May 2026

As today’s remarks have focused on key national infrastructure, I thought I would speak briefly on the clean water Bill outlined in the King’s Speech. The water sector is another essential piece of national infrastructure that is long overdue for reform. Like many in this House, I welcome the clean water Bill with open arms. As I see it, the Bill is our best opportunity to create a water sector that puts bill payers, water users and the environment first. For too long, it has felt as though shar

I completely agree with my hon. Friend; the Bill certainly builds on the early progress that has been made. To be most effective, the clean water Bill needs to include a meaningful duty on all water companies to operate for the public benefit. We all know that the current model of ownership in the water sector is failing both the public and the environment, and that instead of fixing crumbling infrastructure, water companies have been lining their own pockets and accumulating debt for far too lo

Richard Fuller voted AYE on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)' (108-323, defeated)

Alison McGovern voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)' (108-323, defeated)

Sean Woodcock voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)' (108-323, defeated)

rose—

The Secretary of State and I do go back a long way, and we agree, actually, about the crisis of capitalism, in terms of the sacrifice of domestic production for imports; he and I have lot in common in that regard. He will understand that the economic uncertainty he describes and the need for greater national economic resilience applies to food too, so—while accepting that we should put solar on buildings and have offshore wind—surely he understands that by putting solar plants at scale on the mo

Britain is becoming harder to govern. That is not principally the result of disruptive, destabilising societal change, or even because an increasingly complicated world is creating more uncertainty for all Governments; the problem lies in governance itself. The Prime Minister complains that when he pulls levers in Downing Street, they have less practical effect than he had hoped. Simon Case, on leaving office, put that very clearly. He said that “an increasing number of English devolution settle

Before I deal with that excellent point—I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making it—I remind the House that the current trade deficit is about £25 billion, which would have been unthinkable a generation or two ago. On the question my hon. Friend asks, we have to rebalance the food chain. For too long, major retailers have held a gun to the head of primary and secondary producers. What matters is not the size of the cake, but who is getting what sort of slice of the cake. While major retailers

The Minister will be aware that on 21 April the ISC, on which I sit, made it clear that the “Humble Address does not allow for documents to be withheld from Parliament, only for redactions to be made where the ISC has agreed to them.” Last week, we were obliged to issue a further statement saying that it had come to our attention that documents were being withheld from the ISC. The right hon. Gentleman may feel that that is justified, but the Humble Address does not permit it. The point is that

Parliamentary appearance by Sir Ashley Fox

Emma Reynolds voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)' (108-323, defeated)

Valerie Vaz voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)' (108-323, defeated)

Parliamentary appearance by Warinder Juss

Parliamentary appearance by Mr Gregory Campbell

Bill Esterson voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)' (108-323, defeated)

Nicholas Dakin voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)' (108-323, defeated)

Sammy Wilson voted AYE on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)' (108-323, defeated)

Mark Pritchard voted AYE on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)' (108-323, defeated)

I share those concerns as well as similar concerns that have been raised by the Intelligence and Security Committee, not only about the extensive use of what we call non-corporate communications channels but about information that should have been on a higher level of classification that was shared at “official sensitive”. I have already announced to the House the imminent start of a review of the use of non-corporate communications channels, and I shall be taking further action to ensure that s