Live Debate: Commons Chamber

Urgent question: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the disruption of water supplies to areas served by South East water during the Spring recess

Mr. Speaker. Would the Secretary of State for the environment make a statement following the disruption of water supplies throughout the area served by South East Water area served by South East Water during the the spring recess? Holiday? Holiday?

12:48

Rt Hon Sir Roger Gale MP (Herne Bay and Sandwich, Conservative)

- -

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to sir Roger for asking this question, and I'd like to update the House on the water supply disruption in Kent. I'd like to begin by expressing my sympathy

12:48

Emma Hardy MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, Labour)

- -

for those affected by this disruption. Being without water is distressing at any time, but particularly during a period of hot weather and school revision and weather and school revision and examinations. This is now the third major outage affecting South east water customers in recent months, and it is simply not acceptable. South East Water reported that South East Water reported that thousands of customers were impacted by supply disruptions over the course of the incident, and I am pleased that normal water supply has now been restored.

I met with the interim chair and senior operational staff twice during the course of the incident, including on Sunday this weekend, and the DEFRA team met with them daily to hold them to account for this incident, and requested that they set out how they will compensate customers for this by the end of this week. Water supply disruption causes significant costs to businesses and impacts the most vulnerable in society. I've heard of 100 year old lady without water and a care home in Cranbrook, using wet wipes to keep their residents clean.

This is simply unacceptable and the company must take urgent action. I'd like to thank all those working in the Kent Local Resilience Forum, the local authorities, the health and social care partners and civil service civil servants, and Mhclg and DEFRA for their hard work to support those affected. I am also grateful to operational staff and volunteers who works on the ground to restore what supplies and provide alternative water, a reliable supply of clean water is one of the fundamental foundations of a healthy, functioning society.

The situation demands further bold action to deliver fundamental long term reform, and that's why we're delivering full scale reform to the water sector. Through our clean Water bill, we will create a new single powerful regulator giving us, for the first time, a clear, system wide view of company performance and the tools to intervene more quickly when companies fall short. We will put consumers first by introducing a water ombudsman, ensuring customers have a stronger voice and clearer routes to redress. We've already passed the Water Special Measures Act, which introduced the toughest sentencing powers ever applied to law, breaking water company executives and introduced powers to ban unjustified bonuses.

It is vital that South East water and all water companies deliver on improvements to their infrastructure. But most of all, they must continue to improve their ability to maintain water supplies to their customers. Whatever the weather.

12:51

Rt Hon Sir Roger Gale MP (Herne Bay and Sandwich, Conservative)

- -

Come to SA Roger Gale. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can I thank the Minister for her obvious and genuine concern and for the measures that she sought to take, measures that she sought to take, and I join her in thanking the very many organisations that sought to help us through this problem. I include in that employees on the ground of South East water. Mr. speaker, you know that thousands of people in Herne Bay in my constituency and more thousands of people in Whitstable in the constituency represented by my hon.

Friend the Member for Canterbury were left without water during the four hottest days of the year so far. That is totally inexcusable and totally unacceptable. Not only were households disrupted, but at the very time when they should have been having a glorious start to their season, guest houses, hotels, restaurants, pubs were shut, care homes had frightful problems. A doctor's surgery lost its consultations because they didn't have water. There is no quick fix to this. The broad oak reservoir should have been built 50 years ago.

It will take ten years if we start tomorrow, but we have to try to make sure that in the coming months, because there will be more hot weather, this doesn't happen for a fifth time across Kent. And Mr. Speaker, finally, could I say that I do believe that the water companies face a very real problem in the regulations. As they stand, they are required by law to connect every new house to a supply. They are not consultees in planning applications.

We have to correct that. They have to be given a voice because they cannot spirit water out of thin air. Yeah, yeah.

12:52

Emma Hardy MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, Labour)

- -

Well done. >> Emma Hardy Minister. >> I thank the right hon. Gentleman and share his outrage at the situation. And he's quite right to say that one of the answers is the say that one of the answers is the reservoir, and he's quite right to say that it's going to take a long time in which to build it. But it's not just the reservoirs, it's the desalination plants, but it's also they need to do more urgent action on tackling leakage. Too much of the water that is produced is lost through leakage, but also sort of looking across government at building standards for new homes.

How can we make homes more water efficient? Because this is a big problem. And one of the things I hope we shall offer him some reassurance is Mr. have been doing some work around mapping to identify areas of the country where we have more acute water shortage problems to look at what we need to resolve it. One of the things I was saying to the company is that what are the actions you can take now? There's no excuse for their poor communication. There's no that's something they can fix overnight.

They can improve their communication. They can improve their relationship with the local resilience forum. That doesn't cost any money. They can look at the supply bulk supply deal they have with Southern Water. That's another action they can take. They can accelerate their work on leakage reduction. That's another action they can take. But fundamentally it's quite right. The answer is building reservoirs and having greater storage of water across our country. And it is, quite frankly, I think, ludicrous that we're in a situation where we complain about the rain all through the winter and complain about the drought all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

through the summer, and we have no way of storing it. And that's something I'm trying to change urgently. Just to remind everybody, this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just to remind everybody, this is about south east water, not the water companies. So I'm sure all questions have been linked to that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

questions have been linked to that. Sojan Joseph thank. You, Mr. Speaker. Like many of my constituents, I have lost all my constituents, I have lost all faith in South East water after the repeated failures to deliver adequate standards for customers in

12:54

Sojan Joseph MP (Ashford, Labour)

- -

adequate standards for customers in my constituency and across Kent. The latest incident left around 4000 of my constituents having to cope for days with no water entirely and intermittent supply or low water pressure. South east water is. Failure to invest in infrastructure means I have no confidence they will be able to provide a basic standard of service. Moreover, they were. They kept the hosepipe ban until February this year and there was no preparedness for the hot weather that was coming up.

So there is a lack of understanding for the senior leadership within that organisation. So what practical measures the government can do that we will not suffer in the in this this coming summer months?

12:55

Emma Hardy MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, Labour)

- -

Minister. >> I thank my hon. Friend for his question and share with him the outrage of the situation. And he outrage of the situation. And he has been a fantastic champion for his constituents in in raising with this raising this with me on a number of times in terms of the number of times in terms of the action that they can immediately take. One of the things we've said to the company is that they need to be prepared for future hot weather during the summer.

Summer? What is their plan? What is their resilience plan? What actions are they going to take? What are they going to do? You know, where can they identify immediate things they can take? The longer solution is the storage of water. That is the longer term solution. But I mean, fundamentally, I have to say, Mr. Speaker, this company is a water only company. It has one job. That's all. It has one job to supply water. And it's quite frankly astonishing that it is failing to do that at the moment.

He will be aware they are under investigation from Ofwat. They're under investigation from the Drinking Water Inspectorate for its actual licence and because of its recent credit downgrade, it is under investigation as to whether those licence conditions have been broken. So serious actions are being taken against this company now. I will, of course, update the House as soon as I hear more about the things that are going to be taking in the immediate short term. And just also to mention that the CEO has offered his resignation.

The chair has already resigned. There is an interim chair, and the CEO is currently there. While they're looking to replace him with somebody else.

12:56

Dr Neil Hudson MP (Epping Forest, Conservative)

- -

Shall the Minister, Doctor Neil Hudson. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for granting this urgent question from my right hon. Friend question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich. And can I thank the Minister for her approach and engagement with this vital issue? engagement with this vital issue? It is deeply regrettable, Mr. Speaker, that we are here yet again with unacceptable outages from South east water following the events back in December and January. The shortage of water supply in Kent in these hot conditions has had terrible impact on the local communities.

Homes have been without water supply. Schools and businesses impacted farmers and horse owners again, fearing not having enough water for their livestock, local residents have lost confidence in their water supply and are switching to bottled water. That simply is outrageous. These repeated failures are simply not good enough. From South east water, we have heard repeated accounts about poor communication and logistics from south east water, including difficulties in accessibility to collect bottled water, compromising vulnerable residents. Can the Minister please provide guidance on what is being done to ensure that people can reliably moving forward, access adequate supply, particularly vulnerable households, and what is being done to ensure vital health care delivery can continue uninterrupted? And in these hot conditions, what measures can be put in place so that farmers and horse owners will have enough water for their livestock? What meetings has the Minister had with south east water off what the Drinking Water inspectorate, local resilience fora and affected councils since this latest disruption, Mr.

Speaker, we have seen resignations at the top of South East water, but we are yet to see any change in performance. What enforcement action is being considered against South East Water, if it is found again to have failed its statutory duties, and what investment has South East Water committed to improve resilience in Kent, Sussex and other areas, and how will Ministers ensure that it's delivered? Does the government accept that repeated water outages are unacceptable? And what steps will Ministers take to support people in South East Water's area so that they will not face yet another period of interrupted supply? Mr.

12:59

Emma Hardy MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, Labour)

- -

I thank the official spokesperson on the issue of farms. spokesperson on the issue of farms. They did after the last situation, which was. It was raised with me, I think, by the hon. Lady, about think, by the hon. Lady, about yourself, about access for for livestock. So this time they did make deliveries of alternative water to farms across the region during the incident. So that's what I've been informed. But obviously there's intelligence. Otherwise, I'm keen to keen to learn and understand that.

And they had said they continue to monitor farms at risk areas. On the issue of vulnerable customers. This continues to be a challenge. It's one of the things I've been talking to the Cabinet Office around is, is there a way that we can share more accurate information and data? Because what the water companies say is keeping their priority register up to date is quite challenging, because sometimes people fall in and out of being vulnerable, classified as vulnerable. For example, a lady who is pregnant is classified as vulnerable and needing water.

But obviously when she's had the baby, she's no longer classified as being vulnerable in the same way. So how can we maintain accurate records of who's vulnerable and who would need additional water? So I'm having those conversations with the Cabinet Office around. Is there a way to share data? But bearing in mind it's sensitive about sharing information. So there's always a there's always a complication there. So one thing I would ask all colleagues to do, if we can try and encourage all of our constituents to, to identify, self-identify through the priority services register, if they're classified as vulnerable so that they can read the get the expected water.

I've met with the new the interim chair, and we had a more productive conversation, and she is keen to reset relationships. She was wants to sort of meet various the MPs in the area to talk to them. She's committed to sort of rebuilding a relationship with the local Resilience Forum and how they can improve communication. To be fair to her, I think she's been there a few weeks. So this is very, very early on in her interim interim chair. So I think there's something that we can work on and build on, because there are things they can do now around communications.

And I'm quite concerned by him saying there was an accessibility problem around drinking water stations in terms of who I've met, met with the obviously met with the new chair, met with the senior people involved, meet regularly with the drinking water Inspectorate and offer on this. There are live investigations following the last incident being held into the company at the moment and this would. This will continue. Polly Billington thank you.

13:01

Ms Polly Billington MP (East Thanet, Labour)

- -

Mr. Speaker. I'm grateful. >> She has approached this. And particularly the fact that she points out that South East Water has one job. However, unfortunately, has one job. However, unfortunately, they are accountable to their shareholders more than they are to the people who they are supposed to be serving. Can I make a suggestion? Notwithstanding the reforms that the government has already put in place with regard to the water industry, suggesting that maybe in future, rather than simply fining these companies when they fail so catastrophically, taking that fine, the amount of of that fine as stock in the company to be fully held by a locally convened water board so that residents themselves have some form of control and accountability for the decisions that are made.

Because otherwise we are relying on extractive capitalism to destroy our water supply.

13:02

Emma Hardy MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, Labour)

- -

Minister. powerful point, and I do want to highlight that in the white paper. We did say in there that water companies might want to transition companies might want to transition to new ownership models, such as not for profit, for example, the regulator will develop a transparent process to assess transparent process to assess whether that water company's requested move to the new model will go ahead. So we are looking at developing a transparent process. If that is something that the water company might want to look at.

But in terms of increasing the customer voice, which she's absolutely right about, on day one of this government coming into power, we announced new consumer boards for for water companies. The Consumer Council for water has done the entire country gathering together different people for these customer panels. They've held one already in the south east water area, where the customers there can how to account very much like a Select Committee hearing those water company bosses. And the report from that, obviously I will I will share with the House, but it is really interesting.

The number one issue that came up from this area was communication, lack of communication. A lack of adequate communication was the number one thing they can tackle, and that doesn't require millions and billions on a reservoir that just requires competence. spokesperson.

13:03

Sarah Dyke MP (Glastonbury and Somerton, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Mr. Speaker, leaving thousands of South East water company of South East water company customers without access to drinking water has become a pattern of neglect enabled by water system of neglect enabled by water system that fails to hold water companies accountable for their actions, whether it be environmental destruction or consistent water disruptions. The situation is simply unacceptable. But the government's timid reforms do not rise to the scale of the challenge. We don't need more tinkering. We need a total structural overhaul.

So given the repeated failures in water supply and sewage pollution seen in south east water area and across the country, will the Minister back Liberal Democrat proposals for a mutually owned public benefit model for water companies focusing investment on the environment, on customers and infrastructure, rather than lining the pockets of water company bosses like South East Water.

13:04

Emma Hardy MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, Labour)

- -

Minister and of course, South >> Minister and of course, South East water is water only company, not a sewage company. And I, you know, I think there's many things we can criticise them for, but sewage pollution is not one of them. Since we came into power, as I said, on day one, we introduced a on day one, we introduced a customer panels. We've secured £104 billion private investment. We passed the Water Special Measures Act. We gave the EA more powers to monitor water companies and uncover wrongdoing.

In fact, the EA have done over 10,000 inspections into water companies. They've uncovered 81 examples that have gone through to criminal investigation. And I do want to gently point out that under the previous government, coalition government funding for the EA was cut by more than half. We've also introduced criminal liability for water policies, introduced automatic penalties, reduced the burden of proof, introduced cost recovery bans the sale and supply of wet wipes, looked at reforming our bathing waters, established the water delivery task force. And yes, there's more to do with the reforms we have.

And on top of that, of course, we've abolished Ofwat and on top of that there is more work to do. But I think I stand quite proud on the record that we've inaction.

13:05

Helena Dollimore MP (Hastings and Rye, Labour )

- -

Helena Dollimore thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for bringing this question. Member for bringing this question. It's been an extremely distressing incident for my constituents. Served by South East Water on the Sussex, Kent border to see this Sussex, Kent border to see this disruption happening, many residents and businesses impacted, and I have to say that it's right. The chief executive and the chairman of Southern South East Water have resigned, and I would urge the government to look at the terms of the licence and whether those have been breached in this situation.

But I also think we're here again in this chamber discussing another major water outage. The Minister knows we've had two major outages as well in my own patch. And what we see is time and time again, the same mistakes and the same failures being repeated by the water companies. We looked at this on the environment committee, and we found that they need to have clear plans of action in place, water stations in the right places, water stations that you can get to without a car, thinking about the impact on businesses and maybe delivering water to them to keep them open.

All of these things every time get forgotten. And so could I ask the Minister to actually instruct all water companies in the country to have detailed emergency response plans in place for every constituency in the country that they work with the local MPs on? Because we are the people on Christmas Eve, as happened to me last year, who have got the vicar's mobile numbers, the head teacher's phone numbers and can set up those water stations. But they need to do that planning before disaster strikes and people lose water.

So I urge her to look at that.

13:06

Emma Hardy MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, Labour)

- -

Minister. >> I find the hon. Lady. In fact, the licence, they have actually broken their licence conditions at the moment because of their credit. the moment because of their credit. They've been downgraded by Moody's credit rating agency because of their performance issues, which is in fact, I think the first time a in fact, I think the first time a credit rating agency has downgraded a water company over performance rather than over insolvency. So they are currently in breach of their licence. They're also being investigated on their licence under from the drinking water inspector.

It could be off, but I will. I will double check for that under the consumer duty. Sorry. It is under the consumer duty for the fact that they've had supply outages in December and January. So that is happening right now. On the emergency response plans. Yes, absolutely. They should have emergency response plans. Clearly the emergency response plans that this company have are inadequate, which is why that we want to work with the local resilience Forum and with the water company, with obviously with DEFRA officials as well, to make sure that they are improved before we have another short spell of hot weather.

13:07

Rt Hon Tom Tugendhat MP (Tonbridge, Conservative)

- -

Chorley thank. >> Mr. Speaker. >> The honourable. >> Lady asked a very good question, which the Minister touched upon, but I'm going to press her further, but I'm going to press her further, because parts of Meriwether Platt and often in my own area were left not only without water, but without not only without water, but without the support necessary for those who are most vulnerable, until two fantastic councillors, Matt Borton and Sarah Hudson, both from East Peckham, really went in there and and got into the fight with the water company to make sure that the water station was set up.

What planning can she help with to make sure that that infrastructure is put in place? Because the water companies have got away with it for far too long, in this case, south east water, let's not beat around. The bush has been the worst run company that I've ever come across. And it's quite right that the leadership has gone. By the way, Mr. Speaker, there are quite a lot of companies I've come across, so that bar is set quite high. The. But she has extraordinary discretionary authority to corral and to coerce companies to act.

Could she please look at bringing forward a task group within regional areas in order to make sure that their water plans are in place and their emergency plans are in place? Because otherwise we're going to have this again.

13:09

Emma Hardy MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, Labour)

- -

For his thoughtful question, and of course, they do have a duty. They have a statutory duty to They have a statutory duty to provide wholesome water. And in the event that they can't, they must include provisions of alternative include provisions of alternative water supplies. This these are set out in the Security and Emergencies Emergency Measures direction for 2022. So they have that statutory duty to actually plan and prepare. I think that's a really helpful suggestion. I would want them to be working with the LRF to sort of look at this, because, I mean, in this case it was just a water supply issue.

But often when we have incidences potentially flooding that takes out water supply, it's more than one issue happening at the same time. So I think it's important that they work really closely with the local resilience forum. And what I can commit to do is contacting the company and the Local Resilience Forum to ensure that they have those plans in place, and also recommend that they speak to the local members of Parliament about those plans to ensure that they are satisfied, that they are felt to be satisfactory.

And of course, the councils, through the local resilience one, to make sure that they are ready for, you know, what will be another potentially hot, hot summer.

13:10

Kevin McKenna MP (Sittingbourne and Sheppey, Labour)

- -

So. Sittingbourne and Sheppey have been really, really worried and concerned, as they've seen along the coast, Herne Bay and Whitstable and residents there being deprived of their essential water supplies. I mean, it shouldn't have come as a shock. We know that there's been 15% extra usage of water during the heatwave the other week, but farmers in March and April were telling me locally that the water supplies were really, really low. And the swales on Sheppey. But we've got more investment coming and it's really chalk and cheese in my area in Swale, where we've got southern water and southeastern water southeastern are absolutely dreadful.

Whereas, you know, on Sheppey, which is particularly vulnerable to water supply issues, we've got a new water main coming, you know, £4 million worth of investment there and a massive new drainage system. It's really obvious the difference between these two companies. What I want to know from the Minister is, can she tell me how we're going to not just increase the amount of investment that's coming into the water system, but really deliver it at pace, and also how we can make sure that there is that we don't have this postcode lottery in terms of whether you're going to get water or not, just because of the management of these firms.

13:11

Emma Hardy MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, Labour)

- -

Minister. issue of farmers and water supply, I'm really keen to make it much easier for farmers to set up on farm reservoirs. That's something farm reservoirs. That's something I've heard repeatedly from farmers that they find it difficult. So I want to kind of make that as simple as possible. I've spoken to too many farmers who tell me their frustration, particularly in the area where they say, all winter we send all the water out into the sea and then all summer we wish we had it back.

So I want to do something about that. In terms of drought, each company has been told to produce a drought emergency plan ready for summer. That's for every single water company to make sure we are prepared for that in terms of making sure they deliver what they promised. One of the things we did in the Water Special Measures Act is if they don't deliver what they promised, that money that they've taken to deliver it needs to be refunded to customers. That money has been ring fenced, and we have the Water Delivery Task Force, which tracks all of the major projects to make sure they are on track and on Budget.

And if they're not, then we intervene as a government to understand why and and what can be done to bring them, bring them back on track. But you're quite right. We shouldn't have this situation where because you live in a certain area, you're suffering a much poorer service than if you lived somewhere else. So this is why we want to take a bit of grip on the delivery of of projects that should be delivered, but also kind of make it easier for people living in this area to be able to hold on to the water during the winter, to make sure that they have it during the summer.

13:12

Rosie Duffield MP (Canterbury, Independent)

- -

Rosie Duffield Mr. Speaker, and I'd like to thank the Minister, who's been engaged for a long time on this issue. And I know she on this issue. And I know she really she really cares and talks to me and my neighbours, my neighbours, and I just spent far too much of our time talking about the latest water shortages. And, you know, heat seems to equate to lack of water in the taps I've got. Whitstable has been devastated yet again and we are really worried about too many new houses that aren't going to be able to meet demand.

And also local businesses in the summer, like the excellent Nomad Pizza Company that are independent and had to close for days during our tourism, you know, hotspot. How can I reassure them? And most of my constituents, by the way, lots of them are very behind the nationalisation model. That's something I get a lot of emails about, but how can I assure them with our water tank, ten years, our reservoir, ten years from being built, how can I assure them that the tanks won't still be empty in July and August, and we're going to suffer business wise.

13:13

Emma Hardy MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, Labour)

- -

Minister. >> I thank my hon. Friend and that pizza business sounds sounds great and definitely worth a visit in summer. But she's quite right. We summer. But she's quite right. We need to be looking. So I said to the company when I spoke to them again on the on the Sunday evening, what are the immediate measures that you can you can put in place over, over this summer to make sure that we have enough water supplies? In terms of house building, I've had some really productive conversations with MCHLG about how do you build homes that that basically use less water, you know, what is it in the building standards that you can build a home to, to mean that you're not having to use the same amount of water in a different way? This happens all over the world.

It's not sort of beyond our beyond our grasp to do that as a government. But I think fundamentally, we're going to need to build the reservoirs. We're going to need the desalination plants, we're going to need those big sources of water. But I do also think that, as I've mentioned before, one of the things excuse me, the company could do more immediately is tackle the leaks because at the moment we are ground.

13:14

Jim Dickson MP (Dartford, Labour)

- -

Jim Dickson thank you, Mr. Speaker. Residents in Dartford, Speaker. Residents in Dartford, like those across Kent, are also experiencing poor service and increased bills, including in Ebbsfleet, having to pay an additional sum for water to flow from their community wastewater into the Thames. I've been charged by the Port of London Authority for de-watering, which is incredibly unfair to them. What they ask me continually is why it's acceptable for this poor performance to be in place and for water executives to continue to pay themselves large bonuses.

Can I just ask the Minister what work is going on in order to tighten the regulations so that reward actually matches performance going forward?

13:15

Emma Hardy MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, Labour)

- -

Yes, Minister. >> I totally agree with my hon. Friend. As I've mentioned here before, I don't have an issue with bonuses per se. I just think it bonuses per se. I just think it should be linked to how well you do your job and what we've done with the water special measure that is obviously ban unfair bonuses. But obviously ban unfair bonuses. But what we have, what we have seen from some companies, is attempting to exploit loopholes in which to continue to award them and their loopholes that we are determined to close.

13:15

Helen Whately MP (Faversham and Mid Kent, Conservative)

- -

Helen Whately thank. >> You, Mr. Speaker. We've had a few days of hot weather and yet again in my constituency and across again in my constituency and across Kent, we've had water outages on top of what we've seen earlier this year and last year. Residents, year and last year. Residents, businesses, livestock owners, they are frustrated, but they are also really worried because getting water is the most basic thing in this country. It's right that the chief executive and chair of South East Water has gone.

My anger with them was particularly over their response and how they've handled these outages. But there is a longer term problem of infrastructure and supply of water that's not going to be fixed overnight. There are 2000 more houses coming in the pipeline for my constituency over the next few years, and thousands more in the surrounding area. Can the Minister tell me, is there enough water for these thousands more houses in rural Kent?

13:16

Emma Hardy MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, Labour)

- -

Minister. >> Minister. >> The hon. Lady raises an important point. I remember last time we were here talking about time we were here talking about South east water, how powerfully she described the impact on her constituents and on her businesses. So I know this is something she cares deeply about. As I say, one of the things we're doing through the water delivery task Force is identify areas of the country where there are more acute water shortages, and therefore, what actions can be taken to ensure people have the homes they need to live in.

But also businesses have the water that they need, and it's not having a detrimental impact on the existing residents that live in in that area. One of the things, particularly about South East Water, is they are reliant on a bulk supply agreement with Southern Water. So that's one of the things I'm sort of keen to sort of look into the details of, to make sure that that can be guaranteed, whatever the circumstances Southern Water found themselves in. There are various other actions we can take.

We mentioned around businesses and building standards and the ways that you build homes in Cambridge. They've looking they've looked at retrofitting some homes to make them use less water. There's various other rules and regulations within it comes to business use of water. At the moment, we have a slightly bizarre situation where businesses have to use potable water. They're not able to use other types of water, which seems a bit crazy to me that we're wasting drinking water for for things that aren't drinking or for or for domestic customers.

So I think there's a whole spread of different things in which we're looking at to make sure that we have the water that we need, because quite right to say that all the nine new reservoirs and the desal plants and all that are brilliant, but they're not going to be here this summer. They're not going to be here next summer. So it's looking at that more immediate actions that we can take.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And just gently say it was about southeast water. The Minister seems to have opened it up by mentioning other water companies, but if we other water companies, but if we can try and concentrate on the theme will be more helpful otherwise, and I'm going to test

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that example by Clive Efford. I think it's Thames Water, but I'm sure we'll link his question. Absolutely. I'm asking the question about southeast water because what we've got here is a company that fell over at the first short period of over at the first short period of hot weather, and you have to wonder what planning has gone on in that company, that it fell over so

13:18

Clive Efford MP (Eltham and Chislehurst, Labour)

- -

quickly in the season. And when are we going to call time on these water companies? Because the water companies? Because the consistent failure that we get from them whilst they're extracted enormous profits from, from, from enormous profits from, from, from the industry, has got to come to an end at some stage. I know my hon. Friend is as frustrated as the rest of us with these companies, but it is time. There must come a time

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is time. There must come a time when we say to them, enough is enough, and we take control of these water companies for the public good. Mr.

13:19

Emma Hardy MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, Labour)

- -

I thank my noble friend and as highlighted, the White Paper does talk about if companies wish to talk about if companies wish to move into alternative ownership models, but I just want to sort of just briefly touch on special just briefly touch on special administration for breaching statutory duties, because under section 37 of the Water Industry Act 1991, a water company has the duty to supply water within its area of appointment. A serious breach of these principal duties of an enforcement order can be grounds for a performance.

If that breach is so serious that it is no longer appropriate for the company to continue to hold its instrument of appointment.

13:19

Alison Bennett MP (Mid Sussex, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Alison Bennett thank you, Mr. Speaker. I absolutely despair of South east water. As we've heard South east water. As we've heard from hon. Members who represent Kent constituencies, they can't Kent constituencies, they can't cope with large water outages. Neither can they cope with small water outages. In my Mid Sussex constituency, the village of Staplefield has just gone through 30 hours without water, without bottled water being supplied, without good information and even with misinformation. I understand that trying to fix decades of neglect in the water infrastructure will take a long time.

So can I ask the Secretary of State, in her next meetings with executives at South East Water, will she ask to look at their communication plans so people know what's happening, get timely information and get the bottled water they need. Seeing as outages seem to be par for the course these days.

13:20

Emma Hardy MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, Labour)

- -

Minister. >> I thank the hon. Lady and she's absolutely right. It was one of the issues that we had in the conversation on Sunday was the issue around communication and issue around communication and where bottled water station should be. I was told in this incident that they'd worked more closely with the LRF to listen to their with the LRF to listen to their advice on where to place them, but obviously, if that's not the hon. Lady's experience and I'd be keen to hear about that so I can take that back to the company.

What I will say, because it is an interim chair, and I know that she's keen to build new relationships with members of Parliament. She has assured me that she's going to be meeting members of Parliament. And I think this is something collectively, this issue around communication, this issue around where bottled water stations is one that I would, I would say, urge to raise with her directly so that we've got them in the right place. Because I think fundamentally members of Parliament and councillors, no one understands their areas probably far better than a than a water company.

13:21

Matt Rodda MP (Reading Central, Labour)

- -

Matt Rodda thank you. >> Speaker, and I thank the Member for her question and also the Minister's approach. This very difficult and appalling issue in Kent. Could she update the House Kent. Could she update the House and a little bit more about the work to get meaningful compensation for the residents and businesses who are affected, and also, in the longer term, what she's doing to improve the system of compensation, which for many of my residents who had a water outage, had to wait a long period of time for money to be paid back.

Well.

13:21

Emma Hardy MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, Labour)

- -

Minister. >> Minister. >> I find my my hon. Friend and absolutely one of the first things we did when we came into government was look at the Guaranteed Service Standards Scheme, the scheme, and we've introduced new increased compensation payments and introduced new standards, because previously there weren't even compensation being paid when people were under a boil notice. And that's something that this government's introduced. We've doubled for failings like supply interruptions, low pressure and sewer flooding. And so because of these changes, customers should be receiving payments for boil notice for the first time.

And we've been told to make it available to people as soon as possible. We're really clear that customers come first. They are the people I care about and they're the people I am the water Minister for. So we're also going to be looking at introducing a water ombudsman. In the conversation I had with South West Wiltshire on Sunday, I asked them to, by the end of the week, identify what compensation is going to be paid to who and when, and that is something I'll be following up with them.

13:22

Dr Ben Spencer MP (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

- -

Doctor Ben Spencer. >> Doctor Ben Spencer. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. >> As she's. >> Looking into the. >> Situation with South East. >> Water, can I also feed back what.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Water, can I also feed back what. Happened in Weybridge last week, where parts of Weybridge had restrictions on water supply while were supplied by Affinity Water? I were supplied by Affinity Water? I think this is a problem which is broader than just this area. Could you urgently review resilience of water supply, the availability, but particularly the impact of new house building, is going to have over the forthcoming years on supply?

13:23

Emma Hardy MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, Labour)

- -

Minister. on resilience standards, that's one of the first things. One of the things that we want to introduce for the first time is asset standards for water company assets, standards for water company assets, because at the moment they don't exist. There's no sort of rule or criteria for what standard do you need to maintain your water treatment work to or your wastewater treatment work to or your pipes to, or how much leakage is acceptable or not? You know, that doesn't exist at the moment.

So with the new regulator, we want to introduce these asset standards to say that you have to maintain your assets to a to a certain standard, and that should help change and basically build against what we've had in not admittedly in this occasion, this occasion they run out of water. But what we've seen in other cases where supply or infrastructure falls over because it's not it's not adequately maintained and looked after, which is why the no notice inspections really matter as well. Those MOT style inspections, as I referred to them, were people from the Environment Agency can go in no notice, check the assets, mark them on them, and then give the company enforcement notice to say that they have to improve their assets up to a certain standard.

That's not going to be fixed overnight. But by having that goal and aim of where we need to get to will help to sort of prevent what we're seeing when we have issues where the infrastructure just falls over because it's not properly looked after.

13:24

Clive Lewis MP (Norwich South, Labour)

- -

Clive Lewis Mr Speaker South East Water. East Water. >> Is one of a number of privatised water companies that are responsible for setting off 35 responsible for setting off 35 reservoirs since 2017, and they haven't built a single one since privatisation. That's complete. I think this government, we understand, is committed to a regulatory approach to dealing with this. I would say that's akin to putting a complaints box on the Titanic. A nice idea, but I don't think it's going to work.

Ultimately, whilst you have private water companies whose first priority is to private shareholders, many of them overseas, who have a about our constituents, this will keep on happening until water is put back under public control, in public hands and owned by the public.

13:25

Emma Hardy MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, Labour)

- -

Minister. >> I thank my friend. I know how passionately he cares about this and I do genuinely pay tribute to him for for championing this issue, him for for championing this issue, for the work that he's done in Parliament to bring bring people together. As I have mentioned previously, the White Paper does talk about setting up a transparent, transparent process to look at moving, transitioning into whether a company should go to a different model, which he mentions, including not for profit, if that's that's what it would wish to do.

13:25

Rt Hon Mark Francois MP (Rayleigh and Wickford, Conservative)

- -

So Mark Francois. >> Thank you. >> Can I just very quickly endorse your lovely tribute at.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

PMQs, as I'm an Essex MP to Sir Alan Haselhurst, who will be much missed even though he did achieve a missed even though he did achieve a very respectable innings of 88 years in his time on this earth. Can I very strongly endorse the suggestion from my right hon. Friend from across the Thames, as it were, about making water companies statutory consultees for planning applications, where there's an application for a large number of houses. The implications can be severe, not just for fresh water, but for foul water and particularly for sewage.

And in my constituency, our sewage capacity is very nearly maxed out. And the implications of getting that wrong are frighteningly obvious. So I can see the Minister helpfully is nodding. Could we please change the law to make water companies statutory consultees so they can give expert advice on whether or not new planning proposals are actually feasible in reality or no?

13:26

Emma Hardy MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, Labour)

- -

Thank you. >> The hon. Gentleman, right in pointing out the consequences of getting this wrong. And just to getting this wrong. And just to reassure him, we are looking at, as I say, using tools from Minister, using the water delivery task force, where we have shortages and what can we do about it, and not just for water, for wastewater capacity as well, because both are crucially important, because we want to see homes being built. We know that we have, you know, people want somewhere to live.

And especially first time buyers are finding it incredibly difficult at the moment. But we are taking a sensible approach to this and identifying, OK, where do we have shortages in wastewater or water? What can be done about that to increase the amount that we have available, but also what can be done to reduce demand in that area as well, as I mentioned, retrofitting and building standards and and various other measures that can be taken to.

13:27

Terry Jermy MP (South West Norfolk, Labour)

- -

Terry Jermy. >> The DEFRA Select Committee has investigated South East water extensively, and what I found particularly shocking was the fact particularly shocking was the fact that there were so many warnings and concerns raised that were simply ignored. And despite a high simply ignored. And despite a high risk of water supply failure, the lack of see. So can I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, whether the regulatory reforms that the government is looking at will have real consequences when those concerns are raised, but ignored by the water companies?

13:28

Emma Hardy MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, Labour)

- -

Minister. for their report. I thought it was a really excellent report and quite forensic in looking into the forensic in looking into the failures of South East Water. So it was a really brilliant, useful document. And he's quite right that there needs to be tough consequences if concerns are raised and ignored, and they cannot be allowed to continue to happen. That is exactly why we want to give a new regulator with strong powers, with teeth, to be able to take action.

So why are we looking at introducing this performance improvement regime for water companies so that if we identify failure in that water company, they're giving a proper oversight to sort of turn that company around, make it improve with consequences if they don't? Sarah Bool thank.

13:29

Sarah Bool MP (South Northamptonshire, Conservative)

- -

You. >> You. >> Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for her praise of the report. As a member of the Select Committee, we are doing extensive work on the water industry and we are following this very carefully. As was said earlier, the key issue As was said earlier, the key issue as part of the South Water south east water disruption was the lack of communication and that equally applied to Anglian Water. With the outage that occurred at exactly the same time in South Northamptonshire.

I was not told of the outage and residents report not knowing what was going on for 1224 hours and the water delivery was stable was inconsistent. So what I ask is just one of the more the government can do to send a very clear message to the water companies that this lack of communication is not acceptable.

13:29

Emma Hardy MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, Labour)

- -

The. I thank the hon. Lady for her work as well on the committee, and she's absolutely right. It is unacceptable. There are things. And I you know, I feel like I'm a fair minded person. I know that they don't control the weather. Water don't control the weather. Water companies, I know that they can't build a reservoir overnight, but they certainly can contact their members of Parliament, contact their councils, get in touch with their local resilience forums and make sure they communicate with their customers. There's an absolute bare minimum, and that is exactly the conversation.

And what are we telling each and every one of them?

13:30

Chris Hinchliff MP (North East Hertfordshire, Labour)

- -

Chris Hinchliff Madam Deputy Speaker. Alongside the failures in the South East, there was a widespread disruption of water supply across swathes of my constituency during the recent heatwave in Buntingford, Cottered, heatwave in Buntingford, Cottered, Ardley and Throcking and Madam Deputy Speaker. In a country as wet as ours, it should take a true organising genius to create disruptions in water supply. But we are on track for a 6,000,000,000 litre water deficit in our country in coming decades. And on top of this, the forecast for water consumption from AI dentists data centres is now estimated to reach up to half 1,000,000,000,000mÂ³ every year.

So to prevent disruptions of water supply recurring year in, year out, will the Minister, who I deeply respect, accept that we cannot continue to have infinite increases in demand on our already vastly overstretched water resources?

13:31

Emma Hardy MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, Labour)

- -

I thank my friend, and he's quite right. It is astonishing that quite right. It is astonishing that we have we are going to be seeing with climate change wetter and wetter winters, drier and drier summers, but we have no capacity in summers, but we have no capacity in which to store it in the winter and use it in the summer. And that just feels like an absolute, absolute nonsense. On the issue of data centres, one of the things I'm quite keen to look at, and I sort of mentioned this in an answer over there, is at the moment, the way that the legislation is set out is that the water that is supplied by water company has to be drinking water standard.

So I again, it feels again, a logical, sensible move to say, well, could you not, if you're using water for cooling purposes, not for drinking purposes, not in people's homes, to be absolutely clear. But could you not, if you're using it for cooling purposes, use a different standard of water. Why does it need to be drinking water quality? Because that would enable us to use water where we're wanting to use it for things like data centres for for growth in a closed loop system.

I think that's important to point out as well. But why couldn't you use something like wastewater to do the same job? Why do you need to use drinking water? And it feels like there are some legislation we have which were done for the right purposes. You know, it sounds great. The water company, of course, must have produced water that is drinking water standard. But does it need to be drinking water standard if we're using it to cool machinery, rather than for people to actually use to drink?

13:32

Helen Grant MP (Maidstone and Malling, Conservative)

- -

The final question, Helen Brown. Speaker, South East Water have openly and publicly admitted that openly and publicly admitted that they cannot supply drinking water for all the future homes planned to be built in Kent. So specifically, what is the minister's response to that concern and is she having conversations with her colleagues at the Department of Housing, Communities and Local Government? Minister.

13:33

Emma Hardy MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, Labour)

- -

Hon. Lady, for her question. And >> Hon. Lady, for her question. And the short answer is yes. So the see the previous CEO or the current CEO who hasn't gone yet, came to the who hasn't gone yet, came to the water delivery task force a month or so ago, a few weeks ago, and with some of the local councillors from the area to talk about exactly this, this issue, the supply of water and the housing demands and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

how that can be met. And On the water delivery task force. I sit on that committee with Mhclg I sit on that committee with Mhclg are there as well. So we are all having that conversation together which was around how can we ensure that we build the homes that we need in a way that doesn't impact existing people living in the area, in the water that they need, and in in the water that they need, and in a way that ensures that those new homes have the water that that's required.

So we were looking at required. So we were looking at sort of over the next sort of five, ten, 15 years, what are the various supplies of water that were coming in? How does that impact house building at that time? How can homes be built to a more water efficient design? So those conversations are happening across government right now to to balance out that question of how can we make sure everyone has a home to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

live in, but how can we stop there being a water crisis at the same time? That concludes the first Urgent Question. I'll give the front Question. I'll give the front benches a few moments to swap over. Urgent Question Monica Harding Madam Deputy Speaker, would the Minister. Please make a statement.

13:34

Monica Harding MP (Esher and Walton, Liberal Democrat)

- -

On the Israeli Defence Forces operations in Lebanon? operations in Lebanon? >> Madam Deputy Speaker, before I answer the hon. Lady's important, urgent question, I am sure the urgent question, I am sure the whole House will join me in condemning Iran's strike on Kuwait

13:34

Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)

- -

International Airport by drones this morning. This was a completely unacceptable attack, which has unacceptable attack, which has tragically resulted in multiple injuries and at least one confirmed injuries and at least one confirmed fatality. We stand in solidarity with the government and the people of Kuwait, as well as our partners of Kuwait, as well as our partners across the Gulf. I have conveyed my condolences this morning to the Kuwaiti Foreign Minister and his Kuwaiti Foreign Minister and his colleagues. We urge Iran to de-escalate immediately and return to meaningful dialogue to secure lasting peace and regional stability.

Turning to Lebanon, let me be clear the reckless and disproportionate escalation of Israeli military action in Lebanon has resulted in a devastating situation for Lebanese civilians, killing thousands. At an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council on Monday, jointly called by the United Kingdom. We firmly condemned the government of Israel's actions and called for a genuine and lasting cease fire. We also condemn Lebanese Hezbollah's ongoing attacks against Israel, including those on Israeli northern communities.

They have repeatedly. They have faced a repeated barrage of missiles and drones. Lebanese Hezbollah is a proscribed organisation at Iran's instigation, at Iran's instigation. Sorry, it has dragged Lebanon into a war that its government and its people do not want. It does not speak or act for the people of Lebanon. It must end these attacks and disarm. I condemn the recent comments by Hezbollah's leadership, seeking to destabilise the government of Lebanon within their own country.

In April, I visited Beirut to show our support for the government and the people of Lebanon. I saw the impact of this military escalation firsthand in the South. On a previous visit, I saw the devastating impact on civilian communities, villages razed to the ground, and I was pleased to be able to hand over tangible support to the Lebanese armed forces. Since April, conditions for civilians have only worsened. Over 3000 people have been killed and over 1 million have been displaced. With civilian homes and infrastructure destroyed.

We believe that one quarter of the population of Lebanon is now displaced. Displacement means Madam Deputy Speaker families fleeing from their homes, not knowing what they will return to. It means ever greater strain on hospitals and clinics. It means civilians sleeping in tents by the roadside. It means thousands of children, some of whom I met not being able to go to school, and the spread of disease even amongst the youngest. That is why a ceasefire properly observed by the parties, is so urgent.

Whilst in Lebanon, I also announced a commitment of an additional £20 million in humanitarian support, particularly for those displaced by the conflict, making the UK one of the largest international humanitarian donors to this man made crisis. I also met President Aoun and others in the Lebanese leadership. His government is taking courageous steps to setting out an unprecedented commitment to tackling Hezbollah, and have made the case for direct diplomacy with the government of Israel. The people of Lebanon and Israel to live deserve to live in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

peace and security. I'm sure the Minister doesn't really need reminding, but he does really need reminding, but he does have three minutes for an urgent question, and that overran by some

13:38

Monica Harding MP (Esher and Walton, Liberal Democrat)

- -

time. I call Monica Harding. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It has become routine. >> For Donald Trump to declare a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For Donald Trump to declare a cease fire when none exists. And in Lebanon, the president's claim that Lebanon, the president's claim that fighting has ceased is a dangerous fantasy. Under direction from the Israeli security Cabinet, the IDF is expanding its illegal military operations in southern Lebanon. Israeli forces occupy more territory in Lebanon now than at any point since the start of the century. Hundreds of shattered communities have been left in their wake, with over 3000 Lebanese killed and 1 million displaced.

This looks far too much like the IDF's operation in Gaza. Last week, Prime Minister Netanyahu said Israel would expand its control there to 70% of that territory, breaching the ceasefire there. There can be no doubt, Madam Deputy Speaker, that these actions have breached international law and likely constitute war crimes. Meanwhile, Hezbollah continues to target Israel with missiles and drones. Their violence has led to the displacement of Israeli citizens from across northern Israel and is completely unacceptable. There can be no place for that terror organisation in the region.

No part of this resembles a ceasefire. Madam Deputy Speaker, we need to see concerted action from the international community, including the UK government, to bring this cycle of violence to an end. So I ask, does the government support the need for an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon? Is the government pressing the Israeli security Cabinet to stop its illegal offensive and occupation in Lebanon? Will the government stop all arms sales to Israel and sanction Netanyahu alongside the extremist members of his Cabinet? And has the government made any progress with partners to advance the multilateral plans for the disarming of Hezbollah? There is no military solution to the Lebanon crisis.

The only path forward is a Lebanese political settlement that ensures Hezbollah's disbandment and full state sovereignty over all of its territory.

13:40

Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)

- -

Mr. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the grateful to the hon. Lady for the questions we do. As I'm sure was clear in my answer, we do call for an immediate ceasefire that must be an immediate ceasefire that must be meaningful. I commented in my response on the extent of civilian suffering, which the hon. Lady is right to draw attention to. She is right also to highlight the vital importance of a rapid disarmament of Hezbollah, who are doing the people of Lebanon nothing but harm in their continued efforts to undermine the Lebanese government and to bring the Lebanese into a conflict that they do not wish to be a part of.

I discussed those questions of disarmament in all of my discussions in April with the president, the Prime Minister, the speaker of the Parliament, with members of the Lebanese armed forces, and we will continue to play our full role, including in the Security Council, as we did earlier in the week.

13:41

Rt Hon Emily Thornberry MP (Islington South and Finsbury, Labour)

- -

Chair of the Select Committee, Dame Emily Thornberry. >> Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. The. Instead of it being unacceptable that Israel invades and threatens the Lebanese invades and threatens the Lebanese people south of the Litani River, it long seems to have been understood that so long as they don't cross the river, then there won't be any particular consequences. It's as if we have our new modern day Rubicon. And now they have crossed, and now we have Israel and Hezbollah fighting out their ancient hatred in in the middle of a country and deliberately trying to destabilise Lebanon.

It is completely unacceptable. My. When my committee visits the country this month, I expect we'll hear many requests for more assistance to the Lebanese army so that they can make real progress in disarming Hezbollah and defending their people. Can the Minister confirm that such assistance is going in, and could he give us more details as to the plans?

13:42

Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)

- -

Minister. >> Minister. >> I thank the right hon. Lady for the question and her continued the question and her continued interest in Lebanon. I have been south of the Litani, and I have myself handed over watchtowers to the Lebanese armed forces in those very areas, and I. I wouldn't want the house to have any impression other than. Our view is consistent both north and south of the Litani. I saw for myself from that watchtower the extent of damage done to civilian infrastructure.

Whole villages completely flattened. People said to me, quite rightly, Madam Deputy Speaker, that their lives mattered in the south of Lebanon. They should not expect their villages to be flattened. They should not expect their children to be displaced. And I have been clear in all of our contact, both with the Israeli government and indeed with the authorities in Lebanon. How important it is that this violence is brought to an end. The hon. Lady asks for a question about further detail. I can confirm we have provided over £175 million in training, equipment and advice to the Lebanese armed forces.

Since 2009, there has been particular work in relation to Lebanon's borders, both against Syria and up against Israel as well.

13:43

Rt Hon Priti Patel MP (Witham, Conservative)

- -

Shadow foreign secretary. >> Shadow foreign secretary. >> Deputy speaker. >> Lebanese Hezbollah is an Iranian backed terrorist organisation who for too long have caused harm to for too long have caused harm to the Lebanese people and undermined the government of Lebanon, threatened Israel and are part of a threatened Israel and are part of a terror network that threatens our interests and security and that of our friends in the Middle East. The House should be in no doubt that Hezbollah continues to undermine efforts to secure peace in the region, and they fail to comply with the terms of the 2024 Israel-Lebanon ceasefire.

Can the Minister tell us of his assessment of the actions taken by Hezbollah when it comes to violating the cease fire and the support that they have received from Iran? Does he agree that the interests of peace are best served by Hezbollah being permanently disarmed? The current conflict has caused terrible hardship in Lebanon and Israel, and the UK government must use its influence and diplomacy in the region to help bring this to an end. We have to see this conflict come to an end.

So can the Minister tell us what direct discussions have taken place with representatives in Israel, Lebanon and the US administration on the terms of a lasting ceasefire? What is the British government doing to support the disarming of Hezbollah, and what contributions and practical efforts are being made to see the UN Security Council Resolution 1701 fully implemented? So much of this leads back to the architect of so much of the disturbance in the Middle East, and that is Iran. And so I would just like to conclude my remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker, by joining with the Minister in condemning the strikes that took place today in Kuwait, and also the fact that Iran can cannot carry on persistent in the terrorism.

13:45

Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)

- -

Yeah. shadow Foreign Secretary, makes a range of important points, including on the enormous continued harm that Hezbollah does to the harm that Hezbollah does to the people of Lebanon, as indeed they continue to attempt to do to the people of Israel as well. It is completely unacceptable that communities in the north of Israel continue to face the barrages of missiles and drones that they do. We have called repeatedly for Hezbollah to stop. What they do harms Lebanon as much as Israel.

We have discussed in detail with both the Lebanese armed forces and the leadership of Lebanon, the the progress that must be made in disarming Hezbollah. There has been a lot of commentary about both the phasing and sequencing of that. Those efforts over the last few months. It must be the Lebanese government who disarm Hezbollah. That is the only way in which Hezbollah. The Hezbollah issue can be properly dealt with. The government of Lebanon are brave and courageous people in whom we have very considerable confidence.

President Aoun, who I was in contact with today, is taking very, very important steps to try and safeguard his country and its future. And we must support him, he and his government and his armed forces must monopolise force in Lebanon, not Hezbollah and not the IDF.

13:46

Abtisam Mohamed MP (Sheffield Central, Labour)

- -

Abtisam Mohamed. >> Abtisam Mohamed. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. 125 health workers have been killed 125 health workers have been killed in Lebanon just in the last three months alone. Today, an Israeli strike has hit an ambulance in south Lebanon, killing two paramedics, taking the death toll now to 127. The November 2024 ceasefire agreement is barely worth the paper it is written on. The Minister rightly condemns the targeting of civilians. What about Israel's targeting of health workers, of journalists? And does the Minister realise that condemnation without action has utterly failed and reinforces Israel's continuing disregard for international law? So will the Minister today make clear that sanctions must be used to hold Israel accountable?

13:47

Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)

- -

Minister. >> I'm grateful to my hon. Friend who has been a persistent advocate on these issues. We have taken a whole series of steps, Madam Deputy whole series of steps, Madam Deputy Speaker, which I want to set out in brief for the House. So important are the issues in Lebanon that during my visit in April, we went from providing only £10 million of humanitarian assistance now to 30. We are now one of the largest humanitarian donors in the world to Lebanon.

I think few other Ministers in the world have gone as close as I have to the blue line. I met with incredibly brave representatives of the Lebanese Red cross, young people who had, in many cases, given up their lives in order to try and make sure that they could minimise the harm that was coming to southern communities. I was so upset to see further strikes on them since I met them. I am proud of our support to them. I utterly condemn the attacks upon them.

13:48

Simon Hoare MP (North Dorset, Conservative)

- -

Simon Hoare Mr. Speaker, it's a tragic perversity that the actions of both Hezbollah. And Hamas of both Hezbollah. And Hamas actually hurt and harm the interests and the safety of those who they purport to act on behalf who they purport to act on behalf of. What about Israel? But several years ago. Former Israeli Prime Minister Barak described Israel as being the villa in the jungle. Last week, with cross party colleagues, I was in Israel. It's becoming increasingly evident that the Israeli government's actions are rendering it a.

Both a rogue and a pariah state, oblivious to international and US pressure and opinion. That in turn is, of course, making Israel herself far less secure. Apart from words which are welcome, what can the government do? Could I suggest an expansion and deepening of sanctions because that will hit them where it is needed and may refocus attention?

13:49

Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)

- -

Mr. >> Mr. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, there are strong views held right across the strong views held right across the House on the questions of the Middle East, but I want to pay a tribute to those on the benches tribute to those on the benches opposite who have shifted their position in recent years. The British government, while I have been the Middle East Minister, has indeed made very significant policy decisions, both existing sanctions and I know the hon. Gentleman will understand why I don't go further on the question of sanctions, but I am the first British Minister from this Dispatch Box to announce sanctions on Israeli Ministers.

And I recognise what a Rubicon that is, and I recognise also that I have been supported in doing so by voices on the opposite benches, as well as, of course, by my many hon. Friends behind me. I recognise the gravity of what is happening in the Middle East. We will continue to take the steps that we have been responding with the urgency that is required, and I hope the House will permit me. If I say I felt at the point at which I announced the recognition of the State of Palestine, that I was speaking for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the whole House, not just the government. John McDonnell.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

John McDonnell. Can I just take. 30s Madam Deputy Speaker to associate myself with the remarks by the speaker With regard to Sir Alan Haselhurst? With regard to Sir Alan Haselhurst? Sir Alan was in the chair when I seized the mace and he expelled me from the chamber. But he did it. He from the chamber. But he did it. He did it with. He did it with such good grace. We became firm friends for ever since. So I send my condolences to his wife as the.

As the Minister knows, I'm secretary of the NUJ parliamentary group. We're now experiencing Lebanon. Exactly what we saw in Gaza, the targeting and murder of journalists when he was there in April. Amal Carlisle, the famous woman journalist, was was hit by an Israeli strike. And then the Red cross ambulance that went to her sister was hit as well. And as a result of that, the Lebanese Prime Minister has made it quite clear that these are war crimes. So could I ask that the government joins with others now in collecting the evidence of these war crimes, so that we can take action against those Israeli Ministers that have actually perpetrated these war crimes against the Lebanese people, just as they did against the Palestinians.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm familiar with the incident that my right hon. Friend describes, and I pay tribute to his work on and I pay tribute to his work on these issues right across the world. It is appalling that journalists in Lebanon reporting on developments in the South have been struck in this way. We made interventions in this way. We made interventions in the United Nations following some of these assaults on journalists,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of these assaults on journalists, both in Lebanon and in Israel, and we will continue to press these points. Brian Mathew thank.

13:52

Brian Mathew MP (Melksham and Devizes, Liberal Democrat)

- -

You, Madam Deputy Speaker. With the world on fire, with war and the world on fire, with war and climate change, with diseases such as Ebola stalking Africa again, as Ebola stalking Africa again, will the government reconfirm its commitment to returning aid spending to 0.7% of GNI and not cutting it beyond 0.3% GNI?

13:52

Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)

- -

Yeah. Yeah, yeah. of occasions. The and the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have set out why we had to take the difficult decisions that we have. difficult decisions that we have. But I would just like to assure the House that we have protected Lebanon from those cuts. And that is why we are in the position that we are of being that one of the largest humanitarian donors to Lebanon in the world.

13:53

Andrew Pakes MP (Peterborough, Labour )

- -

Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And kind of start by paying tribute to the dogged determination of the to the dogged determination of the Minister to get this issue right, which is shared by many of us in this side of the House. Madam Deputy Speaker, I think I've said prayers every time throughout this crisis when there has been an abuse of human rights, not just in Lebanon, but when Hamas took the hostages, when innocent Palestinians have been killed, when villages have been threatened, when settlements have been violence has been done.

Now the IDF and the Israeli government sits at many times about that. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, I fear I am running out of prayers to make. Can I ask the Minister. Beyond the moral outrage we rightly express in this House, what more will it take for a British government to stand up for sanctions and further action that demonstrates to the world and the people in Lebanon and in Gaza and in the West Bank, that we get it, and we will take the action necessary to stand up for international law, human rights and their freedoms.

13:54

Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)

- -

Minister. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank my hon. Friend. I hope I have, through his. He describes some of my work his. He describes some of my work in gracious terms and I'm grateful. I hope in Britain's sustained commitment to these issues in Lebanon that we have demonstrated that we understand the gravity of what is going on here. We will remain deeply engaged in these questions. I have been in contact with the Lebanese foreign Minister, the Lebanese president, American counterparts.

We have raised these issues with the Israeli government as well. We will continue to do so.

13:54

Rt Hon Mark Pritchard MP (The Wrekin, Conservative)

- -

Mark Pritchard thank you, Madam Speaker. Speaker. >> Can I join. With the chairman just getting back into place, chairman of the Foreign Affairs chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, for her comments on seeking to support capacity building in the Lebanese army. That's absolutely right. Can I also thank the Minister and join him in recognising the courage of the president and other Ministers in the Lebanese government, particularly their public condemnation of of Hezbollah and even indirectly, Iran? Could you confirm that it is the view of the British government that not all Shia, those that follow the Shia tradition of Islam, both in Lebanon and Iran, necessarily support Hamas or Hezbollah or the evil Iranian regime? And can I put on the record my condemnation of both Hezbollah and Iran, who have who basically have caused this latest conflict in Lebanon? Israelis should be able to live in in peace without fear of being bombed by drones or missiles.

That's absolutely clear. But does he share the view of the French envoy to the United Nations that Israel needs to learn the lessons of its occupation of Lebanon in the year 2000? And also, does he recognise the words of Danny Danon, as he will know, the Israeli envoy to the UN when he says that Israel is not seeking to expand the conflict or retain territory in Lebanon. If that is indeed the position and policy, the Israeli government. That is welcome. But it does seem at odds with some of the public utterances of the current Israeli Prime Minister.

13:56

Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)

- -

Minister. >> I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the Shia of whether it's Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, indeed, it's Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, indeed, Pakistan, overwhelmingly, Shia communities want peace and human rights like everybody else. This is a small, unrepresentative part of Lebanon that is funded and supported by Iran. And it is bringing the Lebanese into terrible, terrible difficulties. I want to return to the very important point that he makes, though, about the intentions of the Israeli government.

If this is a counter-terrorism operation, I can see absolutely no justification for raising the Israeli flag over Beaufort Castle. We want to see Lebanese Hezbollah disarmed. That cannot possibly involve such a flagrant violation of the sovereignty of a neighbour.

13:57

Apsana Begum MP (Poplar and Limehouse, Labour)

- -

Apsana Begum Deputy. has been using white phosphorus munitions against civilian targets in South Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, alongside reports from Human Rights alongside reports from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty. Unifil even reported that UN peacekeepers in Lebanon were injured by white phosphorus munitions. The Minister has confirmed to me previously that the government is aware of these reports, and the government knows that the use of white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon in populated areas is strictly prohibited. And yet this is just one of thousands of examples of Israel tearing up the laws around war.

Can the Minister explain whether the UK's joint agreement, signed in 2020 on military cooperation with Israel is still in place, and if so, why?

13:58

Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)

- -

Minister. >> Minister. >> Madam Speaker, to be to be clear about the position, I think the. My about the position, I think the. My hon. Friend refers to the 2020 Israel UK roadmap, which is suspended. But in relation to the very important questions she raises about arms exports. As I've said to this House on a number of occasions, we take our obligations under international humanitarian law incredibly seriously. That's why we conducted the review that we did when we became the government, and why we took the action that then

**** Possible New Speaker ****

followed, which has been discussed occasions. Doctor Andrew Murrison.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Doctor Andrew Murrison. Madam Deputy Speaker I'm sure. The Minister. Understands that. There can be no sustainable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ceasefire for. As long as there exists in. Lebanon. An Iranian terrorist proxy that

13:58

Rt Hon Dr Andrew Murrison MP (South West Wiltshire, Conservative)

- -

>> An Iranian terrorist proxy that has, as its war aim the complete, final and irrevocable destruction of the State of Israel and the Jews of the State of Israel and the Jews that live there. So we are faced. Are we not, with trying to mitigate some of that action by this terrorist organisation? Would he agree with me that the only viable way of doing that, given the situation, is to do everything in our power to strengthen the Lebanese army, which he will know is a credible organisation, and to support the UN Secretary General, in his stated intention of renewing Unifil and making sure that it is fit for purpose, rather than simply as an observer, as is currently the case.

13:59

Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)

- -

Minister. >> I very strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is the Lebanese armed forces. In the end, that must be the force that disarms Hezbollah be the force that disarms Hezbollah and ends the threat both to Lebanese and Israelis that emanates from that malign group. And so I completely support the Lebanese armed forces and agree with what he says. Of course, Unifil is a subject of discussion in the in the council, I think in the coming months, and we will be playing our full part to try and ensure that it can contribute as much as possible.

But in much of the discussion around Lebanon, there is often a focus on the international elements. We have to be clear that the Lebanese government, the Lebanese armed forces and the Lebanese president must have control over the use of force in Lebanon, and that is the position of the British government.

14:00

Tony Vaughan KC MP (Folkestone and Hythe, Labour)

- -

Tony Vaughan thank you. rightly focus on the grave situation in Lebanon, the wider region is seeing an increasing pattern of British nationals being pattern of British nationals being arbitrarily detained and used as leverage by countries, including Iran. Madam Deputy Speaker, in the light of the news yesterday that Craig and Lindsay Forman have had their appeal dismissed by the Iranian courts and given their ongoing hunger strike in Evin prison, I think Craig is on his 27th day in Lindsay is on her 18th day, which is to protest against their conditions and ongoing detention.

What further specific steps are the government taking to secure consular access, and is the government now prepared to condemn their detention as arbitrary? Use international levers against Iran for hostage taking, and show Iran that they cannot keep taking British citizens hostage as pawns in their own games?

14:01

Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)

- -

Mr. speaker, as I was clear yesterday in response to the news that my hon. Friend refers to their continued detention is unjustified and appalling, my hon. Friend has and appalling, my hon. Friend has been a doughty advocate for his constituents in this matter. I will continue to meet with him directly and with them on all of these questions. The behaviour of Iran is not solely in relation to British nationals, though of course that must be our focus in this chamber, but it is part of a much wider pattern of detentions, which appear to have absolutely no justification of any kind.

And it's a pattern which extends far beyond Europe as well. We condemn it. It is completely erosive of any trust in Iran. And I have made that point clearly and repeatedly to the Iranian authorities.

14:02

Rt Hon Sir John Hayes MP (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)

- -

Sir. >> John Hayes Mr Speaker, in referring to the House, to my entry in the Register of Interests. I commend this Minister for both commend this Minister for both visiting Lebanon in April for his continuing dialogue with the very good new ambassador here and for our ambassador there. He will know that the Lebanese people deserve be free from fear, from persistent uncertainty, from perpetual hostility, and from permanent dance. The only way of that happening, as he said, is to support the Lebanese government and the armed forces.

We do so already. But to endorse the point made by my hon. Friend from South West Wiltshire, will he look at what further steps can be made to communicate that support within Lebanon? The worry people have, and I think shared across this chamber, is that sadly, what, tragically, the Lebanese people will come to believe that Hezbollah is defending them when in fact it's doing anything but is endangering them. So what further steps can we make to reassure the Lebanese people of what he's told the House today?

14:03

Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)

- -

I thank the hon. Gentleman and >> I thank the hon. Gentleman and my Lancashire neighbour for his kind words and his for his attention to these matters. I take the challenge that there is a. There is a completely untrue narrative that is promoted. The idea that either Lebanese Hezbollah or Iran itself is a protector of Lebanon is patently and completely untrue. Iran's influence in Lebanon over many years has been malign, has undermined the sovereignty of the country, and has harmed the interests of its people.

And I take his challenge and I'll return to him on on what more we can do to make sure both our support and the malign nature of Iranian influence within the country.

14:04

Imran Hussain MP (Bradford East, Labour)

- -

Imran Hussain thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> Is. >> Israel continues to rip to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Israel continues to rip to shreds every last line of the international rules based order. It international rules based order. It continues with its illegal land grabs, illegal settlements, war crimes and genocide in Gaza, and is now breaching the cease fire agreement with illegal military action. In Lebanon, 55 children have been killed and 212 injured in Lebanon since the cease fire began on April the 16th. So I say to the Minister, he will have seen the strength of feeling in this place, and I seriously ask him this question how many more children must be killed in Lebanon and Gaza before his government stops with the empty condemnations and takes real action?

14:05

Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)

- -

Minister. >> I, I recognise my friend's engagement and commitment to these issues. I would just gently say issues. I would just gently say back to him, I have met the children displaced by this escalation. We have taken urgent steps to very significantly increase the support that is being provided to them. We have done everything that we can, privately and publicly, in the way that I have described to the chamber over the course of the afternoon, to try and make sure that there is a genuine, meaningful ceasefire that holds, that does not lead to the loss of life, whether children or otherwise.

We will continue to do that. We have changed very significantly our posture towards Lebanon within the last few months. As I said earlier, we are now one of the largest humanitarian donors. I have myself handed over equipment to the Lebanese in order to try and ensure that they can control the South. That is not to say that that progress has been uniform. In fact, it is very clear, as my hon. Friend will have heard, that I am acknowledging how much worse the situation has got.

But we will continue to play our full role here at the United Nations and with our counterparts in the region, to try and bring about a genuine and meaningful ceasefire.

14:06

Vikki Slade MP (Mid Dorset and North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Vikki Slade thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Deputy Speaker. >> Israeli Minister Ben-Gvir said in the last few days on social media, electricity must be cut off, the zahrani must be seized and intensive warfare resumed and last week, flattening Daire Hughes, flatten, flatten, flatten it again and target the suburbs. This indiscriminate targeting of Lebanese people shows what the Israelis are really trying to do. So will the Minister agree that the time has finally come for a full ban on all arms to Israel? Yeah.

14:07

Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)

- -

Mr. Deputy Speaker, to talk any more about that. Minister from the Dispatch Box. I am glad, I'm afraid, that I sanctioned him in the way that I described earlier. We were amongst the first countries to do so. I'm glad to see that others are now taking similar steps. That Minister, whose name I don't really want to say again in this chamber, brings Israel nothing but harm. He undermines their position in the world. He brings even Israel's friends into a position of disgust at his actions.

14:07

Andy McDonald MP (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, Labour)

- -

Andy McDonald thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I and I share. >> Minister's condemnation of the murderous attacks upon Kuwait Airport this morning. I'm sure, I'm sure you'll share with me condemnation of the murder of two more health workers in Lebanon this morning at the hands of the IDF. And. And he referred to the Israelis ordering the the war crime of forcible displacement of around 1 million Lebanese south of the Iranian Litani rivers, with 3500 killed and tens of thousands injured by their actions and this reflects the early stages of the Gaza war.

When they told Gazans to move south of the Wadi River. Since then, estimates of 70,000 killed in 170,000 injured indeed is Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz explicitly said the destruction of villages in southern Lebanon would proceed in accordance with the model of Beit Hanoun and Rafah in Gaza. So with growing Israeli attacks in the West Bank, and in addition to that, when will the government act on this consistent pattern of war crimes purposefully pursued by the Israeli government and take action to pressure the Israeli state to stop its military action, end arms sales, stop F-35 supplies, impose sanctions, utilise the sanctions and anti-money laundering and proceeds of crime acts.

There are tools at his disposal. When will he use them fully?

14:09

Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)

- -

Minister? >> Madam Speaker, we've we've talked about the F-35 program at some length before, and I I'm some length before, and I I'm usually happy to go back into that debate, but I would I would prefer given my hon. Friend has given me the opportunity just to comment a little bit further about the impact of displacement in Lebanon, which is rather different in some respects from the impact of displacement in Gaza, as the chamber and many honourable and right hon.

Members know, Lebanon has a complicated multi-confessional balance within the country, displacing a quarter of the population, often long distances, has a very significant impact on the stability of the country. Displacement forced displacement is exactly, as he says, a war crime. But to displace so many people will also have a very deleterious impact on the stability of Lebanon in the long term. So it is all the more important that this practice is reversed, and that we return to a genuine and sustainable cease fire.

One small note of optimism. If I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, we welcome the talks that the United States have been convening between Israel and Lebanon, including talks today, and we want to see them progress. Speaker.

14:10

Rt Hon Sammy Wilson MP (East Antrim, Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

And can I draw attention to the declaration that I've made in the declaration that I've made in the register of interests Hezbollah have made south Lebanon into an have made south Lebanon into an armed camp and a massive arms dump in which they store rockets, drones, etc. and have used them to attack Israeli towns. Cities, kill civilians, caused billions of pounds worth of damage, and displaced a large part of the population. It's not disproportionate. Would the Minister agree for any government to seek to take action to defend its own citizens? And that can only be done by going into the area, by going into the area where the enemy is firing its weapons and causing that destruction.

And we don't agree with me that the real answer is Israel doesn't want to occupy Lebanon. It doesn't want to take over territory. The real answer is to eliminate and disarm Hezbollah, and then there will be real peace in that area.

14:11

Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)

- -

Minister Madam Deputy Speaker, perhaps the hon. Member has been to southern Lebanon, as I have recently. I can assure him it is not an arms dump. It is a place not an arms dump. It is a place with people living with children, living with people displaced. I saw for myself villages flattened literally to the ground. There is no military operation that ends up flattening entire villages to less than the height of this Dispatch Box, which does not end up prompting the question, what on earth were you trying to do with that operation? It is absolutely clear that Lebanese Hezbollah must be disarmed.

They continue to strike northern Israeli communities. That is absolutely and completely unacceptable. The responsibility to prevent that must be the Lebanese government. It must be the Lebanese armed forces, and we must see a genuine and sustainable ceasefire. Of course, the Israeli government will react with understandable total fury if their nationals are targeted from another state. But as one of the hon. Gentleman on the other benches said, Israel has attempted to occupy southern Lebanon for long periods of time before and it did not lead to safety amongst northern communities in Israel.

We must all support the Lebanese government to do what is necessary, which is disarm Hezbollah. But we must ensure that civilians in southern Lebanon are protected, protected. In doing so.

14:13

Richard Burgon MP (Leeds East, Labour)

- -

Richard Burgon thank you, Madam. >> Israel's bombing of Lebanon has. Seen yet. More war crimes. It's Seen yet. More war crimes. It's incredibly dangerous for the people there. It's also a direct threat to achieving a peace process between the US and Iran in a war that's killing people over there and driving up the cost of living for people here. So I ask the Minister again, how many more countries does Israel have to bomb before the government imposes widespread sanctions, as they rightly did on Russia? Yes, sir.

14:14

Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)

- -

Madam Speaker, we we've covered sanctions already in these exchanges. I just want to slightly exchanges. I just want to slightly correct my hon. Friend. It is not correct my hon. Friend. It is not what will protect Lebanon is not Iran or its talks with the United States of America. It is the Lebanese government and the Lebanese armed forces. The process happening in Washington today between the government of Lebanon and the government of Israel and the efforts of the United States, which I have welcomed in seeking to ensure that there is no further violence of this kind, I think the president of the United States said earlier this week the guns must fall silent, and I agree with him.

14:14

Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP (Islington North, Independent)

- -

Jeremy Corbyn thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Isn't the issue that Israel's occupation and that Israel's occupation and destruction of so much life in Lebanon at the present time is a Lebanon at the present time is a continuation of their genocide in Gaza is a continuation of their continued occupation of the West Bank and arming settlers to commit violent acts against Palestinian villages and steal their land and their crops isn't the real issue that Israel is allowed to get away with it, because the rest of the world provides Israel with the wherewithal to do it? Will it be very clear? What is the British government's military relationship with Israel at the moment? Are we supplying weapons? Are we supplying parts for the F-35? Are we sharing intelligence information? Are we assisting on their military occupation? Of those three areas that I've just mentioned?

14:15

Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)

- -

Yeah. >> Yeah. >> We are not Madam Deputy Speaker. I've set out to the to the House on a number of occasions. The steps that we took were to ensure that no bombs, no bullets were being sold bombs, no bullets were being sold to Israel or were being licensed to be sold to Israel by UK companies. That is that is because of concerns that we had about their conduct in Gaza. That applies to Gaza, that applies to the West Bank and it applies to Lebanon.

He asked me specifically about the F-35 program. So let me reiterate to the House. The UK does not permit licences for direct sales of F-35 parts to Israel, but we are part of the F-35 supply chain, and we do contribute to the global spares pool in which Israel may indeed be able to buy parts produced in the UK, but as part of a global arrangement, which we are a part which is vital to our security, the security of our friends and allies like Ukraine.

And that continues to be our policy.

14:16

Paul Waugh MP (Rochdale, Labour )

- -

Paul Waugh Madam Deputy Speaker the US service. Axios reported that the US service. Axios reported that this week, President Trump held a phone call with Benjamin Netanyahu, a direct phone call in which he a direct phone call in which he said that Netanyahu was, and I quote, effing crazy for escalating his military action in Lebanon, killing thousands of innocent civilians, adding, you'd be in prison if it weren't for me. But Netanyahu is also continuing to inflict death and misery on the people of West Bank and Gaza, as we've heard many members report today.

So isn't it time that the UK government showed that it shared the anger, the global anger and disgust that Israel's attempt to act with impunity by imposing our own sanctions on illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied territories of Palestine.

14:17

Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)

- -

Minister I. >> I have seen the reports that my hon. Friend mentions about the language used by the president of the United States and his. In his the United States and his. In his call with the Prime Minister. I think he's confirmed it this morning. The language is unparliamentary Madam Deputy Speaker, so I won't repeat it. But I very much sympathise with the frustration that the president feels for the Prime Minister of Israel and the conduct of the Israeli government in Lebanon, and I reiterate my calls in support of his, that we must have the guns falling silent and a genuine and sustainable ceasefire.

14:18

Jim Shannon MP (Strangford, Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

Jim Shannon thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I thank the Deputy Speaker. Can I thank the Minister, as always, for his answers? An incredibly difficult portfolio, and the Minister has. And can I say this, Israel isn't perfect. I'm not perfect. The perfect. I'm not perfect. The Minister is not perfect. Nobody in this House is perfect. And I think that's where I. But we're not Woking. Following Hezbollah's sustained barrage of missiles and rockets targeting Israel towns and cities, the murder of Israeli civilians and soldiers.

Will the Minister set out the government's position on whether it fully recognises and supports the IDF's actions in Lebanon as a necessary and proportionate response to eliminate this terrorist threat and to protect Israeli civilians? Surely, Minister, that is the duty of any government to protect its people and stop terrorist killing people.

14:19

Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)

- -

So I regret to disagree with the hon. Gentleman on this question. I do not think that what Israel is doing is proportionate, for all the reasons that we've set out in the course of the the discussion this afternoon. He is absolutely right that it is the responsibility of a government to protect their people. That applies to Lebanon as much as it does Israel. And that is why the talks in Washington today are so important.

14:19

James Naish MP (Rushcliffe, Labour)

- -

James Naish thank you, Madam. the Prime Minister on 2nd March what steps the UK was taking to prepare for the targeted stabilisation and humanitarian stabilisation and humanitarian efforts in Lebanon and Yemen if the Iranian regime changed? But while we are all in support of the dismantling of Hezbollah, the Iranian regime, of course, hasn't changed. But the Israeli government has nonetheless stoked regional instability through these wholly disproportionate attacks. Will the Minister therefore condemn the actions being taken by the Israeli forces, but also reassure my constituents in Rushcliffe that nothing is off the table, including sanctions, further arms and trade embargoes.

When it comes to the UK's responses to such actions.

14:20

Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)

- -

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We keep all of these questions under review, and we questions under review, and we recognise the magnitude of events in the Middle East. I'll decline to in the Middle East. I'll decline to enter into the hypothetical question, but obviously events in the Middle East, whether it's in Iran or Lebanon, are a real concern. I know, to constituents right across the country, to my constituency of Lincoln, and I know in Rushcliffe, to. Speaker.

14:20

Ayoub Khan MP (Birmingham Perry Barr, Independent)

- -

We all know in this House that >> We all know in this House that words have consequences. Words spoken in this House or outside. spoken in this House or outside. Indeed. And when. We remind ourselves of the Prime Minister's comments about vital supplies, comments about vital supplies, being cut was fair game. When we look at the lack of criticisms, the lack of the call out of war crimes that we all witness as the specific mention of war crimes, that terminology is not being used by Ministers of this government.

And then recently, the suspension or banning of Jenk from entering the United Kingdom, someone even Piers Morgan, holds in high regard. It's its words and actions like that that embolden Netanyahu and his right wing government. Does he recognise that it must be words that need to change as well as sanctions?

14:21

Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)

- -

Words do matter, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it's it has been a long standing principle of this government and indeed previous governments that it's not for Ministers to say what crimes are. It's for courts to find. And that's It's for courts to find. And that's why we haven't used the particular formulation that he would like. But I think absolutely nobody in the chamber could be under any doubts about the extent of criticism that both I and other Ministers of the government have delivered in relation to Israeli conduct, whether it's in Lebanon or in Gaza.

That hasn't just been criticism in words. It has been concrete actions, including sanctions against Israeli Ministers. As I set out earlier in my question, we have a very delicate situation in the Middle East, which we seek to navigate in the best interests of the region and of the United Kingdom. There are many people's praise that I seek in this chamber, but Piers Morgan, I'm afraid, is not one of them. We have got to make difficult decisions in a serious way, and that is what we try to do each day in and day out.

14:22

Richard Baker MP (Glenrothes and Mid Fife, Labour)

- -

Richard Baker. >> Thank you, Madam Speaker. >> The attacks by. >> Hezbollah must cease. >> But the wholly disproportionate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Response in Lebanon by the Israeli military is bringing untold suffering to those least able to suffering to those least able to bear the consequences for women and children for older and disabled people. What can UK Ministers do alongside international partners and agencies to ensure humanitarian support and aid reaches those who have been left in desperate straits as a result of the actions of Israeli forces who are responsible for serious violations of human rights and international law.

14:23

Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)

- -

I thank my hon. Friend for the question and his commitment to the question and his commitment to the region and developments in the Middle East. We are proud that we Middle East. We are proud that we are now one of the largest humanitarian donors in Lebanon. Access for that aid has not been impeded within Lebanon, but as some of my hon. Friends behind me have already set out, there have been terrible incidents involving the death of aid workers, very, very committed young Lebanese who are doing their absolute best to help people in their own country.

And they must stop.

14:23

Iqbal Mohamed MP (Dewsbury and Batley, Independent)

- -

Iqbal Mohamed Madam. >> The illegal actions of Hezbollah and Iran must be condemned, but so must the illegal actions of Israel. Israel has carried out 11,518 attacks in Lebanon between the 2nd of March to the 11th of May, with over 3000 further estimated attacks. Since Israel has bombed and destroyed or heavily demolished over 100 villages. As of yesterday, Israel has injured 10,577 people and killed 3468 people, including 128 health workers. Israel has attacked and damaged 17 hospitals and disturbed and damaged and destroyed three hospitals, and it employs double and triple tap, tap, tap.

Attacks on civilians. So please, may I ask the Minister, will this Labour government do anything meaningful to stop Israel's thirst for blood of innocent civilians, its insatiable appetite for the most barbaric violence, its gasification of Lebanon, the wider Middle East? And does the UK support or condemn Netanyahu's declared plan for a Greater Israel?

14:25

Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)

- -

Madam Speaker, I think we've got to be a bit careful when we describe the government of Israel. I don't think that they have a I don't think that they have a thirst for blood, for innocent civilians. I think we've got to be a bit more careful with our language in this chamber. That sounds to me like it echoes anti-Semitic tropes. So I want to just take a little bit of issue with the question that I was asked. I have taken clear steps in relation to Lebanon and indeed in relation to events in Palestine.

We will continue to do so. But I do think we've got to be careful with our language in here. Joe Morris thank you, Madam Deputy. civilians, but it is clear that the tactics being used by the IDF deliberately echo and mirror the tactics being used in Gaza and in the West Bank. Forced displacement, deliberate targeting of hospitals and other healthcare facilities, and intentional targeting of journalists to try and blind the journalists to try and blind the world to the crimes that are taking place.

Does the Minister agree with me that there is a clear need for me that there is a clear need for further and deeper sanctions against the individuals and organisations responsible in the Israeli government?

14:26

Joe Morris MP (Hexham, Labour)

- -

Hear, hear.

14:26

Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)

- -

I thank my hon. Friend for the question. I know he's been long committed to these issues, and that he has constituents in the region he has constituents in the region who have strong views as well, and I'm glad for his continued engagement. I won't provide further comments on sanctions from the Dispatch Box for reasons that people will understand, but we will keep all measures under review as the situation evolves.

14:26

Dr Scott Arthur MP (Edinburgh South West, Labour)

- -

Doctor Scott Arthur. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last week, France sanctioned Hertsmere Ben Maguire, and that was Hertsmere Ben Maguire, and that was almost a year to the day since the Minister made the same announcements from the Dispatch Box here. So I do thank him for the here. So I do thank him for the leadership that he has been showing over the past months and years. And he's right not to pick a side in this war other than the Lebanese government, because both Iran's Hendon and Netanyahu is just showing a disregard for civilian life right across the region.

But people and organisations in Edinburgh South West want to be reassured that if a ceasefire is established, that the aid that we are putting into that region is sufficient and is scalable. And secondly, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister started off by talking about Iran. So I do have to mention the fact that in Iran were seen the industrialisation of the death penalty against their own people, often young people who have simply being protested out protesting. And I know that he has raised concern about this last year, I think November it was is there more we can do? I know it is a really

14:27

Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)

- -

Difficult situation. I thank my hon. Friend for the kind words he says about the leadership we've shown in relation to these issues. He's absolutely right. And let me He's absolutely right. And let me just reiterate to the House our total opposition to the death penalty everywhere. But what has happened in Iran, particularly since the protests in January, has been an absolutely awful cracking down on their own people. They have imposed very significant restrictions on communications. So some of the detail of that crackdown are not as accessible to us now as they once were.

I have grave fears about how Iranians are being treated within Iran, and we will continue to monitor this closely and raise it with the force that he would expect with the Iranian authorities.

14:28

John Slinger MP (Rugby, Labour)

- -

The final question, John Slinger. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I associate myself with the words of the Minister in strongly condemning the Iranian attack on condemning the Iranian attack on Kuwait Airport and also the continuing attacks by Hezbollah on Israeli civilians. But it was disturbing over recent weeks and days to see the IDF appearing to engage in a mission to seize land that does not belong to them, exemplified by the hoisting of the Israeli flag over the Beaufort Castle, presumably as a symbol of conquest.

Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning that act and reiterating once again that international law applies to Hezbollah and applies to the government of Israel?

14:29

Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)

- -

Madam Deputy Speaker it does. And of course, flags are much less important than the horrific loss of important than the horrific loss of life that we have discussed over the course of this afternoon. But it is hard to draw a conclusion it is hard to draw a conclusion that the Israeli government is taking steps simply to deal with the terrorist organisation when they take one of the most historic sites in Lebanon, with a long history of occupation by the Israelis, and raise the Israeli flag in exactly the way he described.

So I joined with him and my condemnation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And that concludes the Urgent Question. I'll just give me a few moments for the frontbenchers to moments for the frontbenchers to We now come to the We now come to the general debate on the government's response to the House's Humble Address. On the 4th of February, 2026. I call the Minister to move Paymaster General.

14:30

General debate: General Debate on the Government’s response to the House’s humble Address of 4 February 2026

Period and I beg. >> Period and I beg. >> To move. Madam Deputy Speaker, the motion that stands on the Order the motion that stands on the Order Paper now, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the 4th of February, I came before this House to debate the Humble

14:30

Rt Hon Nick Thomas-Symonds MP, The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Torfaen, Labour)

- -

15:02

Alex Burghart MP (Brentwood and Ongar, Conservative)

- -

15:34

Rt Hon Emily Thornberry MP (Islington South and Finsbury, Labour)

- -

15:53

Ian Sollom MP (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, Liberal Democrat)

- -

16:04

Alex Davies-Jones MP (Pontypridd, Labour)

- -

embarrassment and Westminster intrigue. We have heard discussions about powerful people, powerful networks and powerful reputations. But amidst all of this, we have heard far too little about the victims. For all the headlines that have been generated by this story, the people whose lives were devastated by Jeffrey Epstein's abuse have too often been reduced to a footnote, and that should concern every single one of us. Perhaps the most revealing aspect of these disclosures is not simply who Ministers were meeting, but who they were not.

While significant effort appears to have gone into cultivating relationships with influential figures in the tech world, victims were left feeling unheard and overlooked. That is the wrong way round. I sought to use my position in government to advocate for victims, but when you are forced to fight tooth and nail simply to have those voices heard, something is not working as it should. That is why I took the difficult but necessary decision to resign. But stepping down does not mean stepping back.

And that is why, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will now voice. Lisa's words. My name is Lisa Phillips. I am a survivor of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's global Paedophile Trafficking and Abuse network. I respectfully ask that MP Alex Davies-Jones be permitted to speak on my behalf and be my voice in Parliament today, when so many survivors voices still go unheard. I met Prince Andrew on Epstein Island on the night I was sexually assaulted by Jeffrey Epstein. Like many of my survivor sisters, I was trafficked and abused over a number of years.

I am seeking answers not only about Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, but also about the powerful men who enabled, protected or benefited from this abuse and trafficking. This debate is about accountability. Jeffrey Epstein's powerful network made many victims and survivors feel unable to come forward when powerful people protect or turn a blind eye to abuse, justice becomes harder to achieve. That must change. Many UK survivors came forward to the Metropolitan Police, yet they too were left without the answers and accountability they deserved.

As a survivor, I struggle to understand why Prime Minister Keir Starmer appointed Peter Mandelson when his association with Jeffrey Epstein had long been publicly known for survivors. This raises serious questions about whether the lessons of the Epstein scandal have truly been learned. I have repeatedly requested the opportunity to meet with the Prime Minister, but those requests have all been ignored. Must I now wait for the next Prime Minister to acknowledge me and my survivor sisters? With respect, Prime Minister, your apology alone means little without meaningful action.

So I ask you directly, Prime Minister, do you and the government you lead support a full public inquiry into Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and those who enabled, protected and participated in or benefited from their crimes, including those on British soil? The simple answer yes or no regards. Lisa Phillips. The least Lisa deserves, and the many other British brave survivors is an answer. Yet they are being met with silence. Lisa's testimony reminds us all that this debate cannot be confined to any one individual, though it is about a culture, a culture where power protects power, a culture where influence and connections can matter more than accountability.

The disclosures made available to this house paint a troubling picture. A picture of senior figures discussing how to build relationships with powerful tech billionaires and Silicon Valley elites. A picture of a government seemingly preoccupied with winning over the likes of Elon Musk and maintaining close relationships with figures such as Sam Altman. And I think this raises an important question what was the priority? Because at precisely the same time as these Ministers were discussing how to secure the approval of tech oligarchs, Ministers such as myself and my friend, the hon.

Member for Birmingham Yardley, along with campaigners, safeguarding experts and survivors, were all calling for stronger action on online harm. We were calling for action on violent pornography, action on misogynistic content, action to better protect children online. Yet too often our voices were ignored, sidelined or dismissed. And as someone who has spent much of their career campaigning to tackle violence against women and girls, I and my hon. Friend found that deeply frustrating, to say the least, because the role of government should not be to seek approval from the world's most powerful technology companies.

It should be to stand up for the people we are sent here to serve. And when people look at these disclosures, they see a government that appeared more interested in cultivating those relationships, as I've said with the tech elites, than listening to the warnings about the harms being experienced by women, girls and young people every single day. That matters because the public increasingly feel that there is one set of rules for the powerful and another for everyone else. They see the same names, the same networks, the same circle of influence, the same men, and they see powerful institutions closing ranks when difficult questions are asked.

That perception damages trust. But what concerns me almost as much as the disclosures themselves is how, in fact, they came into the public domain in the first place, not because the government chose transparency, not because Ministers proactively provided answers, but because Parliament forced the issue, because members in this place demanded scrutiny, because this House insisted on accountability. And that takes us to a much bigger question. Why is transparency so often dragged out of institutions rather than freely given? Why do victims, campaigners and parliament so often have to fight for information that should be freely available? From the outset? And perhaps the most striking contradiction of all concerns transparency itself.

Because while this government has spoken passionately about the importance of openness, accountability and a duty of candour, these disclosures raise serious questions about whether those principles were being lived as well as preached. The public are entitled to ask how confidence and transparency can be maintained when disappearing messages were being used at the highest level of government. They are entitled to ask why survivors have appeared to struggle to secure the same level of access and attention that was afforded to some of the most powerful figures in global technology, and they are entitled to ask whether the voices that mattered most were truly being heard.

Because when victims and survivors feel ignored while those with wealth, influence and power are actively courted, something has gone badly wrong. That is not the culture the public expect from government, and it is certainly not the culture that victims deserve. And that is why this debate, this whole issue, should strengthen our resolve to deliver a genuine duty of candour. Not a slogan, not a soundbite, not something invoked only when convenient, but a genuine legal and moral obligation on those exercising power to tell the truth, to preserve information, to be transparent, and to place accountability ahead of any self protection.

Because too often in this country, transparency is not volunteered. It is extracted painfully. It comes only after leaks, only after investigations, only after victims families, campaigners and parliamentarians sometimes spend decades fighting for information that should have been available from the outset. The disclosures before us today did not emerge because government chose openness. They emerged because Parliament forced scrutiny through the so 24 process. That should concern every member of this House, because if transparency depends on being forced, then we do not yet have a culture of candour.

And until we confront that honestly, we will continue to fail the very people that this house serves to exist, not with words, but with action, not with promises, but with accountability.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hey! Sir. Jeremy Wright. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a genuine Deputy Speaker. It is a genuine privilege to follow the hon. Lady for Pontypridd. I have to say that for Pontypridd. I have to say that knowledgeable and passionate Ministers are a huge asset to any government, and she is a government, and she is a significant loss to this one. And if I may say so, exactly the same can be said of the hon. Lady for can be said of the hon.

Lady for Birmingham Yardley, who sits next to her. She makes important points about the victims of Epstein, which I will not repeat, but I think she has added considerably to this debate. Madam Deputy Speaker, if I may, I also want to take the opportunity to join the tributes that have been made earlier to Alan Hazlehurst, who occupied your chair with immense dignity and considerable rigour, I might add, but also did so with very deep warmth and kindness. And I know that he will be missed in both chambers of this place.

But turning to the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to say something about the process that has led to the publication of the documents we are now considering, and then something about their contents on the process. I should start by offering my thanks to not just the officials of

16:13

Rt Hon Sir Jeremy Wright KC MP (Kenilworth and Southam, Conservative)

- -

16:30

Ian Byrne MP (Liverpool West Derby, Labour)

- -

senior figures in my own party and elevated through position of elevated through position of extraordinary, unelected influence. White, because his value to the political establishment was never political establishment was never rooted in principle or public service. It was rooted in his history of brutal factional manoeuvring, his network of powerful contacts, and his ability to pull strings behind the scenes. to pull strings behind the scenes. Even his association with one of the world's most notorious paedophiles was seemingly outweighed by the usefulness of those connections.

And, shamefully, for those responsible for this appointment, with no apparent regard for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. And I'd like to thank my hon. Friend from Pontypridd for their speech, which outlined that so powerful. The latest documents, while revealing moments of embarrassing sycophancy, tell us little that we did not already know. Mandelson's fingerprints are all over this government. His involvement stretched from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ministers and advisers at the very centre of Just yesterday evening, we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just yesterday evening, we learned that the Chancellor asked Mandelson to visit her in the Treasury to advise on trade matters while he was chairing the private lobbying firm Global Counsel. No record of the meeting was disclosed. record of the meeting was disclosed. His influence exercised through figures such as the Prime Minister's former of staff, Morgan Minister's former of staff, Morgan McSweeney, whose vast, unaccountable and entirely undemocratic and based on the great lengths McSweeney and others went to ensuring Mandelson was given the job as US ambassador, including applying pressure on civil servants.

It's very reasonable to conclude that Mandelson's influential position was reward for his support of the Labour Together faction. The damage this organisation has done to my party in this government cannot be ignored. So I once again reiterate to my right hon. Friend for the full, transparent and independent inquiry into Labour Together and all those involved in the organisation. Madam Deputy Speaker, the question many of my constituents are asking is how can an unelected figure whose public record is so controversial wield such influence over the decisions of governments while facing so little scrutiny or accountability? That lack of accountability also helps explain why the latest disclosures were not far more uncomfortable for Mandelson and those around him.

As we know, despite requests to do so, he refused to hand over his personal phone as part of the evidence gathering process. This speaks of a wider problem of culture in Westminster and Whitehall, and is exactly why we need the duty of candour that a Hillsborough Law would introduce. There could be no more exemptions from transparency for the powerful. There can be no special rules for those at the top. Public confidence depends upon accountability applied equally to everyone.

I, like many others, await government's actions on the progress of this crucial piece of legislation, and I hope my right hon. Friend can shed some light on its progress when he winds up the debate. The ongoing police investigation means Mandelson may yet face further scrutiny. However, the absence of such so much correspondence, together with the significant reductions in material already published, means the true extent of his influence over government decision making may never be fully known. My particular concern, Madam Deputy Speaker, centres on the relationship between this government and the US technology firm Palantir.

A former client of global Counsel. The documents reveal Mandelson arranged meetings with Peter Thiel, Palantir's founder and a supporter of Donald Trump, and with Lewes Mosley, the company's US had a UK head. These meetings followed the Prime Minister's visit to Palantir's Washington headquarters in February, a meeting reportedly brokered by Mandelson, for which there were no official minutes or transcript produced. Following this, later on in the year in September, Jordan the state visit of Donald Trump, there was a pledge by Palantir to expand its work with the Ministry of Defence to a value of 750 million over five years.

I, and many others in this place and beyond, do not believe a company associated with the military operations in Gaza and the facilitation of aggressive immigration enforcement in the United States should be entrusted with expanding influence over any public services in this country. But my greatest concern is growing role within our National Health Service, a matter which the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee today described as an unacceptable point of weakness, which could leave our data at the mercy of hostile actors.

I first raised concerns about this company in 2023, when the Federated Data Platform contract was awarded. Since then, I have repeatedly called on this government and the last government to exercise the 20 2027 break clause and end this relationship. Yet despite widespread concerns from parliamentarians, healthcare professionals and members of the public, for some reason, Palantir's presence within our NHS and access to patient data as only continued to grow. That expansion comes as by significant concerns being raised elsewhere.

New York City Health and Hospitals withdrew from its contract with Palantir earlier this year, while a proposed Metropolitan Police contract was blocked last month. Those decisions reflected principled leadership and a recognition that public trust must come before corporate influence, and I thank Mayor Khan for showing that desperately needed leadership. A real example to others. The concerns they acted upon, shared by many NHS staff and many of my constituents who are deeply uneasy about the growing role of Palantir in managing sensitive personal data.

That's why I was particularly concerned when the former health secretary ruled out ending his contract early this year, citing efficiency gains, despite evidence that many NHS trusts using the platform had not reported clear benefits of the software, and hear that the missing documents for me become extremely significant. Just months after Mandelson sought a meeting with UK Lewes Mosley, the former health secretary, who we know was in regular contact with Mandelson, held a private meeting with Mosley himself, as reported by the Guardian, amongst others.

So legitimate question arises did Mandelson facilitate that meeting in the same way, he appeared to broker discussions between Palantir and the Prime Minister? While many in Westminster are preoccupied with the gossip, patient exchanges and political intrigue contained within these documents, and far more concerned by what his absence, the gaps, the redactions, the missing correspondence that may never come to light because relevant materials withheld or phones were stolen because those missing pieces were not simply demonstrate that Peter Mandelson was embedded within the machinery of government.

They reveal the consequences of that influence. They would show how decisions affecting our public services, our NHS and our democracy may have been shaped by unelected power, corporate interests and private relationships operating, operating beyond public scrutiny. Until there is full transparency and genuine accountability for how decisions of national importance are made. Public trust in this place will continue to erode, and that Madam Deputy Speaker is a very, very dangerous place to be going. That principle should have applied to Peter Mandelson, but he clearly didn't.

And what a catastrophic mistake that was and continue to be. But moving forward, it must also apply to all those currently exercising power within this government and anybody seeking to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

lead this government in the years ahead. Yeah. So, John Hayes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So, John Hayes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This House stands tall when people This House stands tall when people across it find common cause. In across it find common cause. In speaking for the people. Our authority is derived from just that. There is immense wisdom present in There is immense wisdom present in the House today, and probably even greater wisdom that's not present. But that's not the essence of the root of our authority. Our authority is derived by our election.

And when the House finds

16:39

Rt Hon Sir John Hayes MP (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)

- -

16:56

Fleur Anderson MP (Putney, Labour)

- -

17:21

Kirsty Blackman MP (Aberdeen North, Scottish National Party)

- -

together by a significant number of people, dealing with things in all different formats, but there's a significant lack of consistency in significant lack of consistency in this document that makes it really, really difficult to work out what's going on. There are, for example, going on. There are, for example, spaces in this document. If you were to look at the part three, were to look at the part three, page 199, John Garvey A currently sends a blank message to which the sends a blank message to which the Peter Mandelson replies, quite so.

I don't know how you can reply quite to a blank message. It doesn't have stars. It doesn't say it's been redacted. It doesn't explain what this message was. At other points in the document, it does say what messages were. It does say what the redaction was. It does say that a certain picture was something, and I do, as I said, appreciate the amount of work that was put in to pull this together, but we're not getting the full picture. We're not seeing everything because of the fact that the document has been put together, in some cases, in a not very helpful way.

I want to touch as well on the Morgan McSweeney messages and the fact that I mentioned already that Morgan McSweeney lost his phone and therefore cannot provide WhatsApp messages. However, on page 173, he's provided group WhatsApp messages. He has provided those messages specifically, says Morgan McSweeney provided them to the Cabinet Office. It would be really nice as a member for Birmingham, Yardley said. If there was an explanation of why the information that isn't there isn't there. The Member for Birmingham Yardley gave back.

In a nil return. She was asked for her messages to Peter Mandelson. She replied to say there was no messages with Peter Mandelson. It would be helpful if on the Morgan McSweeney stuff, for example, we got these group chat messages and then it said he could only access these group chat messages through another method. He could not access the group, the his own personal messages, which is why we don't see them or he had disappearing messages on and that's why we can't see them.

We don't know the reason for it. We don't know if it's because there was nothing or if it's because there was something. But it's now gone. And I think that's deeply unhelpful in the level of transparency that we're getting here. In terms of the speech that was just made in relation to the member from Putney. Sorry, I was trying to find your constituency there, her constituency there, the member from Putney. I've never had a constituency that they would like less transparency.

I've never had one say that they would like to know less about why the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson. They want to know why the Prime Minister has appointed Peter Mandelson. I think that today's maybe the wrong day to make a call for there to be less information, I think. Absolutely. We discuss this later today. We should be centring on talking about this decision. We should be centring on thinking about the victims and the fact that the Prime Minister made these decisions, knowing about the victims, knowing about the fact that Peter Mandelson was friends with Epstein and continued to be friends with Epstein.

It doesn't it didn't matter what red flags were shown up by the processes, it did not matter. The political decision had been made. We know that. We know that the appointment was announced in advance of these things taking place. We know the decision was made. We know that for some reason I'm not. I'm still not totally clear about the Prime Minister thought that Peter Mandelson was the best person for the job, was the best person for being in that role, was going to do the best thing for national security or for the people of these islands, or for the Labour government.

That was the decision making process that the Prime Minister must have gone through. The member from the Liberal Democrats talked about the fact that we don't know what was in the driver's head. We do not have that piece, that really key piece of information. We can have the driver apologise and say, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have done it. But until they explain why they did it, we are not all going to understand that. And the apology sounds hollower than I think the Prime Minister would like it to.

We do know that in terms of the transparency that even though there's a significant amount of work, significant amount of documents, that we don't have everything, we don't have some things because they've been held back because of the police investigation or because of national security. I completely understand and accept that that is the case. However, there are other things that we we don't have. So on the 4th of February, the day that the Humble Address went through, I submitted a number of Freedom of information requests to the Cabinet Office.

I received an acknowledgement for those Freedom of Information requests. On the 9th of March, I received an email telling me there was a delay in responding to my Freedom of information request. I have received nothing since. Despite submitting a Freedom of Information request on the 4th of February, I have received nothing but one update and acknowledgement, then one update from the Cabinet Office telling me we're very sorry there's a delay on the 9th of March. It would be very helpful if the government frontbench could ensure that I get a response to my Freedom of information request, because it's a legal requirement for governments and the Cabinet Office to provide responses to these things and to make clear if there's a delay, why there's a delay, or if they're not going to provide a response, why they're not going to provide a response to a freedom of information request, I'd be interested to know as well how many members of the public have submitted freedom of information requests that relate to the decision making process, perhaps, or messages around Peter Mandelson, and have not received adequate responses from the Cabinet Office.

I do not know why the Cabinet Office have not responded to me, but I would be concerned if they were doing exactly the same thing with members of the public who don't have the ability to stand here and criticise the Cabinet Office. The last thing I want to talk about is where things are with the Prime Minister and his currency. At the moment, the Prime Minister's not standing here defending himself. The hon. Gentleman is once again and I do not envy him having to fill this role.

We've heard a defence from very few members of the any side of this House for the Prime Minister's decision. I don't think anybody is trying to defend the Prime Minister's decision. Which brings us back to the Prime Minister's judgement and the fact that he made this decision. He made this decision. It wasn't, as has been tried to say, some civil servants or special advisers that made the decision. It was a Prime Minister who made the decision. However much his arm may have been twisted, perhaps as as was suggested by the member, the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, it was down to others who really pushed this, who really did did the decision making here.

Maybe it was down to others, in which case, why would you have a Prime Minister who could be so easily led by others that they would be willing to appoint somebody who's friends with a convicted paedophile to the role? The most senior role in the ambassadorial service? So we must assume that the Prime Minister is not that easily led. We must assume that the Prime Minister cannot have his arm twisted by officials, in which case or by special advisers, in which case he made the decision and he's not here standing here explaining why he made that decision.

He's not meeting with the victims, which is, I think, the worst the worst thing that we have heard today, the worst thing that has been uncovered today is the fact that he's had requests from those victims and not met with them, despite the fact that in these massive documents, we can see the people that he did meet with, who are people that my constituents would much would be much less keen on him meeting with than actual victims of Epstein.

I think the Prime Minister has got a significant number of questions to answer. This is not the change that he promised when he stood in his manifesto in 2024. This is not a parliament that is working for the benefit of people. This is a parliament that is continuing to hide things from people, that is continuing to duck away from having those difficult conversations and from listening to the people that it really needs to listen to the most. And I think that the government needs to take a long, hard look at itself and change its priorities and actually listen to the requests that are being made from those people that have been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

harmed the most by this whole complete shambles. Jeremy Corbyn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jeremy Corbyn. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a debate that I originally thought would be a very large thought would be a very large number of members wanting to attend, because it goes to the heart of so much about the political system of much about the political system of this country, and indeed, the power and influence of very wealthy people around the world. But I'm people around the world. But I'm sure this isn't the only time we're going to be debating this, and I hope there will be a more thorough public inquiry into this whole issue at some point later down the line.

I think we should also put a particular note of thanks to the Member for Pontypridd for what she said in her speech, the way she put it and the way she put centre stage. The victims, some of whom are nameless victims of the depravity of Jeffrey Epstein, the depravity of the whole golden circle surrounding Epstein, and the fact that one took her own life and died

17:31

Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP (Islington North, Independent)

- -

as a result of that. These were young women that were trafficked and exploited by very wealthy men and exploited by very wealthy men who felt they could get away with it. And even after Epstein's it. And even after Epstein's initial conviction, they carried on gravitating towards the golden gravitating towards the golden light of Epstein and the money that he exuded, the influence he exuded, he exuded, the influence he exuded, and the way he had made his money, which was actually all about helping the super rich in the United States to avoid paying tax by relocating them in their resources to the US Virgin Islands.

The millions that he made and the millions that were not paid in tax by those very rich people, are millions not spent on health, housing, education and all the other things that working class communities need. And so somewhere along the line, he was sort of apparently almost forgiven for those crimes and then comes back much later on. And we then now begin to see the whole horrible story unravelling. So surely there's an object lesson to us here of unaccountable power, unbelievable levels of arrogance, supreme levels of wealth, and the way in which politicians, probably less wealthy than Epstein and some of his mates, were seduced into that line of the super yacht, the private island, the private jet, the big dinner, etc.

all of that is a corruption of our political system. And unless we do something about the influence of big business, super wealth and money in politics, then everything that Bernie Sanders says about the USA, that it's got the best democracy that money could buy will soon be applying to this country as well. We've got to be much stronger about needing a much more pure form of democracy and accountability within our society. This debate is labelled about Peter Mandelson, and I remember when Mandelson first appeared in this building as the media director for the Labour Party.

I remember discussing him with Tony Benn in the tea room, and Tony was had met him at the National Executive meeting, where he was introduced to the Labour Party, and I saw Tony that evening and said, what was it like? And he said, well, this guy Mandelson is going to give us all a lot of trouble. And he then wrote in his diaries that evening I find Mandelson a threatening figure for the future of the party, and what Tony recognised was that Mandelson's whole objective was a political one.

It was a political one to take the Labour Party away from its roots, to take it away from its trade union connections, to take it away from the working class communities and turn it into a party of business. As the member of West Derby was pointing out earlier, and others that then eventually ends up with Labour Together. And there are huge amounts of money that they spent trying again to subvert the whole principles behind the Labour Party. And the results of all this are being paid.

Paid for, day in, day out, in hospital, spending 15% of their expenditure on private finance initiative, schools having to pay the debts of building schools for the future, and so on. The whole idea that the state should become an arm of business rather than the state providing services that are necessary for the people of our society. Mandelson was successful in many ways in turning things away from what their original purpose was, and so all the contracts that are now being agreed upon, I'll come back to this in a moment, are a consequence of that sort of philosophy and that sort of and that sort of dealings that went on, political dealings that went on.

When we had an early debate on this, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Said. There has to be a serious, open public inquiry into the open public inquiry into the influence of business, money and corruption on our political system. corruption on our political system. I understand the limitations of a security committee and the work you have to do. I understand the limitations of it, which is why I limitations of it, which is why I did the intervention on the chair earlier on, and I'm sure he may well agree with me that this will well agree with me that this will not be done and dusted by his committee.

It will actually go on for a very long time, because it goes to the heart of democracy within our society. And so I hope at the end of this, we do have an open public debate about money in politics. We do have a serious open inquiry, which will get to the heart of everything that's going on, because if we don't, then we're all all the weaker for it. And as the Member for Pontypridd pointed out, the victims of this at the moment are known to be those young women who had such terrible experience and terrible time at the hands of the rich and the powerful.

And if we don't, then there will be other victims of the rich and the powerful further down the line. I want to just talk briefly, if I may, because I realise that time is of the essence about Palantir. On the 22nd of July 25, 2025. That's less than a year ago, Peter Mandelson sent an email to Morgan McSweeney. The subject was was a name Peter Thiel. Mandelson wrote this celebrated techie is in London till August the 9th. I don't know whether you have been approached already, but it would be good for the PM to meet him.

So the ambassador for Washington starts trying to set up meetings with a tech entrepreneur who happens to be a friend and supporter of Donald Trump. And then in the second tranche of the so-called Mandelson files laid before Parliament, the email is one of a series of moments in which Mandelson personally connected the UK government to Palantir, the data analytics and surveillance firm co-founded by Thiel, and to the wider network of investors around it. At a time when his own consultancy, Global Counsel, still counted Palantir among its clients.

Is that corrupt or what? That the ambassador to Washington owns a company in which he is trying to introduce them to the head of the British government by a series of private emails using his connections that he obviously obtained as through the Labour Party over a very long time. And in 19 in 2024, he did not divest his significant financial stake, despite official advice that he should do so before taking up the appointment. And I quote, the retained role and interest of global counsel would have to cease if appointed His Majesty's Ambassador.

It didn't. He carried on with that, as we well know, because we also know that the firm was met by the Prime Minister with Peter Mandelson in Washington, and that is this mysterious meeting that apparently nobody was at. But it happened. There's no record of it. But everybody was there. There was no discussion went on because nothing was reported yet. We all know it took place because they were filmed going, going into it. And that was only a fortnight after he'd gone into the job.

And days later, on the 5th of March 2025, a partner in the Silicon Valley venture firm 137 adventures, an investor in both Palantir and the defence company Anduril, emailed an invitation for Mandelson to attend the Hill and Valley Forum, the Washington gathering that brings together defence technology executives and Congress. The sender's name was redacted, but the file notes Mandelson will be attended with Louis, who we understand to be Louis Mosley, the head of Palantir's UK business. So this very tight connection of people goes on.

And according to Ethan Stone of openDemocracy, Manuel's security mitigations forbade such 1 to 1 meetings with former clients like Palantir, a restriction which, like divestment from global counsel. The former ambassador assiduously ignored. So he didn't fulfil the the requirements to divest himself. He didn't fulfil the requirements not to follow up connections of them. And as others have pointed out in this debate, he was very generous and free with his email advice to just about everybody and trying to set up things all, all the time.

And yes, of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm wondering if my Right Honourable colleague remembers the Labour Party talking about the Labour Party talking about the Covid issues that there were around Covid money and so many different Covid money and so many different conservative Ministers, for example, or conservative peers who had made introductions with companies that they were linked with. Does he they were linked with. Does he remember the Labour Party jumping up and down about how people shouldn't be using their their shouldn't be using their their level of power and their access to get preferential access? And does he see anything ironic about the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

situation with Peter Mandelson? There are many. There are many ironies surrounding Peter Mandelson. ironies surrounding Peter Mandelson. The most useful, the most useful thing he ever said was he hated me and wanted nothing to do with me, and wanted nothing to do with me, and woke up every morning trying to get rid of me when I was leader of the Labour Party. I take that as a the Labour Party. I take that as a badge of honour, actually, because I wanted absolutely nothing to do with him and the politics that he with him and the politics that he goes that he had going on with him.

But the reality was that he managed to land a deal for Palantir. That was his achievement. And in his farewell letter to the embassy staff, Mandelson singled out one achievement. The UK leaves the relationship with the United States in quotes in a really good condition. He went on to say, with a magnificent state visit and the new US UK Technology Partnership, my personal pride and joy that will help write the next chapter of the special relationship set for next week.

It obviously the visit went ahead without him, but on the UK then confirmed that it had a. Palantir rather confirmed it would invest 1.5 billion in the UK and expand its Ministry of Defence contract to 750 million over five years, replacing a £75 million contract three year arrangement. The deal was folded into the technology prosperity deal that Trump and and the Prime Minister signed at Chequers the next day. So in only a short time as ambassador, he embroiled us in all this stuff with Palantir, set up this technology agreement with the USA.

And as we all know, because we get it from our constituents, people who use the NHS are alarmed that Palantir will get hold of their medical records. They're concerned that this company will get hold of the entirety of the NHS and social security records. In other words, crucial personal information on every single person that's lived or died in this country since 1948. Are we really serious that we're incapable, as a society, in a country of setting up our own technology arrangements? Because I do want data sharing within the NHS.

I do want when you go to the doctor, they can get your records quickly and and sort out what's wrong with you. I want those, they're for an A&E department, but I don't want them shared by a company that is busy advising Israel on how it will go about its bombardment of Gaza, that is trying to get hold of other other contracts all around the world. Do we have to mortgage ourselves to an American multinational that will have control of and access to vast amounts of data? Surely to goodness we've got enough ambition, enough ability that we can develop our own systems within the NHS.

We're all proud of the NHS, but let's not destroy it by handing it over to the private sector. Let's not destroy the whole philosophy behind it by giving it over to those that will make money out of it, rather than deal with the obvious health issues that so many people, so many people face. And so I hope that the lesson from all this is that when the political system becomes corrupted by a lack of principle, becomes corrupted by the amounts of money that were made available to people and the private donations that are made and are still made by private health interests and others to members of this House and to the parties represented in this House.

We are all the losers. Democracy is the losers, and ultimately the price is paid by the poorest and most vulnerable people within our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

society. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a great pleasure to be the last of great pleasure to be the last of the backbench contributions for this evening. And I say it's a great pleasure. I actually mean it because unlike some debates, which we've all been in, this one has we've all been in, this one has been characterised by knowledge and a really serious approach to the subject in hand. So I've learnt a lot. I'm grateful for many of the contributions, but the right hon.

17:45

Jerome Mayhew MP (Broadland and Fakenham, Conservative)

- -

Member for Islington North did pick out quite a good point right at the start, where he said he was surprised that there weren't more surprised that there weren't more people in the chamber to take part in this debate. But perhaps one of the reasons why it's relatively sparsely populated is because this feels like old news. It's easy to feels like old news. It's easy to lose that sense of wonder and shock at the seriousness of the allegations, which have led to the Humble Address.

It's become old news, of course, that Peter Mandelson Mandelson was grossly unfit for public office. We've known that for decades. Tony Blair knew it not once but twice because he sacked him for dishonesty. He was a. We've known for years that he was a byword for double dealing. After all, his nickname was the Prince of Darkness. That didn't come from nowhere. And we've known for years, unfortunately, of his continued apprenticeship for his best pal, Mr. Epstein, and that he was such close friends and so on his side that he stayed in his house.

Even when Epstein was in prison for child sexual offences. And that we say this too often without stopping to pause and realise what that actually means. It's an extraordinary statement. We knew that the Prime Minister appointed him despite knowing these things, despite having advice on vetting from his then Cabinet secretary, he ignored that advice. This was the Prime Minister, of course, who famously said he famously said he was going to put country before party, where on this occasion he appears to put party before national security.

It's pretty serious. And then, of course, we've had the frankly unedifying spectacle some months ago of the government attempting, through obfuscation, to cover up this scandal. The frontbench whipped whipped the backbenchers to vote down the release of relevant documents. And it was such a grubby move, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it it it created fermented such revolt amongst the the hon. Members opposite that the government was forced to climb down. And then there were, of course, not one, but two stolen phones, which I accept.

Perhaps you know, that that was what happened. But it wasn't just to stolen phones. There were no messages from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, no messages from the Deputy Prime Minister, although we do know that no one tells him anything. So perhaps we haven't learned. We won't have missed anything there. But no messages from the Chief Secretary of the Prime Minister either. And then the use of disappearing messages with no record kept by the Prime Minister in direct contradiction to the advice of the Cabinet Office.

Guidance for the retention of records. All this found out drip, drip, drip, one painful and damning piece of evidence after the another. As a result of the conservative led Humble Address. And yet we're still not at the end. We are. It's clear from those documents which have been released that there are obvious continuing gaps in disclosure messages have been leaked to the press, the Guardian, the spectator, which are not included in the release to Parliament even though they were ordered to be the Intelligence and Security Committee organisation of eminent members of this House from across party, they have said in their opinion that the government is interpreting the exclusion on the grounds of prejudice to national security or international relations, and these are their words.

These are being applied far too broadly by the government and feels, I'm sorry to say this, but it feels that the government is still at it because they're withholding documents. We've talked a lot about the vetting file. If the vetting file itself is to to difficult to disclose, then at least the as the right hon. Member for Kenilworth suggested, the conclusions of the vetting file should be shared with the ISC, and it's important that the government. Madam Deputy Speaker, has no legal authority to take these decisions not to disclose.

As the Intelligence and Security Committee said itself. And again, I'm quoting whilst the government may believe that there is a good reason to withhold various documents, it does not currently have the authority to do so. It's not for officials to decide what is released to Parliament. Parliament decides and if the instruction. This is a direction from the High Court of Parliament to officials. If officials think that that has been too widely framed, then it is the responsibility of Ministers to come to this House and persuade Parliament to change its mind.

They have not done so, and this is one of the things which really worries me about the current administration in this in this country, is that officials appear to think that they can decide what is supplied to Parliament and what is not supplied to Parliament, and it undermines the administration of this country by democracy. This is where decisions are taken. We are the people who decide what authority is granted to the executive, and for officials to then decide, perhaps for good reason, that they're not going to comply with the direction of the High Court of Parliament, then it undermines our entire democratic process.

And they don't have the legal authority to to make that decision. It is for the government to stand up for Parliament if they think that Parliament has made too wide a direction, come and persuade us of that, and you will no doubt get a vote here to to correct it. Yes, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will, I'm grateful. Just reflecting. On the. Humble Address and drawing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Humble Address and drawing particular attention to to the scope, the hon. Member will recall that it required the sharing of all communications between Ministers and Lord Mandelson in the six months prior to his appointment, months prior to his appointment, and all communications between Ministers, officials and special advisers during his time as advisers during his time as ambassador. Now that that is a hugely broad scope that was drafted by by the conservative Humble Address. But does he think that when the government amended that and proposed to exclude only those things, subject or prejudicial to national security and international relations, does he think that the government was serious in wanting all of that information shared with the ISC, or does he think, perhaps that the the government was trying to be too smart, too clever by half, and suggesting then that the His Majesty's opposition was was acting against national security and international relations.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Accuse this government of being too clever by half. But. And I am too clever by half. But. And I am unable to put myself in their heads. But I hear the concern that the But I hear the concern that the hon. Member has. So we have this drip, drip, drip, the failed cover drip, drip, drip, the failed cover up, the partial disclosure, disclosure, the embarrassing exposures, the continued unauthorised retention. When will the government realise that this isn't going to stop, that this painful sore, weeping, sore for this government is going to remain open until they finally deliver what the humble redress requires of them? Yeah.

17:53

Alex Burghart MP (Brentwood and Ongar, Conservative)

- -

Which brings us to the front bench. Contributions. Shadow Secretary of State Alex Burghart. >> Thank you very much, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'd just like to open my remarks by paying tribute to Sir Alex Younger, the tribute to Sir Alex Younger, the former head of MI6, who has passed away suddenly during the course of this debate. He was an incredible public servant who gave an enormous amount to his country. He was incredibly wise and generous. And, you know, I know everyone in this House will will miss him very much. What we have been talking about in all of these parliamentary encounters really is about the seeping of a kind of great poison.

You know, the the evil of Epstein has seeped out into his relationship with Peter Mandelson, which has seeped out into Mandelson's influence on government, which is seeping out still to the way in which, you know, government has has allowed itself to behave. And it's sort of time for it to stop. And I think that we're we are approaching the point where we we may be able to draw a line, but that point is still quite a long way away because we are dependent on the police releasing their documents.

And it's why thinking in these ways that I want to ask the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister that we try a new approach now that we we build on what's already happened, but that we go further so that the House can be more reassured about what is being is being shown sight of and what it's not being shown sight of. There is as, as far as anyone can see, no good reason why the government cannot tell the House more in terms of high level.

As I said earlier, the Chief Secretary of the Prime Minister on Monday gave us something more high level in the four categories. But as I mentioned in my remarks, there is there is further that we can go. I also believe that there is no good reason why the information that has been given to the police cannot be given to the I, S, C and the government could unilaterally decide to do that. Doesn't, you know, doesn't need to ask anyone's permission, as has been raised by my right hon.

Friend who used to be the chair of the committee. My right hon. Friend who is not in his place, who is a current member of the committee, and my other right hon. Friend still as a committee yet this House has complete trust. The ISC it trusts entrusts it with the most confidential material that the state has on offer. Strap level material. And so I don't think there is anyone here would believe that sharing the material given to the police with the ISC would in any way run the risk of prejudicing a trial, and consequently, I genuinely invite Chief Secretary, Prime Minister to to give the House that.

I also think all of us, even those who are not members of the ISC, should be entitled to know a bit more and we should be entitled to know about the number of messages that are withheld. We should be given a degree of detail because there is no reason why that would prejudice an investigation or a trial. I'll just go through a few points and then I'll sit down, Madam Deputy Speaker, and let the Chief Secretary respond. I, I want to return to to his own messages, not because I think he's done anything wrong.

I don't believe he has. But we he disclosed to us the other day that he had messages that he didn't feel were relevant, and I wonder if he could tell us. They're obviously not in the return, but we need to know because the Humble Address said messages that were between Ministers and and Peter Mandelson should be disclosed. I want to know the process that was gone through with those messages that led to them not being returned. Was it were they deleted? Were they deleted after they had been shown to officials? Were they were they shown to officials and decided not to be disclosed? But it'd be very good to have clarity, because it might give us insight on how other such messages were treated.

Secondly, on the question of Morgan McSweeney's messages, which we know still existed in April this year when he talked to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee about them and said that they would. That most they were already in the possession of the government because of the inquiry that Wormald had done in September last year. Can he confirm that the process discovered those messages and that Morgan. Consequently, that Morgan McSweeney was telling the truth to committee? And do those messages exist? I don't think it prejudices an investigation or a trial to know that those messages exist.

Similarly with Morgan McSweeney's messages, with the Prime Minister's messages, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's messages, and so on and so on, we deserve to know how many messages to whom are being withheld. There is nothing in that data that would prejudice an investigation or prejudice a trial. I know that that's what we care about. I know that's what he cares about. And just I think if the government were to cooperate in that way, it would show a willing and a transparency that we have not previously had on the.

Related to this is the issue that I raised that was raised by several other members from the backbench about other forms of electronic communication, particularly pictures, videos, voice recordings and attachments, none of which have made their way into the Humble Address returns. It seems very unlikely that all of them have been retained by the police, particularly when the messages that are related to you are in the Humble Address return. And it feels like this is something that has slipped through the net.

Can he can he tell us a bit more about that? And lastly, to return to the point, the chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee made, and my right hon. Friends behind me made. We we during the course of this debate, we have. I believe we have ascertained that the ISC did not see the mitigations. The chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has not been able to detect any mitigations. I think we deserve to know whether there were any mitigations, even if we can't be told what they were, even if we can't, if we're effectively being told that they're going to be they're being retained by the police, there is no good reason why we should not be told whether they exist or not.

There is nothing in that information that would prejudice an investigation or prejudice a trial. It is time for the government to just take us to the next level of transparency. I, I very much hope that that is what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister wants to do, because ultimately, all of this will come out in due course. And if it does, and it turns out that the government was unnecessarily withholding information, the scandal will continue again and again, and it will infect more and more people.

It doesn't need to do that. Let's clear this up now. Thank you, Madam Deputy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. Prime Minister Darren Jones. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I thank members from across the House for their contributions this afternoon and sharing their condolences expressed by the Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the news of Sir Alex Younger, the former director Younger, the former director general of MI6, who we have learnt during this debate has passed, as I've said to the House before, I've said to the House before, whilst it is right for members to discuss process and how the government has responded to the Humble Address, we must not neglect to remember the women and girls who are at the very heart of this matter.

Their suffering cannot be forgotten in this pursuit for justice, a pursuit that has been denied to them for too long. On that point, can I start by particularly paying thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd for her powerful speech

18:01

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

18:23

Adjournment: Commemorations for the centenary of the General Strike

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him on bringing this important debate on the general strike. But does he agree with me that when we remember the general strike, we remember it as the national event, what it was that we also reflect on the countless local stories of solidarity, mutual support and sacrifice that defines so many communities, such as in my constituency of Cramlington and Killingworth, home of the train wreckers, where a local group of miners derailed the Flying Scotsman miners derailed the Flying Scotsman and suffered severe consequences as a result of that.

It is such an important part of our labour movement, of our national story, that we remember these local actions as well.

18:24

Adjournment: Commemorations for the centenary of the General Strike Laurence Turner MP (Birmingham Northfield, Labour)

- -

18:45

Siân Berry MP (Brighton Pavilion, Green Party)

- -

Road, which took place on the 11th of May 1926. The plaque has gone up of May 1926. The plaque has gone up at the site of the old tram depot in Lewes Road in Brighton, where 4000 Brightonians stood strong against hundreds of police on foot and 50 mounted special constables and 50 mounted special constables to stop the training of strikebreakers. The courage shown by thousands of these local residents, workers and protesters who stood up to state intimidation, and those of them who faced imprisonment, immediate imprisonment and hard labour as a result, is one of the many stories of our Brighton and Hove's proud and principled history.

I also want to praise and celebrate the work of Brighton and Hove District Trades Council and all those involved in the campaigning and fundraising to get this plaque up on the wall in time for the centenary, and then for hosting such a brilliant event recently to mark the centenary celebrations and discuss the lessons. Let's be clear and never forget that the unprecedented working class mobilisation of the general strike shook the establishment to its core. Its reaction shows that. So by recognising and honouring our local struggles for workers rights alongside this history of national collective action, blue plaques like the one in Lewes Road can act as a permanent reminder to us all of the power of solidarity and the importance of the right to strike and protest, and to today's workers and unions in Brighton Pavilion, I have pledged that I will always honour the values and spirit of our city and the Battle of Lewes Road, and stand with them when they make the hard choice to strike in their own struggles.

As this debate has shown so far, the lessons of the General Strike are as relevant today as they were a century ago.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well done Chorley Tim Roca. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'm really grateful to my and I'm really grateful to my friend from Birmingham Northfield for calling this debate. I was very excited a few weeks ago when he excited a few weeks ago when he told me that he'd secured this adjournment debate. It's an important one, and he's spoken really, really eloquently about the really, really eloquently about the importance of it to Labour, labour history. And I was reminded when he

18:47

Tim Roca MP (Macclesfield, Labour)

- -

told me he was applying for the debate of the the quote from AJ Cooke, the leader of the miners in that strike, who said, not a minute on the day, not a penny off the pay. But as he is very powerfully pointed out, the defeat of the miners in that strike led to effectively an attempt to crush working people in this country. And it's very powerfully illustrated in The Road to Wigan Pier by George Orwell, who paints the picture of what the consequences of the failure of the strike were for for working people.

And it reminds us that many of the freedoms and liberties that we enjoy today hang on a timeline of solidarity that was won by the trade union movement. And I'm proud to be a Labour MP from a party that was born from the trade union movement. As I know many of my colleagues are as well. Today. I just want to take a moment, Madam Deputy Speaker, to honour a woman whose name deserves to stand alongside others that might be mentioned today. And that's Mary Turpin of Macclesfield.

When the marchers passed through Macclesfield on the way to London during the general strike, she didn't watch from the sidelines. During the strike, she got stuck in. She organised soup kitchens, set up, set up feeding centres for children. She prepared thousands of family parcels for the locked out miners in Biddulph, and this was a woman who, at nine years old, had worked in one of the Macclesfield silk mills. So she knew in her bones what it meant to go without. It wasn't an abstract political course for her.

It was a real calling. And she went on to be Macclesfield's first female magistrate, Macclesfield's first female alderwoman, almost Macclesfield's first mayor. So we owe it to her memory and to the countless other women like her, whose quiet,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

relentless solidarity held communities together. When we speak in debates like these today. Yeah. Ian Lavery.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ian Lavery. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'd just like to, first of all, I'd just like to, first of all, declare an interest. I spent most of my life in the coal industry, 31 of my life in the coal industry, 31 years before I became a member of Parliament. I believe the only coal miner who worked under the North Sea in the Commons. And, you know, when you think about it in this place, you know, we had 70 to 80

18:49

Ian Lavery MP (Blyth and Ashington, Labour)

- -

miners in represent the Labour Party at one time. And it's strange Party at one time. And it's strange how things actually change. I want to congratulate my hon. Friend, the to congratulate my hon. Friend, the Member of Parliament for Birmingham, Northfield, for not just securing this debate, but the the eloquent way in which he presented a fantastic contribution. And it is fantastic contribution. And it is important, you know, that we in this place we recognise a hundred this place we recognise a hundred years.

Of the famous 1926 Great Strike, and what what it was about. People have got different views. The really have different views. But as my hon. Friend the member from Macclesfield said, the issue really was, and it can be summed up in one sentence, not a penny of the pay, not a minute of the day. That's the crux of the 1926 dispute and the the conditions. You know, we've got to think and remember the conditions of the miners. The conditions were atrocious.

The poverty was rife. And then we had. After the Second World, after the First World War, the mine owners reducing the wages of the miners by almost 50% because of what was happening globally with coal trading. And they wanted to maintain the huge profits. And the only way they could do it is by taking it off the miners who couldn't they couldn't actually feed the kids. That's what the strike was about. You know what people say it was the the party, which I've been a member of for more than 40 years, but the history shows that they were really worried about these miners.

There were revolutionaries. They wanted to change the government, although that might have been partially true. The real reason for the 1926 dispute was because miners working seven days a week had money taken off them up to 50%, which I've mentioned. And there was a further attempt to reduce the wages by 13.5%. That was a real reason. Were working very, very hard, and the Richard Holden has used the global issues, as I mentioned, to, to to demand that their profits were sustained on the backs of the hard working miners.

And it wasn't for the sake of negotiations, because there was plenty of negotiations went on at national level with the TUC, at national level, with the the the, the government, but the field. But the government had prepared very well, very similar, you know, in many ways to the dispute of 198485, which I'm a veteran, apparently I'm a veteran because I was on strike for the full duration of the if the the the dispute. So was my family and my friends.

But when it got classed as a veteran, you really understand how old you get. You. You really do. And it's not just a grey hair, by the way. It's a sore knees in the bad fingers. It's all of this. But what what the government actually did at the time, they prepared, they set up an organisation for the maintenance of supplies, which my hon. Friend mentioned before the the recruited hundreds, if not thousands of special constables. They ensured that it was months of coal reserves available and they were ready and the government were ready to take on the miners.

And as I've already mentioned, what the the the press did, what the government did and and what the TUC and the Labour Party were frightened of was these revolutionary miners who were fighting for not even decent wages, not to maintain what they had to, to ensure that the coal owners appeared people correctly. You know what's interesting? I'm not a monarchist, you know I'm not. But King George the Fifth actually said, try living on their wages before you judge the miners.

Very interesting that the king was actually supporting the miners at that point in time. But why is the Great strike itself lasted just over a week. Miners stayed out for months in the north east, famously, chopwell miners in Gateshead were locked out for 17 months in in rural Northumberland, in the forgotten community of Plashetts, now below the Kielder Reservoir. The miners miners lasted for months and months longer, and I want to just refer to a key moment in my area.

And it was what my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth mentioned. It's in her constituency. I can see it from my bedroom window, and I represented the people who derailed the Flying Scotsman because they were part of my union, the Mineworkers Federation of Great Britain, and I was proud to be the General Secretary of the Northumberland anyway, and I was proud to be the president of the National Union of Mine. These are my people. And I think we've got to remember people, and I'll mention their names very shortly.

But on the 10th of May, in 1926, the miners at Crumlin accidentally derailed the Flying Scotsman. They believed it was being powered and it was a coal train being powered by blackleg labour. The crash resulted in only one minor injury, a bit spilt milk churns and a a goods van was was damaged and it became. National news. Warnings, including the waving of a red handkerchief, were given, but the inexperienced crew were unable to. To respond, the train was able to actually slow down so they.

The miners himselves. Decided that they would. They would sabotage this black leg, the truck of coal and. They took a few reels from the the the the line and it it it skewed off the line. It's called the Cramlington Train Wreck. It's a great play, by the way, if anybody gets the opportunity to, to see the play, they, they should, they should do so. And it's produced by a chap called Ade Wolf from the North East. But the, the the situation.

It was was untenable. There was desperate consequences. The government were looking for answers. They launched an investigation. Investigation which swiftly escalated into what can only be described as a witch hunt. And on the night, the 5th of June 1926, miners were unceremoniously dragged out of their beds in homes and they were arrested. The Mine Workers Federation of Great Britain were very much unaware of this, and the mine workers who were arrested were on trial, and they didn't have any defence at all.

And the government had professional prosecutors. The witnesses admitted to lying to police at first, calling into question the reliability. In fact, one defendant was partially deaf. He couldn't even hear what was going on in the courtroom. Despite this, the eight defendants were sentenced up to eight years, eight years in a first offenders prison. They were each separated and sent to Maidstone Prison, over 300 miles away from the homes. I was an innocent campaign for the release, which began while partially successful.

Innocent men were jailed and even now, a hundred years later, there hasn't been any apology being given whatsoever. You know these people, Madam Deputy Speaker, there were there were Labour men, there were hard workers, there were grafters. They didn't want, you know, didn't didn't want anything other than fairness and dignity in the lives of these wages, terms and conditions. And many of the families still live in southeast Northumberland. And I would like to ask the Minister tonight to commit to a posthumous pardon for these men who were sadly badly treated over a hundred years ago.

It was William Gordon Stephenson, Robert Harbottle, Joseph Wallace, Oliver Sanderson, William William Muckle, James Ellison, Arthur Wilson and Thomas Roberts that all lived in the Crumlin area in range from 21 years of age to 29 years of age. And remember, colleagues that didn't demand the world. These were humble individuals. The only wanted dignity. They wanted.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order and could interrupt you temporarily. Mr. Lavery, sit down.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

temporarily. Mr. Lavery, sit down. I'd like to move this house. Do now adjourn. The question is that this House do now adjourn. Ian Lavery.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do now adjourn. Ian Lavery. Madam Deputy Speaker, just dignity in existence. Food and a roof over their heads. Not a penny roof over their heads. Not a penny off the pay. Not a minute of the day. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

day. Thank you. Minister Kate Dearden. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield for securing this debate on the commemorations for the centenary of the 1926 General Strike, a moment in our nation's history which I recognise as is not recognised as much as it should be, and I'm grateful for the many contributions across the House this evening that we've heard today about the background, the events and the impacts of the strike and moving contributions they have been, and I thank hon.

Members for it. The Member for Birmingham Northfield contribution painted an evocative picture of these, a brilliant contribution, as well as the particular experience in Birmingham, and has reminded us that what this Labour government is trying to achieve in protecting and strengthening rights in the workplace isn't just a case of unpicking recent anti-worker legislation, but building on the struggles and sacrifices of previous generations who were often fighting against brutal tactics by their employers and the government. While he is right that many of the questions he poses are for a different debate, I do hope I can start to answer some of them today by outlining the government's approach to workers rights in the 21st century.

As we have heard, the general strike was called by the TUC on the 3rd of May 1926 in response to a 1 million coal miners being locked out of their minds by owners who wanted them to work longer hours for less money. This was against the backdrop of declining wages, the severe dangers of working underground and difficult economic conditions in the aftermath of the First World War, in solidarity with the demands of the miners, more than 1.7 million workers took strike action from industries including bus, rail, printing, gas, electricity building, iron, steel, chemical industries and dock workers.

Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just just to add to her list was the 19,000 members of the National Society of Pottery Workers, which Society of Pottery Workers, which now forms part of the GMB, who, even when the strike ended, still found their jobs at risk because found their jobs at risk because the supply of coal wasn't available to power the kilns. But what was exemplary was the local community exemplary was the local community coming together at that time to form solidarity and support committees, to make sure that the families of those workers were fed families of those workers were fed whilst the coal supplies were being found from alternative sources.

But I think it's a testament, I think she would agree to the strength and the power of solidarity, the labour movement, when it comes to not just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supporting the workers but the families of those workers as well. Thank you. I thank my hon. Friend for that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for that really important intervention, and I'm going to come on to exactly that point about the importance of solidarity. The next nine days solidarity. The next nine days became the largest expression of worker solidarity in British history. Some of the strongest history. Some of the strongest support for the strike was found in industrial heartlands like like his, where unions had a strong presence where unions had a strong presence to areas South Wales, Midlands and northern constituencies like mine.

In Halifax, where on the 9th of May 1926, 10,000 people attended a mass meeting in Savile Park to support the strike. The train stopped running and the Halifax Courier itself impacted by some of its workers joining the action, reported that even the clock at Halifax station stopped ticking during the strike. This was a pattern experienced across the country where public transport stopped, newspapers could not be printed and many parts of the economy stood to a standstill. The government responded with emergency measures to break the strikes and deeply dividing the country.

After nine days, the TUC called off the strike action, though the miners continued their struggle for several months, with many returning to work, though in worse conditions than before. Of course.

19:04

Kate Dearden MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Halifax, Labour )

- -

Emma Foody. indulge me in paying tribute to a particular striking miner who was actually born in my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington constituency in Hurst, Robert constituency in Hurst, Robert Wallace Pringle, who was one of the striking miners and died the following year in a horrendous accident as an assistant lamplighter. He actually caught on fire as a result of the fuel soaked rags. He was my great grandfather, and I just wanted to take this opportunity to put his name on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

record. Yeah. I sincerely thank my hon. Friend for bringing that story to the House and absolutely commemorate his his memory of her, her family his his memory of her, her family member. And what an incredible story to share with the House today. Thank you. Thank you sincerely for Thank you. Thank you sincerely for that. Although the strike did not achieve its immediate aims, it became a defining moment for the became a defining moment for the British labour movement. For many workers, it was a stand against falling living standards and a system that was stacked against them.

The strike brought workers from across different industries together to demand a fairer deal. The events of 1926 changed the relationship between workers, employers and the government, helping to shape the labour movement for the next century. It reinforced the importance of trade unions as a collective voice for workers and sparked debates about workers rights, industrial relations and the role of the state. Debates. As we have heard that continue to this day and over the decades since 1926, union campaigning and collective action have secured many of the rights people now rely on at work from holiday paid holidays, safe workplaces, protections against unfair dismissal, maternity and parental rights, and the national minimum wage.

These gains were not inevitable. They were the result of workers organising together and demanding change. 100 years on, it is clear that many workers in this country feel, as they did back in 1926, that the system does not work for them. After 14 years of Tory austerity and attacks on rights in the workplace, I understand why so many people feel angry and left behind. That is why this Labour government is working to change this. Our plan to make work pay has brought employment rights legislation into the 21st century, ensuring that workers are paid fairly for the work.

They do have secure work and are protected from discrimination and harassment, extending the protections that many of the best British companies already offer their workers. And my hon. Friends will know that we will not build a robust and growing economy by rewarding the minority of businesses that offer insecure work and predatory environments. Instead, we must build an economy based on job security for workers, fair pay for hard work, and fair competition between businesses. This is the path to greater productivity in the workplace and our wider economy.

The Employment Rights Act is the first phase of delivering our plan to make work pay, supporting employers, workers and unions to get Britain moving forward. Alongside the new industrial strategy, the act supports this Labour government's mission to increase productivity and create the right conditions for long term, sustainable, inclusive and secure economic growth. For too long, employment rights legislation has only protected some, not all, of our workforce, and the act changes this, delivering those stronger rights, greater fairness and more security for more than 18 million people, providing a new baseline from sexual harassment, strengthening statutory sick pay, introducing the right to guaranteed hours, tackling fire and rehire, and reversing previous government's laws that restrict workplace democracy.

As a lifelong trade unionist, I am proud that this government champions the vital work of unions in protecting and representing workers across the country, ensuring that they are listened to, supported and heard by tearing down barriers to trade union activity and ensuring that industrial relations are carried out in good faith. This government is empowering working people to organise collectively, helping to settle disputes and secure a fair deal in the workplace. As part of this, the act repeals the majority of the Trade Union Act 2016 and the entirety of the Minimum Service Levels Act 2023.

Undoing the Tories damage to our workers and our economy by simplifying the statutory trade union recognition process, strengthening trade union rights of access to workplaces and introducing a duty on employers to form inform all new employees of their rights to join a trade union. We are enabling them to recruit and organise. We are also delivering new rights and protections for trade union representatives, alongside tackling the illegal blacklisting of trade union members through predictive technologies. This is the biggest increase in trade union and collective rights in a generation.

But we know that legislative change alone is not enough. We need attitudes to change to, and that is why we are committed to introducing a new framework for industrial relations, setting out the government's vision for a new approach, one that is fit for the challenges of the 21st century, based around the principles of collaboration, proportionality and accountability, and which balances the interests of workers, businesses and the wider public. Before I conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friends posed a question to me and raised some really, really important points throughout this debate.

My hon. Friend from Cramlington and Killingworth and the hon. Friend, my friend from Blyth and Ashington two, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue of the Cramlington derailment of the Flying Scotsman. I know the memory of this incident still inspires strong feelings in the region, and there will be a range of opinions on how this memory and how it should be marked. I know the Kremlin community hub in my hon. Friend's constituency, has done some brilliant work in commemorating the incident, and I pay tribute to them and in relation to pardons, as my hon.

Friend highlighted in the debate this evening, there is a process in place to submit a petition to be considered by the Ministry of Justice, and I would I would direct my hon. Friend to to that route. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, I once again want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield for bringing this really important debate to the House this evening and allowing parliamentary time to commemorate the events of the General Strike and on many members who haven't been able to make the debate today, have shared their stories with me, and I'm sure with other members in the room and those really, really important parts of history that we must never forget and have that time to reflect on how we can work across government, industry and the union movement to deliver a stronger,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fairer future for working people. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn, as many as are of that opinion, say I. I.

11:00

Speaker's Announcement Mr Speaker

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page