Social Cohesion Action Plan

Debate between Steve Reed and Jeremy Corbyn

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for his points, which are well made. It is important that, even going beyond this strategy, our existing laws against abuse and hate crime are properly enforced up and down the country, but we expect and hope that the definition will help organisations and individuals to better understand what causes anti-Muslim hostility and therefore how we can prevent it from happening.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

All forms of abuse are appalling. All forms of targeted abuse—be they against Muslim, Jewish or black communities—are even more appalling. I would be interested to know why the word “Islamophobia” does not appear in the statement, when that is clearly an enormous problem in our society. I am unclear about whether the Secretary of State took any advice from the Muslim Council of Britain, which has often been very helpful in explaining to the wider community the consequences of Islamophobia. Does he not think that there must be much greater concentration on the role of the racist far right in our society, which, on social media and elsewhere, continually incites—subliminally and overtly—violence against identifiable minorities all over the country, with devastating consequences for the security, safety and wellbeing of many people on our streets?

[Steve Reed]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct: it is important that we tackle all forms of abuse and discrimination, no matter which minority group they target. That is why, in the case of the Muslim population, we have included the anti-Muslim hostility definition as part of our report. The language for that came from the working group itself, which of course included many senior and well-respected figures from the Muslim community.

Representation of the People Bill

Debate between Steve Reed and Jeremy Corbyn

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

Let me make progress; I have given way a lot.

Similar reforms are already under way in Canada and Australia, and the time is right for us to follow suit. As we move towards automated registration, we recognise that we must look again at how the open register operates. Under the Bill, those registering to vote will be asked if they wish to opt into the open register, rather than opt out, as is currently the case.

There is also a moral dimension to this matter. We know that the least likely to be registered are those on low incomes, more often renting and more often younger. Our democracy is strongest when everyone can and does participate, and that is our aspiration.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Steve Reed]

I will give way one last time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

This is an important point. The Secretary of State must be aware that large numbers of homeless people very seldom vote, because they do not have a point of registration unless they can find a church or somebody is prepared to host them. Is there a possibility that we can make arrangements for people who do not have any fixed abode but nevertheless are equal citizens like the rest of us and deserve the right to vote?

[Steve Reed]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. That is not currently part of the Bill, but I am always happy to keep the position under review. We want to remove obstacles to those seeking to vote and stand in elections. These measures include absent voting and a new power to obtain information to help people to understand the election process better.

The first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, but in these times of profound change, that includes acting to defend our democracy. There are too many loopholes that allow foreign money to enter and seek to influence our politics. For instance, British voters face more stringent rules when donating to political parties than companies do—even shell companies and companies that are not based in the UK.

Independent Water Commission

Debate between Steve Reed and Jeremy Corbyn

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

There is a system in place for when licences are breached; it is called special administration. The reason we are strengthening regulation and changing the regulator is so that we can prevent such failures. The £104 billion that we secured at the end of last year will help to upgrade pipes, so that we can reduce the amount of water leaking out of the system, and pay to build and dig out the new reservoirs to catch the rain, so that there is a supply of water in the drier periods.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I understand the points the Secretary of State makes about the levels of pollution and damage to our natural world and environment by the water industry over the past 30 years, and I understand the need for regulation, but does he not understand that he has not dealt with the fundamental problem? In the future, private enterprise is still going to be making money out of a public water supply. Would it not be better to bring it into public ownership and set a share price based on the costs of pollution and on the exorbitant executive pay and bonuses, so that the public as a whole can control their water supply and no longer be left to the vagaries of the private sector, with all the devastation and damage it has caused over the past 30 years?

[Steve Reed]

This Government are going to do what works, rather than what is ideologically correct. We are not going to strip £100 billion out of public services like the national health service to give it to the owners of the water companies who have polluted our waterways; we are not going to wait years to get investment in while pollution in our waterways gets even worse; and we are not going to let the pipes deteriorate to such an extent that bill payers are hit with even higher bills in the future. I am going to act to deliver us lower bills and clean water in the fastest way possible.

Thames Water

Debate between Steve Reed and Jeremy Corbyn

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

Absolutely; we intend to clear up the mess the previous Government made. The fine that my hon. Friend refers to—indeed, there have been others—is the result of the additional criminal investigations we have launched, which follow on from the additional resources we have given the regulator so that it can investigate what is going wrong and then take action. What a difference between this Labour Government, who are putting our water companies under special measures, and the previous Government, who let them get away with it and line their pockets.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I find it deeply depressing to hear the Secretary of State say that somehow or other there is a market solution there for Thames Water. We have had 35 years of excessive profits, pollution and rising bills. He knows he will have to take Thames Water into public ownership at some point. He quotes this strange figure of £100 billion in compensation, but surely if we took it into public ownership, Parliament would set the price at which we would purchase the company, taking into account excessive profits, pollution, damage and the destruction of so many people’s lives through the way Thames Water has behaved. Will the Secretary of State be tough with it for once and say that water is a human right, and that it should be publicly owned and publicly run?

[Steve Reed]

Water is indeed a human right, which is why this Government are taking every step necessary to sort out the broken water system that we inherited from the previous Government.