Westminster Hall

Thursday 29th January 2026 Westminster Hall

Thursday 29 January 2026

[Sir Jeremy Wright in the Chair]

Backbench Business

Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories

Thursday 29th January 2026 Westminster Hall

13:30

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of non-recognition of Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine.

Today is 1,435 days since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It has been nearly 12 years since Russia’s invasion of Crimea, which many would say is when the war really began. The same fact stands as it did back in 2022 and back in 2014: we do not recognise the Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine as Russian. That is why the policy of non-recognition is as paramount today as it has ever been.

Ukraine is a sovereign state with established borders, including Crimea and the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions. Those borders are recognised by the United Nations and the majority of states worldwide. All the partially occupied regions voted in a nationwide 1991 referendum for Ukraine’s independence from the Soviet Union. We must preserve the principle of territorial integrity. Ukraine’s borders are internationally recognised and any changes achieved by force have no legal validity. That protects a core principle of international law: the prohibition on acquiring territory through military force. The policy of non-recognition prevents the creation of a dangerous precedent that would allow other states to change borders through military aggression, undermining the UN charter and international treaties. Non-recognition matters because resolutions and official statements on non-recognition provide the legal and political foundations for imposing sanctions, internationally isolating the aggressor and holding it accountable for violations of international norms.

Furthermore, maintaining the status of those territories as part of Ukraine protects rights related to citizenship and legal protection, as well as the future processes of de-occupation and restoration of control. Non-recognition of Russia’s illegal occupation of Ukrainian territories would send a clear signal to Russia, and other states willing to change borders by force, that there is a price to pay for aggression. It is crucial to remember that the weak international reaction to the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 enabled the current wave of Russian aggression, which is much more extensive and violent.

I will address the immensely human side of why non-recognition of Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine is vital, as well as the horrors of occupation for children, civilians and detainees, and the eradication of Ukrainian identity through Russification. I will also address how there are shocking beliefs and disinformation about these atrocities not being true. Finally, I will detail the asks needed to uphold the prospect of non-recognition of Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine.

Non-recognition sends a single to the Ukrainian state and army that the international community supports its legitimate self-defence, including attempts to de-occupy all of its territory. Historically, non-recognition of illegal occupation made the reverse of such occupation easier, for instance in the case of the Baltic states’ occupation by the Soviet Union. It also sends a signal to our allies that international law matters, a signal to Ukrainian civilians in the occupied territories that the international community cares about their fate, and a signal to Ukranians who had to flee the occupied territories that they might be able to return.

There are some significantly grave atrocities being committed against Ukrainian civilians in the occupied territories. According to Freedom House, the index of civil and political rights in the Russian-occupied territories is minus 1. For comparison, North Korea’s index is 3. The Russian-occupied territories are the least free place in the world. More than 100,000 people in the occupied territories have been killed as of January 2026. If not killed, there are heavy efforts to engineer ideological control. In 2022, the Russian Ministry of Education dictionary instructed teachers on how to “re-educate” Ukrainian children based on Russian “spiritual and moral values”.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on his work on Ukraine and on securing the debate. He is talking about the occupied territories, and I want to raise an issue that we have discovered. In the occupied territory of Alchevsk, there are currently 100,000 people without heating or any form of support, not because of attacks by Ukrainian missiles; it is down to Russia’s incompetence and failure to even look after the territories that they have occupied. Does that not show their lack of care for areas they say should be part of Russia? It is another nail in their coffin of lies. They do not have any interest at all in individuals; they just want the territories, and it is an abomination.

[Alex Sobel]

The right hon. Member is absolutely correct. There is no part of the occupied territories of Ukraine where the standard of living is anywhere near what it was prior to the occupation. People in those territories are being systematically deprived of their livelihoods and there has been a material decline in their standard of living. Obviously, those who object to the occupation have been tortured, mutilated or killed, as Freedom House has evidenced.

I would like to be the first to congratulate and celebrate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for this week being awarded the Ukrainian Order of Merit by President Zelensky. Since coming to this place, she has dedicated much of her time to working towards the return of Ukrainian children kidnapped by Russia.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for his very kind words. I am pleased that he has touched upon the issue of the stolen children, because there are still many thousands of Ukrainian children who have been abducted from their homes, and of course 1.6 million Ukrainian children are subject to militarisation and indoctrination in the temporarily occupied territories.

This week, Mykola Kuleba, the founder of Save Ukraine, warned that Russia has created a “legal cage” to permanently entrap Ukrainian children in these occupied territories, imposing exit bans on children under the age of 14, putting a limitation on escape routes for those who have been abducted, removing orphans overnight from where they are staying, and imposing processes to systematically erase Ukrainian children’s names and identities from their documentation. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to rejecting Russian recognition of Ukraine’s temporarily occupied territories, this House must also reject any recognition of the Russification of Ukrainian children and unequivocally condemn Russia’s attempt to erase Ukraine’s future, one child at a time?

[Alex Sobel]

I deeply thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. It is absolutely right that the most vulnerable children on this planet are Ukrainian children in the Russian-occupied territories, and Ukrainian children who used to be in the Russian occupied territories but who are now falsely imprisoned in Russia, either in camps or through false adoption by Russian parents, including members of the Russian Government. There is no greater symbol of how monstrous Russia is than its treatment of Ukrainian children.

Ukrainian civilians in the temporarily occupied territories are being abducted or unjustly imprisoned by Russia on a massive scale. At a minimum, several thousand Ukrainian civilians have suffered this mistreatment. Let me guide hon. Members through Russia’s systemic abuse of the Ukrainian civilian population in the temporarily occupied areas.

First, there is persecution, including the creation of blacklists and the monitoring of the activities of individuals who are associated with civic activism. Secondly, there are arrests in the temporarily occupied territories, which means detaining individuals expressing views that are deemed inconsistent with Russia’s position. Thirdly, there is deportation and forcible transfer, with the use of official and unofficial detention sites in over 30 regions across Russia and Belarus to forcibly transfer detained Ukrainian civilians. Next, there are enforced disappearances. Following deportation, many civilians disappear, and their location and condition remain unknown to their relatives. Finally, there are unfair trials and illegal imprisonment. After some time, often years, civilians are brought to court, where they receive a sentence on fabricated charges, mostly relating to terrorism or espionage, which is straight out of the playbook of Stalin’s Soviet Union.

The United Nations has identified more than 100 sites that have been used for these activities since February 2022, located in every occupied Ukrainian province and across Russia and Belarus. Frequently, ad hoc prisons were set up in seized towns, where police stations, Government buildings, basements, schools and industrial sites were used to detain perceived dissidents. Some of these facilities have become notorious. In Donetsk and Luhansk, which have been occupied since 2014, prisons such as Izolyatsia gained a reputation for the use of electroshock torture and beatings. Since 2022, similar filtration camps and makeshift prisons have proliferated across the Kherson, Zaporizhzhia and Kharkiv regions.

Today, the Holocaust Memorial Day debate is happening in the main Chamber as we speak. I do not draw parallels with the Holocaust lightly, but the secrecy surrounding these torture camps, in which Ukrainian civilians are persecuted, cannot be overlooked. Ukrainians have been through the Holodomor, the Holocaust and now, Russian occupation. Ukrainian identity is being continuously eradicated, both physically and mentally.

During Russia’s invasion, 664 cultural heritage sites have been damaged or destroyed. Moscow has made it clear that nowhere is immune from missile strikes, even close to NATO territory. Looking outside the occupied territories, at the live targeting of the Lviv region, we have immense fears for the civilian population. Journalist Jen Stout highlights that one of the reasons why Lviv’s historic city centre is so unique and was designated a UNESCO world heritage site in 1998 is that it survived both the first and second world wars intact, unlike so many other central European cities.

Haemorrhaging Ukrainian culture through the killing, forcible kidnapping and removals of civilians and children, and the obliteration of their historic landscape is not the only way in which the Russification of temporarily occupied territories is being carried out. Ukrainian teachers from the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions report that after the occupation they were banned from teaching Ukrainian and using the Ukrainian curriculum, and are required to accept the new system. Those who refused faced persecution, threats of violence and detention in the centres that I described. Many people have been forced to go underground or leave their homes to preserve their identity and safety.

Returning to the atrocities being committed against children, it is alarming that there are points of view about how these atrocities are not ongoing. Overcoming that disinformation with the credibility of non-recognition of Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine is essential. We cannot allow Russian misinformation to win.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Ukrainian language education has been banned, cultural heritage sites have been destroyed and children have been transferred to Russia under the guise of evacuation, as has been mentioned. Does my hon. Friend agree that those acts demonstrate that occupation is not merely territorial, but an attempt to erase Ukrainian identity, and that that makes the policy of non-recognition all the more vital?

[Alex Sobel]

Absolutely; Russification is the central policy of the Kremlin. It is happening today in the occupied territories, and we need to ensure that it ends and does not spread through the rest of Ukraine. That is why the self defence of Ukraine is so important.

Many of the abducted children have lost their parents, who have either been jailed in the detention centres I discussed earlier, or killed by Russian forces. Russian families come to the occupied territories of Ukraine, abduct the children of detained or murdered parents and take them to Russia. Some Members may have heard the interview on the BBC’s “Ukrainecast” in December about the so-called Russian “children’s rights commissioner”, who is the subject of an International Criminal Court arrest warrant for the allegedly unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children. She gave an interview in October on Russian talk show in which she openly discussed a child she claimed to have “adopted” from Mariupol. She described how Philip, a young Ukrainian boy, was reluctant to accept a Russian identity. She described how he spends his time—in Moscow, in her home—on Ukrainian websites and singing songs in Ukrainian, but also how she managed to “gradually” change his mindset to the “way things were”. Those abducted Ukrainian children will consequently be militarised and indoctrinated, and used as troops against their own people.

Those atrocities, along with the disinformation fed to Russian troops about how they are “liberating” Ukrainians by occupying their territories, needs to be called out consistently by the international community. The policy of non-recognition of Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine can help with that process. Temporary occupation, regardless of duration, is illegal and does not confer any territorial rights upon the occupying power. Journalists who have tried to document events have also become victims of torture and repression. Ukrainian journalist Viktoriia Roshchyna was abducted and died in Russian captivity after a prolonged secret detention with signs of violence.

An expert mission report by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe found that the arbitrary deprivation of the liberties of Ukrainian civilians has been a “defining feature” of Russian-occupied territories since 2014. These reports underscore that the perpetration of seven particular crimes against Ukrainian civilians by Russian authorities violate international law and likely amounts to war crimes and crimes against humanity. These seven interlocking crimes against humanity, which illustrate what I have spoken about today, are: persecution, illegal detention, deportation or forceable transfer, enforced disappearance, torture and other inhumane acts, sexual violence, and illegal imprisonment. They mutually reinforce one another to disable dissent and consolidate control over areas that Russia has illegally occupied during its war of aggression against Ukraine.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for initiating this important debate and laying before us the scope and scale of the atrocities going on specifically in the occupied areas, as well as in the whole of Ukraine. We have to remember that when—on the blessed day—peace arrives, it will take some time before Ukraine becomes safe. Given the amount of unexploded ordnance, the number of atrocities and the recovery that is required, does he agree that we need to consider options and futures for those Ukrainians to whom we have given shelter in the UK under the Homes for Ukraine scheme, to give them an option for when they return, rather than assuming that peace is the point at which they must return?

[Alex Sobel]

If we look back to the 1990s, and the UK’s role in Bosnia and Kosovo in particular, that gives us a model. Many of the people who sought refuge here during those wars were able to stay, but now many have gone back—after we de-mined, supported the process of reconciliation and provided mental health support and other things—and are prominent in society in Kosovo and Bosnia. I hope that in this case we can do the same, helping to support and strengthen Ukraine in the future.

I would like to highlight three main asks in addition to the overall policy, which we should retain, of non-recognition of Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine. First, we need to work with major British news outlets such as the BBC—including the World Service—Sky News and The Guardian to profile civil detainee cases, focusing on personal stories such as those of Serhiy Tsyhipa and Kostiantyn Zinovkin. We must reinforce the global legal consensus. Secondly, we need to support evidence-sharing initiatives with the ICC and European prosecutors working on war crime cases. Thirdly, we need to deter any attempts to normalise or legitimise aggression. That must be underwritten, of course, by legitimate and firm security guarantees for Ukraine.

I want to finish with the words of Artur, whom Jen Stout interviewed in 2022:

“To defend Ukraine, we’re defending all of Europe. The West would be next, they’ll capture your cities. Putin fancies himself an Emperor. If you don’t help us, there’ll be no more peace in your homes. I sacrificed my health at 22 years old, to protect the whole of Europe from Russian madness”.

I thank Dr Kseniya Oksamytna of the University of London; Tanya Mulesa of Justice and Accountability for Ukraine; Dr Jade McGlynn of the Centre for Statecraft and National Security; the Foreign Policy Centre; and the Ukrainian embassy in London for their help with this speech. Moreover, I thank the people of Ukraine, whose resilience ensures that Ukraine stays strong through the biting winters and beaming summers. Slava Ukraini!

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman for opening the debate, and remind all Back-Bench colleagues that you should continue to bob, please, if you wish to speak. Given the level of interest, if everyone can confine themselves to about five minutes each, we should get everybody in.

13:47

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), who is chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine and who has advocated daily for Ukraine ever since the full-scale invasion.

The hon. Gentleman talked about Stalin, and that is a good place to start, because Russia’s attempt to dress up its occupation of Ukrainian territory as legitimate statehood is not new; it is very much from Stalin’s playbook. When Nazi Germany invaded Poland in 1939, the red army followed from the east just over two weeks later, and the Soviet authorities staged elections to so-called people’s assemblies in western Ukraine and Belarus. Those elections were rigged and held in an atmosphere of repression, with armed militia forcibly bringing people to the polling stations, so it is little wonder that those assemblies then voted to join the Soviet Union.

However, the fact is that Putin will never truly secure legitimate ownership of Ukrainian territory without the consent of the Ukrainian people, and that is consent they will never give. Max Weber said that

“the basis of every system of authority…is a belief, a belief by virtue of which persons exercising authority are lent prestige”.

Legitimacy is earned not through power or coercion, but through belief. Putin does not have that belief from the Ukrainian people and never will.

That has not stopped the Kremlin trying to manufacture the illusion. In 2023 Putin signed a decree defining residents of occupied areas of eastern Ukraine who refused Russian passports as stateless, exposing them to the threat of deportation. That is coercion dressed up as “choice”; it creates a paper trail designed to support a false narrative that Ukrainians are willingly accepting Russian rules.

That façade also exists in education and social services. In education, Russian occupation authorities claim that students in occupied Ukraine have the choice to continue learning Ukrainian and that most simply do not. The resulting decline in Ukrainian study is then presented as evidence of popular support for Russian control. In social services, the occupied territories are also being weaponised. A clear example is Russia’s maternity capital scheme—a state payment to citizens after the birth of a second or third child—which has now been extended into the occupied territories of Ukraine. By making that support conditional on parents and children holding Russian citizenship, the authorities pressure families to accept Russian passports for their newborns.

I would like to say something about the occupied territories in Donetsk, and particularly the fortress belt. Russia is not simply trying to hold territory on a de facto basis; it is trying to turn occupation into a reality even for those parts of Donetsk and Luhansk that it does not occupy and, through peace talks, to achieve on a de jure basis what it has not achieved by military means. It is for the Ukrainian people to determine what their war aims are and, through these peace talks, what, if anything, they are prepared to concede. However, they know the risk in conceding the strategically important fortress belt in the Donetsk oblast, because that roughly 50 km chain of fortified cities has formed the backbone of Ukraine’s eastern defences since 2014. Kremlin officials have demanded that Ukraine cede control of that portion of Donetsk as a condition for any ceasefire agreement. That is cynical; as the Institute for the Study of War notes, Ukraine has spent more than a decade reinforcing that line, and I think we can all forecast that conceding it would make life much easier for a further Russian invasion in the future. The institute also says that withdrawing would mean Ukrainian troops moving into less defensible terrain to the west, where any new defensive line would run through open fields and would abandon obstacles such as the Oskil and Siverskyi Donets rivers. Russia would win through diplomacy what it has not been able to win militarily, and Ukraine would be left with a weaker defensive line.

To conclude, non-recognition denies Russia the legitimacy it seeks, and blocks the laundering of conquest through sham votes, coerced passports and captured institutions. For 80 years, our security has rested on the simple principle that borders cannot be changed by force, which dates back all the way to the Westphalia treaty in the 17th century. If we allow that principle to erode now, we do not preserve peace; we invite further war. If we accept occupation, we do not buy stability; we promote permission.

13:52

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for all the work he is doing on Ukraine and for securing this important debate on the non-recognition of the Russian occupied territories, allowing me and other Members of Parliament to state on the record that we utterly condemn Putin’s invasion of parts of the sovereign territory of Ukraine.

We must not allow aggressors to get away with the invasion and attempted annexation of another nation’s sovereign territory. That is essential if we are to uphold international law and the rules-based international order. Moreover, weakness, inaction and ceding to Putin will only embolden him, as indeed it already has. Not content with his invasion of Crimea in 2014, he launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The United Nations has repeatedly reaffirmed Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders. Russia has absolutely no right to try to assimilate the territories it is occupying into its own administrative systems.

Rather than repeat the excellent points made by colleagues about the legal framework, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) about the appalling kidnapping of Ukrainian children, I will mention some of the other aspects of the dreadful situation facing the citizens of Ukraine. On its last visit, the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine went to Vinnytsia, a city the size of Swansea in central Ukraine, which has welcomed, housed and supported 47,000 Ukrainians displaced from the temporarily occupied territories—47,000 individuals who have had to make agonising decisions about uprooting and leaving their homes, friends, family and work colleagues. Each of them will have their own story and will be worrying day in, day out about what is happening in their home towns, in the temporarily occupied territories, and about what the future holds.

We also met extraordinary business people who had come to Vinnytsia and re-established their businesses. One entrepreneur had relocated his factory there and had had to recruit new workers, while a couple who had a patisserie business were not only setting up new kitchens but establishing a whole new customer base in local cafes. We then visited a displaced university that had moved lock, stock and barrel to Vinnytsia. That was in just one city, and it is replicated across Ukraine, at a time when those cities themselves are under attack from Putin, when their resources are having to be prioritised for the war effort, and when many of their citizens are serving on the frontline. The challenges and pressures are enormous. I mention those displaced populations to remind us of their individual human stories and to highlight the impact of the exodus of talent from their home towns.

We have seen the devastation in the temporarily occupied territories. Buildings have been destroyed, and there has been a lack of water and power. Cities have had their physical infrastructure hollowed out, and have seen the loss of so many of their citizens, both on the frontline and by displacement to other areas of Ukraine and beyond. That has a significant impact on their resilience.

More than that, Ukrainian citizens are subject to Russia’s relentless attack on their very identity, being declared by Russia as Russian citizens, with some 3.5 million Russian passports issued and 300,000 people forcibly conscripted into the Russian military forces. Some 664 cultural heritage sites have been damaged or destroyed, and Ukrainian children are being forced to follow the Russian curriculum, with its narrative and worldview. We heard from the Ukrainian Ministry of Education and Science that it provides online materials, which families have to use clandestinely, to allow their children some access to Ukrainian education.

Ukrainians in the temporarily occupied territories have been subject to the most appalling abuse by the Russian authorities, with over 15,000 detained. There is an horrendous list of arbitrary arrests, appalling detention conditions, torture, sexual violence, unfair trials and people being detained either in the many detention centres in the temporarily occupied territories or after being deported to Russia. There is specific targeting of those who uphold Ukrainian civic identity, of local officials who will not collaborate with the aggressors and even of those who are just distributing aid. The inhumane and illegal treatment of Ukrainians in the temporarily occupied territories receives little news coverage, and too often does not feature in talks about a ceasefire or peace.

The Minister has taken a sustained interest in all these matters, so I would be grateful if he could tell us what the United Kingdom is doing, and what more we can do, to highlight and tackle these issues. First, we need to raise the plight of civilians and detainees in the temporarily occupied territories as widely as possible, particularly with appropriate international bodies and forums such as the United Nations and the G7. Secondly, we need to support international bodies such as the ICC in getting access and establishing accountability, and provide support for the Ukrainian authorities and NGOs trying to document this situation. Thirdly, we need to impose sanctions on those authorising and carrying out crimes against the civilian population.

As extraordinarily challenging as it is, it is vital that we work persistently with Ukrainian and international allies in raising the plight of those living under occupation and the illegal acts against them, particularly those held in detention. We must stress the accountability of their captors, and seek the location and release of those who are in detention or who have disappeared.

We need to look beyond the present to a time when the temporarily occupied territories come back under Ukrainian control, and prepare for the enormous task of reconstruction. That will not only be a physical task of rebuilding infrastructure, but will—crucially—require the rebuilding of communities.

13:59

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), who has been tireless in raising the issue of our support for Ukraine. I was delighted to hear from him that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) has received the Order of Merit; it is richly deserved. I was proud to receive it when I chaired the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine, and I know that the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley was equally proud. It is a great honour.

The hon. Member began his remarks by saying, rightly, that this is day 1,435 of the full-scale war, but he also rightly pointed out that Russia’s attack on Ukraine began with the annexation of Crimea 12 years earlier. It was arguably even before that, when Russia made it clear that it believed Crimea was Russian territory and its Parliament voted that Sevastopol was a Russian city. The annexation took place in a flagrant breach of the Budapest memorandum, of which we were a signatory along with Russia and the United States. It was a breach of international law. As I have said before, I think the rather feeble response from the west to the annexation contributed to Russia’s belief that it could go further in attacking Donbas.

After the annexation of Crimea, we had the little green men and the separatist movement in Donbas, but we knew—the evidence was overwhelming—that they were not separatists. They were armed, funded and directed by Russia. Indeed, after the horrific shooting down of MH17 on to the territory by separatists, we had intercepts to show they were clearly operating under the command of Russians.

During that time I visited several parts of Ukraine, including those now under occupation. I went to Mariupol, a city on the Black sea. Even then, it was being squeezed by the Russians as a result of the blockade of the Kerch strait to prevent ships from reaching Berdyansk and Mariupol. Since then, Mariupol has been almost completely destroyed, with 75,000 civilians killed in the battle with the Russians. This was an area that Russia claimed wanted to be liberated. It argued that the people were Russian speakers who felt Russian, that their allegiance was to Russia and that they were somehow going to be freed from Nazi oppression in Kyiv. It is the Russian propaganda playbook. It had absolutely no basis in truth, and the fact that so many Russian-speaking citizens in Donbas have been killed in the war proves the cynicism of the Russians.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) talked about the conditions in Donbas. I just had a quick check. This weekend in Donetsk, the temperature will be between minus 11 and minus 18. People can expect to receive water every four days. They are predominantly elderly people, the young people having largely fled, and the conditions there are utterly appalling. What is happening in the occupied territories is horrific, and the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley is absolutely right to raise it.

As well as the ongoing fighting, we know that atrocities are being committed, as mentioned by the hon. Members for Leeds Central and Headingley and for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith). We had a meeting yesterday with Dr Jade McGlynn of the war unit in King’s College London, who has done a lot of research about Ukrainians’ plight. We heard that an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 Ukrainians have been detained or have disappeared. We were told that 92% of those who have been released have reported being tortured, ill-treated and systematically abused, with sexual violence used as a deliberate method of humiliation, initially triggering men but then also women.

I want to put two questions to the Minister, one of which relates to those atrocities. On the statute book, we have sanctions available for deliberate abuse of human rights. There is a list of individuals who have been identified as perpetrators of these abuses. Will the Minister look at extending sanctions to the people carrying out these appalling crimes?

My other question relates to a specific location in the Donbas area: Zaporizhzhia, which has one of the biggest nuclear power plants in Europe. It closed down in September 2022, but there are reports that the Russians intend to reactivate its first reactor. The head of the Ukrainian nuclear energy service has said that that risks “nuclear catastrophe”, that the Russians do not know about the safety systems, they do not have the details of the plant, and that to do so is reckless and potentially incredibly dangerous. We are told that it forms part of the discussions taking place between America and Russia but, given Chernobyl—also a Ukrainian nuclear power plant, and we know what happened there—I should be grateful if the Minister would say anything about that specific issue, or at least raise it.

14:05

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for securing the debate but, most importantly, for his significant commitment to the people of Ukraine and everything he does. It is great to see Members across the House continuing to be united on this issue.

Jesse Jackson once said:

“If you fall behind, run faster. Never give up, never surrender, and rise up against the odds.”

Ukraine has embodied that spirit from the first day of Russia’s illegal invasion. Today, Putin insists that any peace deal must involve Ukraine surrendering territory. His agreement to any draft peace deal can only proceed, he claims, if Kyiv gives up land. Ukraine is right to reject that. Conceding territory would not be peace; it would be capitulation. International law is unambiguous: territory cannot be acquired by force, and the international community has consistently refused to legitimise borders drawn through coercion.

Along with our NATO partners, we maintain a firm policy of non-recognition of Russia’s illegal occupation and attempted annexation of Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Sevastopol, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. The Kremlin may talk about peace, but its actions and continued demands show no willingness to retreat. Ukraine is not about to raise the white flag, and we stand shoulder to shoulder with her citizens. Putin refuses to acknowledge the strength of Ukraine’s fight—its ingenuity, sacrifice, bravery and unshakeable determination—but we refuse to ignore it. The Ukrainians’ resolve in defending what is right has been nothing short of extraordinary.

Beyond politics and principles lies the human reality. In cities such as Mariupol, which has been occupied since 2022, citizens have lived through devastation, forced Russification and the dismantling of Ukrainian civic life. Residents describe it as “hell on earth”. Some 350,000 people fled; many are now refugees trying to build their lives away from home. As the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) said, those who stayed faced unimaginable hardship. Some sheltered in the basements of bombed-out buildings, including 75-year-old Angela, who refused to leave the stray animals she cared for and is living in a damp, windowless, freezing apartment. Others, including Larisa, said the only way to survive was to accept Russian documents. Without a Russian passport, they cannot get medical care, employment or even keep their own home—all while living under constant surveillance. Up to 90% of Mariupol’s buildings were damaged or destroyed, and there is no credible evidence that there has been any meaningful change in the situation there.

When I visited Ukraine last year, I saw the destruction at first hand: shattered buildings, disrupted communities and daily lives reshaped by war. What stood out more, though, was not the physical damage but the unbroken spirit of Ukrainians, whose resolve in the face of aggression is extraordinary, exceptional and enduring. They remain clear: they are Ukrainians, and they will remain Ukrainians.

As we have heard, the forced transfer of Ukrainian children from occupied territories into Russia raises grave concerns. It is a huge, serious humanitarian violation, and those children must be returned. We must stand firm in demanding that. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who is no longer in her place, for her outstanding work in continuing to champion this issue, and I congratulate her on her award and recognition this week from President Zelensky.

The road to restoring Ukraine’s territorial integrity will be complex, but the foundations of international law are solid. Sovereignty cannot be overwritten by force, and despite the scale of suffering, there is some hope. The Ukrainians’ resilience, the unwavering support of allies and the strength of international law point to a future in which Ukraine’s territory is restored. We should continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Ukrainians until that day comes.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Order. As hon. Members will see, we have four speakers remaining. I want to start the Front-Bench speeches at about 2.28 pm, so that probably means that Members have about four and a half minutes each, I am afraid.

14:11

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Having listened to all the excellent preceding speeches, I have to say that occasions such as this make me proud to be a Member of the British Parliament. I congratulate everyone who has spoken with such a united voice.

If I may, I will just make some brief elaborations on the opening comments and superb contribution of the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). He referred in particular to the non-recognition of the Baltic states, and it is worth looking at that a little more closely. The Baltic states were occupied and incorporated into the Soviet Union for approximately half a century; never did this country recognise that. If those of us who saw the Soviet Union at the height of its power in the mid-1980s had been told that one day the Governments in exile of those three absorbed republics would be able to step forward and pick up the torch of democracy owing to the collapse of their overlords, we would have said, “Well, we would love to think that would happen, but do we honestly think it is going to happen in our lifetimes? Probably not.” But it did, and when it did, the implosion was dramatic, unexpected and complete.

[Dawn Butler in the Chair]

Yet there are some people who regard the break-up—the dissolution—of the Soviet empire as a geopolitical disaster. Hon. Members know to whom I am referring in particular: Vladimir Putin. Given that that is Putin’s attitude, one thing that we can certainly deduce from the present situation is that there is no such thing as a peace deal to be had with Vladimir Putin and his cohorts. The fact is that if there is a deal of any sort—if there is a ceasefire—it is for one reason and one reason only: that Putin feels at the time of such a deal or a ceasefire that he cannot successfully go further. If then there is a cessation of fighting for a while, we can be equally sure that the moment Putin thinks he can go further, he will start all over again. So there is absolutely nothing to be gained, in terms of good will, or a basis for future relationships or stability, by giving any concessions to Putin whatsoever in terms of land exchanges or recognition of occupation.

Let me turn to another parallel with the 1930s—the fact that Putin made one big error. He signalled by his early occupation of Crimea what his intentions were, but he was not then able to carry them out for quite a few years, in which time the defensive capability of the Ukrainians had massively increased with the surreptitious help, I suspect, of certain western powers, including ourselves. As a result, Ukraine was able to put up a much stronger defence than anybody who was not part of that secret rearmament and training programme would have anticipated.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I am listening with great interest to my right hon. Friend’s speech. He will remember Operation Orbital, during which the UK provided training and supplies to the Ukrainian armed forces in anticipation of the attack that then followed.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Yes, that is entirely the sort of contribution that I have in mind. As a result of that, when Putin was ready to take his next bite, the Ukrainians were able to prevent him, yet many people, including me, thought the most that we could probably do was to offer the Ukrainian Government a Government-in-exile headquarters in London when the whole country was overrun. The whole country was not overrun. Hopefully, the whole country never will be overrun, but those parts of it that have been overrun must never be recognised as belonging to the successors of the Soviet Union—namely the gang around Vladimir Putin, the killer in the Kremlin.

14:15

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for securing this debate and the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who made some very powerful points about parallels with the Baltic states that I completely agree with. I think all Members in attendance are absolutely clear that if a state that invades its neighbour and holds territory by force gains political or territorial reward for that, it is not buying peace; it is simply queuing up the next war. Borders should not be changed at the barrel of a gun.

At the same time, it must be said plainly that it is for Ukraine and Ukraine alone to decide what compromises, if any, it is prepared to make. It is not for us, not for allies and not for foreign politicians sitting far away from the frontline. That is why I am deeply concerned by suggestions that Ukraine is being asked to give up Ukrainian-controlled territory in the Donbas as a precondition for peace or even as the price of future security guarantees.

Let us be honest about what that means. My hon. Friend made the point earlier. The frontline in the Donbas is among the most fortified places on earth. It was built at great cost and defended with extraordinary courage. Thousands of Ukrainians have given their lives defending it, and they did not do so lightly or on a whim. One must have solid grounds to do so, and it must come concurrently with solid security guarantees.

History warns us where this road leads. In 1938, Czechoslovakia was forced to hand over the Sudetenland, where most of its defences were, in the name of peace, and that peace lasted months. By 1939, the country was occupied and its independence was destroyed. Concessions do not bring security; they can sometimes invite catastrophe.

When we talk about security guarantees, let us not overlook the most real and effective guarantee Ukraine has right now: the brave men and women of Ukraine’s armed forces. They are the reason why Ukraine still exists as a sovereign state. Their courage, discipline and sacrifice are what stand between freedom and occupation, and any peace must allow those forces to be equipped and manned at a level that deters future attacks.

I worry that parts of the international community are not doing their bit. In my view, the United States Administration has been leaning far too heavily towards accommodating the Kremlin. They are talking tough but failing to use the enormous economic, military and political levers they have to apply real pressure. I thank the Minister for the work he has been doing to make sure that British sanctions and support have been robust for Ukraine.

I am very concerned by data showing that overall military aid to Ukraine actually fell last year, even though countries such as the US, France and Germany stepped up their support. At this stage of the war, any drop in assistance sends the wrong signal. We need to give the Ukrainians everything they need and avoid the drip, drip of capabilities and arms that we have seen since the war began.

Finally, we need to be honest about how Russia has used frozen conflicts to its advantage. Across the post-Soviet space, including Transnistria, Abkhazia and the Donbas, Moscow has deliberately kept territorial disputes unresolved as a way of holding its neighbours in limbo. Those conflicts are not accidents; they are tools used to maintain influence, block stability and make it harder for countries to choose their own future or their own alliances. We should not kid ourselves about what these frozen conflicts really are. They are not peaceful compromises; they are pressure points. They allow aggression to fester, and they show us that peace built by accommodating an aggressor does not resolve the case; it simply locks injustice in place.

If, to stop the bloodshed, we have to accept non-recognition of occupied territories but de facto control by Russia—a frozen conflict—that again is for Ukrainians alone to decide. We must support them in their decision, but ensure that in this country we do not recognise Russian claims for one minute. A just and lasting peace cannot be built on coercion or enforced surrender. It cannot be built by asking the victim to pay the price for the aggressor’s crimes. I stand with all my parliamentary colleagues today in standing firm for Ukraine’s territorial integrity, its right to choose its own future and a peace that is real and genuinely durable.

[Dawn Butler (in the Chair)]

To get the last two speakers in, will Members stick to roughly four minutes or just under?

14:20

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Ms Butler—it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I say a big thank you to the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for his continued focus on doing the right thing by the Ukrainian people. I want to set the scene in relation to Russia’s campaign of murder, their rape of girls as young as eight and women as old as 80, and their massacres and torture. When the Minister responds, we want to hear that those who have carried out war crimes are made accountable.

I chair the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief. I remember when the Russians first attacked Donbas and a number of Baptist pastors went missing. They were never found. They were kidnapped and disappeared. Their churches were destroyed and holy relics stolen and damaged. I wish to say very clearly that I am appalled by Russian aggression towards their neighbours and their determination to take what they want, regardless of the wishes of the Ukrainian people, or indeed of international law.

The hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley rightly spoke about advocating for using frozen Russian assets and the UK aid budget to rebuild critical energy infrastructure. Never was that needed more than it is now. If it was done with Libyan assets, it can be done with Russian assets. It frustrates me no end that we bind ourselves to laws that do nothing but protect the finances of aggressors and criminals. Once someone steps outside the law, we should have the capacity to ensure they do not profit from that country again.

We are all here to support the motion proposed by the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley. We can never recognise the Russian invasion and legitimise it by recognising its diktats. The refusal to recognise Russia’s illegal annexations is often framed as a matter of maps and mandates, but it is much more than that. Beneath the ink of international law lies a more urgent reality: the fundamental rights of millions of human beings.

I read an article recently that highlighted that non-recognition is our strongest shield against the erasure of identity. In the occupied territories of Ukraine we are witnessing a systematic campaign of forced passportisation. As documented by the United Nations Human Rights Office, residents are being coerced into abandoning their citizenship just to access basic survival. Without a Russian passport, a mother is denied medical care for her child. An elderly man is stripped of his pension. A worker is barred from his livelihood. That is not governance. It is administrative blackmail and we must never accept that faux governance.

I recently spoke to someone who carries out missionary work in Ukraine. They are from Faith in Action in my constituency and they outlined the despicable treatment of young Ukrainian soldiers. That goes back to my first point about the torture and physical abuses inflicted on young Ukrainian soldiers. Young men are abused in any way we can imagine—and in ways we would not like to imagine. Dirty bandages are deliberately used to cause infections. The types of people attempting to impose governance have no regard to dignity or indeed life. We must continue to remain staunch in our opposition.

We must also remain resolute in support of the Ukrainians and be very clear that we will not legitimise Russia’s illegitimate actions now or at any time in the future, whether it be Crimea, the Donbas or wherever. There is no sliding scale of sovereignty. If we concede an inch of the 1991 borders, we concede the entire UN charter. Putin is betting on Ukraine fatigue and western fatigue. He believes that if he holds territory long enough, the world will eventually blink and accept the new reality. This debate today must prove once again that our Government are not for turning. Let another sanction be added to my name and the names of many others here. We are not going to back down, either individually or collectively.

14:24

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for securing this debate, and for all his work to advance the rights of the Ukrainian people. I also thank all hon. Members here today to debate non-recognition of Russian occupied territory.

It has now been more than 1,400 days since Russia launched a full-scale invasion, which we in this House, in the Government and in this country utterly condemn. Ukraine is a free country and has long enjoyed freedom, democracy and the right to choose its own destiny. It continues to have the sovereign right to decide its own future. We all agree that in attacking Ukraine, President Putin attacked democracy, freedom and the rights of nations across Europe to choose their own path. Put bluntly, we cannot allow that freedom to be snuffed out. I say to the people of Ukraine, who have endured unimaginable hardship for nearly four years, that Bournemouth stands with them and the UK stands with them. We all stand with their families and with their country.

For all the bombs, tanks and missiles that Putin has thrown at Ukraine, he has failed in his central aim: he has not broken the Ukrainian spirit. Theirs is a courage that refuses to be broken. He has not crushed the national will of a people determined to live freely. As we have heard today from hon. Members, that is important, because it means that Ukrainians will never give consent for Russian occupation. Ukraine’s future must be shaped by Ukrainians, not imposed by brute force. The Donbas must not be traded away in backroom deals, nor must any other part of Ukrainian territory.

I welcome the fact that our Prime Minister, along with European leaders, has been unequivocal that territorial integrity and borders matter, and that borders should not be redrawn by force. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), Europe learned those lessons the hard way, through devastation and bloodshed, and to forget them would be a grave mistake.

Russia may occupy parts of Ukrainian territory, but occupation is not ownership, control is not consent and this temporary military reality must never become permanent legal recognition. The NATO Secretary-General and leading legal experts have been clear that there is no legal, moral or political case for recognising land seized by force, nor should there be. Recognition would not secure peace in Ukraine, nor would it secure peace around the world. It would reward aggression and invite more of it.

We in this country need to be particularly cognisant of that, because we are repelling Russian cyber-attacks and disinformation every day. Every day, our security services fight against Russian spying and sabotage of our infrastructure. Those threats are, to a great extent, invisible to our public, and there is a sense that we do not want to draw too much attention to them lest we alarm people, but there comes a point when the scale, intensity and persistence of Russian attacks on our way of life need to be made public. One of the ways we can start to talk about that is by highlighting the threat of allowing Ukraine to in any way have its land ceded to Russia.

In closing, we know that we need a peace that endures, not merely a pause, because we know what Putin would do with a pause. We know what he is already doing while “talk peace” is ringing around capitals in Europe: he is instructing his Russian military to strike hospitals, he is killing civilians and he is leaving millions without power in the depths of a cold, cold winter. If Putin does that while promising peace, imagine what he would do in any pause.

We must strengthen our support for Ukraine and plan for a just peace, but we must also recognise Putin for what he is. We must intensify pressure on those bankrolling his war, including oil trades and the shadow fleet, and speed up the clean energy transition so that this country is no longer insecure and vulnerable to massive fossil fuel price hikes. We must always support Ukraine to defend herself and to exercise the right to choose her future, and because peace in Europe is secured by confronting aggression, we must never yield. We must never allow settlement to be imposed over the heads of the Ukrainian people.

14:28

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) on securing this important debate. I will start by echoing the sentiment expressed by so many hon. and right hon. Members in this debate that any decision on whether to surrender territory is for Ukraine and Ukraine alone. Peace cannot mean carving up a sovereign European state behind closed doors; it cannot mean big powers forcing Ukraine to surrender its land and its people.

We must not accept the principle that borders can be changed by force or by coercion, whether in Ukraine or anywhere else in Europe. It is vital that we stand up for the rules-based international order, even more so because there are those who flaunt it. I do not believe Putin’s vision of peace. I do not believe it is peace at all. It is a pause that will allow Russia to re-group, re-arm and return. We have seen this before in Georgia, Crimea and the Donbas.

Every inch of occupied Ukrainian land matters, whether that be Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia or Kherson. These are sovereign Ukrainian territories occupied illegally under international law. That is why we must finally act on frozen Russian assets. Some £30 billion of Russian assets reside in the UK. Meanwhile, Ukrainian cities are bombed, children are abducted and civilians freeze without power.

In the coming days, temperatures in Kyiv will drop to below minus 20°. Thousands will freeze to death. Russia must be forced to pay for its illegal war of aggression. While our support for Ukraine is unwavering, it cannot be right that British taxpayers pay while oligarchs’ wealth remains untouched. The Liberal Democrats have been consistently clear that the legal and moral case exists, and to delay costs Ukrainian lives.

We in this House discuss the war in Ukraine often, and time and again those debates show that our support for Ukraine is near unanimous. We hear the feelings of those in this House, but the wider public conversation is often missing from those discussions.

Although we are united here, Russia is doing everything it can to divide opinion beyond these walls. It is sowing division through bots, fake accounts and co-ordinated misinformation. It is bribing politicians like Nathan Gill, the former head of Reform in Wales. It is seeking to influence elections, as I saw at first hand during my visit with the Foreign Affairs Committee to Moldova and Romania. It is painting itself as the victim despite being the aggressor, and it is brazenly attempting to rewrite reality in real time. The United States now has a President who openly flirts with the idea of handing Ukrainian land to Russia, and who has repeated Kremlin talking points.

The Minister for the Armed Forces spoke eloquently in the Chamber the other day when he said:

“there may not be a border but there is a frontline.” —[Official Report, 14 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 1036.]

I agree, but I would also go further. Each of us is on that frontline electronically: it is our phones, our social media platforms, our Twitter feeds. Wars are not just fought with weapons; they are fought with misinformation and disinformation, with lies dressed up as common sense and comment sections filled up with bots.

I am sure many of us here have been told in person or online that it was NATO or Ukraine that started this war. That is a lie. It is a lie spread by Russia, but it is a lie that gets repeated. We must speak the truth continually and relentlessly. It was Russia that started this illegal war. It is Ukraine that is defending itself.

Here today, we must reaffirm that non-recognition of occupied territories is not a diplomatic theory. It is a line that protects peace in Europe, because non-recognition does not just happen in this House, in No. 10, in conferences or on international stages—it must happen in people’s lives too. It must happen in what they read and |in what they share.

Yesterday, the Financial Times reported that the Trump Administration have indicated to Ukraine that US security guarantees may be contingent on Kyiv agreeing to cede the Donbas—that Ukraine should withdraw from its own territory as the price of peace. That is an attempt to strong-arm Kyiv into painful concessions that are demanded by Moscow. It is not peace; it is coercion.

Ukraine has been clear: security guarantees must come before any discussion on land. Yet pressure is being applied almost exclusively to Kyiv, not to Moscow. The rules-based international order—the one that many of us learned about in schools and university, and that created stability, prosperity and the possibility of peace—allowed small nations to thrive without fear of invasion. It was imperfect, but it was grounded in rules that we believed applied to everyone.

That order is now being dismantled by messages, tweets and decisions: in the humiliation of President Zelensky in the Oval Office; in the threats to invade Greenland; in random tariffs against allies and enemies alike; in the pausing of weapons to Ukraine; and in the quiet adoption of Russian talking points about territory and responsibility. It should deeply concern us that the US national security strategy was welcomed by the Kremlin as “largely consistent” with Russia’s view.

As Prime Minister Carney said in his powerful speech in Davos, middle powers have been quiet for too long—too submissive, too willing to rely on a hegemon that may no longer share our values. The UK must recognise that we are moving towards a multilateral world where co-operation between like-minded democracies matters far more than blind reliance on a single power. We may all agree that we must not recognise Russian-occupied territories, and that Ukraine must decide what happens to its territories, but agreement here is not enough if people outside are being convinced that Ukraine does not matter, that borders do not matter and that this war has nothing to do with them.

During a Foreign Affairs Committee session, I asked Nina Jankowicz, the former director of the US disinformation governance board, about Russian interference in UK politics. She was clear: she pointed to the convergence of Russian rhetoric with that of specific voice here in Britain—their narrative echoed, amplified and normalised. We should not be surprised that the person she mentioned had a show on Russian-sponsored TV. We should not be surprised because he has personal ties to an authoritarian Trump Administration who parrot Russian talking points. We should not be surprised because he said Putin was the leader he admired the most. We should not be surprised that neither he, nor any of his party, is here today condemning Russia.

If we allow misinformation to hollow out public support, our foreign policy becomes brittle. If people stop believing that this matters to their children’s future, Russia succeeds without firing another shot. Yes, we must act abroad with our allies—those who have consistently and constantly shared our values—with weapons, diplomacy and leadership, but we must also act here at home by taking misinformation seriously, defending truth, protecting our elections, and refusing to allow bots and lies to set the terms of any debate. Ukraine must not be forced to give up territory and we must not recognise Russian-occupied land—not in this House, not in the Government and not online. Russia is trying to divide us and, for Ukraine, we must not let it.

14:34

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

It has been a pleasure to serve under both your chairmanship, Ms Butler, and Sir Jeremy’s. This debate is as important now as it was on the very first day of the illegal invasion. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), who is also chair of the APPG on Ukraine, on securing the debate and on his long-standing commitment to the cause. He set out a clear passion for not just ending the conflict, but exposing the horrific atrocities that Russia has committed in Ukraine. He also said that the peace we hopefully secure for Ukraine should be lasting and fair for its people.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), the former chair of the APPG, brought a wealth of experience to the debate and highlighted that we have a trio of Members in the debate who have the Ukrainian Order of Merit, showing the commitment over many years of Members across this House to supporting our allies. For many Members, it is not a new-found interest or cause; it has been of grave concern for a long time. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) gave us a history lesson, and spoke about the lessons that we should learn from history, which I will touch on later. Often, we do not learn the obvious lessons from the pages of our history books.

As pointed out by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), and others, it is easy to think of the Ukrainian conflict as something that purely happens elsewhere and not in our own country or on our own Facebook and X feeds —that it is not about Russia actively being aggressive to us through cyber-warfare. But addressing the misinformation that exists in our society is equally as important in fighting the conflict.

The Opposition remain steadfast in our commitment to the people of Ukraine and their right to defend its sovereignty, territorial integrity and the freedom and democracy of its citizens. This was an illegal invasion and we are clear that territorial concessions would simply be a reward for Putin. It does not take a degree in military history to know that if we appease a dictator with concessions, they will never be content with small gains—and, by the way, I have a degree in military history, and I know from my studies that if we acquiesce now, Putin will not simply stop with Ukraine or bits of Ukraine. He will come for our other allies in eastern Europe, and he will not be happy until NATO has been torn apart by Russia’s territorial ambitions and actions.

Russia’s demands have been deliberately excessive, with Russia no doubt intending to paint Ukraine as unreasonable for simply seeking peace in its own territory. As the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), has rightly pointed out, with this statecraft, Mr Putin has his KGB playbook out. We cannot accept that.

The recent trilateral talks once again highlight Ukraine’s sincere desire for peace. What is the British Government’s assessment of those talks and whether any progress has been made? Does the Minister agree that the onus remains squarely on Putin to prove that he is sincere about wanting an end to this war, in contradiction to some of the things that we have heard today? We all saw the disgraceful attacks on Kyiv that Putin launched against the backdrop of the talks. Any sincere attempt for peace must surely be preceded by an end to the killing of innocent people.

This war has been nothing other than barbaric. Russia has targeted civilians; women and children have been killed in indiscriminate attacks on Ukrainian towns and cities; children have been abducted from their parents; and strikes on energy infrastructure have led to power outages and no heating—while temperatures have hovered around minus 15°C for three weeks. The Ukrainian people are suffering, even in parts of the country where Russia’s military has not managed to penetrate.

What assessment have the Government made of the treatment of Ukrainian citizens in areas under Russian control, and what future guarantees will they seek for citizens in the event of peace being agreed? If a peace is reached with military guarantees from Europe, and British troops are sent to help facilitate that peace, what does the Minister expect the rules of engagement to be? How many troops does he envisage we would send? How would rotations work? What are his thoughts on the composition of the force, and would any British soldiers be actively involved in the policing and patrolling of any border or demilitarised zone? Finally, what air and naval assets might be provided as part of a multinational force for Ukraine?

To keep the pressure on Putin to end the war, we must continue to increase sanctions. Throughout the conflict, we have rightly sanctioned assets in the UK and Europe that could have been used to aid the Russians in their illegal war. Thousands of oligarchs and Russian elites received sanctions, including in 2022 when the regime attempted to construct a phony referendum in four regions of Ukraine. Will the Minister assure us that any attempt by Russia to fabricate legitimacy through a false cloak of democracy will continue to be called out for what it is? Does he have any updates on dialogue with Belgium about efforts to use frozen Russian assets for Ukraine’s war effort?

[Tom Hayes]

The point about democracy and elections is important. The Government have launched an investigation into external influences on our own democracy, particularly financial influences, in the wake of the Old Bailey sentencing Nathan Gill, the elected Reform politician, to 10 and a half years in prison for pushing out Putin’s propaganda in the European Parliament. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is unacceptable for any elected British politician to pump out Russian propaganda? Does he agree that it is a particular problem that is unique to Reform? Does he welcome the investigation that the Government have launched?

[Mr Snowden]

As I said at the start of my remarks, it is very easy to think that this is only happening over in Ukraine and is not something that is happening right here. The sentencing of Nathan Gill should prompt some real reflection by Reform UK on why that activity happened for so long, unchallenged, and why Nathan felt comfortable in that party. That is something that Reform UK should seriously reflect on—and their views.

When we were in government, we led the world in defending Ukraine. We committed to providing £3 billion of military support every year for as long as necessary, and we were one of the leading donors to Ukraine, providing over £12 billion in overall support since 2022. We were often the first mover on vital lethal aid, from Storm Shadow missiles to Challenger 2 main battle tanks. We benefited from cross-party support when we were in government, and it is in that spirit that I stand here today. The Conservatives stand ready to support the Government in doing whatever it takes to help our ally to defeat this monstrous invasion, and to determine and decide its own future.

14:46

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Butler, and indeed it was a pleasure to see Sir Jeremy in the Chair before you. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for all his work on Ukraine, not just in leading this debate, but as envoy and, indeed, in chairing the APPG. I see many friends around the room—steadfast friends of Ukraine through many years, including some whom I have travelled with to Ukraine, where we saw at first hand the barbarity of what Russia has done there.

Given that the subject has been raised, I have to ask: where are Reform Members today? They are Putin’s admirers, and Members from across the House have set out their record. I also have to ask: where are the Green party Members? This week, apparently, they were saying that we do not need to spend money on defence. I ask them to tell that to the people of the Baltic countries, or indeed the people of Ukraine, because it is foolish and deeply naive.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

The Minister mentioned the Baltic states. On Monday, 26 January, the Government published a strategy, in which 14 Baltic and North sea states are involved, to tackle the Russian shadow fleet. Would he reflect on the fact that that is an excellent lever to put pressure on the economy of Russia, so that Russia is less likely to make demands, and end the war? Equally, will he advise us what teeth the new strategy to tackle the shadow fleet will have?

[Stephen Doughty]

I wholeheartedly agree with what the hon. Gentleman said. Helpfully, I have just come back from the Baltic states; I have been in Lithuania and Latvia for the last two days. It is very clear that in tackling the shadow fleet and Russian aggression, not only against Ukraine, on which we stand in solidarity with one another and with Ukraine, but in defending Europe as key NATO allies, we are working very closely with our Baltic partners.

Members made many important points about the history in relation to this very specific issue. Just yesterday, I was honoured to share with my Latvian counterparts that, of course, Britain did not recognise the occupation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union throughout all that time, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who is a former Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, set out. That was a very important signal, which is hugely recognised and absolutely crucial. Similarly, we do not and we will not recognise Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine; for that reason, they have rightly been described as “temporarily occupied”. Internationally recognised borders cannot be changed by force.

In the Baltic states, I saw the reality of what we are discussing today. Just two days ago, I walked around a former KGB prison in Vilnius, as well as seeing the Holocaust memorial and recognising what we have been recognising today and all this week, but also the brutality of the Soviet regime and of Russian imperialism more generally. I heard tragic historical accounts of poisonings, killings, detentions, show trials, and the murder of priests and others.

This is all from the same playbook, and we know that President Putin and his regime continue to go by it. The Baltic states know that, we know it, Ukraine knows it, and Members were absolutely right to highlight the appalling atrocities against people in the temporarily occupied areas.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I, too, have been to the Museum of Occupations in Vilnius. It is a remarkable fact that it is in the building that was occupied by the Gestapo, which was then simply taken over by the KGB, who continued to murder people in the basement. That tells us something about the similarity between the atrocities carried out by the Nazis and those carried out under communism.

[Stephen Doughty]

I completely and wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Member. It is a very powerful place to visit to see that reality.

Like many colleagues in the House, I have been in Kyiv when the city has been under attack. It is important to recognise the particular brutality of attacks in recent days and the loss of life. There have been attacks on trains, civilians, kindergartens and schools, leaving families not only in the cold but without access to water and without light. As part of our school twinning programme, I spoke just the other day with young children in a school in Kyiv that is twinned with a school here in the UK. Luckily, they had power at that time and could do the link-up, but there had been a major attack nearby. That reality should sit starkly in all our minds.

Of course, there is a proud link between my part of the United Kingdom and the temporarily occupied territories: Cardiff was twinned with Luhansk, and Donetsk was founded by a Welshman. We also have many links with Crimea: Welsh troops fought in the Crimean war, and that is why we have a Sebastopol in the south Wales valleys. These things echo down our history, and we stand with Ukraine today and will continue to do so into the future.

We will stand by Ukraine’s side until peace comes, and until those territories are returned. In the meantime, we welcome the continued US-led peace efforts, including last week’s trilateral talks. Let us be clear: Ukraine is the one showing its commitment to peace and to agreeing a full, immediate and unconditional ceasefire, and Russia is stalling, repeating maximalist demands and continuing to carry out vicious strikes against Ukraine’s civilian population, plunging families into freezing conditions and starving them of necessities.

Next month marks a solemn milestone: four difficult years since the full-scale invasion. Soon after that, it will be 12 years since the occupation and illegal annexation of Crimea. As Members have rightly highlighted, Russia’s occupation has always been rooted in repression, including systematic human rights abuses, the suppression of Ukrainian culture, language and independent media, and the deportation and attempts at the Russification of children. Schools have been forced to follow Kremlin curriculums, residents have been pushed to use the rouble and obtain Russian passports, and Russia has attempted to absorb the occupied regions into its legal system. That is not governance; it is despotism, and we should see it for what it is.

The humanitarian situation in the occupied territories is extreme. Medical facilities are overstretched, and often prioritise the Russian military’s needs over those of civilians. Civilians face arbitrary detention, deportation and strict movement controls, with independent monitoring simply impossible; I am glad that Members have raised individual cases today. We have spoken many times about the appalling and heinous crime of the forced deportation of Ukrainian children and their attempted indoctrination in so-called patriotism camps with military-style training. We stand with the children of Ukraine and all those seeking to return, identify and trace them. I pay tribute to the cross-party work that has gone on around that, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who is not in her place.

We have announced additional support in recent weeks to respond to humanitarian concerns, particularly on energy, including an additional £20 million for energy security and resilience to keep lights on and homes warm when civilians need it most. We will also be expanding our school twinning scheme, building resilience between our peoples, and ensuring that we continue to provide support for reconstruction and the development of Ukraine’s economy. We look to a time when there will hopefully be peace, when Ukraine can be reconstructed and we can get back to a situation where its people are able to thrive independently—and with hope—as Ukrainians in the future.

Accountability has rightly been raised many times today. Just before Christmas, I was proud to sign a treaty in The Hague that established a claims commission for Ukraine, providing a route for accountability and reparation, including for the families of illegally deported children. Last week, registered claims reached 100,000, with more categories to follow. That sends a clear message that violations of international law will not go unanswered, and we will continue to support the commission’s work, building on our role chairing the register of damage.

Sanctions were rightly raised, and we continue to increase the economic pressure on Putin. We have sanctioned more than 900 individuals, entities and ships, including 520 oil tankers. We are working with partners to counter the shadow fleet through further sanctions. We will also—although I will not comment on future designations—look at those who have been involved in the commission of atrocities, and of course Members rightly mentioned those who have been involved in the deportation of children. These measures are making a tangible difference: Russian oil revenues are at a four-year low and Russia’s economy is in its weakest position since the start of the full-scale invasion.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive and positive responses to questions. In a recent debate, I made a point about accountability for those who have committed massacres, persecution, rape and sexual abuse. It is very important that those who think they have got away with it do not get away with it. Is that part of the accountability process?

[Stephen Doughty]

It absolutely is. We are supporting the Ukrainian authorities with their own domestic accountability processes and through our work with the International Criminal Court, the special tribunal and the claims commission for the damage that Russia has done.

Our work through the coalition of the willing, which was raised by the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), is unwavering, because Russia’s aggression threatens not only Ukraine, but Europe and all of us here in the UK. The coalition of the willing is committed to delivering robust security guarantees. Importantly, the Paris meeting delivered a declaration of intent to deploy a multinational force and a vision for a multi-layered package of security guarantees supported by the United States. For obvious reasons, I will not get into specific operational details; the Opposition have asked us a number of times, but I do not think that would be helpful at this stage. However, Members can be assured that that declaration, as well as the additional support for training and equipping Ukrainian forces so that they can defend their country and deter against future aggression—Interflex, Orbital and other things were mentioned—is crucial.

Many different points were raised, and I will happily come back to Members on specific questions if I have not covered them. We are deeply concerned about the situation at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, which was mentioned, and have consistently underlined that the only way to ensure nuclear safety and security at Zaporizhzhia is for the plant to be returned to Ukraine. We continue to invest a huge amount in military support. We have invested £600 million in drones alone and delivered 65,000 military drones to Ukraine in just six months. We have invested £13 billion in total in military support. Many Members have rightly made it clear that they speak on behalf of their constituents who want to stand with the people of Ukraine. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) made that very clear.

The Government will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. We will continue working with our partners to hold Russia to account. Internationally agreed borders cannot be changed by force. Attempts to impose an Administration on Ukrainian territory will never legitimise any false claims by Russia. We will never waver in our support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Ukraine will endure and we will be by its side.

14:57

[Alex Sobel]

We had almost absolute unanimity; I think this is the most unanimous debate that I have taken part in during my time as a Member. Nearly every Member who contributed to it has been to Ukraine, sometimes many times—sometimes, unfortunately, they have had to travel with me. There may be one or two who have not been—I am not sure if the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), has been. I travelled with the Minister when he was the shadow Minister, and I can tell the shadow Minister that he would be treated akin to a Minister if he went to Kyiv. I am sure that it is in his plans to go.

I thank everybody who contributed. I will rattle through them in the time that I have left. I thank the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) for his service in the military. We definitely need to consider the historical similarities, and particularly the fortress belt. As my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) said, we need to remember the temporarily displaced people. I was with her in Vinnytsia, where we met with the university and with businesses.

My two vice-chairs on the APPG on Ukraine, the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson), made excellent speeches. The right hon. Member talked about his historical experience of being on the Black sea, the first wave of Russian aggression, the nuclear crisis and the concerns around Zaporizhzhia. My hon. Friend talked about Mariupol, which was the bravest defence in the Ukrainian war.

The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who often speaks alongside me in these debates, talked about the historical parallels of non-recognition. As I am sure he knows, my mother was from Lithuania and born during that era. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) talked about military aid. We need to ensure that the Ukrainians get sufficient military aid. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) contributes tirelessly to these debates. His work on religious freedom is hugely important. We should remember that non-Orthodox religious sites were attacked and clerics abducted. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) made an important point about NATO. NATO’s clear position is non-recognition, and we need to hold the coalition of the willing together in its entirety to ensure that there is no recognition.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of non-recognition of Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine.

River Habitats: Protection and Restoration

Thursday 29th January 2026 Westminster Hall

15:01

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of protecting and restoring river habitats.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the Making Space for Water campaigners, whose tireless work in championing our riverways is exactly why we are here today in Westminster Hall. It is a privilege to open today’s debate and see it so well attended, as we make the case for practical solutions that will protect our riverways, restore river habitats and boost water quality in all of our rivers and streams.

It is essential that I outline the significant challenge facing both nature and rivers up and down the country. Unfortunately, most of our rivers are in crisis, plagued by pollution from both agriculture and sewage. Subsequently, they are on the brink of ecological collapse. Only a third of UK rivers are in good health, making our rivers some of the most polluted in Europe. Looking closer, 85% of the UK’s rivers and streams have been heavily modified, which is stripping away habitats and accelerating a big fall in biodiversity. Yet we all know that our rivers are crucial for both nature and communities. Riverways are a vital source of fresh water. They support wildlife, boost biodiversity and help to regulate the climate locally.

Take my home county of Dorset. Our county is fortunate to play home to one of the world’s rarest habitats: chalk streams. The high mineral content and year-round moderate temperatures mean that local chalk streams such as the Stour and Frome are home to a broad array of wildlife and habitats. I am so proud that on the Isle of Purbeck, in my constituency, we hosted the first official wild beaver release in England, some five centuries after they were hunted to extinction.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I commend the hon. Member on securing this debate. On the point about beavers, this week we have had massive flooding in the west country, in Dorset and in Devon. I am hearing from farmers in my patch who agreed to have beavers released into rivers on their farmland that there are complications. Does he agree that cannot be a one-off action, but rather needs sustained engagement from the Government as well as financial support such as the sustainable farming incentive?

[Lloyd Hatton]

I agree that a co-ordinated approach that works with farmers, landowners and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is required. That extensive work took place in my constituency, and it meant that the release was broadly seen as a success story. We would certainly like to replicate that across the west country and the UK.

To continue the saga of the beaver, their release in Purbeck has been a success story, and I am so pleased that the beavers can call the expansive freshwater and dense woodland at Studland their new home. Of course, that is also a good news story for restoring nature and boosting water quality. Beavers are nature’s engineers. By creating wetland habitats, they can help to retain water during floods and release it during droughts. Finally, they also help to filter polluted water and improve its quality further downstream. They play a crucial role in aiding nature’s recovery. However, the mighty beaver cannot and must not act alone. Like many Members present, I am committed to help restore nature across all our riverways, creating the conditions for wildlife and habitats to flourish in our rivers once again.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for bringing this issue to the House; he is absolutely right to do so. The state of the waterways is a growing concern for us in Northern Ireland. Agricultural run-off, outdated waste water systems and storm overflows are putting rivers such as the Lagan, the Bann and the Foyle under pressure, threatening biodiversity and public health. We must improve water quality, tackle agricultural pollution and invest in sustainable water systems to ensure that our rivers and freshwater species are protected for future generations. That can happen through the Minister and the Government, but it can also happen across the regional Administrations. Does the hon. Member feel it is important to address the issue collectively across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Lloyd Hatton]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; it is almost as if he had an exclusive sneak peek at my remarks.

I will turn to the damaging role of water companies. Sadly, many firms have a sorry track record in protecting rivers and boosting water quality. For far too long, many water companies have profiteered, despite polluting our rivers and streams. Unfortunately, the previous Government did too little, too late to reverse the worrying trend. To name just one shocking example, Wessex Water, my local water company, killed some 2,000 fish in Melksham after a sewage pumping station failure. It was slapped with a fine for the damage on its watch, but by then it was too late, as untreated sewage had leaked into nearby rivers. I am sure we will hear many more horror stories in this debate, with failing water companies found culpable for environmental destruction within our rivers and streams. The days of water companies polluting with impunity and hiding behind weak regulation must end.

That is the mess we are wading through. Looking ahead, I am pleased that the Government are beginning to take all the necessary steps to clean up and better protect our rivers and streams. From the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which finally gave regulators the power to curb water bosses from collecting undeserved bonuses, to the £104 billion secured in investment to start to rebuild water infrastructure across the country, the Government are beginning to get to grips with this scandal.

In Wessex Water’s case, Government action led to a £500,000 fine—the second largest ever issued to a water company—for the Melksham sewage failure. It also led to a ban on Wessex Water bosses receiving their undeserved bonuses. The water White Paper, released just last week, further strengthens the regulation of the big water firms. I welcome the Government’s commitment to create a single, integrated, tough regulator, which will replace the current patchwork of regulatory bodies and hopefully deliver a more proactive, targeted and rigorous way of holding water companies to account.

We must be honest about the challenges still ahead. Despite new legislation, which I was proud to support, water companies continue to hide behind opaque and complex corporate structures, shielding themselves from scrutiny while our rivers and streams pay the price. Earlier this month, it emerged in The Guardian that the chief executive and the chief finance officer of Wessex Water received some £50,000 in previously undisclosed extra pay from a parent company. Just a few weeks before that, we learned that a former chief executive at Wessex Water had been handed a whopping £170,000 payment, again from a parent company. Both those payments happened in exactly the same year that the firm was correctly banned by the Government from paying undeserved bonuses. From the reports on just how Wessex Water is choosing to operate, we can safely say that something extremely fishy is going on.

If bonuses can simply be rebadged as undisclosed payments from another arm of a large web of companies, the bonus ban is at risk of becoming unenforceable. That weakens public trust, undermines the authority of our regulators and allows those responsible for gross environmental damage to be rewarded for failure. I firmly believe that the Government, working closely with a new, single regulator, must tighten the rules to prevent water companies from exploiting corporate structures to disguise what are clearly bonuses in disguise. Without that, I fear the bonus ban will not change the corporate culture and wrongdoing within these big firms, and water companies will continue to pollute our precious rivers and streams.

Alongside strengthening regulation and ensuring that pollution certainly does not pay, further work must be done to restore wildlife and reduce flood risks along our rivers. Again, I should stress that the Government are taking the necessary action. The recently published environmental improvement plan includes an important target to double wildlife-friendly farms by 2030, and I know that that is welcomed by a huge range of farmers in my constituency of South Dorset. The commitment of £500 million for landscape recovery will hopefully play a vital role in revitalising nature while helping communities better withstand floods.

The recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the sustainable farming initiative will go some way to ensuring that farmers and landowners can play their part in protecting rivers and wildlife. However, I remain concerned that gaps remain in the role that nature-based solutions can, and must, play in cleaning up our rivers. That is why I support the Making Space for Water campaign run by the Riverscapes partnership, which is a broad coalition of the Rivers Trust, the National Trust, the Woodland Trust and the Beaver Trust—safe to say, there is a lot of trust in the campaign.

Farmers and landowners are currently standing on the front line of our environmental crisis, and the role that they play, and will play in the future, when it comes to protecting our riverways and enabling nature recovery is absolutely critical. They are seeing, at first hand, the pressures facing our rivers and the threat of flooding all year round. As has previously been remarked on, just this week Storm Chandra brought absolute havoc to my home of Dorset. The heavy rainfall has flooded rivers, left fields waterlogged and livestock areas almost completely unusable, and severely restricted access to farmland. Farmers and landowners are not just experiencing these challenges; they are absolutely critical to solving them. The decisions they make about their land shape the quality of our water, the health of our rivers and the survival of our wildlife.

In my constituency, from Purbeck to Wool to Weymouth, many farmers and landowners are already stepping up, carving out space for nature alongside their nearby rivers and restoring the landscapes that we all depend on. But they cannot carry that burden alone, and it is abundantly clear that they still lack some of the financial support that they need to best protect our riverways. To that end, targeted and simplified financial incentives must be considered, and be given to farmers and landowners to restore and enhance our rivers and streams. That is the key and, I believe, most important ask of the Making Space for Water campaign. With the right support in place, that will allow farmers and landowners to create river buffers and wetlands alongside their land. It would allow them to plant riparian trees and floodplain meadows, and to reintroduce beaver populations, just like they have already done in Purbeck.

If successful, that will all help to create a network of connected, nature-rich river corridors. Clean, functioning river corridors are a good news story for everyone: they help nature to recover and water quality to improve, biodiversity is no longer in freefall and our countryside becomes much more resilient. Where already implemented, healthy river corridors slow down the flow of water and reduce the risk of devastating floods and prolonged droughts. They act as natural infrastructure, storing water when we have too much and releasing it when we have too little.

The benefits go beyond flood protection. Restored river corridors trap pollution before it reaches our waterways. They support farmers, strengthening the resilience of their farmland without undermining food production. If we are truly serious about restoring nature, protecting rivers and boosting water quality, making space for water must be at the heart of the Government’s approach.

I know that the Minister is an enthusiastic advocate for our rivers and streams, and has met the team behind the Making Space for Water campaign. Indeed, she spoke proudly at the campaign launch just last year. I hope that today she will take the opportunity to set out what further action her Department can take to protect our riverways. I would welcome any further detail that she can give us on exactly how this Government, alongside a new, tough single regulator, will block failing water company bosses from receiving bonuses through the back door. From conversations, I know that the Minister shares my view that a tough bonus ban is critical to challenging the corporate misbehaviour that is all too present across the water sector. By embracing this important campaign, we can boost water quality, aid nature and biodiversity recovery, and enhance rivers and streams across the country. Indeed, we can make space for water once again.

15:15

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for securing this debate and all colleagues here today. As the Minister is well aware, protecting and restoring river habitats is a subject very close to my heart and the hearts of my constituents in North Herefordshire; I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak about that further today. I thank the organisations behind the Making Space for Water campaign, too.

Our rivers must not be seen as drains. They are the veins and arteries for what is the lifeblood of our land and everything that lives on it. They are integral to our collective health, our communities, our environment and our economies. They are essential channels for the circulation of that lifeblood of fresh water. We ignore them and pollute them at our peril. If we make space for water, we get multiple benefits. It helps us to be resilient to flooding, protects us from the risk of drought, helps farmers to deliver food security—crucial for us today—and, of course, helps to boost nature and biodiversity resilience.

I will speak first about flooding. That affects my constituency of North Herefordshire horrendously frequently and it is only going to get worse. I have already spoken numerous times in the House about the fact that climate change is increasing the severity and frequency of flooding incidents. If we make space for water, if we give room to our rivers, we will of course enable ourselves as communities to be more resilient. We saw the devastating effects of the floods last November in Monmouth and Skenfrith, just over the border from my constituency. We know that if we invest in Making Space for Water and looking after our rivers, that will have numerous protective benefits for us all as an economy.

I have seen that in practice myself, on an Environmental Audit Committee visit last year to the Netherlands. People there are really innovative on this issue. They have a huge project called Room for the River, through which they have taken it hugely seriously. They have started by identifying the problem and what the solutions could be, and then ensured that there is public support and Government commitment behind that. I have strongly urged the UK Government to take a similarly strategic approach to managing water and flood resilience in our communities, because this problem is only going to become more and more challenging. It has devastating effects on people’s lives.

I turn now to river pollution. One of the first things I did when elected to the House was to set up the all-party parliamentary group on water pollution. That is such a significant issue across the country and especially in my constituency of North Herefordshire. The hon. Member for South Dorset referred to the outrageous pollution caused by sewerage companies and the profiteering that has happened for decades at the expense of the natural environment and, indeed, the pockets of consumers, citizens and bill payers. It is clear to me and to the rest of the Green party that water should be in public hands. This is a natural monopoly. It is a service that should be provided only for the public good.

It is absolutely right that the Government are taking action to tackle the problems caused by the water and sewerage companies. Yet, as I have emphasised previously, if we look only at the water and sewerage companies, we are not looking at half the problem—in fact, more than half the problem, because we know from the Government’s own data that agricultural water pollution is an even bigger contributor to water pollution than is sewage. Yet in last week’s White Paper, it merited only one page of the 48-page document. That is deeply disappointing. It signals that although the Government talk about cleaning up our rivers, lakes and seas, they are not taking a holistic, joined-up approach to this problem. We cannot deal with these issues in isolation.

Agricultural water pollution is even more of a problem in my constituency; more than 70% of the phosphate pollution, which has had a devastating effect locally, comes from agricultural run-off. That has impacts on nature—in the suffocation of important species such as ranunculus, for example. It has impacts on people, who no longer feel able to swim in the rivers that they have swum in for their entire lives. It has huge impacts on the economy. We have had a planning moratorium in North Herefordshire in the Lugg catchment since October 2019, which has cost the economy at least half a billion pounds. Huge amounts of effort have gone into trying to resolve the issue locally, and I pay tribute to the work of the council and the local citizen scientists, who have done everything they can to address it. However, without proper Government support, local actors are stuck.

People care passionately about this. The citizen scientists in the Wye catchment have done about 50,000 water sample tests since 2020—in just the last five years. That is an amazing piece of work. Farmers are stepping up and doing fantastic work themselves, out of their own pockets and motivation, coming together under the auspices of initiatives such as the Wyescapes project. That brings together 49 farmers throughout the Wye and Lugg catchments to work together on a proposal for a landscape recovery scheme. But they need Government support.

At the minute, we have a White Paper with just one page on agriculture. We have a diffuse water pollution plan on the Wye catchment, published at the end of last year, that says that, even with perfect implementation of all available measures, we will get nowhere close to solving the pollution problem that is totally gumming up our environment, communities and economy in North Herefordshire.

I ask the Minister: what more will she do? It is clear that we urgently need more. We need more support for farmers, we need funding for projects like Wyescapes, and we need a commitment on a proportion of the funding that has been committed to landscape recovery under the revised environmental improvement plan. How much of that will go to river corridors? How much of it will go to projects like Wyescapes? We also need more funding and teeth for the Environment Agency, to make sure that there is a level playing field for all people in the area. Fundamentally, we need a water protection zone for the River Wye. We need the Government to ensure that that option is fully and properly assessed.

Our rivers are the veins and arteries of our communities, economies and environment. They are not drains. They are essential to the health of our environment. We need Government support for citizens and farmers, and everybody else working to protect and restore our river habitats.

15:22

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton)—my Dorset neighbour—for securing this really important debate. This issue matters an awful lot to him, and he represents it perfectly on behalf of his constituents. I note that this is the debut of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, my good friend the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), who is responding to the debate. I am pleased to see her in her place and look forward to hearing what she has to say.

This is a timely debate: in the last day, a severe flood warning has been issued for the lower Stour at Iford Bridge Home Park and across Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, due to Storm Chandra. The levels of the River Stour are rising rapidly. I put on the record my thanks to my constituents, who have put up with Storm Chandra and the disruption involved. Many of them have had to be evacuated, and they have been stoical.

My constituents’ lives have been made harder, though, because the electrical supply was unsafe at Iford Bridge Home Park, which is what forced evacuations. That was avoidable: the power supply was left unprotected by the owner, Hampshire Mobile Park Home Enterprises Ltd. It was fined over £27,000 last summer for failing to carry out 33 required actions that would, among other things, have improved electrical safety, but it has also failed to do that since. I will be seeking a response from the owner and pressing for answers, because my constituents deserve to feel safe in their own homes—always.

Equally, there needs to be greater maintenance of our rivers. We need to dredge up and get rid of everything that raises the river bed so that, when flooding happens, what washes through streets is not detritus and sewage, which make people’s recovery from flooding so much harder. I thank the BCP council’s teams, and the Environment Agency, for responding and standing alongside my constituents in that difficult time.

Water quality is uppermost in the minds of my constituents; it comes up often in my surgery appointments, on the doorsteps weekly and in my community visits. It is also particularly on the minds of my school students. Already, this calendar year, I have been to Avonbourne—a fantastic school doing amazing things—to speak with students on a youth enterprise scheme, and to St Walburga’s, Malmesbury Park, the Epiphany school and St James’ academy. Pretty much every question that I was asked in those classrooms was about the quality of water.

Younger people care passionately about our planet, about its protection and about their right to swim without being washed over by sewage. They want the Government to get this right. At St James’ academy, I went into two different classrooms and spoke with the eco-councillors. They talked at great length, with great eloquence and expertise, about what we should be doing, so I wanted to talk a little bit about that in this debate.

I also want to put on the record my thanks to Christchurch Harbour and Marine Society, which has been working with citizen scientists to make sure that Christchurch harbour’s water quality can be improved. In so doing, it is setting an example to the young people in the schools I mentioned. The society is calling for a dedicated conservation policy for the harbour. I know that is important, and I know, from testing water quality in that harbour, that much could be done to improve the situation.

I know, too, that those school students are concerned about the situation in the River Stour. That is not surprising, really: as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset was saying, our rivers have been heavily modified and are not fit for purpose. An estimated 85% of the UK’s rivers and streams have been altered from their natural state. Landscapes cannot cope with the pace and the extent of climate impacts such as flooding from storms and heavy rainfall. Indeed, 20% of UK homes and 80% of UK farmers have already felt the negative impacts of those changes in our environment.

On the same front, the UK faces a growing water-scarcity crisis. England alone will need an additional 5 billion litres of water a day by 2050 to support our growing population. We already use 14 billion litres a day, so that is equivalent to 35% of our current consumption. As we just heard from my hon. Friend, we have some of the unhealthiest rivers in Europe, thanks to the inheritance left us by the Conservatives. Only a third of the UK’s river stretches are in good ecological health, with many in dire states as a consequence of physical modifications, intermittent agricultural and road run-off, and continuous discharges from sewage treatment.

Lastly, biodiversity across the UK is declining. On average, UK species have fallen by 19% since 1970, and just 3% of England’s land is effectively protected and managed for nature. Pollinators, native mammals and freshwater species such as Atlantic salmon or brown trout, which once thrived in our rivers, are on the brink of collapse. Is it any wonder that the younger generation are outraged and want us to act?

And we are acting: this Government got to work quickly. It was a pleasure to sit on the Water (Special Measures) Bill Committee with my hon. Friend the Minister, where we heard much flim-flam from the Opposition. In spite of that, we managed to crack on with introducing significant measures, be it the banning of executive bonuses if firms fail—[Interruption.] I beg your pardon, Ms Butler; the Minister has made me laugh now.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Tom Hayes]

I will very happily, at this point, give way.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

At the risk of delivering more “flim-flam”, I should say that the hon. Member has just told us that it was the Water (Special Measures) Act that announced the ban on company bonuses. Would he concede that that was actually introduced, in regulations, by the last Conservative Government? In fact, his Government have just put a regulation into statute; that did not actually change the law at all.

[Tom Hayes]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think that is a perfect example of leading with one’s chin; there is a little bit of brass neck involved in that. When we speak with our constituents and with the water sector, they are abundantly clear about the difference that this Labour Government, and these changes in particular, have made.

We just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset about the poor performance of Wessex Water’s chief executives; earlier this year, its chief executive and chief financial officer took £50,000 in undisclosed extra payments from the parent company and a former Wessex Water chief executive was handed a huge £170,000 payment—again, from the parent company. I struggle to remember any significant fining of water companies under the Conservatives. Indeed, I have spoken to people from the water sector, and they told me that they felt it was like the wild west. They welcome the fact that we finally have a Government who are getting the situation under control.

I welcome the Minister’s work on the Water (Special Measures) Act, which banned executive bonuses at failing firms and introduced “jail if they fail” for executives, automatic penalties for a range of offences, and mandatory real-time monitoring. I also welcome the Government’s work since, with the commitment to seeing sewage pollution and storm overflow spills reduced by 50% by 2030, as well as 10,000 water quality inspections per year, and with the Environment Agency securing a record £22.1 billion in investment over the next five years. I am particularly pleased to see investment of around £230 million by Wessex Water in my constituency and the wider area, and I have been to both sewage treatment plants to see how the work is going.

I am pleased that we are making progress, and that includes the replacement of Ofwat, which has been failing for a long time, with an independent regulator. However, there is more to do. We need to protect communities from the dangers of flooding and drought through the creation of multi-benefit mosaic habitats. In so doing, we can unlock their full potential for nature recovery, carbon storage and flood mitigation. We need to help farmers to continue delivering our food security, by prioritising the deployment of buffers on marginal agricultural land so that farmers benefit financially and can mitigate impacts on food production. We need to boost biodiversity and nature recovery by enhancing river corridors and making space for rivers to return to their natural function. In so doing, we can boost biodiversity and nature recovery through the creation of new and more connected natural habitats.

We also need to clean up our rivers. In the words of Martin Lines, the chief executive officer of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, healthy and functioning river corridors are

“a practical way to improve water quality, reduce flood risk and restore biodiversity.”

He says that farmers

“are part of the solution”—

he is right—and that

“with the right backing, these nature-rich corridors can help futureproof both our land and our livelihoods.”

Richard Benwell, the chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, says:

“Carving out space to re-naturalise rivers would bring ecosystems to life, reduce flood risk and bring joy to millions.”

In closing, I echo my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset in welcoming the first ever licensed beaver wild release in England, in our beautiful county of Dorset. It is good news for Dorset, it is good news for our country and I feel sure there is more good news to come.

15:32

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

Nothing shapes a landscape more than a river. Nothing brings a landscape to life more than a river. If we ask ChatGPT, “What is a river?”, it will tell us:

“it is a natural stream of flowing water that moves downhill across land”—

and that tells us precisely why Members of Parliament should never use ChatGPT. A river is life—abundant life. Rivers are not just streams of water; they are amazing ecosystems. Globally, rivers are home to over 140,000 specialist freshwater species.

We think of water as being everywhere, but 99% of the water on this blue planet of ours is unusable by humans. Of the remaining 1%, which comprises freshwater, almost seven tenths is locked up in ice caps and glaciers, leaving just three tenths of 1% of the water on our planet in lakes, marshes and rivers. It is strange that something so vital to all life on our planet should be so scarce and so vulnerable.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this debate to focus the House’s attention on how we can better protect and restore our precious riverine habitats. Others have set out the dire statistics. Sadly, it is true that 87% of rivers outside our national parks do not meet the minimum ecological standards set out in law. Even inside the supposed protection of our national parks, only four out of every 10 riverine systems meet those legal minimum standards.

With a new water Bill, the release of the land use framework and updates to the environmental land management schemes, 2026 is a particularly significant year for the health of our rivers. I welcome the publication of the water White Paper last week and the fact that it commits to implementing many of the recommendations of the Cunliffe review. Chief among those is a commitment to shift the focus of water companies towards pre-pipe solutions for water pollution. The Government say that they

“will ensure legislation, funding streams, and regulatory mechanisms”

to tackle the root causes of pollution, but those must be properly funded and backed up by a regime of thorough monitoring and swift penalty enforcement for infringements.

We politicians have made much of the failures of the water companies over the past few years and the totally disgraceful exploitation of bill payers to line shareholders’ pockets while companies fail to address pipe leakage, combined sewers and sewage outflows. Equally, I entirely support the outrage expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset and for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) about Wessex Water and its motley leadership crew. However, they are not solely responsible; there is also the agriculture sector, whether that is chicken farms on the River Wye or eutrophication from nitrogen fertiliser run-off. The Government must drive the solutions to river habitat restoration.

ELMS is the key part of that. When it was first launched by the previous Government to replace the EU’s agricultural subsidies, the £2.4 billion was to be split into three equal funding pots of £800 million a year. Landscape recovery was one of those pots, but last month’s environmental improvement plan set out the new headline commitment of just £500 million for landscape recovery projects. Now, £500 million is a lot less than the £800 million initially promised, but wait: that £500 million is not a year, like the £800 million; it is £500 million over 20 years. That is a paltry £25 million a year, making a total mockery of the idea that the Government are taking landscape recovery seriously.

Will the Minister therefore publish the evidence and modelling showing how the combined ELMS offer will add up to deliver the Government’s environmental objectives and legal commitments on water? Can she direct me towards evidence that demonstrates that £500 million for landscape recovery is sufficient to deliver the Government’s environmental objectives and legal commitments, in terms of both our 30 by 30 commitments and our longer-term EIP and Environment Act 2021 targets?

Will the forthcoming water reform Bill go further than the water White Paper and put nature-based solutions at the core of tackling water pollution, including actions to prioritise and fund catchment-based measures at scale? Will the Government consider embedding an overarching commitment, within the Environment Act delivery plans, to create a national river corridor network that prioritises the restoration of river habitats, along the lines proposed by the Making Space for Water campaign? Finally, when will the Government deliver on their commitment to update the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 so that protected landscapes are given stronger powers and clear duties to drive nature recovery, including river habitat restoration?

The water Bill must embed the use of nature-based solutions in a way that has not happened so far. The water White Paper’s comments on exploring the use of green bonds to help investment in nature-based solutions is therefore welcome, but we cannot simply leave it to private investment to get us to where we need to be. The Government should empower the new super-regulator’s chief engineer to direct companies to prioritise and scale up nature-based solutions, mandating, wherever possible, a change from grey infrastructure to green. The ministerial directions to Ofwat and Natural England during the transition phase should pave the way for that—[Interruption.] Excuse me.

[Lloyd Hatton]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Barry Gardiner]

I would be very grateful to my hon. Friend if he intervened.

[Lloyd Hatton]

My hon. Friend is making an eloquent speech about the importance of cross-society working between Government, regulatory bodies and the stewards of our riverways and countryside. Does he agree that, unless we have that collaborative approach, we are unlikely to see the change we both so desperately want in order to restore the health of our riverways and allow nature recovery to take root in environments across the country?

[Barry Gardiner]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend— I did not know his constituency was the manufacturer of Benylin. It has certainly worked on my cough on this occasion, so I thank him very much.

Nature-based solutions are the cost-efficient, multi-benefit, long-term solution. They recognise that enabling nature to thrive is the best way to restore our rivers, our wetlands and our riparian habitats. I particularly want to single out the work of the West Cumbria Rivers Trust and the West Lakeland farmers group. With their work on the Rivers Irt and Bleng, they have shown that the shade offered by restored riparian woodland brings river temperatures down to safe levels for threatened native species such as Atlantic salmon and brown trout. That shows how the health of a river is about not simply what toxins are put into it, but the whole natural ecosystem and how it is managed. Riparian woodlands also stabilise riverbanks, reduce erosion, and control sediment and nutrient input from adjacent land. Looking at the whole ecosystem, not just the river itself, is so important.

I commend the Making Space for Water campaign, which provides an evidence-driven framework for river restoration, and I urge the Government to support it fully—indeed, I know they do. The Rivers Trust, National Trust, Woodland Trust and Beaver Trust are all calling for support to create a network of connected nature-rich river corridors that include river buffers, river wiggling, beaver reintroduction, which has been mentioned, and wetland restoration.

It has been my privilege to canoe down some of the most wonderful rivers in the world. My great desire, before I shuffle off this mortal coil, is to canoe down all the great rivers of the world. I have done the Amazon, the Mississippi and the Congo, but there are so many more to do. Rivers are an incredible joy in life; we really must understand them, promote them and restore them, and we must ensure that we give them health—because they give us life.

15:43

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on his well-made speech opening the debate.

The state of our rivers is a near-perfect metaphor for how badly we have got our priorities wrong as a society. Through a combination of carelessness, greed and wilful neglect, we have managed to poison and exhaust one of the essential elements of life. Not a single one of England’s rivers, which quite literally shape our country, is in good overall health. All of them are polluted with toxic chemicals.

Clean waterways teeming with life—places that can refresh body, mind and soul—should be the absolute right of every English citizen. As it stands, we have squandered the vast natural wealth of our rivers and streams. In doing so, we have robbed the future generations of our nation of the best part of their inheritance. Restoring our rivers and streams is, above all, a question of changing what we mean by growth.

Experiencing the glories of nature is one of the joys that make life worth living. That is what we should be focusing our efforts on—not on abstract GDP figures that mean next to nothing to anyone outside the imagination of the Office for Budget Responsibility. Instead of more chemicals, more concrete, more consumption, we will do far more to improve the wellbeing of all of our citizens from every background by returning to them the burst of mayflies at the start of summer, the chance

“To turn, as swimmers into cleanness leaping”,

as Rupert Brooke once did, without worrying what filth we might be swallowing; or even just the chance to mess about in boats in the streams that once flowed fully, but now have been choked to a pitiful dribble. A more potent symbol of national decline would be hard to invent.

All the polling shows that the public are overwhelmingly in favour of decisive action to restore nature in this country. The inspirational efforts of groups across North East Hertfordshire such as RevIvel, the Friends of the Rib and Quin, and the River Beane Restoration Association prove the grassroots passion for seeing our rivers and especially our chalk streams restored.

My party, the Labour party, should know this deep in its heart. Since the first inception of our movement, the demand of politics by the people for the people has always been to protect the natural world and to open it up to all so that ordinary working-class citizens can enjoy it, too. When politicians constantly attack the very nature that our voters love and the Office for Environmental Protection has to investigate the Government for their utter failure to deliver the statutory targets for rivers to be in good condition by next year—set out in laws that we politicians passed—it is little surprise that faith in politics is so miserably low.

When we make promises to restore nature, we must never again fail to honour our words with action. If that means the Treasury has to adapt its plans, so be it. I will be explicit on this point. I know some people believe that putting more and more power in the hands of profiteering developers will somehow magically resolve stagnant productivity, but our model of speculative house building, combined with the legal obligation for water companies to supply water to new developments, is increasingly incompatible with healthy rivers in many parts of the country. There are environmental limits on the amount of water we can use without wrecking our freshwater systems, but currently we are just pretending that they do not exist. The over-abstraction from the aquifers that feed our precious chalk streams is a clear case in point.

In a country as wet as ours, it should take a true organising genius to produce water shortages, yet a combination of planning, deregulation and a profit-motivated private market has contrived to do just that. It is time for a “chalk streams first” approach that protects them from over-abstraction and for long overdue recognition that genuine, sustainable development means accepting that environmental boundaries cannot be compromised. The truth is, if we measure economic success by the genuine improvement of our constituents’ lives and by the provision of good, meaningful work for all, the restoration of our rivers is in fact a huge opportunity.

My plea to the Minister today is simple: go back to colleagues in the Treasury and tell them about the missing half of the clean jobs revolution. Tell them about the huge expansion in the number of ecologists and conservation experts we need to monitor the health of our rivers and advise our local authorities and hard-working farmers. Tell them about the thousands of skilled jobs needed to re-wiggle our rivers, and tell them to create and maintain riparian buffers such as carr woodland and floodplain meadows around all our waterways. Tell them about the jobs and vast increases in natural capital that could be created across every part of the country by restoring the small waters like ponds and headwater streams, and integrating those crucial areas at the top of river systems into the water framework directive. And tell them about the national mobilisation needed to prevent the next river pollution scandal from the highway run-off filling our rivers with a nightmarish cocktail of microplastics, heavy metals and herbicides.

There are thousands of unpermitted and in many cases barely monitored highway outfalls across the country that must be urgently investigated, maintained and upgraded if we are genuinely to improve the health of our rivers. Collectively, those are tasks that would not just upskill and employ thousands of people, but would immeasurably enrich our nation by restoring our streams and rivers as the crown jewels of England’s countryside that they always ought to have been.

[Dawn Butler (in the Chair)]

I hear congratulations are in order for the debut of the Lib Dem spokesperson, Rachel Gilmour.

15:49

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Thank you, Ms Butler. It is a pleasure to serve under you. I thank the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) for his kind words. I should start by declaring a couple of interests: before I came to Parliament I was head of strategy for the Environment Agency, specialising in water flooding and the water framework directive. Before that, I was the director of communications for the National Farmers’ Union—the first woman to sit on their board in 100 years. Despite my nerves about my first outing, I feel calmly confident that I have got a grip on things.

I congratulate my colleague from the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton), on securing the debate. I was particularly interested in his comments about the beavers on the Isle of Purbeck, because we have had similar issues in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Ian Roome). I was touched to hear the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) talk about the rivers of this country being like veins in a body, echoed by the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner). The edifying and incisive observations in the debate show that this is clearly a matter close to all our hearts, whatever political party we come from—although it matters to a couple of us more than others.

Across the country, we are witnessing storms of increasing frequency and ferocity, and it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the devastating flooding that has swept across my part of the world in the south- west in recent days. Events that were once expected every 300 years and then once every 100 years now seem to strike with alarming regularity. Our rivers, which are among Britain’s most precious wildlife habitats, are bearing the brunt of environmental decline. According to the Rivers Trust, and it is not the first time this has been mentioned, not a single English river is in “good chemical health” and only 15% are considered to be in good ecological condition. That is a sobering reality. Freshwater ecosystems are collapsing and this country now has some of the unhealthiest rivers in Europe. The species that depend on the waterways, from fish to invertebrates to birds, are struggling to survive. Our rivers desperately need a reprieve.

England is home to 85% of the world’s chalk streams: rare, crystal-clear, ecologically distinctive waterways found almost nowhere else on earth. Part of the challenge lies in the withdrawal of the Environment Agency from stewardship of many of our rivers. For years, maintenance of watercourses has been inadequate; now, with the EA stepping back for whatever reason in further parts of the country, including my own, the burden of looking after the waterways has become heavier still.

We must recognise that farmers are on the frontline of environmental challenges and that the relationship between land and water has changed significantly and dramatically over the past century, encapsulated in the European water framework directive, which is not a complicated piece of legislation. That is why my party consistently emphasises the vital role of farmers as custodians of the natural world. They work tirelessly to reduce run-off and protect habitats, but they need support. Agricultural run-off, slurry, fertilisers and other such chemical cocktails continue to enter our waterways. That has patently been exacerbated, given the recent devastation caused by Storm Chandra in which huge swathes of the west country were submerged, washing pollutants into rivers and compounding the ecological damage.

It will come as a surprise to no one that blame must be laid at the feet of water and sewage companies and their conduct. I had a meeting with South West Water on Monday, and it was obvious that their obscene greed and incompetence had inflicted immense harm on river habitats across the country and, indeed on my constituents in Bampton. Grotesque quantities of sewage have been allowed to spew into British waterways and there have been discharges on an industrial scale, with catastrophic consequences for aquatic life. It is an absolute insult; heads, I fear, must roll. The Liberal Democrats are sadly disappointed by the Government’s water White Paper, as it falls short of the promise to bring about fundamental regulatory reform. We believe that the current model of private ownership has utterly failed. Frankly, only a complete overhaul will do.

The Liberal Democrats would introduce a system in which water companies are mutually owned by customers and run professionally in the public interest. We also call on the Government to finally end the scandalous sewage cover-up by forcing those crooked water companies to publish the volume of dumped sewage and not just the duration of spills. After all, sunlight is the best disinfectant. The Government’s plans—I am really sad about this because I am usually on side—do not cut the mustard. The decision to abolish Ofwat is welcome, but it is only the first step. We will continue to press the Government to establish a new, robust regulator, with real teeth and real accountability, as a matter of urgency.

Turning to other causes of harm, water abstraction has risen sharply, reducing river flows and placing ecosystems under severe stress. Many rivers now run perilously low, especially during dry periods. Moreover, centuries of physical modification—straightening, damming, embanking, diverting and disconnecting—has fundamentally altered the natural character of our rivers. Those changes have inevitably disrupted fish migratory patterns, fragmented habitat connectivity and in turn diminished resilience to climate change. A river that cannot move, meander or naturally flood is a river that simply cannot thrive. Restoration efforts should focus on allowing our rivers to re-wiggle—I love that word, which means to return to their natural meanders—reconnecting them with flood plains, and rebuilding the diverse physical habitats that sustain life. In many cases, the best thing that we can do is to step back and let mother nature take her course—in essence, to rewild herself. That would include removing barriers such as weirs and small dams to aid fish passages, creating riffles, pools, wetlands and woody debris to enhance biodiversity, establishing nature-rich corridors along river banks and expanding natural flood management systems.

Interventions such as these are not just environmentally beneficial; there is a major economic element to this. Healthy waterways provide essential services to all our systems. They are our lifeblood.

15:57

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this debate; it is a welcome opportunity to talk about the importance of our rivers and the vital need to protect and restore them. He is right to say that we need to improve the health of our rivers.

This has been a good debate. I enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns). She is correct to describe our rivers and streams as the “veins and arteries” of our environment. I noted she said that she wants water companies to be taken into public ownership, but she did not say how she would pay for it. I am left wondering if it is Green policy to confiscate those assets from the shareholders, or to pay compensation. If it is to pay compensation, how much and who pays for it? Dare I say, that is an error that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), also fell into. She said that she was in favour of a radical policy, but did not explain how she intended to pay for it.

I enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes). I agree with him on the need for more dredging of our rivers. It is unacceptable that the Environment Agency has withdrawn from main river maintenance. The hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) described rivers as amazing ecosystems, and I agree with him. I also agree that when water companies break the law, they should be punished swiftly and severely. The hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) described the beauty of the countryside as one of the joys of life. I am with him on that, even though he and I may not agree on many other things.

I congratulate my Somerset constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead, on leading for her party in this debate. She said that farmers are “custodians of the natural world”, and I agree. Next time she speaks on water, I hope that she will give us the price tag for her party’s policy of renationalising the water industry.

The River Parrett flows through my constituency. It is rather too high for comfort at the moment. Some of my constituents are watching the water level with concern. I sincerely hope that their homes are not flooded over the next few days. The Parrett hosts an abundance of species, from heron to eels—anyone who is lucky may even see an otter. It is also important for the wider ecosystem, including roe deer, which we are fortunate enough to enjoy having in Somerset.

I was fortunate to have the opportunity to support a local campaign in my constituency to save the Pawlett Hams in the first weeks after I was elected to Parliament. Pawlett Hams is a beautiful natural habitat, bounded on three sides by the Parrett, which impacts that environment. I was pleased that that campaign was successful in defeating EDF Energy’s proposal to create an unwanted saltmarsh there. I raise this because I understand the importance and beauty of our rivers, and I know how passionate many of our constituents are about preserving and protecting them.

The previous Government started the process of improving the health of our rivers, but there is much more to be done. Their plan for water introduced the water restoration fund, which channelled environmental fines and penalties into projects that improve the water environment. The Environment Act 2021 introduced legally binding targets to reduce the length of rivers polluted by harmful metals from abandoned mines, to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution from agriculture in the water environment by at least 40%, and to reduce phosphorus loadings from treated waste water by 80%. We also substantially increased the monitoring of water quality. When Labour left power in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were being monitored; today, that figure stands at 100%. It is thanks to that progress that we now understand the scale of the problem.

In terms of their ecological health, only 15% of our rivers enjoy “good” status. That is not good enough. There are various reasons for pollution, including sewage treatment works, waste water, storm overflows, agricultural pollution, and urban and transport run-off. Invasive species are also threatening native animals. Between 1960 and 2019, the number of non-native freshwater species more than doubled, from 21 to 46. I invite the Minister to comment in her response on what work the Government are doing to support the restoration of wetland or freshwater species, which have experienced a decline. Despite their promises to fix the water system, the Government’s recent water White Paper was surprisingly slim. That is disappointing, given the detailed and thorough examination of the sector by Sir Jon Cunliffe’s independent review.

The Government have said that their transition plan will be published this year. When she responds, can the Minister guarantee that it will actually be published this year, and that it will be published when Parliament is sitting, not on the last day before a substantial recess—or, in fact, during a recess? Will she also acknowledge that, for all her Government’s talk about improving water quality, the Water (Special Measures) Act, which they passed last year, consisted of regulations already announced by the previous Conservative Government that they repackaged as a statute.

[Tom Hayes]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Based on the start of his speech, he is clearly a dedicated environmentalist and conservationist. He represents Bridgwater, which is covered by Wessex Water, whose former CEO, Colin Skellett, got £12.6 million in pay and bonuses across a decade, with those bonuses totalling £3.4 million. Over a decade of Conservative rule, executives of the nine largest English and Welsh water and sewage companies got £112 million in pay and bonuses. If the Conservatives provided regulations, why did they let water bosses line their own pockets and allow them to pump out filth?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I do not think it is for the Government to regulate the salaries of the private sector. It was the Conservative Government that introduced the necessary regulations that enabled those water companies that were failing to be prevented from paying dividends and bonuses. He might argue that we came to that a bit late, and I might agree with him. However, he should acknowledge that we were the ones who took that action, and it is those regulations that form the basis of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025.

I want to take this opportunity to ask the Minister about our canals. Members may have seen the recent incident involving the collapse of a canal embankment in Shropshire. Two narrowboats were left at the bottom of a trench in the canal bed, with a third left hanging over the edge. Many other boats were left grounded. I understand that the cause of the breach is still being investigated, but what assessment has the Minister made of the age and structure of the UK’s canal network, and the impact that have on the natural environment? Is she satisfied that the current funding is adequate?

To conclude, Britain’s rivers and waterways are an integral part of our environment. It is important that we improve their quality, and we will scrutinise the Government to ensure that they keep the promises they made at the election.

16:05

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

It is a pleasure, Ms Butler, to serve under your chairwomanship in Westminster Hall for the first time.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for securing this debate and for all the passion, care and interest that he has consistently shown in this issue. I share his excitement about the wild beaver release. I was quite jealous that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), the Minister for nature, got to be there at the beaver release and I could not—I could not wangle an invite—but it was an incredible moment to see and truly exciting.

I agree with so much of what my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset said about how protecting and restoring our river habitats is one of the most urgent environmental challenges we face. I loved the imagery given by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) about seeing rivers as the lifeblood and living veins of our country. That is a wonderful, poetic way of explaining why they matter so much. I completely agree that they are not drains; they are places that are full of nature and full of life—but I would say that, of course, living near the River Humber. I know how important rivers are.

However, communities see the problems that rivers face every day, through reduced water quality, declining biodiversity and rivers that are no longer the thriving ecosystems that they should be. Rivers are under pressure from multiple sources, as has been mentioned, including business activity, agriculture, waste water treatment, urban development, recreation, transport and, of course, the growing impacts of climate change, which have quite rightly been mentioned. These combined pressures have directly contributed to declining water quality and the loss of freshwater biodiversity across many catchments.

That is why we are committed to delivering the most ambitious programme of water reform in decades, including by strengthening regulation, which will definitely be done. Indeed, I can assure the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), the Opposition spokesman, that he will definitely see the transition plan, not just this year but, I can even say, early this year.

In addition to strengthening regulation, we will improve oversight of the water system and ensure action across every source of pollution. That is all set out in the White Paper, which was published earlier this month. As has been mentioned, among key measures, we are establishing a single empowered regulator for the entire water industry, backed by a chief engineer—it is astounding that the water industry did not have a chief engineer before, but it has one now—to drive long-term planning, improve performance and, importantly, prevent problems before they occur.

We have also committed to delivering an enhanced, better, joined-up regional water planning function, to help to identify lower-cost and high-impact solutions to improve water quality and supply, considering opportunities across the sectors. It was really interesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West talked about catchment measures, looking at the entire river basin, and looking at how it is all interconnected. That is exactly my vision for the regional water planning function: to look at all the different impacts on that water body.

I could not agree more about how important nature-based solutions are and what they can deliver. We have already had a change-around in how we address flooding, through the change in the flood funding formula— I would really like us to embrace that—but we have to be honest: if we are embracing nature-based solutions, we are also embracing an element of risk. They do not carry the same certainty as adding chemicals to something, which makes it possible to predict a certain outcome. Nature is not like that, but nature is powerful, and I want to see it used more.

It was really interesting to listen to so many Members talk about the way that rivers have been engineered. I visited a beautiful chalk stream not too far from where I live, to see how it was done. These rivers were straightened, as has been said, and this is our industrial heritage. Many were straightened to power the mills that ground corn, or for navigation, and that is why they wanted to create straight channels. Let me say to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) that I love the word “rewiggling”—it is a great word. When we look at where we can rewiggle them, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) was right that they can hold more water when they are rewiggled. They can literally create more space and protect more communities.

On that point, I thank all the emergency services and everybody who has been involved in the response to Storm Chandra. My sympathy and support goes out to everyone who has been impacted. The latest update that I have had from the team is that the overall flood risk remains at “medium”. That means that rivers impact is probable in parts of south-west England today. I really hope that does not result in properties being flooded, although I accept that the impact on the farming community has already been huge.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) always makes me smile. I love the fact that he is constantly championing his constituency and wants to protect and look after the people there who have faced such awful flooding, and he is quite right to call out poor behaviour wherever he sees it. I liked hearing about all the different schools. I love an eco-council group—they are just fantastic. Any Member who ever feels slightly jaded by politics—which, of course, would never, ever happen—should go and spend time with primary children. They will come away feeling so uplifted, because primary children are so passionate and they care so greatly, so good on all of them. I ask my hon. Friend to pass on my congratulations; I hope that they continue to challenge us, as we take all our work forward.

As we have mentioned, we are also accelerating nature-based solutions, looking at where we can restore wetlands, reconnect floodplains and improve river corridors—that came up a lot, and quite rightly so: how do we make river corridors to create healthier, more resilient catchments? That work is happening alongside the reform of regulatory powers, cracking down on poor performance, improving transparency and ensuring that the polluter pays.

For the first time, our river systems will be managed in a fully integrated way, ensuring that every sector, including agriculture, plays its part in restoring the health of our waterways—I also welcome the hon. Member for Bridgwater to his place. That work builds on some of the work we have done through the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. Our revised environmental improvement plan has been mentioned, and that has ambitious Environment Act biodiversity targets, including to

“restore or create more than 500,000 hectares…of wildlife-rich habitat outside protected sites by 2042”.

Creating and restoring river habitats and wetlands will be vital to achieving that.

I really enjoyed the launch of Making Space for Water, which I thought was a fantastic event. There was so much passion and willingness to collaborate in that room. Making Space for Water calls for incentives for land managers to help to create nature-friendly river corridors through the ELM scheme, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West mentioned—I will get him a response from the Minister for farming on some of the more specific details.

Through those schemes, we include specific actions in the sustainable farming initiative, which pays farmers for establishing and managing buffer strips beside watercourses. We also agree with Making Space for Water that it is important to reconnect rivers to floodplains, restoring natural processes and enhancing biodiversity. There are two pilot rounds in the landscape recovery scheme that we are looking at, and we have provided 56 projects with development grants to support farmers, landowners and environmental organisations in developing strategies for long-term nature recovery. Collectively, these projects aim to restore 600 km of rivers, helping to reconnect rivers to their floodplains.

The hon. Member for North Herefordshire speaks with passion and knowledge about agriculture pollution. She is quite right that it is one of the most significant contributors to pollution in our rivers, affecting over 40% of our water bodies. Agriculture pollution, including nitrogen, nutrients and soil or sediment run-off, has a profound impact on the health of freshwater environments and the biodiversity that depends on them. Under the Environment Act, we have set a clear long-term target to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment from agriculture entering the water environment by 40% by 2038.

There are various means by which we want to achieve that. We committed in the White Paper to simplifying and improving the regulatory framework for agriculture, developing a single robust, England-wide regulation and, where necessary, strengthening standards. We are doubling funding for the Environment Agency’s farm inspection and enforcement team, enabling at least 6,000 inspections a year by 2029, and we are strengthening local advice through our catchment-sensitive farming, as well as through the new £30 million farmer collaboration fund, which we announced earlier this month at the Oxford farming conference.

Just this week—in fact, just yesterday; I am losing track of which day is which—I held a roundtable with farming representatives, not just the NFU but people from different farming sectors, alongside environmental organisations and water company representatives, to talk about the problem of agricultural pollution. The reason I wanted everyone in the same room is not just that I wanted everyone to hear the message I was giving, but that I wanted everybody to hear from everybody else: the water companies could hear from the environmentalists and the farmers; the farmers could hear from the environmentalists; and the environmentalists could hear from the farmers. Everyone could gain an understanding of one another’s points of view and how we are going to work on this together.

During that meeting, I announced that we had launched the consultation on reform of how sewage sludge is regulated in agriculture. The consultation document, which went live this week, looks at the option of an environmental permitting regime, as recommended by the Independent Water Commission. That group of people has been working together on the issue of agriculture pollution. We brought together different stakeholders, and there was much consensus and much willingness to tackle the issue. It is far better that we try to do something collectively; farmers, environmentalists and water companies working together is the best way to tackle this. That work continues.

[Dr Chowns]

I thank the Minister very much for the update, and I agree that working together is important. I have written to the Minister to request a meeting between her, me and other MPs across the parties—Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem—in the Wye catchment. In that spirit of working together, will she commit to having that meeting soon?

[Emma Hardy]

I have seen the hon. Lady’s letter. I will get told off by officials for saying this, but I am basically looking at whether I can come back to the Wye and do something there with everybody. If not, we can do something in Parliament. I went to the Wye last year, and we announced our £1 million research fund to look at what is happening in the Wye. It would be quite nice to go back and see what has been happening. It is on my radar, and I will get her a proper answer in writing.

As Making Space for Water highlights, it is crucial to connect river habitats at the catchment scale. I emphasise the importance of catchment partnerships to improving water quality and restoring natural processes. The partnerships are well established and effective in co-ordinating local collaboration and delivering projects with multiple benefits. They include the Dorset Catchment Partnerships, which is leading work on the River Wey and other Dorset rivers to improve water quality, reduce run-off and restore natural flows.

This is why, earlier this month, we announced that we are investing £29 million from water company fines into local projects that clean up our environment, including doubling our funding for catchment partnerships, providing them with an extra £1.7 million per year over the next two years. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) said, it is essential that we support and pay tribute to the growing number of grassroots organisations and the work they do to protect our natural environment. Doubling funding for catchment partnerships should help them to continue to do that work.

That is part of the Government’s commitment to giving communities greater influence over water environment planning and decision making. Fundamentally, communities know their water areas the best. Through our increased funding, we expect to support more than 100 projects that will improve 450 km of rivers, restore 650 acres of natural habitats and plant 100,000 new trees. The additional funding is expected to attract at least a further £11 million from private sector investment, resulting in even greater benefit for local communities in all hon. Members’ constituencies.

Restoring chalk streams—another of my favourites—is a core ambition of our water reforms. We are home to 85% of the world’s chalk streams. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead, said, we are one of the only places that has so many of them. They are home to some of our rarest, and keystone, species, such as the Atlantic salmon. As the Making Space for Water campaign rightly highlights, protecting keystone species is key to healthy rivers and streams. I could say so much more, but I am conscious that I have been talking for 14 minutes, so I will move on.

[Chris Hinchliff]

I am afraid the Minister has slightly walked into this. Previously in this Chamber, I extended an invitation to her to come and visit RevIvel in my constituency. That is a campaign to restore the Ivel chalk stream. It has a pilot project looking at taking the Chalk Streams First approach, which would potentially restore that aquifer, and not just help the Ivel but see the return of chalk streams that have completely ceased to flow. It would be really exciting to talk to my hon. Friend about that and some of the challenges that people are experiencing with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs water restoration fund. I just put that back on her agenda.

[Emma Hardy]

I did walk into that, didn’t I? I thank my hon. Friend. If he wants to send that through to me, I will of course take a serious look at it. I am very keen to be getting out and about when it is a bit less wet—but rain should be what I am used to.

Restoring the health of our rivers is fundamental to safeguarding nature, supporting resilient communities and securing our water environment for generations to come. The Labour Government are committed to delivering the most comprehensive programme of reform ever undertaken. It involves strengthening regulation, boosting enforcement, investing in innovation, supporting local partnerships and empowering farmers, land managers and water companies to play their part. From national action on agricultural pollution and chalk stream protections, to ambitious local projects in South Dorset, we are driving real, long-term improvements. Together, those measures demonstrate our unwavering commitment to cleaner water, thriving habitats and a healthier natural environment across England.

16:22

[Lloyd Hatton]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their thoughtful and constructive contributions in today’s debate, and particularly the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) for outlining eloquently the really quite damaging and concerning impact of agricultural run-off. That issue does not get the spotlight that it needs. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), who sadly cannot be with us at the moment, for highlighting the urgent need to pass on to the next generation healthier rivers and cleaner water than that which we have inherited, and for calling time on some of the severe shortcomings of Wessex Water. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for emphasising the need to protect our riverways with essential collaboration between Government, regulatory bodies, farmers, landowners and environmentalists. I really welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), who made a doughty and strong argument in defence of our unique chalk streams. That is our unique environmental inheritance in this country. We must ensure that we protect it.

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), for vividly illustrating the sorry track record of so many of the big water companies, including South West Water. Perhaps rather interestingly, I enjoyed some of the political gymnastics on display today from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox). It was some light relief on a Thursday afternoon. In all seriousness, I think it is really important that we work on a cross-party basis in realising that the culture around bonuses—not pay, bonuses—for water bosses got totally out of control over a number of years. This Government have taken some important steps to tackle that, but there is definitely work to do to be more effective and I hope there is cross-party support for that.

Finally, I thank the Minister responsible for water for her comments. There was plenty there to welcome, including a reaffirmation of the Government’s commitment to engaging with the Making Space for Water campaign, and a pledge to continue the work with farmers and landowners to have a truly joined-up approach to tackling agricultural run-off. I welcome the commitment to ensuring that polluters always pay for the projects that go so far in cleaning up our rivers and streams. I was equally happy to hear a defence of our chalk streams and their revival. Success here is surely critical to restoring nature and boosting biodiversity in our chalk streams across the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of protecting and restoring river habitats.

16:24

Sitting adjourned.