Electoral Resilience

Debate between Steve Reed and Richard Tice

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend speaks to a very real threat not just to our democracy, but to our national security, from foreign financial interference. We are all aware of bots and the role they seek to play in influencing the views of electors in elections. That is a function of foreign financial interference, and it will be in scope of the review.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

The irony of hearing the Secretary of State talk about protecting democracy a week after cancelling mayoral elections will not be lost on millions of British voters. Nevertheless, we welcome the review, of course. Will the Secretary of State confirm that it will also cover the influence of the Chinese communist regime on the Labour party—a senior MP allegedly received hundreds of thousands of pounds of donations from a potential Chinese spy—as well as a Labour Government who gave away our valuable and strategic Chagos islands, a Labour Government who were responsible for the Chinese spy case collapse, and a Labour Government who are kowtowing to China over the mega-embassy?

[Steve Reed]

The leader of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), when asked to conduct an internal review into the Gill matter, of course refused to carry one out—although, to give him credit, he did say that he would welcome a review by the Government into these matters, so I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) does not welcome the review we are discussing today. To be clear: all potential sources of malign foreign financial interference are in scope for this review. If the review finds failings in any political party, I expect the leaders of other political parties, as I do my own party leader, to put the country first and their party second.

Thames Water

Debate between Steve Reed and Richard Tice

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I am sure that she will have seen today the interim report from Sir Jon Cunliffe’s water commission, which outlines his initial thoughts on how to fix the broken regulatory system. The Government have also increased compensation from what we inherited from the previous Government, so her constituents who suffer from the kinds of problems she outlined can expect far better compensation as a result of this Government’s actions.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

I declare an interest as a Thames Water customer. The reality is that Thames Water is bankrupt. It cannot pay its debts and it cannot meet its legal obligations to Ofwat, the state and its customers. Therefore, surely the right thing to do is to put it out of its misery, and put it into special administration for £1. The shareholders and the debt holders know—caveat emptor—that they have all blown their dough. If the Government buy it for £1, which would be a good deal for the taxpayer, it will not have to pay huge, egregious rates of interest and taxpayers and customers will be the beneficiaries.

[Steve Reed]

I respectfully point out to the hon. Gentleman that Reform cares so much about the problems facing our water system that it did not mention it even once in its general election manifesto. What he is proposing—nationalising the water sector—would cost in excess of £100 billion, which is money that Reform would have to take away from the services, such as the national health service, on which his constituents rely. I think they would be very ill-served by him if he were to take away that funding, and push up the waiting lists we have just started to see coming down as a result of this Government’s investment.