rule Gaza, and to carry out repeated atrocities like those that were committed on 7 October. That shows that Hamas are not going away. It is quite clear that they are determined to get back in control in Gaza. We all agree that Hamas should not be in charge of Gaza, so the key issue is: how will that be achieved? \p Anneliese Dodds: I agree with the hon. Member on those scenes. The Foreign Secretary has been very clear about this, including from this Dispatch Box. The UK Government’s position could not be clearer: Hamas is a terrorist organisation. It must not play a role in future arrangements for Gaza, and we will seek to work with all our international partners, and indeed with the UN, towards that end. \p Matthew Patrick: While Hamas were busy smuggling weapons, and spending money building tunnels in which to hold hostages ahead of their barbaric attack on 7 October, the people of Gaza relied each and every day on aid coming in. For those of us who want a two-state solution with a peaceful and prosperous Palestine, will the Minister set out her assessment  of the long-term role that UNRWA can play in that, and how we can ensure that aid gets to those who need it, not to the terrorists who are trying to take it away? \p Anneliese Dodds: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the importance of the lodestar of the two-state solution, which we must always aim at. Israelis and Palestinians rightly deserve a state of security, and the sovereignty that he is committed to. On the role of UNRWA, we have had many discussions with its leadership and other international partners. Ultimately, a two-state solution would enable the normalisation of the economy that is needed, and hopefully a shift away from the humanitarian problems there have been for so many years. My hon. Friend mentioned reconstruction, and we are discussing that with a number of UN partners, but I would again mention the World Bank, which has been doing so much work, particularly on how finance can be accessed. Of course, a precondition for that is the ceasefire holding, which we continue to push for. \p Jessica Brown-Fuller: According to the UN, 1.9 million people in Gaza are currently displaced, which is 90% of the population. Half of them are children. How will the Minister work to secure the right of return and self-determination for Palestinians in Gaza, especially in the light of the calls from the US President to “clean out” Palestinians from the region? \p Anneliese Dodds: The figure that the hon. Member quoted is right, and in some cases Gazans have been moved up to nine times because of recent events. She described Gazans as having the right of return, and I would underline that word “right”. They do have that right. That is clear under international humanitarian law, and it is a right that the UK will seek to ensure becomes a reality. \p Marie Rimmer: We must build confidence on both sides to help sustain the peace, but how are we going to do it? There are 70,000 families who left Palestine before the war and never got back. Many of them still have their keys. I have seen friends and families who never got back to see their grandparents, or who got back once a year. How can we build anybody’s confidence to move out of the destruction, particularly in northern Gaza, while it gets rebuilt? We cannot do that. How will we build the confidence of the families and loved ones of the hostages who are still being held there? They fear that Netanyahu will sacrifice them so that the war will return; the IDF says that there will not be a second phase of this peace. How do we build confidence? My heart is with everybody involved. I know that people want peace, but these are the facts. We have to identify and resolve the risks. I do not know how we will do it. God knows. \p Anneliese Dodds: The passion with which my hon. Friend speaks is shared by many Members in this House. It can sometimes be almost impossible to see a way through, particularly after a conflict in which so many thousands of people were killed, but it is the UK’s responsibility, working multilaterally with our partners, to reach towards a peaceful future in which there are two states, and Palestinians and Israelis can live in security. We must aim towards that. It is particularly important for all of us parliamentarians, and the UK Government, not to shift away from this crisis as the  media coverage starts to diminish in days and weeks to come. We must keep up the pressure, so that we can ensure the future that the Israelis and the Palestinians deserve. \p Greg Smith: Deradicalisation must form a key plank of any plan for reconstruction in Gaza, along with ensuring that Hamas have no role in its future running, as the Minister says. However, a sickening reality on the ground is that in textbooks and school curriculums in UNRWA schools in Gaza, there are materials that promote antisemitism, that incite hate against Jews and Israel, and that promote violence. Unless we stamp out that hateful incitement to violence that is being put in front of schoolchildren in Gaza, there can be no successful and peaceful future. What is the Minister doing in her conversations with UNRWA to stamp that out in its schools? \p Anneliese Dodds: The issue of what is often called the neutrality of UNRWA is incredibly important, and I have discussed it in detail with the leadership of UNRWA. I have also gone to see this in practice, to understand the reforms that have been undertaken. We talked previously about the important Colonna report, which set out practical steps to deliver that neutrality. The UK Government have directly supported that; we earmarked £1 million of funding for it—part of the £21 million that we announced some weeks ago—so we are absolutely committed to this, and to those reforms being not just implemented, as many of them have been, but sustained. \p Richard Burgon: No one can fail to be moved by the powerful scenes of Palestinians returning to their homes in Gaza, even though their homes have been reduced to rubble by Israeli forces. Of course, it is important that we do everything we can to rebuild Gaza, but justice for war crimes is also important. Does the Minister agree that we must stand up to all those who wish to undermine the International Criminal Court’s investigations and do all we can to ensure that justice is done? \p Anneliese Dodds: I think we have all seen on our television screens those scenes of Gazans returning to their homes, which in many cases have been destroyed or heavily damaged. Of course, many of those people will also have lost family members, so this has been an incredibly difficult process for many Gazans. My hon. Friend talks about the International Criminal Court, and the UK Government have made it absolutely clear that the UK respects the independence of the International Criminal Court. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: I will finish this statement at quarter past 3. Please can questions be a great deal shorter and, with respect, Minister, the answers as well? \p Carla Denyer: I welcome the Minister’s statement. The suffering of civilians in Gaza is extreme, and I share her call for the immediate release of all those still waiting to be reunited with their loved ones.

Does the Minister agree that we urgently need accountability for the Israeli Government’s violations of international law, as exhibited in the restriction of access to tents, mattresses, medical equipment and so on? Does she acknowledge that the only way we will make meaningful progress towards reconstruction efforts and longer-term peace is to hold the Israeli Government to account for these actions? \p Anneliese Dodds: The UK is fully committed to international law and respects the independence of both the ICC and the ICJ. Yes, there must be access to such supplies. \p Helen Hayes: I thank the Minister for her statement and the announcement of additional investment in aid to Gaza, which is very welcome. I have visited UNRWA schools and healthcare facilities in the west bank, and the role that UNRWA plays in the provision of essential services, including aid to Palestinians, is unique and irreplaceable. The implementation of the Knesset’s decision to ban UNRWA could therefore amount to the denial of health services, education and essential aid to a population that has already suffered unbearably for the past 15 months. Can the Minister say not only that the UK Government oppose the decision, but what will be done to hold the Israeli Government to account for the impact of that decision, if it is implemented later this week? \p Anneliese Dodds: The UK has already acted to make it clear that there must be a resolution to this urgent issue. We have joined allies in expressing our deep concerns about the Knesset’s vote on UNRWA. We have urged Israel to ensure that UNRWA can continue its lifesaving work, including at the UN Security Council on 6 November, 11 December and 3 January. \p Iqbal Mohamed: Today is the ninth day of the siege on Jenin in the west bank by Israeli forces accused of war crimes. With over 3,000 Palestinians forcibly displaced, Jenin hospital under lockdown without water or electricity, and at least 14 people killed by the Israelis since the beginning of the ceasefire in Gaza, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has said that it is deeply concerned by the use of unlawful, lethal force in Jenin, including multiple airstrikes and apparently random shooting at unarmed residents. Can the Minister tell the House what specific and concrete steps the Government are taking or will take to facilitate an end to Israel’s siege and ethnic cleansing in the west bank? \p Anneliese Dodds: The hon. Gentleman asks about the UK Government’s representations in relation to the west bank, and we have been very clear that the risk of instability is serious and the need for de-escalation is urgent. We continue to call on Israeli authorities to exercise restraint, to adhere to international law and to clamp down on the actions of those who seek to inflame tensions. \p Cat Smith: I welcome the Minister’s update on the Government’s efforts to get aid to those in need in Gaza. Given the serious allegations of war crimes occurring in Gaza, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that they are properly investigated and that those responsible are held to account? \p Anneliese Dodds: As I have said, the UK is fully committed to international law and respects the independence of the ICJ and the ICC. Any such determination on the conduct of war by whichever party would be taken by those independent bodies, by experts and by judicial actors and lawyers, not by Governments. \p Lee Dillon: In following your request for brevity, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I ask the Minister when is the correct time to recognise Palestine as a state? \p Anneliese Dodds: The hon. Gentleman will know that the UK Government are committed to recognising Palestine, but we are committed to doing so in a manner that ultimately supports the peace process. The Foreign Secretary set that out in detail from this Dispatch Box just a few days ago. \p Apsana Begum: When the Ukraine war started, a mechanism was put in place for the evacuation of injured children from Ukraine to hospitals here to ensure that they had appropriate treatment. It seemed to work effectively, and it was the right thing to do. In the light of the ceasefire in Gaza and the fact that northern Gaza’s healthcare facilities have been decimated, will the Government now instigate a scheme for the seriously injured children of Gaza, including orphans, as we did for Ukraine, by establishing a system to ensure that they can be brought here for medical treatment? \p Anneliese Dodds: It is vital that Israel ensures sustained passage for patients who need treatment that is not available in Gaza during the first phase of the ceasefire. We announced £1 million for the Egyptian Ministry of Health and Population, delivered through WHO Egypt, to support Palestinians medically evacuated from Gaza. Officials from all relevant Whitehall Departments are exploring avenues to ensure that our support best meets the needs of critically ill people in Gaza. \p Sammy Wilson: We welcome the release of the hostages, though for eight families it will be a sad day as they realise that their loved ones were murdered in captivity. Israel has taken considerable risks by withdrawing troops, opening borders and agreeing to the ceasefire, while Hamas continue to attack in the west bank and continue to humiliate hostages to show that they are in control. Given that Hamas have previously used aid to exercise control of the Palestinian population, and given the huge links between UNRWA and Hamas, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that UK aid is not used by Hamas to re-exercise control in Gaza? \p Anneliese Dodds: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the devastating time that the families of those eight hostages are going through. It is really terrible, and it is important to underline that. At the same time, there is extreme relief for those who have been able to return to their families. The UK has consistently worked hard on this. We need to ensure that aid gets to where it is really needed. We have been working on that with a number of UN agencies, as well as with bodies like UK-Med. \p Ian Byrne: At the weekend, President Trump called for a “clean out” of the Gaza strip, proposing to forcibly deport Gaza’s more than  2 million Palestinian inhabitants. That would amount to ethnic cleansing and a crime against humanity. Will the Minister join me in condemning President Trump’s remarks, and will she set out what action the UK Government would take to prevent the ethnic cleansing of Gaza? \p Anneliese Dodds: I refer my hon. Friend to my previous remarks. The UK Government have been very clear that Gazans must be able to return to their homes. That is a matter of international humanitarian law. \p Adnan Hussain: Despite genocide, displacement and destruction, Palestinians are returning to northern Gaza and remain rooted in their land. In respect of President Trump’s remarks, the Minister has been asked a number of times about what appears to be yet another forced displacement. What is the position of the Minister and her Government in respect of President Trump’s remarks? \p Anneliese Dodds: I have said perhaps five times that the UK Government are absolutely clear that Gazans must be able to return to their homes, including in northern Gaza. That is a very clear matter of international law. \p James Frith: I thank the Minister for her statement and her even-handedness, both in stating the British Government’s position on increased aid to UNRWA and in confirming that there can be no role for Hamas in future governance. The UK has a strong track record of bringing people together across communities to build peace, no more so than in Northern Ireland. What lessons on support for civil society and peacebuilding in Israel and Palestine will the Government draw from the last Labour Government’s experience in Northern Ireland? \p Anneliese Dodds: My hon. Friend is right to be clear that the UK has considerable expertise in the area of peacebuilding, as it does on so many other questions that we have been discussing this afternoon. It will be important in future that we do all we can as a country to pursue that goal of peace: the two-state solution that we talked about before. However, we must, in these immediate months, make sure that the ceasefire is held too. \p Jeremy Corbyn: The fundamental issue is Israel’s occupation of Gaza and the west bank. What assurances has the Minister had from the Israeli Government that they will withdraw all their forces from Gaza and that they will eventually, if not sooner, withdraw from the west bank to allow the Palestinian people to decide their own future in peace? \p Anneliese Dodds: I have discussed many of those matters directly with Israeli Government counterparts. I have also been to the west bank so that I could understand the situation with illegal settlements more directly. The UK Government’s position is very clear: illegal settlements are illegal. They are not allowed under international law and we remain determined to make that very clear, not just to the Israeli Government but to all our other partners and multilaterally as well. \p Jonathan Pearce: I thank the Minister for her statement and for the Foreign Office’s diplomatic efforts in securing the early release of Emily Damari, which we have all been hoping and praying for here in the House. Will the Minister assure the House that she will use those same diplomatic efforts to secure the early release of British-related hostages in phase 1 and to ensure that the next phase of the deal is agreed? \p Anneliese Dodds: We are absolutely determined to do all that we can to ensure that the UK-linked hostages who remain—Eli Sharabi, Oded Lifshitz and Avinatan Or—are brought home to their loved ones. We call for their immediate release and will do all in our power to secure that. \p Jim Allister: No one can gainsay the need for humanitarian aid, but looking forward to the reconstruction phase, what enforceable assurances are there that aid provided by this Government will not be diverted to rebuilding terrorist tunnels, as happened in the past? Can the Minister trust the United Nations Relief and Works Agency when it comes to that, given its record and given the suggestions that tunnels were built under its very headquarters and that there was a data centre there flowing off UNRWA’s electricity supply? Can we place trust in an organisation with such a record? \p Anneliese Dodds: Absolutely, the prevention of diversion of aid, not just in this context but more broadly wherever the UK is providing aid, is incredibly important. We take it very seriously indeed and we will always seek to ensure that there is absolutely watertight control around that, wherever UK taxpayers’ money is being used—as it is here—to support some of the people most in crisis on earth. The hon. Gentleman asked about the issue of UNRWA’s neutrality. We have covered that previously in the statement, but I just point again to the work that the UK has undertaken by providing support for UNRWA to implement the Colonna report. \p Chris Murray: There are about a million children in Gaza. To put that in context, we have about a million children in Scotland too. Before I was elected, I worked for Save the Children and I have met the children of the Palestinian refugee camps. Of course, we welcome the ceasefire, which is long overdue. Those children now face  homelessness, hunger and a lack of access to medical supplies, not to mention a disruption in their education. All children’s lives are equal, whether they be Scottish or Gazan. What are the UK Government doing to protect the children of Gaza at this time? \p Anneliese Dodds: We are deeply alarmed by the disproportionate impact of the conflict on children in Gaza. My hon. Friend talked about education, and I will just mention that area, in the interests of time. He is right about the extreme disruption: at least 88% of school buildings will need full or major reconstruction and most, if not all, students in Gaza have not had access to education since 7 October. The UK has been supporting work on that, including through the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs and UNRWA. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: I call Kim Johnson to ask the final question. \p Kim Johnson: Since the ceasefire, we have seen an increase in killings and atrocities in Jenin. On Saturday, Israeli forces were responsible for the killing of a two-year-old girl. The extremist settlers are acting with impunity against the Palestinians. Will the Minister explain what actions this Government have taken to put pressure on Israel to prevent the ongoing atrocities in the west bank? \p Anneliese Dodds: The UK Government have been absolutely clear on that. Settler expansion and settler violence have reached record levels. The Israeli Government seized more of the west bank in 2024 than in the past 20 years. That is completely unacceptable. The matter has been raised by a number of members of the ministerial team, not least the Foreign Secretary. He also announced new sanctions in October, which targeted illegal settler outposts and organisations that had supported violence against communities in the west bank. \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the Minister for her statement. As a point of clarity, Members need to be present in the Chamber for the Minister’s statement if they wish to ask a question. \p David Lammy: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the situation in Sudan and eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The latest conflict in Sudan has now lasted 21 months. This weekend, the Rapid Support Forces attacked the last functional hospital in the besieged city of El Fasher, in Darfur. The World Health Organisation assesses that some 70 patients and their families were killed. The attack is far from isolated. In recent weeks, the RSF shelled the Zamzam camp where displaced people are trapped outside El Fasher, while there are disturbing reports of extrajudicial killings by militias aligned to the Sudanese armed forces in Wad Madani.

The Government condemn those attacks in the strongest possible terms. They show callous disregard for international humanitarian law and innocent Sudanese civilians. Exact figures for those killed and displaced in Sudan are hard to come by, but we know aid is being blocked from reaching those in need. This is, without a shadow of doubt, one of the biggest humanitarian catastrophes of our lifetime.

I saw that for myself last week in Adré, on the Chad-Sudan border, in the first ever Foreign Secretary visit to Chad. I felt a duty to confront the true horror of what is unfolding, to bear witness and to raise up the voices of those—mainly women—suffering so horrendously. Eighty-eight per cent of the refugees at the Adré crossing are women and children. I met nurses in a clinic fighting to save the lives of starving children. I met a woman who showed me her scars. She had been burned, she had been beaten and she had been raped.

Turning to DRC, conflict has gripped the east for more than 30 years. An M23 rebel offensive at the start of this year had already seized Masisi and Minova. This weekend saw them enter Goma, the region’s major city, which M23 last occupied in 2012. Brave UN peacekeepers from South Africa, Malawi and Uruguay have tragically been killed, and with hundreds of thousands having already fled M23 to Goma, there is potential for a further humanitarian catastrophe.

I have not yet travelled as Foreign Secretary to meet those fleeing eastern DRC, but the reports speak for themselves. This is one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a woman or a girl. Children as young as nine are being attacked and mutilated by machete-wielding militias. Around a quarter of the DRC’s population are facing acute food insecurity, and there is frequent bombardment of the makeshift camps that shelter those who have fled their homes.

I regret to say that Foreign Secretaries updating the House on conflicts in Africa is something of a rarity. As I discussed yesterday with African ambassadors and high commissioners, the surge in global conflict includes the number in Africa almost doubling in the past decade. This is causing untold damage and holding back economic growth—the bedrock of our future partnership with African countries. But where is the outrage? Again and again in Adré, I was asked, “What is the world doing to help us?” The truth is that if we were witnessing the horrors of El Fasher and Goma on any other continent  or, for that matter, seeing the extremist violence in the Sahel and Somalia anywhere else in the world, there would be far more attention across the western world. Indeed, one recent survey of armed conflict in 2024 contained spotlights on Europe, Eurasia, Asia and the Americas, but none on Africa. There should be no hierarchy of conflicts, but there is one. Every human life is of equal worth.

The impact of these wars is clear for all to see. We have only to be willing to look. I could not face atrocities such as these and shrug my shoulders. However, the House will also recognise the UK’s national interest in addressing these conflicts. Irregular migration from Sudan to Britain alone increased by 16% last year. Unscrupulous smuggling gangs are looking to profit from the misery in places such as Sudan and the DRC. The longer these wars last, the greater their ripple effects. Neighbours such as Chad are working hard to manage this crisis alongside others nearby, but further escalation only increases instability and the risks of conflict elsewhere. With Sudan sitting along the major trade routes of the Red sea and eastern DRC, one of the most resource-rich regions in the world, this is something that we cannot tolerate.

This Government, therefore, refuse to let these conflicts be forgotten. Working with Sierra Leone, the UK prepared a UN Security Council resolution on Sudan to address the humanitarian crisis. Shockingly, despite the support of every other member, including China, Russia wielded its veto, but Russian cynicism will not deter us. We will continue to use our Security Council seat to shine a light on what is happening and work with our African partners on broader UN reform.

We have also doubled UK aid to Sudan, supporting more than 1 million displaced people. I saw our impact at the Adré crossing and announced a further £20 million to support food production and sexual and reproductive services. The UK is the third largest donor in the crisis, having offered almost £250 million in support this financial year.

We have been redoubling our diplomatic efforts as well. In the spring, I am looking to gather Ministers in the UK to galvanise international support for peace. We need to see three things: first, the RSF and the Sudanese armed forces committing to a permanent ceasefire and the protection of civilians; secondly, unrestricted humanitarian access into and within Sudan and a permanent UN presence; and finally, an international commitment to a sustained and meaningful political process. Instead of new and even more deadly weapons entering the conflict, we want consistent calls for all political parties to unite behind a common vision of a peaceful Sudan. We will engage with all those willing to work to bring the conflict to an end.

On the DRC as well, the UK has reacted quickly to the current crisis. We now advise British nationals not to travel to the Rubavu district in western Rwanda, on the border with Goma. We are continuing our humanitarian assistance, having provided £62 million this financial year. This enables lifesaving assistance such as clean drinking water, treatment for malnourished children and support for victims of sexual violence.

Ultimately, however, we need a political solution. We know that M23 rebels could not have taken Goma without material support from Rwandan defence forces. My noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury and I have  been urging all sides to engage in good faith in African-led processes. Lord Collins spoke to the Rwandan and Angolan Foreign Ministers last week, and in the past few days I have spoken to Rwandan President Kagame and South African Foreign Minister Lamola. For all the complexities of such a long-running conflict, we must find a way to stop the killing.

Civilians in Sudan and eastern DRC must feel so powerless. Power seems gripped by those waging war around them. The Government and our partners cannot simply will a ceasefire into being, but that is not a licence for inaction. As with Gaza, it can take hundreds of days of diplomatic failure to reach even the most fragile of ceasefires. So for our part, the UK will keep doing all in our power to focus the world on these conflicts and somehow bring them to an end. I commend this statement to the House. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Foreign Secretary. \p Priti Patel: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement and for the way he has spoken about Sudan and the DRC. Both conflicts are truly shocking, and are resulting in an ongoing displacement crisis, with millions of innocent people having to flee their homes. As he has highlighted in his statement and in his discussions with the African nations and their diplomats, armed conflict in Africa continues to cause immense human suffering and, of course, greater pressure on United Nations peacekeeping. The scale of food insecurity is enormous. The most horrific crimes are being committed against civilians: systematic human rights abuses; sexual violence; torture; and mass civilian casualties.

We are deeply concerned by the intensification of the fighting in eastern DRC and its humanitarian consequences. We continue to urge all parties to deliver on their commitments, which were agreed through the regional peace process. We welcome the mediation efforts facilitated by the Angolan-led Luanda peace process and continue to urge all parties to commit to further political dialogue.

In government, my party was committed to the protection of civilians in and around Goma. The Foreign Secretary will be deeply aware of the long-standing work that took place there, including through the three-year humanitarian programme for the east of DRC, which sought to deliver lifesaving emergency assistance to more than 1.1 million people and to protect and build resilience for the most vulnerable. Despite all of that, it is important that we learn more and understand what the root causes are and how we can bring greater stability and peace to the DRC.

What is happening in Darfur must also not be tolerated. The conflict in Sudan has put pressure on neighbouring countries, which are already under immense strain, and is creating a level of human misery that is totally unconscionable. Our main overreaching objective is clear, and we both agree that we need an immediate ceasefire and an end to all hostilities in Sudan.

The UK Government, working with international partners, must leave no stone unturned as they try to press the warring parties into a ceasefire. The Government  must also do everything within their power to hold those responsible for the atrocities to account, because red lines have been crossed in this conflict and we cannot stand by.

The Foreign Secretary will know that the Conservative Government applied a range of sanctions in the past on those supporting the activities of the Rapid Support Forces and the Sudanese armed forces. As the penholder on Sudan at the United Nations Security Council, will the Foreign Secretary update the House on what actions are likely to follow at the UNSC? The world can and should be doing much more, as the Foreign Secretary has rightly said, so what recent discussions has he had with other countries that could be doing much more to leverage their own influence? That also applies to the neighbouring regions. Will he provide an update on the work of Saudi Arabia and others helping with the important Jeddah process and whether that is on track?

On sanctions, does the Foreign Secretary intend to go further, perhaps following the US’s lead? Did he discuss the matter in his call with Secretary Rubio, because Sudan was not in the read-out and was not referenced at all? Will he speak more about the United Nations reform that he has just touched on? The US Administration are also reviewing all their aid programmes, so was that discussed in his call with Secretary Rubio? Beyond sanctions, is he working to identify other hard-hitting ways to put pressure on the leadership of the RSF and the SAF and those supporting those awful war machines?

While the conflict continues to rage, we need a laser-like focus on the humanitarian assistance, and I do not just mean on the type or volume—important, though, that is. If British aid is being sent and is getting through, we must ensure that it gets over the border and is distributed to the people it is intended to help. Will the Foreign Secretary share his latest assessment of the state of the border crossing in Sudan? How much aid is getting through each day and from which crossing points? When the aid gets inside Sudan, are the safeguards there to ensure that it gets to the people who need it, and does he have the mechanisms in place to measure the impact?

On the subject of aid, this might be premature, but will the Foreign Secretary speak about the Government’s plans for the future of aid funding given the forthcoming spending review? While this dreadful war persists, what is he doing to increase efforts to collect evidence of the crimes committed so that those responsible can be held accountable and face justice?

The Foreign Secretary has spoken in recent days about the vile people smuggling gangs. He mentioned the matter not just in this statement, but in his previous written statements. Will further comprehensive action be taken to target those miserable, vile and evil criminal gangs? What more will the Government do to put this whole issue to an end and ensure that this destruction and displacement across these two countries comes to an end? \p David Lammy: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. Of course, I know that she too draws some heritage from the African continent and so will take these issues very seriously. I also know the work of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) before coming to office. He did a lot on the humanitarian aid side, particularly in relation to Sudan.

The conflict in Sudan has created, as I said, the world’s largest humanitarian crisis. Thirty million people—half of Sudan’s population—are now in urgent need. To make it clear to the House, that is more than Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Gaza and Mali combined. That is how bad the situation currently is. That is why I raised this issue with Secretary of State Rubio when I spoke to him yesterday—although, because of all the issues in front of us, it was a brief conversation, we both said we would return to the issue, and we discussed the fact that I am keen to convene a group of nations, including regional partners on this very same issue.

On sanctions, since the 2023 conflict the UK has frozen the assets of nine commercial entities linked to the parties involved in the conflict. We obviously do not talk about what more we might be considering, but of course we keep that under review.

The right hon. Lady rightly asked about UN reform. I am pleased to see that the United States recently made statements—under the last Administration, but I am sure that that is a cross-party position—that Africa should be represented on the UN Security Council. That has been our long-standing view over here.

My assessment of the Adré crossing is real concern that the Government in Sudan are saying that that crossing should be closed on 15 February. We disagree with them; it should remain open. There are real issues about access, and one of the things I am pressing for with international colleagues is that the UN should be represented. Its agencies and bodies should be able to work unfettered in Sudan, and civilians must be protected. Recent events at El Fasher are very worrying indeed, but I hope that with regional partners and those internationally engaged, we can at least come to an agreement that the UN should be present and that civilians should be protected, particularly when they are overwhelmingly women and children.

I did also raise the position in the DRC with Secretary of State Rubio when I spoke to him yesterday—in fact, he raised that issue with me, and his real concerns about it. I was clear with President Kagame on Sunday that Rwanda must act to de-escalate this conflict and return to dialogue. I said that an attack on Goma would provoke a strong response from the international community, and from speaking to other nations, my sense is that that is what Rwanda can expect. Rwanda receives over $1 billion of global aid every year, including around £32 million of bilateral UK assistance. All of that is under threat when you attack your neighbours, and we in this House are clear that we cannot have countries challenging the territorial integrity of other countries. Just as we will not tolerate it in the continent of Europe, we cannot tolerate it wherever in the world it happens. We have to be clear about that.

The UK has sanctioned M23 and other armed groups through the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. There are currently 56 individuals and nine entities listed under UN sanctions, and again, we keep that list under review. The shadow Foreign Secretary has rightly talked about the work of the last Government in relation to humanitarian assistance, and I put on record the work that they led on both sides of this horrendous conflict. We are providing £62 million this year for programmes in eastern DRC. \p Laura Kyrke-Smith: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his updates, and for his clear and deeply felt commitment to Sudan. It is the largest humanitarian crisis on record, yet both of the warring parties are choking humanitarian access. The SAF have blocked the UN from reaching areas controlled by the RSF, while the RSF is increasingly imposing bureaucratic obstacles to delay and block aid. What measures is the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure that both of the warring parties and their international backers are allowing vital aid to get in? \p David Lammy: There have been efforts in the past. The US tried to lead efforts, and all regional partners—the Egyptians and the Chadians—want to see those efforts bear fruit. However, the truth is that the people I met are suffering horrendously. When you are at a crossing meeting those fleeing for their lives, you are always aware that you are often meeting those closest to the border and those with the means to arrange for smugglers to get them out. Despite the millions who have left and are now displaced, tens of millions more are still stuck in Sudan, unable to leave. For all those reasons, we have to be crystal clear about the access issues—not just the fact of aid, but the fact that we want the aid to get through and reach the people who it needs to reach. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Calum Miller: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, and thank him for advance sight of it. He is right to say that the crisis in Sudan will go down in history as one of the biggest humanitarian catastrophes of our lifetimes. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s visit to this region and his personal engagement with it, and for updating this House on conflicts in Africa. My party agrees with him that our level of concern for those affected by conflicts overseas should never be influenced by their location.

The Foreign Secretary is also right to draw the House’s attention to the escalation of violence by M23 in Goma. M23’s pursuit of mineral resources reminds us of the DRC’s tragedy of having such riches that trigger such violence. The announcement of increased UK aid to Sudan in November was welcome, as is the further £20 million deployed at the weekend. The Foreign Secretary is right to say that the UK’s aid budget not only reduces suffering, but reduces the pressure on refugees to make hazardous journeys in search of sanctuary elsewhere.

Yet the UK’s ability to respond to humanitarian and conflict situations is reduced by the Government’s failure to commit to the 0.7% target for official development assistance. Will the Foreign Secretary explain to the House why it was reported yesterday that £117 million has been cut from the integrated security fund, which would likely mean less money for conflict reduction work? Can he say what assessment he has made of the impact of the Trump Administration’s instruction that all US aid programmes are suspended?

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s plans to convene Foreign Ministers to galvanise international efforts to seek a ceasefire, but can he say by when this meeting will take place and how he plans to leverage the UK’s position as the Security Council penholder on Sudan? Can he confirm that the Government will not prematurely  recognise any alleged authority Government in Sudan when the country is so divided, and how does he propose to reduce the interference of external powers, including Russia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates and now China, in the conflict? \p David Lammy: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. On what is happening in Rwanda and the DRC, many years ago in this place—22 years—an all-party parliamentary group on the African great lakes region was set up. I was a member of it, and the then MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, Oona King, chaired it for a while. That is when I first went to the region, in the wake of the awful, horrendous ethnic cleansing—[Hon. Members: “Genocide.”]—and genocide we saw in Rwanda back in that period, and that is when I became familiar with the issues.

The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of the 0.7% target on development spend. I understand why those feelings are strongly felt about development, but he knows that we have a £22 billion black hole. We want to get there eventually, but it will take us some time. Notwithstanding that, the UK still makes a major contribution in development aid spending at a time when we are seeing, right across the global community, aid spending falling because of the cost of living crisis, with inflation and the effects that it has on western populations.

It is too early to make an assessment of some of the changes we have read about with the Trump Administration. I am told and advised that there is an 85-day process for the new Administration to look at these issues. However, it was interesting to me that Secretary of State Rubio raised the DRC with me before I raised it with him. We head to the Munich conference in a few weeks’ time, where these issues will of course be discussed, and I hope we will be able to convene and come together on the issue of Sudan shortly thereafter. \p Harpreet Uppal: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and the work he is doing to shine a light on the crisis. As he said, this is about not just the amount of aid, but the crucial issue of access. There is, quite clearly, unequal access for the UN in distributing aid in Sudan. Can I ask how we are supporting organisations on the ground in Sudan, particularly Sudanese aid organisations, to deliver aid in the area? \p David Lammy: I am very grateful for that question, because there is a lively civil society still at work in Sudan and NGOs are on the ground in Sudan doing what they can in the absence of UN agencies able to do that work. I was grateful that the World Food Programme facilitated my trip to the Chad border with Sudan, and to see trucks going in with the World Food Programme name emblazoned on them that may bring some alleviation to the suffering. However, I must say that in my conversations with the drivers, they talked about trucks being hijacked, the changes, the barriers and not being able to get as far as they would like. There are still serious issues on the ground. \p Andrew Mitchell: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his kind remarks.

On Sudan, I commend the Foreign Secretary for going to Chad. I visited the same location last year, and he will have seen the clear and horrific evidence that this is the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. While he was there, did he make it clear to the President of Chad that the use of his private airport by foreign powers to arm and assist the RSF is completely unacceptable?

On the DRC, as the Foreign Secretary rightly says everyone should draw back and engage with the Luanda process. Does he agree that it would help if the Congolese army did not so clearly make common cause with the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, who perpetrated the genocide to which he referred, and who pose a serious threat to Rwanda’s security and were responsible for the murder of nearly 1 million Tutsis in 1992? \p David Lammy: My bilateral conversation with the President of Chad was extensive—I was accompanied by the Foreign Minister for most of the 48 hours that I was there—and my concern for the women and children was heartfelt, recognising the huge burden of displaced people that Chad bears as best it can. I underlined the UK’s clear position on the conflict, the action of the parties and the need for regional partners to support a political process to end the bloodshed. On the situation in the DRC, I have spoken to President Kagame. I also spoke to South Africa’s Minister of International Relations and Cooperation following the murder of its peacekeepers, and Lord Collins has spoken to a range of African partners, all of whom have a stake. The Kenyans and the Angolans have been doing a lot to move forward the Luanda process, which I urge Kigali to continue to work on. \p Zarah Sultana: According to UN experts the UAE has been providing arms and support to the Rapid Support Forces through its networks in Libya, Chad, the Central African Republic, South Sudan and Uganda. Those arms and supplies have reportedly been disguised as humanitarian aid, raising serious concerns about the UAE’s role in exacerbating conflict and suffering in Sudan. The UAE is one of the UK’s largest arms buyers, with billions of pounds worth of defence exports licensed in recent years. Given the gravity of those allegations, and the UK’s obligations under international law, will the Government commit to ending all arms sales to the UAE unless it can be unequivocally verified that they are no longer supplying the RSF? \p David Lammy: I say to the hon. Gentleman that we hold—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady—forgive me; I am still suffering from jetlag. We hold regular discussions with all regional partners about the conflict in Sudan, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and African partners, as she would expect. Any sustainable process for peace in Sudan requires the support of all those in the region and beyond. \p Stephen Gethins: I thank the Foreign Secretary for coming and making this statement. He was right to say that these devastating conflicts in Africa are often overlooked, and I thank him for that as it is something a number of Members have mentioned in the past. Will he review the conflict budgets, as some of the international NGOs are often  there when nobody else is and no other attention is being paid? On Sudan in particular, and Secretary Blinken’s remarks around genocide being committed, what implications does that have for UK foreign policy? On the DRC, the Foreign Secretary mentioned the material support from Rwanda, but what action is he taking regarding all those who have facilitated the conflict, and what action and changes in policy will we see from the FCDO? \p David Lammy: On the first point, let me be clear: we have come in as a new Government and we think there is an important role for conflict mediation, building on the historic role that this country has played, including in Northern Ireland. We have real strengths and we want to work with partners such as Norway, and others, on conflicts—I reassure the hon. Gentleman about that. Of course I recognise that there are broader regional issues. That is why I wanted to convene, and the UK will continue to play its role. That is why we brought the UN resolution with Sierra Leone, and why I have been trying to rally support globally. Frankly, that is why I visited, taking the opportunity of a ceasefire in Gaza to draw attention to this issue and galvanise the world. \p Steve Race: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s visit to a malnutrition clinic on the border of Chad and Sudan and the additional funding for the region. Sudan has one of the highest rates of malnutrition in the world. He says he has had discussions with regional actors, but can he go further and update us on where those discussions are? What processes are under way? Can he give further detail on his assessment of how aid is currently getting in across the Adré border, especially ready-to-use therapeutic food, which is vital in stopping malnutrition and starvation in children? \p David Lammy: The experience of visiting, with Médecins Sans Frontières, a small clinic in Chad with malnourished babies, children and their mothers—knowing I was making a ministerial trip, but also not knowing whether these small babies would survive in the days ahead—was heartrending. I thank Médecins Sans Frontières for all it is doing to keep those children alive and to support those mothers. It is why we are not only doubling our aid to Sudan, but increasing our aid to Chad next door, which is bearing the brunt of all those displaced people who have come. My hon. Friend asks how we are continuing to work on this issue with our partners. I chaired a Sudan session with Foreign Ministers during the G7, plus the Arab Quint. We discussed collective action and how the G7 and the Quint could take the warring parties and push for improved humanitarian access, the protection of civilians and increased aid. I will continue to redouble my efforts in that regard. \p Andrew Murrison: The Foreign Secretary is right to come here to express his dismay and frustration, which we all share, but what assessment has he made of the effectiveness of the United Nations in this? It seems that its mission is failing. Even the measured and balanced resolution that he put together with Sierra Leone failed to get through on 18 November. Would it not be better to look instead at underscoring the importance of an African solution to this? In that respect, what discussions has he had  with the African Union, notwithstanding that it is crucial that currently suspended members are involved in the process? \p David Lammy: The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the important role of the United Nations. I am hugely disappointed that Russia continues to block progress in the UN Security Council. Notwithstanding the pressures, I applaud the work of the UN agencies in particular and what they are attempting to do. I remind him of the work of the World Food Programme, the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs and others. It is important that there is a UN presence in Sudan and that its agencies can work unfettered there. Clearly, the fact that UNESCO has pledged to withdraw in the DRC is a real issue, given what is happening and therefore what could flow from it ending its period in the country, despite the pressures over the last 20 years. \p Lauren Sullivan: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. An article in The Lancet this month illustrates an alarming rise in multiple life-threatening infectious diseases, including cholera, dengue fever, malaria, measles and polio, due to the destruction of health and sanitation infrastructures. How is the UK supporting progress in securing humanitarian access to life-saving treatments for these diseases, such as malaria, and does he agree that this support is needed, as these infections have an impact worldwide? If we allow these infections to fester, it will have implications for humanity. \p David Lammy: I thank my hon. Friend for her work in raising these issues from the Back Benches. There has been a worrying outbreak of dengue fever in particular— I met individuals who suffered as a consequence of that —and malaria is rife. We will do all that we can to support that work, but the aid access issues in Sudan in particular make that extremely difficult. That is why we must have a process that allows for unfettered aid to reach those in Sudan who need it. \p Olly Glover: I join hon. Members in thanking the Foreign Secretary for bringing the statement to the House, given that these matters are so rarely discussed. The United States has often played a key role in ending such conflicts or providing humanitarian support. To support his efforts with Secretary of State Rubio, will he ask for the Prime Minister’s support to ensure that the conflict is on President Trump’s agenda, given the latter’s stated “America first” agenda? \p David Lammy: I listened to Secretary of State Rubio’s first press conference, where he talked about wanting prosperity and, of course, security and safety for the United States. The truth is, the tremendous problems that we are seeing in the horn of Africa, the Sahel and Sudan are deeply worrying not just for us in Europe but for the United States, because failed countries become a haven of jihadist extremist activity that washes back up on our shores; that is the truth of it. When big countries, or indeed more powerful countries, invade small countries—particularly countries with minimal resources—we should be concerned indeed and raise that as a big issue. For all those reasons, I expect that the United States will take a big interest in what is happening. \p Adam Jogee: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and the shadow Foreign Secretary for her response to it. It is important that the House speaks with one voice on these issues. In recent days, I have heard from constituents with family in Sudan, and to say that they are terrified and devastated does not describe it. There is real fear and anguish in the Sudanese diaspora in the United Kingdom.

We have to be seen to be believed, so I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for making his visit to Chad last week and thank him for his leadership on these issues, but I reiterate the point made by the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). Will he touch on the specific discussions that he has had in recent weeks with the African Union—it has an important role to play—and whether he plans to go to Addis to make that case in person? \p David Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for continuing to raise these issues from the Back Benches and pressing me on them whenever he sees me in the Lobby. Let me be clear—I should have made this point—that we are of course working with the African Union. New leadership is about to take up post in the African Union in the coming weeks, and we will continue to push these issues with it. We will work with a range of partners including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, the United States, African and European countries who are taking an interest, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, the United Nations and the African Union. I reassure him of that. \p Shockat Adam: I also thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, for Sudan is indeed the forgotten conflict, despite 8 million internally displaced people and 24.5 million people on the verge of famine. I lend my sentiments and honour the three United Nations peacekeepers from Uruguay, South Africa and Malawi, the country of my birth. In the Foreign Secretary’s statement, he mentioned more deadly weapons entering the conflict. Who is providing those arms and weapons? What vested interests do they have in Sudan—are they in its natural resources, its gold or its port? What leverage are we using with those countries with whom we have good diplomatic relations who may be supplying those weapons? \p David Lammy: I met African ambassadors yesterday to discuss those very issues. We talked about the security and resilience of the African continent and of how, after a relatively peaceful period a decade or so ago when most of the discussion was about development, they are now concerned about those who are fighting proxy wars in different ways. That is not to say that regional powers will not have different interests, but when we see the behaviour of mercenaries and we look at the problems of arms sales in Africa and the damage that does to civilian life, we have to hold out for a political solution. We have to get back to dialogue and we have to get back to diplomacy. That is what I am seeking to emphasise in the statement. \p Florence Eshalomi: I echo the praise for the Foreign Secretary’s visit last week. It is important that we continue to keep the spotlight on Sudan. Last week, I was able to visit an exhibition called “Children’s drawings”, arranged by  Waging Peace and hosted by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell). It showed a series a pictures painted by young children—powerful images of child survivors of the genocide. One picture showed two army men fighting and an attack by the Janjaweed militia on a hut in a village. Inside the hut, at the bottom of the drawing, a soldier was raping a woman. The 80-page book details the resilience of those survivors, and also the trauma that those young children have gone through.

It is good to see cross-party support in the Chamber on this important issue. The Foreign Secretary is right—where is the outrage and the constant media coverage? There should be no hierarchy of conflicts. Every life is equal. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to the House that he will stand by the victims in Sudan for as long as it takes to get that stability? \p David Lammy: I thank my hon. Friend for her work to press these issues. I repeat again: where is the liberal outrage? Where are the marches? Where are the emails flooding MPs’ inboxes? They are nowhere to be seen. Just a few years ago, the world rallied because of what it saw as horrendous events in Darfur. It is unbelievable that a few years later, the world seems to have forgotten. This is the moment to step up. This House has come together this week to remember those who were massacred in genocide during the Holocaust. These are very serious issues. Just as we have called out horrendous acts against humanity in the past, so we must call this out. \p Carla Denyer: As an MP representing a Sudanese community in Bristol and as a member of all-party parliamentary group for Sudan and South Sudan, I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and his real care and concern for the innocent civilians in Sudan and the DRC, and for speaking about the need to protect them from the horrors taking place. In his statement, he said that irregular migration from Sudan to Britain has increased 16% in the past year—indeed, the Sudanese were among the top nationalities to cross the channel in 2024. Does he agree that a key part of our response, alongside support on the ground, must be to ensure safe and legal routes for Sudanese refugees to come here? Has he raised that with the Home Secretary? \p David Lammy: Sudan was No. 2 in the list of those coming in December. We are seeing an uptick. That is why we continue to work upstream. I hope to be in Africa to look at more work upstream very shortly. Of course, we work with the UN agencies—we have been in touch with them in the past few days—and those NGOs that work with refugees to discuss these issues. \p Apsana Begum: The ongoing conflict in Sudan has displaced more than 10 million people, caused widespread famine and fuelling human rights abuses, including sexual violence, with women and girls disproportionately impacted. Will the Foreign Secretary outline the Government’s diplomatic efforts to ensure that all parties are held accountable and adhere to international law and human rights standards? He mentioned that the Government do not want new and even more deadly weapons entering the conflict, so will he ensure that this House receives full and up-to-date information about UK export arms  licences with any Government who are alleged to be propping up the RSF or any other military force in this conflict? \p David Lammy: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for continuing to press these issues. Let me reassure her that the UK continues to pursue all diplomatic avenues to press the parties into a permanent ceasefire, to allow unrestricted humanitarian access to protect civilians and to commit to a sustained, meaningful and peaceful process. We have the most robust export licensing regime in the world. Where there are breaches of international humanitarian law, we suspend licences. She should be reassured that we take that very seriously. \p Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and agree with his point about the way in which global media values pay no attention whatsoever to conflict or life in Africa. He has drawn attention to that today, and I thank him for it. As one who represents constituents from both the DRC and Sudan, I can say that the communities I represent are emailing and talking, and all of them are saying the same thing: why is nobody discussing what is going on in the DRC or Sudan?

I have two quick questions for the Secretary of State. First, what can he do to reduce the flow of arms into Sudan? It is motivated by the countries that want to get hold of the wealth and natural resources of Sudan, and have no concern whatsoever for the lives of the people in that country. Secondly, having been to Goma on a number of occasions in the past, as well as to other parts of the DRC, I am very well aware of the long-term conflict that has gone on over minerals, essentially, where militias are effectively financed by mineral companies to drag out coltan and other riches from the Congo at the expense of the lives of the people there. The role of the Rwandan Government in supporting M23, and now the occupation of Goma, has to be called out and challenged. Surely, the future has to be one of peace and of the democratic engagement of all the people of the DRC in their future. \p David Lammy: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I know he did a lot of work with my predecessor in Tottenham on issues to do with the African continent. He has been raising these issues consistently for the past three or four decades, and we are very grateful to him for that.

I seek to reassure the right hon. Gentleman that when I say that we want to convene and come together with regional partners and those neighbouring Sudan, as well as with the international partners that take a big interest and play a big role, as the UN penholder, we are of course aware of some of the motivations; there is gold, for example, in Sudan. We urge everyone to step back and get to a ceasefire. This cannot go on forever; there has to be a ceasefire. We need that ceasefire now because of the women and children who are suffering. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I have been to Goma. We have been talking about the coltan in our mobile phones for many years. It is why there are so many external actors engaged in the DRC. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. If questions and answers are short, I can squeeze in just a couple more Members. \p Melanie Ward: The Foreign Secretary spoke movingly about his visit to the Chad-Sudan border, and I commend him for bearing witness. There is no substitute for doing that.

Since April 2023, there have been more than 500 attacks on healthcare facilities in Sudan, and more than 100 healthcare workers have been killed. The Foreign Secretary will know that attacks on hospitals and healthcare are a growing and grotesque phenomenon across the world. Does he think we could use our position on the UN Security Council as the lead on the protection of civilians to bring together countries and drive forward action to protect healthcare and health facilities across the world? \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. We cannot live in a world where the rules are disregarded and where aid and peace workers are murdered as they go about their business. This has been the most horrendous period for the loss of life of good people doing good work. I will take up the call for a renewed effort, using our position on the UN to marshal that. \p Gregory Campbell: The horrendous situation in Sudan, as the Foreign Secretary rightly said, calls for a common vision for a peaceful Sudan. Will he outline what detailed talks he has had with other nations outside of Russia and the UN, in order that that vision of a peaceful Sudan can be realised more quickly than would otherwise be the case? \p David Lammy: Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have spoken to north African countries about this issue. I was in Chad, obviously, but I also raised these issues in Egypt, where I met Sudanese refugees. I talked about the Quint and the G7; we are using all those multilateral mechanisms to raise this issue and galvanise further support. It was deeply worrying that when the UN called for donors last year, it got just 50% of the money that is required. \p Alice Macdonald: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. Gender-based violence increased by 300% in the DRC in recent years, with two thirds of it in the three eastern provinces. In Sudan, we have heard of the epidemic of sexual violence in conflict. This year marks 25 years since the agreement of the landmark UN resolution 1325 on women, peace and security, yet across the world we are letting women down. Please can the Foreign Secretary outline, on the broader agenda, how we will make this the year we actually protect women’s rights in conflict and ensure that their voices are heard? \p David Lammy: I am very grateful that that is the subject of the last question. One reason why the world is not paying attention to these crises is that they are in the continent of Africa. The second reason, I fear, is gendered: it is women who are suffering. It is men who are doing the fighting and women who are being left behind. We cannot go backwards. For all those reasons, I urge parliamentarians to secure debates and raise these issues with the colleagues they meet from other parliamentary democracies, so we get attention back on these women and children in both conflicts and across so many others, who are suffering horrendously. \p Nusrat Ghani: I thank the Foreign Secretary. We got through quite a lot of questions. \p Laura Trott: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is making its way through the House of Commons—indeed, we are well into the Committee stage—yet still we do not have an impact assessment to show what effect it will have. That impedes the ability of Members to properly scrutinise the Bill. Therefore, I seek your advice on what more we can do to force the Government to publish the impact assessment. \p Nusrat Ghani: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. The Government’s own “Guide to Making Legislation” makes it clear that a final impact assessment must be made available alongside Bills introduced to Parliament. I do not know why that has not happened in this case, but clearly it is unsatisfactory that the impact assessment is not available to the Public Bill Committee. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted her remarks. \p Gregory Campbell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that there has been major disruption in Northern Ireland and, indeed, in parts of Scotland due to last week’s storms. Hundreds of thousands of homes, businesses and families were left without electricity, and some without water. Tens of thousands are still in the same position five days later. I know the matter was raised yesterday in the House, but in rural areas, along with major disruption, they have no online facilities, meaning no business can be done, including last-minute tax returns to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Has the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or the Secretary of State for Scotland indicated that they will come to the House to spell out what additional steps they are proposing to help us bring this crisis to a speedy but overdue end? \p Nusrat Ghani: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. I have had no indication that any Minister is coming to the House to make a statement today, but he will recall that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made a  statement to the House yesterday, in which he described the measures the UK Government were taking in Scotland and Northern Ireland to address the impact of the storm. \p Chris McDonald: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 8 January, in response to a question on child protection, the Prime Minister told this House:

“Reasonable people can agree or disagree on whether a further inquiry is necessary.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 836.]

Yet over the past week, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), the shadow Policing Minister, has used social media to link councillors who voted against a new national inquiry with grooming gangs. In accordance with the customs of this House, I have informed the hon. Member for Stockton West that I intended to name him.

Madam Deputy Speaker, those posts have incited vile comments online, including councillors being accused of being paedophiles. One comment chillingly read:

“I hope people find out where they live and start persecuting them.”

We know too well that such words online can lead to real-world consequences. One councillor was specifically targeted through paid social media advertisements. People turned up at her home and terrorised her, with yobs braying at her door. Other councillors have been verbally assaulted.

Members of this House have benefited from the good offices of Mr Speaker, who has championed their safety and security. I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that all are appalled by the depraved behaviour of child grooming and rape gangs, but to exploit that suffering for political gain is, frankly, sickening. I would be grateful if you could advise me on the most appropriate way to highlight the potential consequences of our words to all Members, in particular the shadow Policing Minister—if, indeed, he is considered fit to continue in that role. \p Nusrat Ghani: I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order, and I note that he informed the hon. Member for Stockton West that he intended to refer to him in the Chamber. The Chair is not responsible for comments made by Members on social media, but I urge all Members to reflect carefully on the likely impact of what they post online. \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Stephen Flynn: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish measures to address the findings of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman in its report entitled “Women’s State Pension age: our findings on injustice and associated issues”; to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a compensation scheme for women born between 6 April 1950 and 5 April 1960 inclusive who have been affected by increases in the state pension age; and for connected purposes.

I do so with no joy whatsoever—indeed, my reason for doing so is born more out of complete and utter frustration—but because it is the right thing to do for a number of reasons. It is the right thing to do because we require trust in politics, and I think that all of us at this moment in time, certainly in this Chamber, are conscious of the breakdown in trust between ourselves in this Parliament and the public outside.

For those of us who have stood alongside the WASPI women for many years, for those of us who have pledged to support the WASPI women for many years, for those of us who promised to take action if we were ever to gain Government office, it is important that that trust is repaid, and my Bill seeks to do that. It seeks to do the right thing by those to whom we made a promise.

This is also the right thing to do because, for many of the women who are impacted, this injustice is not alone. Throughout their lives, many will unfortunately have been impacted by the fact that they did not receive a salary comparable to that of their male counterparts. These are women who will have faced the injustice of knowing that they were not able to get themselves up the career ladder simply because they were women and there was a male counterpart. They are the people who will have known that whether or not they were going to have children might well decide what their career opportunities were. It was an unforgivable injustice that they had to experience, and we should not be compounding that injustice by not giving them the compensation they deserve for having their pension entitlement changed.

This is also the right thing to do because the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman tells us it that is the right thing to do. If we do not have trust and confidence in the estate in which we operate, and if we do not support the outcomes of our ombudsman, I must simply ask: where are the public to go? Where are they to place their trust? The ombudsman made it abundantly clear that these women were the victims of maladministration, and that the Department for Work and Pensions had not acted in the way that it should have done. Much worse than that, however, the ombudsman was clear that the DWP could not be trusted to rectify the wrong that it had imposed on those women. So what happened? We were effectively delegated the responsibility to respond, and what did we see? We saw a Government turn their back on those women, but not before, of course, they had held placards; not before, of course, they had given warm words when they had felt that it was politically expedient to do so.

Let us listen to some of those warm words. Let us start off with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who said:

“All your working life you’ve got in mind the date on which you can retire and get your pension, and just as you get towards it, the goalposts are moved and you don’t get it, and it’s a real injustice.”

Let us look at what the Deputy Prime Minister said:

“They want their money back, and quite rightly so.”

Let us look at what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:

“Pleasure to speak in the state pension age debate and talk about women who are being treated so badly. Govt please listen. #WASPI”.

The Home Secretary said:

“I want to keep fighting for a fair deal for the WASPI women.”

The Business Secretary said:

“I have always supported local campaigners and will continue to stand up for the WASPI women of Tameside. I know you will fight on.”

The Defence Secretary said:

“Labour will correct this historic wrong.”

For those of us in Scotland, let us look north of the border. The leader of the Labour party in Scotland, Anas Sarwar, said:

“Under my leadership, WASPI women will finally receive the justice they deserve.”

The wider Labour party in Scotland stated:

“Labour will right the historical wrong of pension discrimination by compensating more than 300,000 women in Scotland with an average of £15,000. When Labour wins, Scotland’s women win.”

What happened? A parcel of rogues, indeed.

I was one of many who were in this Chamber prior to Christmas when the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions decided to make a statement right before Parliament broke off to confirm that the Government were sorry for the maladministration that took place, that they were going to make sure the Department for Work and Pensions, which inflicted this wrong upon those women, would never do so again and that lessons would be learned—but that was your lot. The evidence they used to back up their decision not to award any compensation—in fact, not even to discuss the concept of compensation in this Chamber—was based upon the data, as I understand it, of just 200 respondents from many years ago.

The Government then went on to say that there is no money at all, as if they are not the ones who get to decide how money is spent; as if they are not the ones who have decided to box themselves in on pretty much every tax lever that exists; as if—I appreciate that not everyone in the Chamber will agree with me on this point—they are not the ones who have decided to simply accept the broken economic norms formed by leaving the European Union and rejecting access to the single market and the customs union, and to accept that it will cause economic damage and limit the money is available to them. None of that was their fault at all. How very dare they? Do they think the public are zipped up the back? Do they think the WASPI women are not listening and watching the decisions they have chosen to take?

This is a defining issue. Many of us in the last Parliament watched on as a TV show changed the mind of the Government in respect of the Post Office Horizon scandal. Many of us watched on as Parliament forced the Government to change tack on the infected blood  scandal. Many of us have spoken about the Equitable Life scandal, the Hillsborough disaster, the loan charge debacle and, indeed, the WASPI campaign. Defining issues of the last Parliament can still be defining issues of this Parliament, but only if the Government act to provide the compensation and redress that these women so badly deserve.

There was a man who went on to become the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who said:

“The walls of Westminster are so high.”

He was inferring that we do not listen to what the public want, nor do we see what they are fighting for and what they believe in. But we know where the public stand on this issue. We know that they believe the WASPI women should be given the compensation that they deserve, and with this Bill we will seek to provide it.

Question put. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 0.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,

That Stephen Flynn, Kirsty Blackman, Pete Wishart, Graham Leadbitter, Liz Saville Roberts, Brian Leishman, Sir Julian Lewis, Steve Darling, Siân Berry, Gavin Robinson, Claire Hanna and Jeremy Corbyn present the Bill.

Stephen Flynn accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 7 March, and to be printed (Bill 169). \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

[Relevant documents: oral evidence taken before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on 21 January 2025, on Reforming the water sector, HC 588; oral evidence taken before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on 26 November 2024, on Work of the Department and its arm’s-length bodies, HC 415.] \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).

(2) In section 143A(3)(b), after ‘regulations’ insert ‘or, in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State (rather than the Welsh Ministers), by which that entitlement is otherwise to be established’.

(3) After section 143A insert—

‘143AA Special provision under section 143A: financial arrangements

(1) Subsection (2) applies if regulations under section 143A impose on relevant undertakers whose areas are wholly or mainly in England requirements of the sort described in subsection (2)(d) of that section.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations establish a scheme for the purpose of distributing among the relevant undertakers that are subject to the requirements all or part of the costs incurred by them in complying with the requirements (with the distribution to be on such basis as is provided for in the regulations).

(3) The scheme may operate by way of—

(a) direct payments between relevant undertakers, or

(b) payments into and out of a fund established and maintained under the regulations.

(4) Subsections (5) and (6) apply if a scheme is established under subsection (2).

(5) If the Secretary of State or the Authority makes price control provision, they must design the provision with a view to not preventing the passing-on of costs as described in subsection (7).

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) make provision about how the Authority is to comply with subsection (5);

(b) modify the effect of any price control provision made by the Authority with a view to enabling the passing-on of costs as described in subsection (7).

(7) The passing-on of costs occurs when a relevant undertaker is able to recoup its relevant net costs by charging additional amounts under section 142(1).

(8) An undertaker’s relevant net costs are the total of its costs incurred in—

(a) complying with the requirements referred to in subsection (1), and

(b) complying with the requirements of the scheme,

less any payments it receives under the scheme.

(9) In this section, “price control provision” means provision made by or under—

(a) regulations under section 143A,

(b) rules under section 143B, or

(c) a condition of a relevant undertaker's appointment under Chapter 1 of Part 2,

that restricts the amount that may be charged by a relevant undertaker under section 142(1).

(10) Where a determination within section 12(3) (determination by CMA provided for by undertaker’s appointment) involves the making of price control provision, subsections (5) and (6) apply in relation to the CMA as they apply in relation to the Authority.

143AB Special provision under section 143A: consultation

(1) This section applies to—

(a) regulations under section 143A that, in relation to relevant undertakers whose areas are wholly or mainly in England, make provision of the sort described in subsection (2)(d) of that section, and

(b) regulations under section 143AA.

(2) Before making regulations to which this section applies, the Secretary of State must (subject to subsection (3)) consult—

(a) the Authority,

(b) the relevant undertakers to which the regulations would apply, and

(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(3) But the Secretary of State does not have to consult if—

(a) the regulations only amend earlier regulations, and

(b) the Secretary of State considers that the amendments are sufficiently minor that consultation is unnecessary.”

(4) The Digital Economy Act 2017 is amended as set out in subsections (5) and (6).

(5) In section 38 (disclosure of information to water and sewerage undertakers)—

(a) in subsection (2), for “people living in water poverty” substitute “eligible people”;

(b) after subsection (9) insert—

“(9A) A person is “eligible” for the purposes of this section and section 39—

(a) if the person is living in water poverty, or

(b) in the application of the sections to a water or sewerage undertaker for an area which is wholly or mainly in England, if the person is among those for whom special provision is required to be made by regulations within subsection (3)(a).”

(6) In section 39 (disclosure of information by water and sewerage undertakers), in subsection (2), for “people living in water poverty” substitute “eligible people (see section 38(9A))’.”—(Emma Hardy.)

This new clause supplements existing powers to provide for special charging arrangements for customers in need. It enables automatic enrolment, cost-sharing among water companies (and their customers), and broader information-sharing between public authorities and water companies; and imposes a requirement for consultation.

Brought up, and read the First time. \p Emma Hardy: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. \p Nusrat Ghani: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 1—Water Restoration Fund—

“(1) No more than 60 days after the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the establishment, operation and management of a Water Restoration Fund.

(2) A Water Restoration Fund is a fund—

(a) into which any monetary penalties imposed for specified offences must be paid, and

(b) out of which payments must be made for expenditure on measures to improve the quality of the freshwater environment in England.

(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations list the specified offences for the purpose of this section, which must include—

(a) any relevant provisions of the Water Resources Act 1991, including—

(i) section 24(4) (unlicensed abstraction or related works or contravening abstraction licence); 22 Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL];

(ii) section 25(2) (unlicensed impounding works or contravening impounding licence);

(iii) section 25C(1) (contravening abstraction or impounding enforcement notice);

(iv) section 80 (contravening drought order or permit);

(v) section 201(3) (contravening water resources information notice);

(b) regulations under section 2 of the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 (regulation of polluting activities etc);

(c) regulations under section 61 of the Water Act 2014 (regulation of water resources etc).

(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument add to the list of offences specified in subsection (3).

(6) The provisions in this section replace any existing provision for the sums received for specified offences, including in section 22A(9) of the Water Industry Act 1991 (penalties).”

This new clause would require all funds from fines on water companies for environmental offences to be ringfenced for the Water Restoration Fund, for spending on freshwater recovery.

New clause 2—Abolition of the Water Services Regulation Authority—

“(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.

(2) For section 1A (Water Services Regulation Authority) substitute the following—

‘1A Abolition of the Water Services Regulation Authority

(1) The body corporate known as the Water Services Regulation Authority (in this Act referred to as “the Authority”) is abolished.

(2) All references to the duties and functions of the Authority in this Act or any other enactment are null and void.’

(3) Omit Schedule 1A (The Water Services Regulation Authority).”

This new clause abolishes Ofwat.

New clause 3—Impact of the Act on the Environment Agency—

“The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act—

(a) review the impact of this Act on the Environment Agency;

(b) consider whether the Environment Agency requires any additional resources to meet the additional requirements placed upon it by this Act.”

New clause 4—Duty to publish maps of sewage catchment networks—

“After section 205 of the Water Industry Act 1991 insert—

‘205ZA Duty to publish maps of sewage catchment networks

(1) Each relevant undertaker must publish a map of its sewage catchment network.

(2) A map published under this section must illustrate any relevant pumping stations, pipes, and other works constituting part of the undertaker’s sewerage network.

(3) Maps published under this section must be published within 12 months of the passing of this Act, and must be updated whenever changes are made to the sewage catchment network or the components listed in subsection (2).

(4) Maps published under this section must be made publicly accessible on the undertaker’s website.’”

New clause 5—Duty to prevent chemical pollutants entering the water environment—

“After section 68 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (Duties of water undertakers and water supply licensees with respect to water quality), insert—

‘68A Duty to prevent chemical pollutants entering the water environment

(1) It shall be the duty of a water undertaker to take such steps as are necessary to reduce and prevent chemical pollutants, including but not limited to poly- and perfluorinated alkyl substances, entering the water environment.

(2) In fulfilling its duty under subsection (1), a relevant undertaker must publish a strategy outlining how it intends to reduce and prevent chemical pollutants entering the water environment.

(3) In developing a strategy under subsection (2), a relevant undertaker must consult with appropriate agencies, including but not limited to—

(a) the relevant Government department;

(b) the Authority;

(c) the Environment Agency; and

(d) the Drinking Water Inspectorate.

(4) A strategy under subsection (2) must include consideration of how the costs of reducing and preventing chemical pollutants entering the water environment are to be borne or recovered, where such consideration must prevent such cost recovery from resulting in additional charges being made upon consumers.’”

New clause 6—Licence conditions about nature recovery—

“In the Water Industry Act 1991, after section 17FB insert—

‘17FC Nature recovery

(1) reducing flood risk and pollution incidents, improving water quality and benefiting nature restoration in their catchment area.

(2) The Authority must not take any action that discourages or prevents a relevant undertaker from making an investment in accordance with subsection (1).’”

This new clause would make it a condition of all water companies’ licences to consider nature-based solutions to flood risk, improving water quality and benefiting nature restoration in their catchment area, and prevent the regulator from discouraging or stopping such investments.

New clause 7—Review of price review process—

“In section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991, after subsection (2B) insert—

‘(2BA) In furthering its objectives and purposes under subsection (2A), the Authority must, within 12 months of the passing of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, review its practices as to reviewing price limits.

(2BB) A review under subsection (2BA) must consider—

(a) whether the current practice of price reviews every five years should be replaced with an annual, or otherwise more frequent, system;

(b) how changes to inflation and other financial or economic changes could or should be reflected in prices charged by water companies;

(c) how any future system of price reviews could better support undertakers in planning and delivering investments beyond a single asset management plan period.’”

New clause 8—Prohibition on bail-out of water company shareholders and creditors—

“(1) The Secretary of State and His Majesty’s Treasury must not directly or indirectly discharge, assume, or guarantee any debts of legal entities in any water company group subject to proceedings under section 24 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (special administration orders made on special petitions), except in accordance with subsection (2).

(2) The special administrator of a water company may reduce the debts owed by the regulated entity to its creditors by up to 100 per cent, taking into account the future forecast expenditure over the short, medium and long term and subject to the administrator’s confidence in the company’s ability to accommodate this spending.

(3) The prohibition set out in subsection (1) and the reduction of debts set out in subsection (2) must not include pension, wage and other obligations owed to employees, excluding any past or current member of a board of directors, within the water company group.”

This new clause aims to allow up to 100% of debts to be cancelled in the event of special administration proceedings, taking into account the scale of investment required to hit the future targets established by the Authority.

New clause 9—Ofwat to publish guidance on debt levels after administration—

“In section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991, after subsection (2D) insert—

‘(2DZA) For the purposes of ensuring that relevant undertakers are able to finance the proper carrying out of their functions under subsection (2A)(c), the Authority must establish guidelines to be followed by relevant undertakers who have been in special administration.

(2DZB) Guidelines produced under subsection (2DZA) must—

(a) set out a maximum level of debt which can be accrued by the undertaker;

(b) set out a process for agreeing capital expenditure necessary for service improvements, bill increases, and changes to operating costs while the undertaker is subject to the Special Administration Regime;

(c) state the penalties which will be imposed for breaches of such guidelines, which may include—

(i) financial penalties;

(ii) prohibitions on the payment of dividends or other bonuses; or

(iii) such other special measures as the Authority deems appropriate.’”

New clause 11—Duty on sewerage undertakers to monitor overflows at sewage treatment works, pumping stations and on the sewer network—

“(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 94—

(a) after subsection (1)(b) insert—

‘(c) to make provision for the accurate collection of data relating to its performance in fulfilling its duties under paragraphs (a) and (b).’

(b) after subsection (2) insert—

‘(2A) In performing its duties under subsection (1)(c), a sewerage undertaker must—

(a) install volume flow meters in all locations where sewage overflows occur, including sewage treatment works, pumping stations and on the sewer network for which it is responsible;

(b) establish appropriate required capacities for each sewage treatment works and pumping station;

(c) publish information on the data and calculations used to establish such required capacities; and

(d) install all required monitoring tools within 12 months of the passing of this Act.’”

New clause 12—Rules about performance-related pay—

“(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 35D (inserted by section 1 of this Act) insert—

‘35E Rules about performance-related pay

(1) The Authority must issue rules prohibiting a relevant undertaker from giving to persons holding senior roles performance-related pay in respect of any financial year in which the undertaker has failed to prevent all sewage discharges, spills, or leaks.

(2) The rules issued under subsection (1) must include—

(a) provision designed to secure that performance-related pay which, if given by a relevant undertaker, would contravene the pay prohibition on the part of the undertaker, is not given by another person;

(b) that any provision of an agreement (whether made before or after the issuing of the rules) is void to the extent that it contravenes the pay prohibition;

(c) provision for a relevant undertaker to recover any payment made, or other property transferred, in breach of the pay prohibition.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)—

(a) “performance-related pay” means any payment, consideration or other benefit (including pension benefit) the giving of which results from the meeting of any targets or performance standards on the part of the relevant undertaker or the person to whom such payment, consideration or benefit is given;

(b) a person holds a “senior role” with a relevant undertaker if the person—

(i) is a chief executive of the undertaker,

(ii) is a director of the undertaker, or

(iii) holds such other description of role with the undertaker as may be specified.’”

This new clause creates a new section in the Water Industry Act 1991 to require Ofwat to ban bonuses for water company bosses if they fail to prevent sewage discharges, spills, or leaks.

New clause 13—Rules about competitive procurement in water infrastructure—

“(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 35A insert—

‘Rules about competitive procurement in water infrastructure

(1) The Authority must issue rules requiring relevant undertakers to use competitive procurement processes in respect of procurement relating to water infrastructure.

(2) If the Authority considers that a relevant undertaker is contravening the rules, the Authority may give the undertaker a direction to do, or not to do, a particular thing specified in the direction.

(3) It is the duty of a relevant undertaker to comply with a direction given under subsection (2), and this duty is enforceable by the Authority under section 18.

(4) Rules under this section may—

(a) make different provision for different relevant undertakers or descriptions of undertakers;

(b) make different provision for different purposes;

(c) make provision subject to exceptions.

(3) The Authority may from time to time—

(a) revise rules issued under this section, and

(b) issue the revised rules.’”

New clause 14—Ofwat consideration of pollution targets for price reviews—

“(1) The Water Industry Act 2011 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 17I insert—

‘“17IA Duty to have regard to pollution targets in carrying out price reviews

When carrying out a periodic review for the purpose of setting a Price Control in respect of one or more relevant undertakers, the Authority must have regard to the performance of the relevant undertaker or undertakers against pollution targets across the previous five years.’”

New clause 15—Database of performance of sewerage undertakers—

“(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.

(2) In Chapter 3 of Part II (Protection of customers etc), after section 27ZA (Power to require information for purpose of monitoring) insert—

‘27ZB Duty to establish database

(1) It shall be the duty of the Authority to establish and maintain a database containing information relating to the performance of sewerage undertakers.

(2) The database must—

(a) be publicly and freely accessible;

(b) enable uploaded information to be updated in live-time;

(c) contain such data or information as the Authority thinks is necessary for the purposes of public transparency as to the performance of sewerage undertakers; and

(d) contain—

(i) current and historic data; and

(ii) data and information which has been independently collected or analysed including—

(a) the start time, end time and duration of all sewage spill events,

(b) flow data from flow monitors,

(c) the location of each flow meter from which flow data is provided.

(3) The Authority may make rules about the provision of data and information under this section.

(4) Rules under subsection (3) must include rules relating to information provided about the location of flow meters.

(5) The Authority may impose penalties on undertakers who fail to provide such information as is required by this section.’”

New clause 16—Establishment of Water Restoration Fund—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 60 days of the passing of this Act, make provision for the establishment, operation and management of a Water Restoration Fund.

(2) A Water Restoration Fund is a fund—

(a) into which any monetary penalties imposed on water companies for specified offences must be paid, and

(b) out of which payments must be made for expenditure on measures—

(i) to help water bodies, including chalk streams, achieve good ecological status, and improve ecological potential and chemical status;

(ii) to prevent further deterioration of the ecological status, ecological potential or chemical status of water bodies, including chalk streams;

(iii) to enable water-dependent habitats to return to, or remain at, favourable condition;

(iv) to restore other water-dependent habitats and species, especially where action supports restoration of associated protected sites or water bodies.

(3) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, list the specified offences for the purposes of this section, which must include—

(a) any relevant provisions of the Water Resources Act 1991, including—

(i) section 24(4) (unlicensed abstraction or related works or contravening abstraction licence);

(ii) section 25(2) (unlicensed impounding works or contravening impounding licence);

(iii) section 25C(1) (contravening abstraction or impounding enforcement notice);

(iv) section 80 (contravening drought order or permit);

(v) section 201(3) (contravening water resources information notice);

(b) any relevant regulations under section 2 of the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 (regulation of polluting activities etc) related to water pollution;

(c) regulations under section 61 of the Water Act 2014 (regulation of water resources etc).

(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(5) The provisions in this section replace any existing provision for the sums received for specified offences, including in section 22A(9) of the Water Industry Act 1991 (penalties).”

New clause 17—Rules about borrowing—

“After section 154B of the Water Industry Act 1991 (financial assistance for major works) insert—

‘Chapter III

Rules about borrowing for undertakers

154C Restrictions on undertakers relating to borrowing

(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument implement a limit on borrowing by a relevant undertaker.

(2) Where a relevant undertaker has total borrowing exceeding the limit set by regulations made under subsection (1), the relevant undertaker may not make a payment of dividends, capital, assets, or interest to shareholders or controlling entities.

(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’”

This new clause would enable limits to be placed on the amount of money that can be borrowed by a water or sewerage undertaker, and prevent an undertaker who has exceeded such limits from being able to pay dividends to shareholders.

New clause 19—Civil penalties: equivalent reduction to customer bills—

“(1) The Secretary of State must make provision for any monetary penalties imposed on a water company to result in equivalent reductions to the amounts charged to customers by the relevant water company.

(2) In fulfilling its duties under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must arrange, annually—

(a) for the total amount of monetary penalties imposed on a water company in the previous year to be calculated;

(b) for that total to be divided by the number of customers of the water company;

(c) for each customer’s next bill from the water company to be reduced by that figure.

(3) Any reduction applied under this section must be indicated on a customer’s statement of account.

(4) In this section, ‘water company’ has the meaning given by section 6(5).”

This new clause would provide for any fines imposed on water companies to result in equivalent reductions to customers’ bills.

New clause 20—Principles of best regulatory practice—

“In section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991, after subsection (4) insert —

(4A) For the purposes of having regard to the principles of best regulatory practice, the Authority shall not employ any individual who has been employed by a relevant undertaker in the preceding three years.”

New clause 21—Environmental duties with respect to protected landscapes—

“After section 4 of the Water Industry Act 1991 insert—

‘4A Environmental duties with respect to protected landscapes

(1) Where a relevant undertaker operates, or has any effect, on land within protected landscapes, that undertaker must—

(a) Secure and maintain “high ecological status” in the water in these areas by 2028;

(b) further the conservation and enhancement of wildlife and natural beauty;

(c) improve every storm overflow that discharges within these areas by 2028;

(d) reduce the load of total phosphorus discharged into freshwaters within these areas from relevant discharges by 2028 to at least 90% lower than the baseline as defined in Regulation 13(1) of the Waste Water Targets set under the Environment Targets (Water) (England) Regulations 2023.

(2) A relevant undertaker must be put into special administration, and not be eligible for a further licence, if it fails to—

(a) demonstrate adequate progress each year;

(b) meet the targets in subsection (1).

(3) Within one year of the day on which the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 is passed, the Secretary of State must lay a report on the undertakers’ implementation of the environmental duties in subsections (1) and (2) before Parliament.

(4) Following the first report being published under subsection (3), a progress report on implementation must be included in the annual environment improvement plan, issued under section 8 of the Environment Act 2021.

(5) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring an undertaker to achieve bespoke objectives for specific iconic and the most culturally and ecologically significant waterways, including, where appropriate, complete removal of sewage discharge from the undertaker’s infrastructure.

(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(7) In this section—

“protected landscapes” includes national parks, national landscapes and national trails;

”land” includes rivers, lakes, streams, estuarine and other waterways;

”High Ecological Status” means the classification of water bodies defined in Regulation 6 of The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017.’”

New clause 22—Consultation on public ownership of water companies—

“(1) The Secretary of State must within three months of this Act coming into force, publish a public consultation on making provision for the transfer of ownership of undertakers to public ownership.

(2) The consultation must consider—

(a) the process of transferring private water companies to public ownership;

(b) the circumstances in which water companies will be transferred to public ownership;

(c) the establishment of new public bodies to manage water services;

(d) transition arrangements for employees, contracts, and ongoing operations;

(e) governance structures for publicly-owned water services, including provisions for local democratic control and accountability.

(3) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of the passing of this Act, lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on this consultation.”

New clause 23—Special administration for breach of environmental and other obligations—

“(1) Section 24 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (special administration orders made on special petitions) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (2)(a), insert—

‘(aa) that there have been failures resulting in enforcement action from the Authority or the Environment Agency on three or more occasions to—

(i) maintain efficient and economical water supply,

(ii) improve mains for the flow of clean water,

(iii) provide sewerage systems that are effectually drained,

(iv) comply with the terms of its licence, or

(v) abide by anti-pollution duties in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Water Resources Act 1991, or the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 (SI 2016/1154);’

(3) After subsection (2), insert—

‘(2A) In support of an application made by virtue of subsection (1)(a) in relation to subsection (2)(aa), the Secretary of State must compile and present to the High Court records of—

(a) water pipe leaks

(b) sewage spilled into waterways, bathing waters, and private properties, and

(c) falling below international standards of effective water management.’”

This new clause aims to require the Secretary of State to place a water company into special administration arrangements if they breach certain environmental or other conditions.

New clause 24—Special administration: criminal convictions—

“After subsection (2)(e) of section 24 of the Water Industry Act 1991 insert—

‘(f) that has been the recipient of two or more criminal convictions in the last five years.’”

This new clause aims to exert pressure on companies to operate within the law by preventing water companies with numerous criminal convictions from remaining in business.

New clause 25—Companies to be placed in special measures for missing pollution targets—

“In section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991, after subsection (2D) insert—

‘(2DZA) For the purposes of ensuring that the functions of water and sewerage undertakers are properly carried out, the Authority must establish—

(a) annual, and

(b) rolling five-year average pollution targets which must be met by water and sewerage undertakers, and the penalties to be imposed for failure to meet such targets.

(2DZB) The performance of a water or sewerage undertaker against such targets must be measured through independent analysis of monitoring data.

(2DZC) A timetable produced under subsection (2DZA)(b) must require the following reductions in the duration of sewage spill events, using the annual total hours’ duration of all sewage spill events recorded by Event Duration Monitors, based on an average from the last five years, as a baseline—

(a) a 25% reduction within five years;

(b) a 60% reduction within ten years;

(c) an 85% reduction within fifteen years; and

(d) a 99% reduction within twenty years.

(2DZD) A water or sewerage undertaker which fails to meet pollution targets set out by the Authority will be subject to such special measures as the Authority deems appropriate, which may include—

(a) being required to work on improvement projects with or take instruction from the Authority, the relevant Government department, or such other bodies or authorities as the Authority deems appropriate; and

(b) financial penalties.’”

New clause 26—Independent review: companies exiting a special administration regime—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, either—

(a) commission an independent review, or

(b) take steps to extend the terms of reference of any existing independent review or commission,

to consider the merits of changing the law to provide that a water company exiting a special administration regime becomes a company mutually owned by its customers.

(2) A review under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) the general merits of mutual ownership of water companies in such circumstances, and

(b) what model of mutual ownership would be most suitable.

(3) The Secretary of State must, as soon as practicable after receiving a report of a review under subsection (1), lay before both Houses of Parliament—

(a) a copy of the report, and

(b) a statement setting out the Secretary of State’s response to that report.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the potential merits of changing the law so that a water company exiting a special administration regime becomes a company mutually owned by its customers.

Amendment 23, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—

“(1A) The Authority must use its power under subsection (1) to issue rules which require—

(a) the interests of customers, and

(b) the environment,

to be listed as primary objectives in a relevant undertaker’s Articles of Association.”

Amendment 15, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—

“(d) requiring the management board of a relevant undertaker to include at least one representative of each of the following—

(i) groups for the benefit and interests of consumers;

(ii) groups for the benefit and interests of residents of the areas in which the undertaker is operational;

(iii) experts in water and sewerage policy and management; and

(iv) environmental interest groups.”

Amendment 16, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—

“(d) preventing a relevant undertaker from employing any individual who has been employed by the Authority in the preceding three years.”

Amendment 17, in clause 2, page 4, line 34, after “occurrence” insert “and impact”. Amendment 19, in clause 2, page 5, line 15, after “occurrence” insert “and impact”.

Amendment 18, in clause 2, page 5, line 17, at end insert—

“(ea) the use the undertaker plans to make of nature-based solutions for reducing the occurrence and impact of pollution incidents,”.

Amendment 11, in clause 3, page 7, line 35, at end insert—

“(e) the volume of the discharge.”

Amendment 12, in clause 3, page 7, line 38, leave out “subsection (1)(d)” and insert “subsections (1)(d) and (e)”.

Amendment 1, in clause 3, page 8, line 5, at end insert—

“(c) be published on the home page of the undertaker’s website.”

This amendment would ensure that information regarding a discharge from an emergency overflow must be published on the home page of the undertaker’s website.

Amendment 13, in clause 3, page 8, line 5, at end insert—

“(c) be uploaded and updated automatically, where possible;

(d) be made available on the undertaker’s website alongside searchable and comparable historic data.”

Amendment 14, in clause 3, page 8, line 5, at end insert—

“(3A) The undertaker must ensure that, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, appropriate monitors are installed to collect the information required by subsection (1).”

Amendment 22, in clause 3, page 8, line 27, leave out from start to “in” and insert

“a Minister with specific responsibility for issues relating to the coast,”.

Amendment 2, in clause 3, page 9, line 23, at end insert—

“141H Failure to report discharge from emergency overflows

(1) If a relevant undertaker fails to comply with its duties under section 141F—

(a) the undertaker commits an offence, and

(b) the chief executive of the undertaker commits an offence, subject to subsection (2).

(2) It is a defence for the chief executive to prove that they took all reasonable steps to avoid the failure.

(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable, on summary conviction or conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or an unlimited fine, or both.”

This amendment would make it an offence for an undertaker to fail to comply with its duty to report discharges from emergency overflows.

Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 9, line 23, at end insert—

“141H Restriction on the use of emergency overflows in areas used for aquatic sports

(1) A sewerage undertaker must not permit a discharge from an emergency overflow in an area used for aquatic sports.

(2) In this section, an “area used for aquatic sports” is a section of any body of water connected to and within a one mile radius of—

(a) the clubhouse of a rowing club affiliated with British Rowing,

(b) a Royal Yacht association training centre or the clubhouse of an affiliate member, and

(c) the properties or facilities used by any organisation that the Secretary of State deems to provides water-based sporting activities for the purpose of teaching, training or leisure.

(3) If a relevant undertaker fails to comply with its duties under section (1)—

(a) the undertaker commits an offence, and

(b) the chief executive of the undertaker commits an offence, subject to subsection (4).

(4) It is a defence for the chief executive to prove that they took all reasonable steps to avoid the failure

(5) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable, on summary conviction or conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or an unlimited fine, or both.”

This amendment creates an offence for a sewerage undertaker to use an emergency overflow in an area used for aquatic sports.

Amendment 20, in clause 4, page 9, line 29, leave out

“use that is to be made of”

and insert

“priority that is to be given to”.

Amendment 21, in clause 9, page 13, line 40, leave out from “duties” to end of page 14, line 2.

Government amendment 4.

Amendment 9, in clause 12, page 15, line 34, leave out from “to” to “such” in line 36 and insert “recover from its creditors”.

Amendment 26, in clause 12, page 15, line 39, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State may not require or permit any modified charges to be imposed on persons who do not receive services from the company for the purposes of making good any SAO loss.”

Amendment 10, in clause 13, page 18, line 13, leave out from “to” to “such” in line 15 and insert “recover from its creditors”.

Amendment 27, in clause 13, page 18, line 18, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State may not require or permit any modified charges to be imposed on persons who do not receive services from the company for the purposes of making good any SAO loss.”

Amendment 24, in clause 15, page 21, line 4, leave out subsections (2) to (8) and insert—

“(2) The provisions of this Act come into force on the day on which this Act is passed.”

Government amendments 5, 6, 7 and 8. \p Emma Hardy: What a delight it is to be back in the Chamber debating this transformational Bill. I will keep my opening comments brief, because I know that many want to speak, and I will respond to amendments tabled by hon. Members when closing this debate after hon. Members have spoken to them, as is established practice.

I want to start by thanking all members of the Public Bill Committee for their careful consideration and scrutiny of the Bill and, dare I say, their comradery in discussions and debates. It is clear that this is an area that everyone acknowledges is in need of change and reform. I also thank the Chairs, the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq). It was a pleasure to serve under them.

Since being in Committee, I have had several further insightful conversations on the Bill with Members from across the House and on the amendments tabled by the Government for consideration on Report, which I will take the opportunity to speak to now. I will start with Government amendment 4, which is a minor and technical amendment that ensures that clause 10 encompasses new enforcement functions arising from the changes made to clause 2 in the other place.

Government amendment 4 clarifies that cost recovery powers for the Environment Agency, expanded by the provisions in clause 10, also extend to costs incurred when enforcing the requirement to publish implementation plans. That requirement was added on Report in the Lords after cross-party discussions and collaboration. The amendment also clarifies that EA cost recovery powers concerning both pollution incident reduction plans and implementation reports are available for plans covering areas that are wholly or mainly in Wales, as well as for plans covering England, which are already included in clause 10. Such clarifications ensure that the  EA regulators in both England and Wales can fully recover costs for the extent of their water company enforcement activities and carry out their duties and functions effectively.

The Government have tabled amendments 5 to 7 in order to commence clause 1 on Royal Assent. That will give Ofwat and companies certainty on when the powers to make rules on remuneration and governance will come into force and will therefore be useful to companies in planning for the 2025-26 financial year. Commencement of clause 1 on Royal Assent will ensure Ofwat can implement its rules as soon as possible following its statutory consultation with relevant persons, which include the Secretary of State, Welsh Ministers and the Consumer Council for Water. I know that some Members have expressed concerns around the timeline over which Ofwat’s rules will come into effect. I therefore hope the alteration to the commencement provisions for clause 1 will reassure those Members that the Government and the regulators are absolutely committed to ensuring Ofwat’s rules are put in place as quickly as possible.

I now turn to new clause 18, which is the most substantial of the Government amendments. As I have stated before, this Government are a Government of service, and we are absolutely committed to taking action to address water poverty. We are working with industry to keep existing support schemes under review to ensure vulnerable customers across the country are supported. We also expect companies to hold themselves accountable for their public commitment to end water poverty by 2030 and will work with the sector to ensure appropriate measures are taken to deliver that.

That is why we have tabled the new clause, which adds to the existing powers to provide for special charging arrangements for customers in need. The new provision will enable water companies to provide consistent support for consumers across the country. It will also allow for automatic enrolment on any future scheme and broader information sharing between public authorities and water companies. The clause imposes a requirement for consultation on any future scheme, and it also amends the Digital Economy Act 2017 to ensure that water companies identify eligible customers and that they get the full support to which they are entitled. \p John Hayes: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for her ongoing discussions about drainage and local authorities and other water-related matters. On the issue of water poverty, can she confirm that, either as part of the Bill or as an adjunct to it, when water companies fail to deliver an adequate service in new build situations—where new houses are built, but the water infrastructure is insufficient to furnish those new houses with the proper supply of water—the Bill and the regulatory environment that she has just described will allow customers to get their entitlement and to free themselves from water poverty, as she put it? \p Emma Hardy: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and also for the many times that he has talked to me about internal drainage boards since I became a Minister. On his question, if customers are not getting the service to which they are entitled, that is absolutely something that should be taken through Ofwat and the regulators. I am more than happy to pick that matter up with him outside the Chamber.

I hope that Members across the House will agree that new clause 18 is a welcome addition to the Bill, ensuring that the Government have the necessary powers in place to bring forward secondary legislation in future—once we have thoroughly considered all options for improving the support available for vulnerable customers. \p David Chadwick: Does the Minister agree that it is supremely unjust that, in Wales, customers face some of the highest bills for their water, despite having some of the lowest incomes in the United Kingdom? \p Emma Hardy: Bills have obviously had to increase in the latest price review because we have had record levels of under-investment in our infrastructure. However, new clause 18 is intended to ensure greater fairness. It is important for struggling customers that he, as the local Member of Parliament, is talking to the water companies to ensure that they are informed about the support mechanisms that are available, and about how they can access them and everything else to which they are entitled. \p Graham Stuart: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. She will know that just 7% of outfalls were monitored when Labour last left office. I am pleased to say that that figure is now 100%. Does she not agree that new clause 16 would ensure that the fines collected from polluting water companies through the water restoration fund, which was founded by the Conservatives in 2022, are used to improve and prevent further deterioration of our waterways, including our precious chalk streams? Will she now do what we all look to Ministers to do, which is pirouette at the Dispatch Box, recognise the rightness of the cause and change course? \p Emma Hardy: The right hon. Gentleman is indeed an eager beaver. As much as I do not wish to pour water on his enthusiasm, I will of course respond to all the amendments at the end of this stage of the Bill, as protocol expects. I hope he is able to contain his excitement, and is looking forward to my final comments on that area. And I shall be practising my pirouettes in anticipation.

I wish to pay special thanks to the Welsh Government, the Deputy First Minister and the officials who have worked so openly and collaboratively with the UK Government throughout the development and passage of this Bill. I also thank the Senedd for their consent, which we received on 21 January. I look forward to continuing to work closely with our Welsh counterparts to protect our rivers, lakes and seas, particularly those that cross our borders. \p Catherine Fookes: I thank my hon. Friend for all her work on this Bill. Does she agree that we have made much more progress on banning bosses’ bonuses in the six months that we have been in office than the Conservatives did in 14 years? \p Emma Hardy: That excellent point was well made by my hon. Friend. I hope all hon. Members agree that the amendments tabled by the Government will only strengthen this Bill and will support new clause 18. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. We have many contributions to come and quite a tight deadline, so Back Benchers will be limited to four minutes. I call the shadow Minister. \p Neil Hudson: I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this vital issue of water quality once again. As His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition have maintained through the passage of the Bill, it is just an attempt to copy and paste some of the work done by the previous Conservative Government and the measures taken to identify the problem. We will not shy away from the fact that the Conservative Government were the first to identify the scale of the sewage problem and actually to start to address it. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) just said, when Labour left office in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were monitored. When we Conservatives left office last year, 100% were monitored and our landmark Environment Act 2021 paved the way to improving the quality of our precious waters.

However, we are under no illusions: there is always more that can be done, and we have always said that we will seek to work constructively to make the Bill as effective as possible. In that spirit, I thank the Minister for her willingness to discuss matters of the Bill with me and with colleagues across the House; the Minister in the other place, Baroness Hayman, showed an equal willingness to listen to suggestions from colleagues. I also thank members of the Bill Committee for their constructive approach and all the Bill team, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and parliamentary staff supporting this legislation and our scrutiny of it.

As a result of that dialogue, the Bill now includes welcome improvements in several areas, such as company requirements to produce implementation reports to outline how they envision their commitments on improving water quality happening, as well as consideration of nature-based solutions in licensing activities. However, in that same constructive spirit, the Opposition today ask the Government to go even further. We want the Government to back our new clause 16 mandating the water restoration fund, which had cross-party support in Committee. I thank the good folk of the Conservative Environment Network and Wildlife and Countryside Link for their support and campaigning on the new clause, as well as the Angling Trust for its discussions. I also thank the former MP for Ludlow and former Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee Philip Dunne for his assiduous efforts to see the fund introduced. \p Desmond Swayne: These are very substantial sums. A water company in my region was fined £100 million the year before last. It is vital that these amounts go to our chalk streams, which are in desperate need of them. \p Neil Hudson: I totally agree with my right hon. Friend. It is right that if water companies do the wrong thing, the money levied from them is ploughed back into improving the water and not back into Treasury coffers. The water restoration fund, since being introduced by the previous Conservative Government, provided £11 million for communities to repair their local waterways and restore them to the quality they should be. \p Graham Stuart: To follow up the point made by our right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), that money will ultimately come from water bill payers. It will be ordinary families across the country who must contribute to the £100 million fines or whatever is imposed on our water companies. For that to be taken and then swallowed by the Treasury, rather than used to improve water, would be a disgrace. Does he not agree that the Government must accept new clause 16? \p Neil Hudson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I will come on to an amendment we have also tabled to ensure that if fines are levied on water companies, customers’ bills go down accordingly, so that taxpayers and bill payers are not penalised for water companies doing the wrong thing.

The Government have made ejections in this House and in the other place to the principle of ringfencing the funding and have stated the need for the Treasury to have flexibility on how it spends that money, but in this specific case, their argument still does not stack up. Where money comes from taxation, ringfencing is not always the most reliable way to ensure that the Treasury can have the spending power it needs to deliver that spending, but here we are talking about something very different. Fines are much more uncertain and provide less of a guarantee regarding the amount of money they will bring in. To rely on those funds for day-to-day Treasury spending does not make sense. Ringfencing those penalties for our water restoration fund is a sensible measure that enables Governments to guarantee they can meet a specific need. Water companies pay the fines for the damage they have done, and the local communities affected are empowered to have their local waterways restored.

It is worth repeating the finer detail of our amendment; it should not go ignored that this will also improve chalk streams. It was incredibly disappointing that over Christmas, the Government revealed that they had abandoned plans by the Conservatives to recover our chalk streams. Given that England is home to 80% of the world’s chalk streams, a failure to act on this issue neglects a vital duty to protect a key part of our environment. In light of this, we believe that the Government need to think again about rejecting our important amendment, which is a matter of principle, a matter of justice in righting wrongs, and a fundamental commitment to water quality.

When it comes to improving our waters, it is supporting those who are most affected when water companies fail to abide by their duties that are at the heart of the Opposition’s concerns —the British public, as individual consumers, bill payers and members of local communities. Customers must not pay the price for water companies’ failure to do their duties, whether financial, environmental or otherwise. As such, the Opposition have tabled new clause 19, which would require the DEFRA Secretary of State to provide that where a water company has faced financial penalties for failure to comply with the law, a financial amount equal to those penalties must be removed from the bills of that water company’s consumers.

This is very important, as a toxic cocktail of poor behaviour by water companies and rising bill prices has led to many people feeling that they are receiving poor value for money and not getting the quality water services  that they deserve. A concomitant reduction in customer bills that people will see directly on their statements will be a real and tangible sign that poor behaviour is not going unchecked. The Government have previously rejected the proposal, but we urge them to think again about this simple yet effective amendment that would do so much to underpin all the work that is being done and protect bill payers.

I turn to some of our further amendments. Our concerns about the water industry and finances extend to what is in the Bill as it stands—in particular, the provisions for special administration orders in clauses 12 and 13, which the Opposition have raised in the other place and in Committee. Those clauses would give the Government the power to recover any losses they make through placing a company in special administration by raising consumer bills. My Conservative colleagues in the other place sounded the alarm on this issue, and I put on record again my thanks to them for doing so. If water companies require the Government to place them in special administration through their own failure, why should consumers foot the bill for failures they have had no influence on or responsibility for? That is particularly the case if a customer’s bills will rise as a result of mismanagement by a company whose services they do not even rely on.

This proposal runs contrary to the nature of all the action taken in recent years to improve water quality, whereby companies that are responsible for failing to get their affairs in order must take responsibility. We have all been starkly aware of concerns surrounding the financial resilience of Thames Water, and as many will know, Ofwat’s “Monitoring financial resilience” report in November identified 10 companies that needed an increased level of monitoring and/or engagement concerning financial resilience. We acknowledge that the Government believe that they expect to use special administration orders as a last resort and in limited circumstances. However, it is the Opposition’s firm belief that an injustice remains, with people having to pay for companies that they have no connection to. We have therefore tabled amendments 26 and 27, which would explicitly forbid the raising of prices for consumers who do not use the services of the water company that is in special administration. We believe this is a fair and reasonable compromise that the Government should accept, so that we can work to improve the water industry’s financial practices.

We have also tabled new clause 17, which would amend the Water Industry Act 1991 to insert new rules regarding limits on the amount of money that can be borrowed by a water company. Regrettably, the Government rejected this sensible measure in Committee, so we have tabled it again to ensure that water companies do not excessively borrow money, which is ultimately bad for bill payers. When we talk about financial resilience, the heart of the issue is concern about borrowing, and the resultant over-leveraging in the industry. We will be pushing that new clause to a Division. We will also be supporting the measures on nature recovery that we tabled in Committee.

We will be looking very closely at some of the amendments from the Liberal Democrats. New clause 2, which they tabled in Committee, would abolish Ofwat. At that stage, we pointed out that the new clause was not explicit about what it would transition to, so we do not believe that is a sensible way forward.

New clause 18 would grant the Government a power to create a unified scheme of charging arrangements for customers in need of support regardless of the specific supplier, and introduce a consultation for that purpose. Although the Opposition welcome looking at that, can the Government please ensure that others consumers do not face rising bills as a result? It will be interesting to see what the Government do with that.

To conclude, we urge the Government not to waste this opportunity to make this Bill properly effective. Members on both sides of the House want a clean water system, a healthy water environment, financially resilient water companies and fairness for the consumer. The Government have the opportunity to work towards that, with the constructive suggestions made by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. We have made those suggestions at all stages of the Bill, and we urge the Government to take them forward. \p Nusrat Ghani: Back Benchers are on a four-minute limit. \p Clive Lewis: I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

First, I thank EFRA Ministers for the work they have done on this Bill, and for everything they have been doing in working on the consultation. It is quite clear to most of the public that not only is England’s privatised model of water failing, but it is an extreme ideological outlier. It is one of the worst for costs and results. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) is chuntering away in his place. We need a long-term, patient approach, especially given the climate crisis, and that is fundamentally incompatible with privatisation. \p Victoria Collins: While the chief executive officer of Thames Water was getting £195,000 in bonuses, we in Harpenden and Berkhamsted saw over 100 days of non-stop sewage in our river, which is a chalk stream. The same is now happening again, one year later, with 1,000 hours of non-stop sewage. Does the hon. Member agree that the system clearly does not work, and that such bonuses do not provide the right incentives? \p Clive Lewis: I agree with the hon. Lady. I hope her party comes to its senses at some point—maybe in the same way that my party needs to come to its senses—and accept that some form of public ownership will probably be the best way to resolve that. \p Pippa Heylings: Have you? \p Clive Lewis: That is my personal view; I put that on the record.

These companies have legal obligations first and foremost to their shareholders, which means short-term profit maximisation. When water was privatised, to quote from Unison’s recent report on this matter, to

“ensure the commercial success of the companies, the government wrote off all the existing debts of the RWAs”—

regional water authorities—

“(£6.5 billion in total) and gave the private companies £7.7 billion of public subsidies in tax relief on profits.”

It has come to my attention that even some former chief executives of water companies fear for the future of the industry, because good investors have by and large exited it. It is now the Macquaries and vulture capitalists of this world that dominate shareholding.

This issue goes far beyond regulation. Indeed, our own regulator, Ofwat, has been found wanting, as its own growth duty prioritises business as usual. In other areas, the Government have quite rightly recognised and embraced the value of public ownership, such as in rail and with Great British Energy. Unfortunately, when it comes to water companies there seems to be an inconsistency in Government policy. Many of us on this side of the House ran on a manifesto commitment to reduce the cost of living, and that commitment is one that I think every Labour MP believes in. However, the cost of corruption and of extraction by a private water company should under no circumstances, as is currently configured in the Bill, land on the heads of our constituents should any of these companies go bust or be taken into special administration.

Water is a monopoly industry, which means that bill payers and taxpayers are the same. What message would it send to our constituents if they are asked to pay, via their bills or via tax, to make a payout for the mistakes and excesses of privatised water? \p Graham Stuart: Doubtless the behaviour of the privatised firms should be looked at closely, but one of the fundamentals of having a state-run system for such long-term assets was that they were chronically under-invested. They could never win out in the political battle between schools, hospitals and long-term water infrastructure, and only privatisation allowed the record investment that has gone in since. The hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that in trying to get the balance right. \p Clive Lewis: I do recognise that, and not for one second am I calling for nationalisation, which is the model the right hon. Member was talking about. There is a plethora of possibilities for public ownership, from mutualisation through to giving regional authorities more scope, and even working with the private sector. We must ensure that the public have a critical say over the future of water, and there are multiple forms that public ownership can take. I am not necessarily in favour of 1970s-style nationalisation, which is pretty much what they have in Scotland at the moment.

I will, however, ask those on the Front Bench to consider new clause 8 and ensure that our constituents—the people we came into politics for—do not foot a single penny more for the failures of privatised water. Investors, shareholders and creditors should be the ones who take the haircut. They should be the ones who foot the bill because of what they have done to our water. This should not be landing on the heads of our constituents. This is a political choice, and I urge my Government to make it clear that we will always back the public, not the private companies that have got us into this mess. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Tim Farron: I pay tribute to the Minister and the Bill team from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who are in the Chamber, as well as to all my colleagues who sat on the Committee for what was a genuinely enjoyable and collegiate experience. I hope they will forgive me for making a few criticisms in the next few minutes.

We tabled 44 amendments in Committee, but only 34 today, you will be delighted to know Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I know—I am failing. I will not speak to all of them for blindingly obvious reasons. We tabled those amendments because we in the Liberal Democrats, humbly yet enthusiastically, have taken on the mantle in this place and beyond of being the voice for many thousands of campaigners, volunteers and citizen scientists who continue to lead the way in exposing the failures and injustices in the water industry, and fighting for meaningful change. We are immensely grateful to those people all across the country.

Our water industry has become a money-making vessel for speculators, who appear to care little for the quality of our rivers, lakes and seas—something I can tell the House is a source of great fury in England’s precious Lake district. The water companies have accumulated £70 billion in debt since privatisation, while still managing to pay out £83 billion in dividends. That is more than a third of the total spent on infrastructure during that time. In the last year, water companies paid out £9.3 million in executive bonuses, and Thames Water’s bonuses doubled to £1.3 million that year. Money leaks out of the industry, infrastructure is failing, and it is our constituents who pay the price.

Meanwhile the regulatory framework has failed utterly and is not fit for purpose. As I speak, £164 million in fines has been levied against water companies by Ofwat, following an investigation that began four years ago, of which it has so far failed to collect a single penny. \p Layla Moran: Thames Water has had an increase in the number of pollution incidents, which went up 40% in six months last year. It has been issued with fines, but that has not changed anything. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need regulation with proper teeth, and that new clause 25 would do exactly that by putting water companies into special measures when they fail our constituents? \p Tim Farron: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. The water companies simply do not fear Ofwat, or indeed any other part of our fragmented regulatory system. They dwarf Ofwat in terms of resources, they flout the limited regulations that they face, and they run rings around the regulators and obviously get away with it. There was the outrage of the water companies being permitted, just before Christmas, to increase water bills by 36% by 2030, and what makes it even worse is that a third of customers’ bills are being spent just on servicing the debt—a debt that was in part run up to fund excessive dividends.

Water companies are already passing on the consequences of their complete financial mismanagement to our constituents—their customers—but this Bill could enable that to go further and to be even worse. According to the Government’s explanatory notes,

“following the provision of financial assistance by the Secretary of State to a company in special administration”,

clause 12 of the Bill, as drafted, would

“require a water company to raise amounts of money determined by the Secretary of State from its consumers, and to pay those amounts to the Secretary of State to make good any shortfall”.

In other words, when a water company goes into special administration, there is a cost to the Government of ensuring that supply is maintained, and the Government need to recoup that cost. That sounds reasonable at first glimpse, but it does not seem reasonable that bill payers should have to pick up the tab, despite bearing none of the blame for the financial mess a water company finds itself in.

My hon. Friends and I are keen to press amendment 9, which would make it explicit that it should be the creditors of the companies—the big financial investors that have loaded debt on to the water companies—that cover those costs instead. The amendment would strike out the Government’s provision in the Bill that opens up bill payers to carrying the cost of paying off company debt, even in the event of bankruptcy. \p Bobby Dean: I fear that the Government’s drive for growth has meant that they have become fearful of the tough regulation that my hon. Friend suggests. They see it only as an impediment, instead of the basis for a stable economy. Does he agree that weak regulation is not only bad for consumers and for the environment, but also for investment over the long run? \p Tim Farron: Somebody representing the water industry will say that the water industry, as structured, is deeply unappealing to investors. There is a case for changing the model of how we structure those companies. When a company goes into special administration, we do not think it is right that innocent customers should have to foot the bill. The management of those companies, and their investors and creditors, are responsible for the mess the company is in. They took the risks and speculated in order to make money, so it is only right that they should have to cover the costs of the risks that they took, not our constituents.

One of the positive aspects of the Bill is the Government’s decision to deploy volunteers, citizen scientists and campaigners to ensure scrutiny of the water industry. Only last week, I spent time speaking with the leaders of the Save Windermere campaign and the Clean River Kent Campaign. I also enjoyed getting my hands dirty and my legs very wet alongside the Eden Rivers Trust in the River Eden not long ago. We are lucky across the whole country to have passionate, committed, expert volunteers who are dedicated to cleaning up and protecting our precious waterways, yet we are saddened that the Government have failed to provide those volunteers with the resources they need or the power they deserve. \p Gideon Amos: Does my hon. Friend agree that one kind of support that such community groups need is water restoration grants? Those are vital and will flow from the water restoration fund, which is the subject of one of his amendments. Those funds are vital to cleaning up bathing waters across the country. \p Tim Farron: Those funds are vital. Bathing water status is important. We hope that DEFRA will come out with new criteria soon so that places such as the River Kent can bid to be included.

We have tabled new clauses 4, 10, 13 and 15, which between them would strengthen the hand of those wonderful volunteers, including by ensuring that the Government’s proposed live database, which we support, retains comprehensive historical data. If it does not, the Government are expecting campaigners to be watching that database 24/7. If they have the temerity to go to sleep, look after their kids or go to work, they may miss something. If we are to back campaigners and volunteers, the least we can do is give them the tools to scrutinise water companies’ performance. Knowledge is power, and our amendments would give those campaigners knowledge and power.

New clause 11 and amendment 14 address monitoring. Event duration monitors tell us how long a spill took place over. For instance, they tell us that last February, United Utilities spilled into Windermere for 10 hours in one go, but those monitors do not tell us anything about volume. As a result, they do not tell us enough about the impact of sewage spills on the ecology and wildlife of our waterways. It is equally possible to have a long duration trickle or a short duration deluge of sewage into our lakes, rivers and seas. New clause 11 would insist that water companies have to measure and report on the volume of discharges and that regulators hold them to it.

New clause 25 would put into law concrete pollution targets and proper penalties when companies fail to meet them. Companies who fail to meet those targets would be put into what we are calling special measures, meaning that they would be subject to financial penalties and/or be made to undertake a specific improvement project. No water company chief executive will quake in their boots if they are not held to targets that are ambitious and enforceable with penalties, and which actually mean something.

Water industry staff do amazing work, giving us the world’s cleanest drinking water and working their socks off to tackle and repair leaks, to bolster infrastructure and to oversee the operation of waste water treatment systems to serve our communities. They are just as much victims as their fellow bill payers of the utterly failed system that we are faced with. The system has failed for two key reasons: inadequate regulation and a broken ownership and financial model. That is why we propose through new clause 2 the abolition of Ofwat and the creation of a new consolidated super-regulator, with the power, focus and resource to hold the water industry to account and to enforce stronger rules.

New clause 26 would migrate water companies away from the failed privatised model and towards mutual ownership status. This would prevent the water industry from being used as a cash cow for speculators, where bill payers pay the price through higher bills and sewage-infested rivers and lakes, and instead create a form of ownership where a “low risk, with modest but reliable reward” model would ensure that we attract responsible investors and prevent money leaking out of the system in the form of unearned dividends and immoral financing of colossal debt.

We recognise the Government’s decision to present the Bill now and hold out the hope of more radical change later in the Parliament, following the recommendations  of Sir Jon Cunliffe’s review. We confess, however, to suffering from extreme raised eyebrow syndrome today, as it has been revealed that a former Thames Water executive has been appointed to Sir Jon’s independent water commission. That does not fill us with enormous confidence.

The Bill is okay—it is even good in parts—but it would be significantly better with the Liberal Democrats’ suggested amendments. We humbly ask right hon. and hon. Members to support those amendments, and especially amendment 9, to give the British people the radical water industry clean-up that they voted for. \p Catherine Fookes: I thank the Minister for bringing forward the Bill so fast in the first six months of the Government. It was an honour to sit on the Bill Committee and to engage in constructive discussion with hon. Members from across the House. However, I must take issue with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and his veritable smorgasbord of amendments and new clauses. I will not support them, because, let us remember, this is just the first step in cleaning up the appalling mess we have been left with our water companies. I am sure that the commission will bring forward ideas for more legislation.

I grew up in the countryside on a farm, and one of my favourite memories was running down the garden and out into the river at the bottom, going for a walk and sploshing through the streams. I and my family took it for granted that we could just mess about in the streams. Apart from really annoying my mum when I got back by leaving a messy puddle of water on the floor, there was never any fear that I would get sick or that I had been wading through sewage. What a change there has been, with parents now worried about their children going into the water. They cannot run helter-skelter into the local chalk stream for fear that they will get an ear infection or an eye infection, or perhaps encounter a wet wipe or something much worse.

Sadly, the health of the Wye and the Usk, our two majestic rivers in Monmouthshire, has really suffered over the past 14 years. I have spent many happy hours walking alongside them, seeing herons and kingfishers, and we have had some of our happiest family days out there. The dreadful state that those two rivers are in makes them two really good examples of the 14 years of Conservative failure and flimflam. We have record levels of illegal sewage dumping in our rivers, lakes and seas, and chronic ongoing diffuse pollution from agriculture.

In every constituency across the UK there are amazing groups of citizen scientists who have really brought our rivers to the fore. I pay tribute to Save the River Usk and Friends of the River Wye in Monmouthshire, who are among the best in the UK. [Interruption.] I am afraid that I will not give way as we are under extreme time pressure. One of my key promises in the election campaign was to work to clean up our rivers. Feargal Sharkey endorsed my campaign—when someone like him endorses a campaign, we know that we will be held to account. That is why I am so pleased that in the last six months we have done more than the Conservatives and the Lib Dems when they were in coalition.

I am proud that we are already standing here debating the Bill, only six months in. It will bring criminal charges against persistent lawbreakers, with penalties including imprisonment. In addition, the cost recovery powers of  regulators will be expanded to ensure that water companies bear the cost of enforcement action taken in response to their failings.

We have been left a very difficult legacy due to the disastrous inaction of the Tories and the Lib Dems when they were in coalition. It will take much more work and many years across borders, with both farmers and water companies, to restore our rivers, but the Bill makes an excellent start to cleaning up the horrific mess. It will mean that in future, I hope, parents will be able to allow their children to run helter-skelter into their local rivers and streams. \p Joy Morrissey: I would like to speak to amendments 2 and 3, tabled in my name. Amendment 2 would further strengthen the Bill by making it a criminal offence for water companies to fail to report discharge from emergency overflows. Amendment 3 would prohibit such discharge in river areas such as the Thames that are used for aquatic sports.

I have the privilege of representing the towns and villages of Beaconsfield, Marlow, Bourne End and the south Bucks villages. Unfortunately, we are served by Thames Water, and we have some of the highest levels of fines in the country. We are blessed with a beautiful waterway setting throughout my constituency, including the River Thames. Our area is rich in watersport clubs—the Marlow rowing club, the Marlow canoe club and the Upper Thames sailing club to name but three. Young people from high schools and grammar schools use the Thames for their water sports as well.

Amendment 3 would give water used for aquatic sports the same protection as that used for bathing. It would establish clear consequences for water companies and their chief executives where they fail to comply with a clear duty to protect the water in which people practise aquatic sports, particularly rowing. That is particularly true of Thames Water and of the Thames. I appreciate the cross-party support in Committee on these amendments.

Aquatic sports are an important part of our sporting heritage in this country, but storm overflow discharge into our rivers has adversely affected the health of participants, creating an ongoing health risk to rowing, sailing, canoeing and other aquatic sports clubs along the Thames and across the country. Many clubs, particularly in places such as Marlow, take their duty of care very seriously, and are having to put in place their own monitoring systems to protect their members.

Amendment 3 would ensure that water used for aquatic sports was put on the same statutory footing as bathing water. It is time for water companies to take responsibility for ensuring that those waters are safe to use, and to protect our young people for the future. The amendments set out a reasonable expectation that a water company must not discharge an emergency overflow within a 1-mile radius of an area used for aquatic sports. The definition of such an area is clearly outlined, and further discretion is provided for the Secretary of State to determine such areas where needed. The amendment would bring much-needed support to our vital aquatic sports. \p David Simmonds: My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour and I, along with my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, have held a  number of meetings with local stakeholders and the Canal & River Trust about these issues, which affect the River Colne, which crosses our respective constituencies. Does she share my appreciation of the measures introduced by the last Government, which ensure effective monitoring? Will she join me in thanking Conservative-led Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Hillingdon councils for their work to ensure that watersports users have access to good quality, clean facilities? \p Joy Morrissey: My hon. Friend raises an excellent point—the previous Government put in place monitoring for all waterways so that we can hold water companies to account. He mentioned the cross-border and cross-party efforts, but mainly those of the Conservative councils that worked together to hold Thames Water and other water companies to account.

I was surprised that the Government did not readily accept amendment 3, as it is not party political. It is about necessary support for our vital aquatic sports clubs, and would further strengthen the protection of waterways used for aquatic sports across the country. That would include the Thames and other rivers across England, many in areas where young people access waterways and where there is storm overflow. I urge the Government to accept these reasonable and important amendments to strengthen the Bill. \p Jessica Toale: Water quality and sewage pollution is one of the most pressing issues in my constituency. In the past year alone, we have had 57 sewage dumps—the equivalent of 594 hours of sewage spilled—at Bournemouth pier. As many Members will know, Bournemouth pier is a place where people surf, paddleboard, swim and walk their dogs. It is a magnet for tourism. This is more than just an environmental issue; it is a public health issue, with people frequently getting sick from swimming in the sea. It also has massive economic consequences for my constituency, which thousands of people visit over the summer. It is impacting our reputation, our businesses and our tourism industry. However, it is also a matter of deep pride for my constituents. We are proud to be one of the most beautiful bits of coastline in the UK—we are often ranked in the top 20 in Europe. My constituents want to enjoy those coastal waters, not be afraid to go in them. It is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue.

I am truly glad the Conservatives have found some vim on this issue, but I gently remind them that we did not come to power in a vacuum. We are facing a Victorian situation with the amount of sewage, and that comes from a failure to deal with systemic issues. [Interruption.] Despite their protestations, the Conservatives’ actions have spoken louder than their words. Under the previous Government, we heard talk of scrapping nutrient neutrality, and they slashed the Environment Agency’s budget, with the then water Minister instructing the Environment Agency not to publish data. We have heard all about the increase in monitoring, but if they knew so much about the problem, why did they not do anything about it? It is a little too late for that. It is Labour that is bringing forward the legislation to deal with this issue.

I am proud to support this Bill, with its provisions for criminal liability and banning bonuses. The amendments the Minister has outlined today, in particular to improve transparency, give industry certainty and speed up the implementation of these measures, are so important.

I end by saying that my constituents will welcome the actions taken by the Labour Government. We owe it to them and to the next generation to leave this country with seas, rivers and an environment that are protected and thriving. \p Freddie Van Mierlo: I welcome the Bill. While its provisions are modest, I none the less welcome this step to improve on the failures of previous Conservative Governments on sewage pollution.

For too long, water companies have been allowed to operate without proper regulation and oversight. Since privatisation, English water companies have paid out £83 billion in dividends while amassing £74 billion in debt. Shockingly, with the Bill still making its way through the House, water companies have brazenly said that they plan to circumvent the ban on bonuses by jacking up C-suite salaries to compensate. The Bill must do more and be more ambitious to truly hold water companies to account. I am therefore pleased to support the new clauses in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), which would strengthen the Bill, improving monitoring, protecting consumers and ensuring responsibility falls on sewerage companies to clean up their act.

I will speak to amendment 9 and new clauses 11 and 21. Amendment 9 would ensure that creditors, not bill payers, pay for the bail-out of water companies in special measures. It would protect consumers against the reckless financial mismanagement of Thames Water. Ordinary bill payers should not be required to pay for the mistakes of a company they had no choice to use and the folly of investors that indulged it.

New clause 11 would require sewerage undertakers to install volume flow meters in all their locations where overflows occur. Campaign organisations in my constituency, including the famous Henley Mermaids, tell me that flow meters would help to inform them when it is safe to go in the water.

New clause 21 is also of special importance to my constituency, much of which is in the Chilterns national landscape. It would commit sewerage undertakers to secure and then maintain high ecological status in protected landscapes. It would require them to improve outflow from storm overflows in areas such as Goring, in my constituency, which lies within the Chilterns national landscape. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) would very much welcome that, as we both enjoyed stand-up paddleboard yoga in Goring in July. \p Graham Stuart: The hon. Gentleman paints a beautiful picture. How much does he think it would cost to implement and how much would that cost impact on bill payers? \p Freddie Van Mierlo: The measures we propose should be taken in the round. All our amendments significantly improve the Bill.

New clause 21 would also improve sewage outflow in Henley-on-Thames and the villages along the Thames Path national trail. That is desperately needed to end  the shame of welcoming the world to our beautiful town of Henley at the royal regatta, only to subject it to what we put down the toilet.

In conclusion, I welcome the Bill and the protections it will deliver to my constituents, but I hope the Government will consider going further very soon. \p Louise Jones: I thank the Minister for all the hard work she and her team have been doing on the Bill. It is very important to my constituents.

To go back to the very basics, we are talking about something that everybody in North East Derbyshire uses every day—water. I believe that everybody in my constituency, and in the whole country, has a right to know that the water in our rivers and streams is clean, clear and free from pollution. The reason I have to state that now in this House is that we have not had the action we should have had over the past 14 years. That is a huge failure of the previous Government to get action taken and completed on this important issue. Instead, in 2023 water was polluted over 2,000 times in North East Derbyshire—and that is in just one constituency.

Last week, I met local residents in Ashover, which is situated on the River Amber, in my constituency. They impressed on me their concerns about pollution in that very picturesque part of the river. We have had good news, in that Severn Trent Water has improved treatment tank capacity in the area, but my residents are worried that that will not be enough, and indeed that we will not know whether it is enough. They are already concerned that the water they see does not live up to the standards they wish to see. That is why I particularly welcome the fact that the Bill is bringing in independent monitoring of water quality. I am afraid I disagree with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). What I think is important is not that we get carried away with volume, but the impact on water quality. That is what matters most. \p Tim Farron: They are not mutually exclusive, are they? Knowing the duration of a spill is important, but knowing what went into it and how much also helps to know the impact so we can regulate it. Is that not true? \p Louise Jones: The Bill looks at the result—the impact. I do not understand why we need to look at the volume if we are looking at the impact.

A huge amount has been spent on bosses’ bonuses: over £9 million in 2023-24. To put that into perspective, the average salary in my constituency is just over £30,000. If bonuses are received, we expect it to be for work well done and not just as a matter of course for the failings those bosses are responsible for.

Time and time again, we heard from the former Government that the water industry would change. Unfortunately, it did not under the previous measures, and that is why I welcome the action to ensure results as soon as possible. The Bill will mean cleaner rivers, which is my hope for the River Amber and what my constituents deserve; better infrastructure; better protection for those who use our waters for leisure activities; and better protection for the nature in our beautiful constituency. That is why it has my full support. \p Ashley Fox: My constituency of Bridgwater has the Rivers Axe, Brue, Parrett and Tone within its boundaries, together with countless streams, brooks and rhynes. It is therefore of the utmost importance to my constituents that the water quality of our rivers is maintained and improved. The town of Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge is a coastal resort, as are the villages of Berrow and Brean. It is important for the tourism industry, as well as the local people who enjoy those beaches, that we improve the quality of our bathing water, and I therefore welcome the Bill. We are told that it has four key aims:

“To block the payment of bonuses to executives who pollute waterways;

To bring criminal charges against persistent law breakers;

To impose automatic and severe fines for wrongdoing; and

To ensure independent monitoring of every”

—sewer overflow—“outlet.”

I welcome all those aims, building as they do on the work of the last Government to improve our water quality.

I want to speak in favour of new clauses 16 and 19. New clause 16, entitled “Establishment of Water Restoration Fund”, establishes the principle that fines should go towards environmental improvement rather than to the Treasury. I am somewhat curious as to why the Government would not support that, but perhaps the Minister can explain when she responds to the debate. In November 2024, Wessex Water, which serves my constituency, was fined £500,000 for polluting two rivers, one in Wiltshire and one in Somerset. That money should be used to improve the local environment; it should not be swallowed up by the Treasury.

New clause 19 states that when civil penalties are imposed, there should be an equivalent reduction in customer bills. That is important, because otherwise the water company that has been fined will simply pass on that fine to the consumers; the new clause would ensure that there was no penalty for the customer. I am curious, again, to know why the Government would oppose new clause 19—along with new clause 16—and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation. \p Jonathan Pearce: I thank the ministerial team for all their hard work in producing the Bill within six months of Labour’s election in July.

Is there anything more emblematic of the decline and mismanagement presided over by the last Government than the state of our rivers and waters? It was fascinating to hear from the shadow Minister that the Opposition seem suddenly to have realised that this is a bigger problem than they ever thought it was when they were in government. As we have heard from Members on both sides of the House, waterways throughout the country have been choked with record levels of sewage. In 2003, 39 sites in my constituency were polluted by Severn Trent Water and United Utilities. Across those sites, there were 2,579 sewage dumps—and what was the punishment for the bosses of those companies? Did any of them face imprisonment? Were their bonuses curtailed, or stopped entirely? Did they feel the hard edge of enforcement action? The answer is no. \p Victoria Atkins: If the hon. Gentleman, as a Back-Bench MP, is presuming to  tell a regulator with criminal powers how to investigate and prosecute companies or indeed any defendants, we need to be very careful, because never before in our law have we permitted Members of Parliament and Ministers to direct independent investigators on whom to investigate and prosecute. \p Jonathan Pearce: I welcome that intervention from the shadow Secretary of State, but let me suggest that if the measures in this Bill had been implemented by her Government, we might have seen some of those enforcement actions. \p Paul Holmes: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is very kind. I remind him that in 2002 a Labour Government allowed, through their regulatory regime, the uplift in bonuses that he outlined. Can he tell the House how much sewage dumping happened in his constituency between the years 1997 and 2010, and can he justify why only 7% of rivers were being monitored? He will not be able to, because we did not know. \p Jonathan Pearce: I welcome the hon. Member’s intervention. I simply say to him that his party was in power for 14 years and did nothing. To go back 30 years seems rather extraordinary.

In 2002, the United Utilities chief executive received a bonus of nearly £1 million, and Severn Trent lifted its bonus to £3.36 million. That is millions of pounds that my constituents in High Peak have put in bosses’ back pockets to reward their failure. When I speak to residents on the doorstep in High Peak, they ask me, “How did they get away with it? How can they be allowed to do this?” They got away with it because Conservative Members let them. The previous Conservative Government cut the Environment Agency’s budget by half between 2010 and 2024, leaving the agency toothless to tackle the disgraceful behaviour of our water company bosses. Perhaps that helps us to understand the enforcement issues we have been talking about.

I also remember that just before the election, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), in his previous role as Water Minister, told Environment Agency officials not to publish the headline figures of the total number and duration of spills. How typical of the Conservative party’s approach—rather than face issues head-on and tackle them, it chose to hide them and keep them in the shadows. That approach to government has left our water infrastructure crumbling. By failing to confront these issues, failing to invest in our broken infrastructure and letting consumer money be spent irresponsibly, the Conservative Government left my constituents in High Peak paying twice.

These points underpin the importance of this legislation. This Bill, coupled with the Government’s wider programme to safeguard the environment, will ensure that the beauty of the Peak district in my constituency, with our nature-rich rivers, is entrenched for generations to come. The Bill introduces tougher penalties, including imprisonment for water executives who fail to comply with or obstruct investigations. The Bill will ban bonuses for CEOs and senior leaders unless high standards are met on protecting the environment and their consumers. The Bill will also introduce severe and automatic fines for offences, closing the gap in the Environment Agency’s enforcement powers.  Importantly, the water companies will have to start covering the costs of enforcement action. Unlike the previous Government, we will not let the water companies hide from their wrongdoing. The Bill will see that every outlet has independent monitoring.

I am proud to support this major step forward in the Government’s wider reforms to fix the broken water system left behind by the Conservative party. This is a great first step, and a commission will look at the whole water industry, which will hopefully address some of the concerns raised by Members. Only by taking these actions with this ambitious plan, which the Government have done in their first six months in office, can we begin to turn the page on years of decline and attract much-needed investment into the sector, which will preserve the beauty of High Peak and the Peak district for the long term. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Unfortunately, colleagues making interventions have eaten into time, so I now have to call the Front Benchers. I call the shadow Minister, Dr Neil Hudson. \p Neil Hudson: It has been a wide-ranging debate, although shorter than we had hoped for. I thank Members for participating today. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) for her passion for enhancing the accountability of water companies and protecting watersports, which we are all passionate about, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) for passionately advocating for the water restoration fund.

New clause 16 would establish the water restoration fund, to ringfence money from fines to restore local waterways, not to balance the Treasury’s books. This was a Conservative fund, and the Labour Government must not let ideology stand in the way of evidence-based policymaking. They must take the baton forward and ringfence this money, so that waterways can be restored locally. \p Pippa Heylings: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Neil Hudson: No, I have no time.

New clause 19 is designed to ensure that fines on water companies result in equivalent reductions in customers’ bills. That is only fair, and we urge the Government to take forward the new clause.

New clause 17 seeks to strengthen the financial resilience of water companies by enabling the Secretary of State to stipulate the limits of borrowing, so that these companies do not leverage too much debt. That is an important new clause that needs to go forward.

Through amendments 26 and 27, we want to protect customers in different parts of the country so that they do not have to pay for the misdemeanours of water companies that do not serve them. We urge the Government to take forward our amendments and make this Bill stronger, so that we can improve our precious waterways. \p Emma Hardy: I thank Members for their constructive engagement throughout this debate. As I have said before, it is wonderful to hear the shared passion across  this House for improving the performance of the water sector so that it better delivers for customers and the environment. Given the limited time that I have to address over 50 amendments—I am not looking in any one direction— \p Jerome Mayhew: The Minister makes reference to the very limited time. Why is that? This is a Government who hold general debates on Mondays and Thursdays. They have no business, yet we have less than two hours to debate this really important issue. \p Emma Hardy: The hon. Member and I served on the Public Bill Committee, where we spent much time discussing many of the amendments. I cannot comment on decisions about the business of the House and urgent questions.

As I say, I will do my absolute best to cover all the points raised by hon. Members. I hope they accept that I generally try to be generous with interventions, but I want to put on the record my response to the amendments. I hope the House will give forgive me.

A number of hon. Members have tabled amendments that seek to increase transparency around water company operations and pollution incidents. The Government absolutely agree that greater transparency is needed to better enable the regulators and the public to hold water companies accountable. Although I have previously explained why it is not practical to prohibit all discharges from emergency overflows, which are a necessary safety valve in our sewage system, I reiterate this Government’s commitment to reducing the harm caused by sewage discharge. Ensuring that all emergency overflows are monitored is a critical step in enabling the outcomes that we all want to see. Information on the frequency and duration of discharges will help to direct investment to further reduce sewage discharges into our waterways, and to better enable the public to make informed decisions about accessing their local waterways. \p Gagan Mohindra: Will the Minister give way? \p Emma Hardy: I will, but I have only 10 minutes. \p Gagan Mohindra: I thank the Minister for being so generous with her time. As she will be aware, the United Kingdom has most of the world’s chalk streams, and the River Chess runs through my constituency. How can she ensure that we continue to monitor our unique environment and protect it from the threat of overflows, to which she just referred? \p Emma Hardy: I share the hon. Gentleman’s passion and love for chalk streams—the rainforests of the United Kingdom. Part of this Bill will drive the performance change in the industry that we want to see and reduce sewage discharges, which are doing such damage to such precious habitat.

Although some Members have called for the Government to go even further on monitoring, I reassure the House that we have carefully considered how best to increase transparency without driving unmanageable increases in customers’ bills. As promised in Committee, I have provided a factsheet on this issue, and I can make it available in the House of Commons Library. Rolling out  event duration monitors over two price review periods will provide the best value for money for customers and the environment, and does not risk compromising water companies’ ability to deliver other vital improvements to our sewage system.

It is important that we direct investment at improving the sewage network to decrease overflow charges, and not just at monitoring, particularly where it does not provide valuable insight into the harms associated with discharge. There is a balance to be struck, and I believe we have got it right. The public know that there is too much sewage in our waterways. Whichever way we look at it—be it through volume or duration—they know there is too much. The focus must be on reducing it. \p Anna Dixon: My hon. Friend talks about the importance of water quality. Will she join me in commending campaigns such as the Ilkley Clean River Group and other citizen scientists across the country? In the absence of data collected under the Conservatives and the work of the Environment Agency, they had to do the work themselves to expose the sewage scandal. \p Emma Hardy: I wholeheartedly pay tribute to the Ilkley Clean River Group and to the work that my hon. Friend does in championing it in this House. \p Polly Billington: I remind my hon. Friend how much this matters to my constituents in East Thanet. We are surrounded on three sides by the sea, yet we manage to clean up our water. However, I was struck by the fact that the Reform manifesto did not contain one word about water pollution or safety. I also want to point out the emptiness of the Opposition Benches in this debate. That should be put on the record. \p Emma Hardy: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I would have thought that this would be an important issue for all political parties. \p Alison Hume: Residents in Grosmont in my constituency have had a van parked in the street processing raw sewage, with a pipe left open in the street, for months between the processing of the sewage and the holding tank being emptied. Does my hon. Friend agree that disgusting incidents such as these illustrate our crumbling water infrastructure and the importance of the Bill, which will ringfence funding for vital infrastructure? \p Emma Hardy: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. What she is witnessing in the streets of her constituency is a perfect example of the crumbling infrastructure that we have inherited. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Emma Hardy: Let me try to get through my remarks.

If it becomes feasible in future for companies to install monitors more quickly, they will be encouraged to do so. In addition to reporting requirements for emergency overflows, other measures in this Bill will ensure that water companies have robust plans to reduce pollution incidents and empower the regulator to punish wrongdoing effectively. This includes requirements to produce pollution incident reduction plans and implementation reports, as set out in clause 2 of the Bill, and requirements for water companies to consider the use of nature-based solutions in the production of their drainage and wastewater managements plans, as set out in clause 4.

The transparency provided by these measures will drive a culture change ensuring that water companies have the right incentives to reduce discharges of sewage into our precious rivers, lakes and seas. Let me be clear that the Bill also provides comprehensive powers for Ofwat to enforce the requirements introduced by the Bill to increase transparency, including through use of significant fines. I can reassure the House that where discharges are found to have breached permit conditions, the regulator will not hesitate to take action. In relation to new clause 14, I also make it clear that Ofwat has a duty to secure that companies are able to finance the delivery of their statutory obligations, including meeting pollution targets.

The Government are committed to acting as fast as possible to reduce sewage pollution in our waterways, and already have stretching pollution targets in place, informed by detailed analysis and extensive engagement. These targets will drive £60 billion of investment between 2025 and 2050, and almost £12 billion of that investment will begin this year, improving 2,800 storm overflows by 2030. I hope this reassures the House that, where water companies do not comply with requirements around pollution incidents and the reporting of those pollution incidents, the regulator will not hesitate to take action. \p Pippa Heylings: The water restoration fund was created by the previous Government, yet not one penny of the £11 million levied on water companies between 2022 and 2023 reached any restoration of the waterways. Does the Minister agree that our precious chalk streams could be helped by the water restoration fund being continued? \p Emma Hardy: As I have mentioned, I am a huge fan of our chalk streams. The hon. Member is right to point out that the much-lauded water restoration fund that some Members are so keen to talk about was established in November 2022, yet 18 months later the grand total of the number of projects supported by it was zero.

A number of hon. Members have also put forward suggestions to improve information and data sharing more broadly. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) has put her name to some of these amendments. Although the Government do not think it necessary to bring forward legislation in this space, we are actively considering ways of making data more accessible to the public through non-legislative means. This includes information on water companies’ performance and data on local sewer networks in map form, which must be made available free of charge under the Water Industry Act 1991. \p Matt Rodda: Will the Minister give way? \p Emma Hardy: This is going to be my last one. \p Matt Rodda: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Her comments on this point will be welcomed by many of our local residents. Will she provide further information about the greater powers for Ofwat? \p Emma Hardy: This Bill will, of course, empower Ofwat to take necessary action where it finds wrongdoing, including through changes to remuneration under clause 1. I know my hon. Friend cares a lot about this. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Emma Hardy: I am sorry, but I will have to stop taking interventions if I am to respond to all the amendments.

Water UK has published a centralised map on its website of discharge data from all storm overflows operated by English water companies. I genuinely found it clear and useful, so I encourage all hon. Members to have a look.

I have heard calls from across the House for reforming the planning frameworks, the regulators and the incentives that govern the water industry model. Although I understand and, believe me, fully share hon. Members’ frustrations with the performance across the water sector, the fundamental issues facing the water industry and the regulatory framework in which it operates can no longer be addressed in a piecemeal way. I have spoken at great length throughout the Bill’s passage about the independent commission led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, which will make recommendations to fundamentally transform how our water system works.

The broad-ranging commission is bringing together a wide range of expertise to make recommendations in line with eight objectives to deliver the necessary reset to ensure a resilient, innovative and sustainable water sector in England and Wales. It will report to the Government by summer 2025. This includes specific objectives to review the roles, structures, duties and powers of the regulators, the planning frameworks—including the price review process—and the resilience of water companies. That includes financial resilience, which I know matters to many hon. Members.

Points have been raised about taking water companies into public ownership, and the Government have repeatedly made it clear that we do not consider nationalisation to be within the commission’s scope. Nationalisation would cost over £90 billion, and it would take years to unpick the current ownership model, at the expense of delivering and addressing more immediate public priorities. However, the commission will consider alternative water industry models within its scope. I take this opportunity to invite all hon. Members to put forward their views to the commission through the upcoming call for evidence, which will be launching soon. \p Neil Hudson: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I suspect that the Government do not agree with our water restoration fund, but if the Cunliffe review says that the water restoration fund should be reinstated, will the Minister commit to doing so? \p Emma Hardy: Despite our political differences, the hon. Gentleman and I had a very interesting and—what is the right word?—comradely debate in Committee.

As we explained in Committee, conversations on the water restoration fund are still ongoing. I honestly do not believe that primary legislation is needed, which Conservative Front Benchers know, as they established the fund without primary legislation. I gently point out, as I have already mentioned, that within the 18 months of its establishment under the previous Government, the fund did absolutely nothing. \p Claire Young: Will the Minister give way? \p Emma Hardy: I have two minutes remaining, so I have to skip through as much as I can, as I know Members will want me to answer questions, particularly on the SAR.

Some hon. Members have expressed concern about the rules on performance-related pay and consumer representation. Although the Government agree it is crucial that consumers’ voices are heard and considered in water company decision making, we have already taken action on this. It is not necessary to require environmental experts to be placed on company boards because, following the agreement made with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in his first week in office, nine of the 16 companies have updated their articles of association to include a social and environmental commitment. DEFRA is working with all of them to ensure they do the rest as soon as possible.

I agree with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) about the representation of environmental non-governmental organisations on company boards. Members of water company boards are subject to a number of duties under the Companies Act 2006, including a duty to promote the success of that company. A director’s fiduciary duties may conflict with the organisational objectives of the environmental group in question, thus preventing their objective participation in board membership. We cannot have a situation in which an environmentalist on a water company board is not comfortable with their duty to promote the success of that company.

I produced a factsheet detailing how the SAR is used to ensure the continued provision of vital public services. However, I remind the House of the facts. I am being very clear: the shortfall recovery power can only be used to recover shortfalls in repaying Government funding. For the last time, I hope, it cannot and would never be used to recover financial creditor or shareholder losses relating to investment in the company. If the amendments were accepted as proposed, it would involve a radical change to insolvency policy, which has been a long-established practice since 1986.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 18 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 16 December 2024).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E). \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 60 days of the passing of this Act, make provision for the establishment, operation and management of a Water Restoration Fund.

(2) A Water Restoration Fund is a fund—

(a) into which any monetary penalties imposed on water companies for specified offences must be paid, and

(b) out of which payments must be made for expenditure on measures—

(i) to help water bodies, including chalk streams, achieve good ecological status, and improve ecological potential and chemical status;

(ii) to prevent further deterioration of the ecological status, ecological potential or chemical status of water bodies, including chalk streams;

(iii) to enable water-dependent habitats to return to, or remain at, favourable condition;

(iv) to restore other water-dependent habitats and species, especially where action supports restoration of associated protected sites or water bodies.

(3) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, list the specified offences for the purposes of this section, which must include—

(a) any relevant provisions of the Water Resources Act 1991, including—

(i) section 24(4) (unlicensed abstraction or related works or contravening abstraction licence);

(ii) section 25(2) (unlicensed impounding works or contravening impounding licence);

(iii) section 25C(1) (contravening abstraction or impounding enforcement notice);

(iv) section 80 (contravening drought order or permit);

(v) section 201(3) (contravening water resources information notice);

(b) any relevant regulations under section 2 of the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 (regulation of polluting activities etc) related to water pollution;

(c) regulations under section 61 of the Water Act 2014 (regulation of water resources etc).

(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(5) The provisions in this section replace any existing provision for the sums received for specified offences, including in section 22A(9) of the Water Industry Act 1991 (penalties).”—(Victoria Atkins.)

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 181, Noes 322.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Secretary of State must make provision for any monetary penalties imposed on a water company to result in equivalent reductions to the amounts charged to customers by the relevant water company.

(2) In fulfilling its duties under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must arrange, annually—

(a) for the total amount of monetary penalties imposed on a water company in the previous year to be calculated;

(b) for that total to be divided by the number of customers of the water company;

(c) for each customer’s next bill from the water company to be reduced by that figure.

(3) Any reduction applied under this section must be indicated on a customer’s statement of account.

(4) In this section, ‘water company’ has the meaning given by section 6(5).”—(Victoria Atkins.)

This new clause would provide for any fines imposed on water companies to result in equivalent reductions to customers’ bills.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 325.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 4, page 14, leave out lines 35 and 36 and insert—

“(a) sections 205A and 205B of the Water Industry Act 1991 (pollution incident reduction plans and implementation reports),”.—(Emma Hardy.)

This amendment updates clause 10 to reflect amendments made to clause 2 in the Lords. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment proposed: 9, page 15, line 34, leave out from “to” to “such” in line 36 and insert “recover from its creditors”.—(Tim Farron.)

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 73, Noes 321.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 5, page 21, line 6, at end insert—

“(aa) section 1 (rules about remuneration and governance);”.

This amendment brings clause 1 into force on Royal Assent.

Amendment 6, page 21, line 16, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5.

Amendment 7, page 21, line 30, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5.

Amendment 8, page 22, line 1, at end insert—

“(aa) section (Special provision in charges schemes);”.—(Emma Hardy.)

This amendment brings NC18 into force two months after Royal Assent.

Third Reading \p Steve Reed: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Our rivers, lakes and seas are awash with pollution. The legacy of 14 years of Conservative failure is the highest level of sewage spills on record, economic growth held back by a lack of water supplies and, now, painful bill rises to fix the problems that they left behind. The British public are rightly angry about the state of our waterways. It has been left to this Government to clean up the mess once and for all. The water sector needs a complete reset, reform that puts customers and the environment first, and a new partnership with the Government to invest for the future and upgrade our broken infrastructure. This Government have a three-stage plan to make that happen.

During my first week in post, I met water company chief executives and announced immediate steps to improve the performance of the water industry, including ringfencing money for investment in water infrastructure so that it can never again be diverted to bonuses or dividends, and ensuring that customers who face frequent water outages or contaminated tap water receive more generous and faster compensation.

This evening, I am delighted to open the Third Reading debate on the Bill. Its core provisions will strengthen the powers of the regulators so that they can better hold water companies to account for poor performance. It will give Ofwat new powers to ban undeserved bonuses when water company executives fail to meet the high standards the public rightly demand. It will introduce stricter penalties, including imprisonment where senior executives of water companies obstruct investigations by environmental regulators, and includes provisions for automatic and severe fines for wrongdoing. We have also extended powers so that environmental regulators can recover costs for a wider range of future enforcement measures—the polluter, not the public, will pay. We have also introduced mandatory monitoring of emergency overflows and pollution incidents so the public can hold companies to account.

The Bill has been strengthened and improved in its passage through both Houses. I am thankful to all hon. Members, and all noble Lords in the other place, for their thorough consideration and scrutiny of the Bill, and for the many and varied amendments that have been tabled and debated. Water companies will now be required to include water supply as well as sewage-related incidents in pollution incident reduction plans, and we have created personal liability for chief executives so that there is accountability for these plans at the very highest level. Water companies will also need to produce an implementation report alongside their annual plans so the public can see what action they are taking to reduce pollution incidents.

We have introduced two clauses to consider more nature-based solutions such as reed beds and wetlands in drainage and wastewater management plans, and for Ofwat to track progress against our environmental targets. A further clause will ensure that measures are in place to support vulnerable customers, as set out by the water Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), earlier this evening. \p Steve Race: Will the Secretary join me in commending the citizen scientists and local campaign groups that have driven many of these issues right up the political agenda, including the Friends of the River Exe in Exeter? I am delighted that this Government have acted so quickly to hold the water companies to account for the sewage crisis. Does he agree both that this is long overdue, and that it will fundamentally change the way our rivers are treated? \p Steve Reed: I echo my hon. Friend’s commendation for the citizen scientists and the work they have done to highlight the scale of the problem.

The support for the Bill across the House and among the public demonstrates our collective desire to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas. I am proud of the progress we have made through the Bill, but it is not the extent of our ambition.

In October, I announced the biggest review of the water sector in a generation. Sir Jon Cunliffe has appointed an expert advisory group with leading voices representing the environment sector, public health, engineering, customers, investors and economists, and is preparing to launch a public call for evidence within weeks. \p Tim Farron: The Secretary of State talks about Sir Jon Cunliffe’s water commission, and we are obviously interested in engaging with that. Does he think, though, that today’s appointment of a former Thames Water executive to the commission will fill the public with confidence that it will be independent in any way? \p Steve Reed: Of course, it is an independent commission; it is up to Sir Jon to appoint to the board whom he likes. However, it is a very balanced board, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that voices from many stakeholder groups are represented, as indeed they should be.

The commission will report to the UK and Welsh Governments this summer, after which both Governments will respond and consult on Sir Jon’s recommendations, including on further legislation. \p Tom Hayes: The Secretary of State is right that things are getting better. In my constituency, two new investments in water sector upgrades, by Wessex Water and Pennon, are worth a total of £230 million. Clearly, much more has to be done, but will he join me in welcoming those new investments? Does he recognise that such investment is not consistent across the country, which is exactly why we need the Bill? \p Steve Reed: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I welcome those investments. From visiting him in his constituency, I know what a champion he is for cleaning up the water and the beaches in Bournemouth.

I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice and the noble Lady, Baroness Hayman of Ullock for their expert leadership of the Bill through Parliament, and members of staff in the Bill team and in DEFRA for their hard work and professionalism. I thank Members on all sides who participated in the debates at all stages. I extend my thanks to our colleagues in the Welsh Government and the Senedd for working collaboratively with the UK Government on the Bill. I am delighted that, at the Welsh Government’s own request, the benefits brought about by the Bill will extend to Wales. \p Iqbal Mohamed: Consumers listening to this debate have been concerned about the role of Ofwat. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give them that Ofwat, the regulator, will put consumers’ interests and environmental interests before corporations’ interests? \p Steve Reed: Sir Jon Cunliffe’s commission will be reviewing precisely those points, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to contribute his views when the call for evidence begins in just a few weeks.

The changes the Government have made in a short amount of time show that with collective determination and ambition we can turn the water sector around. The failures of the past are ending. The future of the water sector is full of promise. Our waterways have been poisoned by unacceptable levels of sewage and other pollution for too long. With these changes, finally, we will clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good. \p Victoria Atkins: I thank everyone who has scrutinised and worked on the Bill in both Houses, including the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), our very efficient Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), and the noble Lord Roborough, who led very constructive discussions in the other place. It is a shame that the Government rejected the amendments put forward today. I thank the Doorkeepers, the hon. Members who chaired the Committee and everyone who helped His Majesty’s official Opposition to scrutinise the Bill.

Across the House, we can all agree that there are fundamental problems facing the water and sewerage industry. Since 2010, the number of designated bathing waters has increased; we have seen a significant improvement in water quality ratings, with more water rated as excellent or good; and an increase in blue flag beaches. But of course we want to see more. We were, in fact, the first Government in history to set out that storm overflows must be reduced, and our landmark Environment Act 2021 gave stronger powers to regulators and imposed strict demands for tackling pollution. We set legally binding targets to improve water quality and availability, and to reduce nutrient pollution. We rolled out catchment-sensitive farming to all farms in England. We stepped up the requirements for investment, including investment from water companies and storm overflow improvements, and nationally significant infrastructure projects such as the Thames tideway tunnel super sewer. When we came into government, just 7% of storm overflows were monitored. When we left government, we had increased that to 100%.

We support the Bill, but we do so with some disappointment at its lack of ambition. Frankly, as we have said before, much of what the Bill tries to do, including monitoring, blocking bonuses and fines, was brought in by the Conservatives in government. We say that the primary legislation is not necessary, but we will of course support the Bill.

I am especially disappointed that the Government have declined to accept our amendments. In particular, it is woeful that they have failed to put the water restoration fund into legislation. [Interruption.] I will deal with the Minister’s comments in a moment. The  public rightly want to see the Government addressing water quality, but rather water company fines being used to restore water bodies, that money will be going into the gaping hole of the Treasury’s coffers, presumably in an attempt to undo some of the damage caused by the Chancellor’s disastrous growth-blocking, tax-hiking, job-cutting, investment-plummeting Budget.

Now I am going to correct the Minister, and I will do so from the Dispatch Box rather than through a point of order. Last summer it emerged that Thames Water, Yorkshire Water and Northumbrian Water would be fined a record £160 million between them for a “catalogue of failure” over illegal sewage discharges, subject to consultation. However, in August—when this Government were in power—the Treasury held back those fines, which were due to go into the water restoration fund to help clean up affected areas. The Minister gave figures earlier, but it is her Government’s fault that money was not paid into that fund. We on the side of the House believe that the polluters should pay for their mistakes, rather than their fines paying for pay rises for the Government’s trade union buddies. [Interruption.] Yes, I am sure that the train drivers are very grateful. \p Tom Hayes: Will the right hon. Lady give way? \p Victoria Atkins: I will give way, with great interest. \p Tom Hayes: I sat on the Public Bill Committee, and I must say that the tone that the right hon. Lady is striking is very different from that of her colleagues on the Committee. I just wonder whether she as any regrets about her Government’s record on tackling sewage or pollution. Would she acknowledge any regrets? \p Victoria Atkins: I do love being mansplained to by Labour Back Benchers. I suppose it is part of the Labour party’s women problem. The hon. Gentleman is now throwing his thumbs up at me—goodness me!

What I will say is that throughout the passage of the Bill, we have said, “We have made some progress, but there is more to do.” That is precisely why we are supporting the Bill tonight, although we will try to improve it and strengthen it. \p Tim Farron: Will the right hon. Lady give way? \p Victoria Atkins: I will not, because I want to allow others to speak.

The Government have also sadly failed to recognise the importance of chalk streams, refusing to confirm the continuation of protections put in place by us Conservatives. I am afraid that warm words about rainforests, much as we agree with them, will not protect these vital habitats. We want to see improved water quality, and I urge the Government to take stock and seek to adopt a more rounded approach that cleans up our rivers and seas, treats bill payers and taxpayers properly, and builds on our work to construct the water systems of the future. \p Tim Farron: Let me say, without going through all the flowery stuff that we did earlier, that I am grateful to Members in all parts of the House for what has been a broadly collegiate debate. However, the shadow Secretary  of State said something that is worth reflecting on. I think she was talking about what I am about to mention, namely the fines of £164 million that Ofwat had indeed proposed should be levied against the very three water companies to which she referred. For what it is worth—and I am not here to defend the Treasury—this was not a Treasury decision at all. It was because of Ofwat’s weakness, and a culture of timidity that is evident when it comes to gathering money from the water companies, that the money was not collected. That information is 100% correct, because it was given to me in response to one of my Freedom of Information Act requests.

In any event, the key feature is my disappointment in the Bill. I will certainly support it should it come to a vote, and I support it anyway, but its weakness lies in the fact that it is not radical enough. It does not go far enough, and it does not tackle the weakness in regulation to which, in a roundabout, accidental way, the Secretary of State has referred .

We will engage with the Cunliffe water review and recognise it as independent. My reflection is simply this. The Labour party has been in opposition for a long time. They were a well-funded Opposition through short money—we could only dream of such things—and surely had the capability to come up with a set of plans that meant they could get on with it straightaway, rather than kicking it to halfway into the Parliament. This is an unambitious Bill, but it is good enough, and it will have our support.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments. \p Jerome Mayhew: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I need some assistance in understanding how the House can express its displeasure at the Government’s manipulation of the business of the House to stop proper consideration of this Bill. Water was at the heart of the last general election—it is really important to our constituents—and yet the Bill’s Report stage was limited to less than one and a half hours, and not a single Back Bencher has been able to contribute on Third Reading. Is there a way that we can express our disapprobation of the Government putting forward two non-urgent statements today on Gaza and on Sudan and the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo—both of them important in their own right but, I suspect, designed to eat up time? \p Judith Cummins: I thank the hon. Member for his prior notice. While that is not a matter for the Chair, his comments are now on the record. \p Lucy Powell: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I gently refute what the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) just said? Two important statements were made today. It is for the Chair to decide on urgent questions, of which there were two today, with both running for a considerable time. It was not the Government’s intention at all for this debate, which is on a matter of great importance to many people across the House, to be curtailed. I will certainly take on board what he says, and there will potentially be further opportunities with the Bill. [Interruption.] There will be statements tomorrow, and there were statements earlier this week; there are lots of important matters.  We take great care to ensure that important Government announcements are made to the House through oral statements, and we are criticised when we do not do that. \p UNKNOWN: Ordered,

That the Speaker have leave of absence on Thursday 30 January to attend the funeral of the Right honourable the Lord Prescott, formerly Member for Kingston upon Hull East.—(Lucy Powell.) \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 28 November 2024, be approved.—(Martin McCluskey.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 3 December 2024, be approved.—(Martin McCluskey.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements etc.) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 4 December 2024, be approved.—(Martin McCluskey.)

Question agreed to. \p Robin Swann: The removal of agricultural property relief and business property relief on inheritance tax on farms will have a devastating impact on family farms across this country. In Northern Ireland, the family structures of our farms, their size compared with elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the significant price of land and the disparity between the statistics from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs of Northern Ireland on the number of Northern Ireland farms that will be impacted by this change are why the Ulster Farmers’ Union petition opposing the removal gathered more than 15,000 signatures. I urge the Government to take note of this petition and ask the Chancellor to meet the farming unions.

The petition states:

“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government take immediate action to stop the removal of the Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief on inheritance tax on farms.

And the petitioners remain, etc.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of Northern Ireland,

Declares that the government should uphold the Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief on inheritance tax on farms; notes the petition by the Ulster Farmers’ Union on this topic with over 15,000 signatures; and further notes the disparity between the DEFRA and DAERA statistics on the number of Northern Ireland farms impacted by this change.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government take immediate action to stop the removal of the Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief on inheritance tax on farms.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003037] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Martin McCluskey.) \p Anneliese Midgley: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this debate. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of Unite the Union.

I have spent my life in the trade union movement, so it is no surprise that my first Adjournment debate focuses on the principle of collective bargaining. A dispute in my constituency appears to expose a gap in the legislation, whereby an employer can offer pay increases exclusively to non-unionised workers—an unacceptable practice that can be exploited by employers not just in Knowsley, but across the country.

Livv Housing, the largest housing association in my constituency, manages 13,000 homes across Liverpool and the north-west. In March 2024, Livv reported reserves of £110.6 million. Over the past five years, it has recorded annual surpluses ranging from £14 million to £25 million, yet the workers who keep Livv running have faced years of real-terms pay cuts. Pay has fallen by over 30% in real terms since 2011.

It is no wonder that Unite and Unison members have been taking industrial action since October last year. Livv has refused to engage in meaningful discussions with the unions, but it has also declared the negotiations exhausted. The stonewalling has prolonged the dispute, and it is evident from my inbox that it is having an impact on my constituents who depend on Livv’s services. The casework load involving Livv is mounting up, and it is having a bad effect on people’s lives. Nothing is getting fixed, because its management will not sit down and settle the dispute.

In December, Livv wrote to all staff to say that they could have a 5% pay rise if they replied in writing to confirm that they were not a member of a trade union. The email says:

“If you are a non-union member and would like to accept the pay award offer of 5%, please can you send confirmation of your acceptance and confirm that you are a non-union member. A one-line email to confirm you wish to receive the pay award and that you are not a union member will be enough.”

This practice is completely contrary to the spirit of the Employment Relations Act 2004, which sought to protect workers’ collective voice and to stop inducement and similar practices. However, some employers keep trying to find a way around the protections, and we have to put a stop to it.

I have personally written to the chief executive officer of Livv on multiple occasions, urging the housing association to engage constructively with the unions and to seek a fair resolution, but Léann Hearne has gone as far as to inform me that she will no longer engage with me in writing. I have written to Livv and asked it to bring an end to the dispute, as has Mayor Steve Rotheram, and Knowsley council has passed a motion that asks it to get around the table and solve the dispute with the unions. This is all that any of us wants, especially the workers currently in dispute. Instead of doing that, Livv has focused its efforts on undermining collective bargaining.

We all know that workers get the best deal when they collectively bargain for pay and conditions. The strength of workers standing together is the only thing that can balance the power of an employer, which is why bad employers have done everything they can over the years to undermine the ability of workers to collectively bargain.

Some Members of the House will remember the 2021 case of Kostal UK Ltd v. Dunkley, in which the employer tried to undermine the collective voice of Unite workers.

Before talks had been exhausted, Kostal made a direct offer to the workforce and informed staff that they would not receive their Christmas bonus if they did not accept it by a deadline. Does that sound familiar? Like Livv, Kostal thought it had found a loophole in the law, but that was unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court. In its ruling, Lord Leggatt said:

“Such conduct denies the union its seat at the table and does not allow the union’s voice to be heard.”

Today, Livv Housing is doing just that.

What this behaviour does is create a two-tier workforce, pitting colleagues against each other. Imagine going into a workplace with a culture like that. If some employers can get away with this, you can bet that other employers will follow. It was Winston Churchill who said:

“The trade unions are a long-established and essential part of our national life. We take our stand by these pillars of our British society as it has gradually developed and evolved itself, of the right of individual labouring men to adjust their wages and conditions by collective bargaining, including the right to strike.”

I understand that the Minister cannot comment on individual disputes, but this is clearly something that can be exploited by employers across the country. The Employment Rights Bill provides a clear opportunity to close this loophole that we thought was closed so long ago, so I ask the Minister to commit to looking at amending the Bill to stop employers seeking to undermine collective bargaining by offering non-union members preferential treatment in pay awards, and to update me on those plans. \p Justin Madders: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for securing this debate and for her excellent speech. She has a long and proud record in the trade union movement, which she has brought to the fore today.

I want to start by setting out the Government’s approach to the important subject of industrial relations. We want employers and trade unions to come together to grow our economy. We know that the world of work is fairer and more productive when people can come together to negotiate fair pay and decent conditions. That is why we are resetting industrial relations through the Employment Rights Bill. We are repealing nearly every part of the Trade Union Act 2016, which tried to smother trade unions in form-filling and red tape and prevent them from doing their core job of negotiation and dispute resolution. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for bringing forward this debate. I spoke to her beforehand, and I understand what she is trying to do. She has  clearly outlined the case for the unions in her contribution tonight. When I started work for Henry Denny’s in Belfast in my early 20s, they asked me if I wanted to join the union. To be honest, I was not sure, but the guy told me it was compulsory, so I said, “That’s okay.” But here’s the story. I had the union on my side when I first started work at Henry Denny’s; I had it to back me up whenever I needed something. I had had a different opinion about what unions were and what they could do for me. The hon. Lady has outlined what the unions can do, I understand personally what they can do, and I look forward to hearing the Minister tell us what he is going to do. \p Justin Madders: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his support for unions. I was a little worried when the debate started because he was not in his normal place. I thought there was going to be some sort of national emergency because the hon. Member for Strangford had not attended the Adjournment debate, but I am glad he is here and that he has spoken very positively about the benefits of joining a trade union.

I shall go back to some of the work we are doing to improve the industrial relations landscape. We are of course repealing the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, which, to our mind, only increased tensions and failed to prevent a single day of industrial action. We are going further in strengthening the voice of working people by making it easier for trade unions to get recognised, giving them the right of access to workplaces and making sure that they have enough time to represent their members. When the rights of working people are flouted, our new fair work agency will be empowered to investigate. We have recently run a consultation on modernising trade union laws so that they are fit for the modern workplace and the modern economy. That consultation closed on 2 December and we are currently analysing responses. We will publish a Government response to the consultation before Report stage of the Employment Rights Bill.

This is a transformative package that marks a new era for working people and I hope that hon. Members are in no doubt about the Government’s commitment to marking this new way forward. It is a way that brings a new deal for working people, making jobs more secure and family friendly, banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, supporting women in work at every stage in their life, and providing a genuine living wage and sick pay for the lowest earners. There will be further and faster action to close the gender pay gap, to ensure that rights are enforced and that trade unions are strengthened, to repeal anti-worker, anti-union laws, to turn the page on industrial relations and to end fire and rehire, while also giving working people the basic rights that they deserve at work from day one. This is a pro-business, pro-worker, pro-growth Bill from a pro-business, pro-worker, pro-growth Government.

As we know, a range of protections exist for workers against inducements and detriment related to trade union membership or activities. Of those, I will mention three that may be relevant to this particular situation. Section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 protects workers against detriment being imposed by an employer for the sole or main purpose of preventing or deterring the worker from being a trade union member or taking part in union activities, or penalising them for doing so.

Through clause 63 of the Employment Rights Bill, we are enhancing protections against detriment by conferring a right on workers not to be subjected to detriment

“for the sole or main purpose of preventing or deterring the worker from taking protected industrial action, or penalising the worker for doing so.”

Section 145A of the 1992 Act protects workers against offers made by the employer for the sole or main purpose of inducing the worker not to be a trade union member or not to take part in union activities. Finally, section 145B of the 1992 Act protects members of trade unions that are recognised, or are seeking to be recognised, by their employer against offers made by the employer for the sole or main purpose of resulting in workers’ terms and conditions not being determined by a collective agreement negotiated by the union.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley indicated, we cannot comment on the extent to which existing legislation applies to a particular case, as that is ultimately a matter for tribunals and courts to determine. However, I hope it has been helpful to state clearly some of the existing protections that may be relevant.

It is also worth putting it on record that this Government expect employers to work in partnership with unions to resolve disputes through negotiation. We certainly do not believe that pay offers should be framed in a way that requires an individual to confirm that they are not a member of a trade union. At the very least, as my hon. Friend said, that goes against the spirit of good industrial relations.

I recognise that disputes are sometimes difficult to resolve, and I take this opportunity to highlight the important role that ACAS plays in this space. Its remit  is to promote good employment relations, to advise employers and employees on workplace matters, and to resolve individual and collective workplace disputes. Employees and employers in a workplace dispute may wish to contact ACAS to get advice on employment law and workplace relations, and to help resolve their dispute.

Of course, resolving disputes through ACAS requires both parties to participate, and it is disappointing to hear from my hon. Friend that not only will Livv not engage with her on this matter, but it does not appear that it will engage with the trade union either. I hope Livv reconsiders because, through our “make work pay” agenda, we have been clear that it is our intention to ensure that workplace rights are fit for a modern economy, empower working people and deliver economic growth.

That is why we have introduced the Employment Rights Bill, which represents the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. We will always listen carefully to any arguments on how the law on inducements or detriment could be improved, and we always welcome views on how we can reset industrial relations to create a modern framework that is fit for a modern economy and modern working practices.

I would welcome the opportunity to hear more information from my hon. Friend about the specifics of this issue, and I urge Livv to engage with her and the trade unions. I am open to looking at the case in more detail to understand what action, if any, is necessary, and I am always happy to work with my hon. Friend to ensure that trade union rights are properly observed in this country.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.