Category: Speeches

  • John Healey – 2026 Personal Statement in the House of Commons

    John Healey – 2026 Personal Statement in the House of Commons

    The personal statement made by John Healey, the former Defence Secretary, in the House of Commons on 16 June 2026.

    With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a personal statement on my resignation as the UK Defence Secretary. Many in the media have pressed me to say more since Thursday, but I am a proud parliamentarian, and I wanted first to speak in this House, as I take my seat on the Back Benches for the first time in more than 10 years.

    I took the decision to resign with the greatest regret and reluctance. I continue to be certain about the decision. In time, I believe it will be seen as necessary in securing the future of our armed forces and alliances. It has been the privilege of my life to work alongside the exceptional people who serve this country in Defence—military and civilian alike. They work 24/7, so often unseen, and are the very best of Britain. They, and the new Defence Secretary, have my fullest support.

    I have been a Labour MP for nearly 30 years, a Labour member for 45 years and a trade unionist for longer still. It is my family—literally. Jackie, my wife, worked for Labour HQ. We met at a union conference. Two weeks later, we were engaged. All of us in politics ask so much of our partners. We only ever wanted a successful Labour Government leading a stronger Britain. My decision last week was about country, not career.

    I loved the job, though I will not miss going to bed with three phones or the 3 am phone calls. I am proud of what we have done in less than two years as a Labour Government. We stepped up international leadership for Ukraine, raised defence investment three years earlier than anyone expected, won record defence export deals, gave the armed forces their biggest pay rise for 20 years, brought 36,000 forces family homes back into public ownership, and signed major defence agreements with Germany, Norway, France and the European Union. Delivering for defence; delivering for Britain.

    The Prime Minister has led that drive, rightly earning respect at home and abroad. He and I jointly commissioned the first-of-its-kind strategic defence review, which has set the vision to transform our armed forces to make our military more warfighting ready and better able to deter. We have been doing exactly that in the 12 months since the SDR was published. We are delivering in a different way: investment with deep reforms to get a grip on budgets, procurement and delivery; investment so that every taxpayer’s pound works twice, once for national security and once to back British industry and create British jobs; investment in new defence tech—drones and AI—that draws lessons from Ukraine for our UK forces.

    I will always seek cross-party common ground on defence, but I will not let the Conservatives forget their record in government or the hollowed-out legacy they left in our armed forces.

    Since the SDR, we have seen the world changing still faster, with threats increasing and demands on defence rising: conflict in the middle east, new NATO missions in the High North, the US moving forces away from Europe, intensifying attacks in Ukraine and increasing Russian aggression towards the UK. NATO has now said that we must prepare for war with Russia within the next five years. This is the age of hard power and rising threat. This is not the moment for calibration or incremental change. This means bigger politics, bolder priorities and harder choices. Britain’s challenge now is the transformation and rearmament of our armed forces.

    The Prime Minister knows what the country needs for defence. He spelled out the threat this month when he said:

    “it is our intelligence assessment, and the assessment of other countries in NATO, that there could be an attack by Russia on NATO as soon as 2030.”

    Britain must set the headmark of spending 3% on defence in 2030 and a clear path to 3.5% in 2035—the commitment all NATO nations have made to each other and to their people. I believe that this would command wide cross-party support.

    Our predecessors in this House experienced what happens when deterrence fails. They entrusted us with institutions such as NATO that they created to keep us safe. We do not choose the circumstances in which we serve or the responsibilities that fall upon us, either in this House or in government. It is the duty of our political generation to ready Britain for the uncertainties of the years to come. The decisions that we make in the months ahead will be judged by those who follow us.

    At this dangerous time, I see the current defence investment plans falling well short of what is required: a rise of 0.08% from next year to 2030, no date for reaching 3%, and no path to 3.5%. By 2030, well over half of NATO members will be spending 3% or more. When allies are looking for British leadership, we must not fall behind. When NATO needs European nations to step up, we must not fall short.

    Our adversaries do not follow timetables set by the Treasury. I appreciate how hard this is for Cabinet colleagues, and I am very grateful to those who support what is required, but not all needs to be done by cutbacks elsewhere. There are credible ways of meeting the mid-term funding challenges, working multinationally and as other nations in Europe are doing, that could allow us to protect the ability to deliver our Labour missions across Government.

    Beyond that, we need a bigger view of national security. It is not just a job for Defence or the agencies; every Department has a part to play in national security and national resilience. From Energy to Transport to Health, security must run through the Government like letters through a stick of rock. Security must be felt in communities right across Britain, reversing long-term decline and bringing new jobs and new hope.

    For now, Jackie is just grateful that I no longer carry three phones in my bag, although I do still have my bottle of HP sauce.

  • PRESS RELEASE : G7 Leaders’ Statement on mutually beneficial international partnerships [June 2026]

    PRESS RELEASE : G7 Leaders’ Statement on mutually beneficial international partnerships [June 2026]

    The press release issued by 10 Downing Street on 16 June 2026.

    G7 Leaders’ Statement on mutually beneficial international partnerships.

    We, the Leaders of the G7, reaffirm our commitment to international cooperation on development and investment finance as a driver of shared prosperity and highlight our willingness to provide support to the most vulnerable. Partner countries of the G7, Kenya and the Republic of Korea, also support this declaration. We recognize that the impact of the international development finance architecture has served the most vulnerable for decades. Fostering durable growth, reducing global poverty and strengthening global resilience against external and natural shocks are key shared goals. Alongside private capital, blended finance and fair and transparent lending, concessional official development assistance continues to play a strategic role in supporting partner countries and addressing global challenges in alignment with our mutual interests and our existing development objectives.

    However, we recognize the need to update the current international development system to ensure it fully meets the needs of future generations and current challenges. While traditional development policies have achieved important results, they have at times had limited impact in reducing financial dependency on external assistance, strengthening country ownership and creating pro-growth incentives. The development architecture has also become overly complex, resulting in a suboptimal use of resources. Excessive macroeconomic imbalances, crises and conflicts, lingering poverty and debt vulnerabilities inflate financial needs, disproportionally affecting the most vulnerable. Public resources continue to play a strategic role, yet they are insufficient alone to meet global development needs. We need to catalyse structured reforms to rationalize the development architecture and ensure its efficiency and impact.

    We are united in reforming the development cooperation system and shaping mutually beneficial partnerships that take into account our strategic interests and those of our partners and foresee a strategic and catalytic use of concessional resources where they are most needed. We welcome the support of our African partners for a renewed approach, as expressed at the Africa Forward Summit. The success of efforts to promote development and prosperity also relies on partner countries’ ability to mobilize domestic resources and attract private capital. We aim to support our partners ability to self-finance and reinforce partner countries’ ownership, accountability, long-term economic sovereignty and resilience while respecting their development priorities. We stress that achieving the empowerment of all women and girls and the full and equal enjoyment of all their human rights and fundamental freedoms is a key driver of development and economic growth.

    We will continue to support partner countries, including through strengthening domestic resource mobilization and developing capacities for tax administration. We welcome the commitment to strengthen collaboration on domestic resources mobilization made by the Platform for Collaboration on Tax at the conference held in Tokyo in March 2026. Where appropriate, we will develop programmes which encourage co-investment with partner countries and produce positive incentives to engage in necessary institutional reforms. Such programmes will support partner countries in raising revenues, spending effectively, borrowing sustainably and adequately managing fiscal risks.

    We will enhance efforts to address escalating global debt vulnerabilities that threaten economic stability and constrain fiscal space for essential public service interventions. We underscore the importance of making further progress in the G20 towards a common approach to debt restructurings for vulnerable middle-income countries that are not eligible for the Common Framework. We will promote the strengthening of the implementation of the G20 Common Framework to ensure debt treatments are delivered in a predictable, timely, orderly and coordinated manner. We call for increased support to countries that have sustainable debt and a strong reform agenda but face high debt service that crowds out growth-enhancing investments, notably by accelerating the implementation of the IMF-World Bank 3-Pillar Approach. We will also continue our efforts to strengthen the global debt architecture, notably by calling for greater transparency in debt data and lending practices among all stakeholders. In this context, we urge all G20 creditors to participate in the Data-Sharing Exercise of the World Bank. We note the launch of the Borrowers’ Platform and look forward to continued dialogue with all relevant parties, including the private sector and in the Paris Club, to advance these efforts.

    We will seek to support more effective mobilization of private capital to finance long term development and impact at scale. To make development projects attractive to private investors, we will use our Development Finance Institutions and call on Multilateral Development Banks to promote the use of risk-sharing instruments, guarantees, blended finance, co-financing mechanisms, market instruments and address exchange rate risk. We stress the benefits of derisking solutions and reinforcing the guarantee architecture, notably through the African Trade and Investment Development Insurance (ATIDI). In this regard, we also welcome work by the African Development Bank and the World Bank Group, including through the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), to support growth, promote a sound investment climate and mobilize private capital in Africa. We aim to remove investment barriers and support initiatives to foster sound policy and regulatory environments in partner countries, including through the G20 Compact with Africa, and will promote standardized and investable projects, and strengthen data availability and transparency.

    We will promote supply chain resilience and diversification, and resilient transportation, energy and digital infrastructures, in line with the G20 Principles for Quality Infrastructures Investment, including through the G7 Partnership on Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII). To that end, we will promote a new approach to economic and development corridors, derisking and mobilizing private capital, including through the G7 Infrastructure Investment Council. We also recognize the importance of reliable critical minerals value chains for shared prosperity, and aim to harness the economic potential of critical mineral value creation through international cooperation along the supply chain and mutually beneficial partnerships based on high standards, transparency and local value creation. In light of supply chain disruptions, we task our ministers to work with and monitor international financial institutions and international organizations to evaluate the global impacts of access to essential inputs such as fertilizers and to coordinate support for countries in need, so as to address global food security.

    We will use concessional resources strategically where they are most needed, particularly in least developed and most vulnerable countries, addressing the specific needs of countries exposed to external and natural shocks, remoteness, limited access to capital markets and protracted or ongoing conflicts. In countries which have limited access to non-concessional or private capital, we will invest in sectors of human development, including in health, education, early childhood development, nutrition and food systems. Where appropriate, we stand ready to support our partners in the development, adoption and implementation of their National Health Compacts and similar country-platform approaches.

    We aim to address the fragmentation of the development system and to improve its efficiency and effectiveness also by strengthening coordination and collaboration among all development actors, including public development banks, development financing institutions, Multilateral Development Banks and vertical multilateral funds. We will prioritize building on successful financing vehicles and refrain from creating new ones, including where appropriate by incorporating them within existing initiatives. We recognize the value of the United Nations system as a development actor and encourage reform, including through the UN80 agenda.

    As major shareholders in Multilateral Development Banks, we reaffirm our commitment to make them more effective and impactful through reforms aiming to ensure that they work effectively as a system, including with Public Development Banks. In particular, we will coordinate to enhance opportunities for private sector investors and funds to deploy capital alongside Multilateral Development Banks on bankable high-impact projects.

    Delivering this transformative agenda will require sustained and collective commitment within and beyond the G7. We welcome initiatives that take this approach forward with partner countries at country and regional level. To this end, we note the recent Africa Forward Summit, the Global Partnerships Conference, the Mattei Plan for Africa, the Tokyo International Conference on African Development and the Global Gateway initiative, among others. We stress the importance of working with all stakeholders to promote fair and transparent development finance, in line with international standards and shared practices. We will strive to mobilize a broad multi-actor coalition, including emerging donors, the private sector, philanthropic actors and civil society to align with this renewed approach.

    This declaration reflects the outcome of the discussion between G7 members, benefiting from productive exchanges of views with partner countries.

  • Heidi Alexander – 2026 Statement on the Government’s Third Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy

    Heidi Alexander – 2026 Statement on the Government’s Third Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy

    The statement made by Heidi Alexander, the Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 15 June 2026.

    I am pleased to inform the House that the Government published the third cycling and walking investment strategy—CWIS3—on Friday 12 June 2026.

    Investing in active travel delivers benefits across every aspect of life—improving physical and mental health, boosting economic growth, cleaning up our air, and giving people of all ages real affordable transport choice to cut the cost of living.

    The strategy sets out a vision that walking, wheeling and cycling are safe, easy and accessible choices for everyone. This is supported by an ambitious target that by 2035, 55% of all short stages in towns and cities will be walked or cycled.

    The strategy includes three new statutory objectives:

    Enable more people, particularly the least active, to benefit from physical activity through active travel;

    make active travel the easy and integrated choice; and

    improve safety for people walking, wheeling and cycling.

    Over the five years of the strategy (2025 to 2030), we will focus on enabling millions more children to walk, wheel and cycle to school by providing safe, coherent networks that connect schools, high streets and homes. Alongside this, through the work of Active Travel England, we will establish the basis for a national active travel network by connecting the high-quality local routes already built, funded or planned.

    Beyond the CWIS3 period, we are introducing an ambitious target that 60% of children aged five to 16 will usually walk or cycle to school by 2035.

    The strategy projects over £4.5 billion of investment in active travel across the CWIS3 period, including £1.1 billion of funding for Active Travel England.

    The strategy marks a fundamental shift in how active travel ambition is set, delivered and integrated into local transport networks. It is the first locally-designed national — delivered in line with our ambitious programme of English devolution supported by record multi-year funding.

    Alongside the strategy, I am laying before Parliament a report which outlines progress in delivering the previous —second—cycling and walking investment strategy for the period 2021 to 2025.

  • Sarah Jones – 2026 Statement on UK Policing and the EU Vehicle Registration Tool

    Sarah Jones – 2026 Statement on UK Policing and the EU Vehicle Registration Tool

    The statement made by Sarah Jones, the Minister for Policing and Crime, in the House of Commons on 15 June 2026.

    From today, UK police will have access to an EU tool to check vehicle and keeper details to support criminal investigations. This reciprocal data sharing will provide an additional avenue of investigation in tackling cross-border crime as well as serious crimes committed in the UK.

    This capability will play a crucial role in assisting police in the UK and across Europe in cracking down on a multitude of crimes including trafficking of illicit substances, sexual offences and serious assaults (including murder). It will also assist the police in monitoring suspicious activity such as minor driving-related offences.

    A simple search on a secure web portal will return results in 10 seconds and, in the case of a match, will provide police with the name of the vehicle keeper and important information about the vehicle. The results will also include markers on cars flagged as stolen, which can be used by police forces in helping to tackle the issue of car theft in the UK.

    Vehicle registration data exchanges are provided for in the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement and this step will contribute to our ongoing efforts to deepen the close co-operation between UK law enforcement and their European counterparts.

  • Sharon Hodgson – 2026 Statement on Meningitis B

    Sharon Hodgson – 2026 Statement on Meningitis B

    The statement made by Sharon Hodgson, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 15 June 2026.

    Today, I am announcing a meningococcal group B immunisation programme to protect those at highest immediate risk of MenB disease this autumn.

    Meningococcal disease is a serious but uncommon illness caused by meningococcal bacteria. It can lead to meningitis—inflammation of the lining of the brain—and sepsis. Meningococcal disease is life-threatening and can result in life-changing disabilities such as amputations, hearing loss, and brain damage. It is fatal in around 10% of cases. There are multiple strains of meningococcal bacteria, including MenA, MenB, MenC, MenW, and MenY. The NHS already offers the MenB vaccine to infants and the MenACWY vaccine to adolescents and young adults.

    Earlier this year, we saw the fastest growing and largest MenB outbreak ever seen in the UK in Kent and there have been more MenB clusters than normal this year, some of which have been larger than normal. There is therefore significant uncertainty about the level of risk MenB poses this year, with it being plausible that the bacteria are now more likely to cause disease. I have asked the department to undertake further work to better understand whether the clinical risk has changed.

    During the outbreak earlier this year, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which provides expert independent advice on our vaccination programmes, was asked to re-examine eligibility for the MenB vaccination programme. As we await full JCVI assessment, I have decided to offer vaccination as a one-off, targeted programme to the group at highest immediate risk from MenB this autumn. In line with the JCVI’s assessment of the relative priority, I have made this decision now to ensure that vaccination will be available from July to mitigate risk from the start of the new academic year in September.

    People currently in the year 13 age group in England and Wales—those born between 1 September 2007 and 31 August 2008—will be eligible for vaccination. All people within this date of birth range will receive this offer irrespective of their education plans. Comparable approaches will be taken in Northern Ireland and Scotland for their equivalent school years, year 14 and S6 respectively.

    People under 25 years of age attending higher education or living at some residential further education settings for the first time in the 2026-2027 academic year will also be eligible for vaccination. Based on the available data, the UK Health Security Agency estimated that the relative risk of invasive MenB disease in first-year university students is substantially greater than in their peers. Postgraduates or those starting a second—or later—year will not be covered by this offer, as we are prioritising those at highest immediate risk this autumn. I am encouraging international students who are coming to the UK to study to have at least a first dose before travelling to the UK to ensure both doses can be received before the expected peak of disease in October and November.

    MenB vaccination protects only the recipient. The MenB vaccine is highly effective: vaccine effectiveness is estimated to be between 85% to 95%. MenB outbreaks will still occur, but vaccination will better protect those at the highest immediate risk.

    The JCVI is updating its assessment of the appropriate eligibility for routine MenB vaccination, which will be provided to Ministers in due course. I will consider that advice before making any longer-term decisions regarding MenB vaccination.

    Two doses of the MenB vaccination are required for protection. Further information on how to access the vaccine will be published in the coming weeks. I strongly encourage eligible people to come forward from late July to receive both doses before the new academic year. The offer will be available across all four UK nations.

  • Tim Farron – 2026 Speech on Thames Water

    Tim Farron – 2026 Speech on Thames Water

    The speech made by Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for the Environment, in the House of Commons on 16 June 2026.

    I start by associating myself closely with the Secretary of State’s remarks about Jo Cox. It was a privilege to serve alongside her in this place, and we still miss her deeply.

    I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement and for the helpful briefing that I received earlier. Since Conservative privatisation more than 35 years ago, some £85 billion of billpayers’ money has flowed out like a torrent into the pockets of mostly overseas shareholders and executives paying themselves unearned bonuses. That money could and should have gone into cleaning up our waterways and modernising infrastructure. Instead, sewage was released into our lakes, rivers and seas for 1.8 million hours last year, and more than 100,000 of those were in the Thames region alone. Some 20% of our water leaks out of its pipes before it even reaches our homes. For Thames Water, the figure is even worse, with 25% of that water wasted.

    Now Thames Water’s investors are asking for more time for more opportunity to take money before they inevitably run. The Secretary of State is right, then, that the creditors’ offer is a disgrace. They get to keep making money, and Thames Water billpayers get to pay even more to keep them going, while getting the privilege of seeing long-overdue infrastructure improvements delayed for yet another decade. Thames Water is taking the mickey. The Liberal Democrats say, “No more, and no thanks.”

    It is clear that Thames Water has failed in its basic performance as a water company, and that gives the Secretary of State all the reason she needs to place it into special administration, so why is she not doing that instead? Her letter to Ofwat is, I am afraid, a sign of dreadful weakness. She has to beg an equally weak Ofwat to show a resolve that it institutionally lacks. Thames has failed in its performance, so just put it into special administration and migrate the company to a mutually owned model, where the billpayers own the company and call the shots. That way, investment will be made, sewage spills will stop and water leaks will cease. By doing that, she could begin the process whereby all our water companies are owned not by private equity, overseas investors or the sluggish state, but by the people. If she did that, she would win the favour of people from Witney to Windermere. Why does she not stop faffing about and do that instead?

    Emma Reynolds

    I thank the hon. Gentleman, I think, for his support for my statement today, although it was slightly half-hearted. He is right to say that there have been serious pollution incidents in different water companies, but especially in the Thames, and that is of grave concern to the public and to Thames Water’s customers in particular. I point out to him that there are two types of special administration regime. An insolvency SAR is an insolvency process and is for the company directors to determine. A performance SAR would be triggered if a company was in serious breach of its statutory duties or if the company breaches an enforcement order in a way that is so serious that it is inappropriate for the company to retain its licence. The Government stand ready for all eventualities, including a SAR.

  • Toby Perkins – 2026 Speech on Thames Water

    Toby Perkins – 2026 Speech on Thames Water

    The speech made by Toby Perkins, the Labour MP for Chesterfield, in the House of Commons on 16 June 2026.

    Thames Water customers are paying the price for the incompetent regulation that allowed Macquarie to saddle the company with eye-watering debts at the same time as its environmental performance was so disgraceful. That debt ultimately led to shareholders writing the equity value down to zero. Those who bought the debt are now making this proposal. I entirely understand why the Secretary of State would not want customers to receive a service that was failing in its environmental responsibilities while they paid higher bills, but what assessment has she made as to whether Thames Water is a viable business? We have been told that this is the final offer from the company. Is there a viable business there that will deliver long-term investment within a reasonable cost window for billpayers? If there is not, at what point does public administration become inevitable?

    Emma Reynolds

    As I set out in my letter to the regulator, Ofwat, I am concerned that the proposal will mean delays to environmental improvements and to improvements to water infrastructure, with, as my hon. Friend rightly says, unfair cost being laid at the door of Thames Water customers. He asks whether it is a viable business and about next steps. This is a stage in the process where I have given my early views on this proposal. It is now for Ofwat to decide what to do next, and we wait to see what happens.

  • Victoria Atkins – 2026 Speech on Thames Water

    Victoria Atkins – 2026 Speech on Thames Water

    The speech made by Victoria Atkins, the Shadow Environment Secretary, in the House of Commons on 16 June 2026.

    First, I echo the Secretary of State’s comments in remembrance of her dear colleague Jo Cox. Her loss was felt across the House and across party political lines, and I send all of our very best wishes to her loved ones and friends.

    I thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement and for a briefing call on this announcement. As you know, I have been trying for months to coax the Secretary of State to the Dispatch Box to explain major events within her portfolio, from the Government’s EU handover negotiations to their lack of support for farmers. Finally, she emerges into the light. We all assumed that it would be to announce progress towards resolving the many issues facing Thames Water and its customers; instead, it is to make a statement about a letter to the regulator. There is nothing new in this statement—no change in the situation of Thames Water, and still no certainty for billpayers.

    Thames Water has repeatedly failed its customers and the environment with a record of pollution, leakage and chronic under-investment. The latest figures lay this bare. The company is responsible for around a third of the nation’s worst pollution incidents, even as billpayers face steep increases in their bills. These are not abstract failures; untreated sewage has been poured into the rivers and chalk streams that local communities cherish, while customers are asked to pay more for less. The priority now must be a financial arrangement that keeps the company afloat and protects billpayers and taxpayers. While the Secretary of State’s Government are in chaos, paralysed by the Prime Minister’s weakness and the Mayor of Greater Manchester’s leadership ambitions, Thames Water continues to fail. If no deal is reached, Thames Water could collapse—again, at enormous cost to taxpayers.

    The Secretary of State has said that she does not want a scenario where customers

    “pick up the bill for the company’s failures”,

    but when the Conservatives tried to amend the Water (Special Measures) Act to prevent consumers from being on the hook in the event of a company going into special administration and tried to impose a lending ratio limit on water companies to prevent this situation from happening again, Labour voted it down. Why? I also remember that under the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), an investor pulled out of a previous rescue deal, partly due to political risk—in other words, the former Secretary of State had talked himself out of a deal. How is the current Secretary of State avoiding the failures of the now Secretary of State for Housing?

    There are those who are urging nationalisation, a word that is thrown around carelessly by Labour Back Benchers and by Reform—in fact, I think I heard it just now. None of them ever explains that nationalisation would be extremely expensive, potentially costing the taxpayer up to £20 billion. For those who are wondering what that means, it is roughly equivalent to the defence funding shortfall we have heard so much about in recent days. However, there are reasonable concerns about how Thames Water’s failures will be managed during the Government’s restructuring of the sector and the abolition of Ofwat, so can the Secretary of State please confirm that the existing penalty regime will not be downgraded or diluted, which has been briefed to the newspapers? What safeguards will be put in place to ensure Thames Water remains fully responsible for its environmental and operational failures? How will the Government ensure that billpayers are not left bearing the cost of past mismanagement, and have they offered or begun any process to recommend an alternative deal?

    Public trust in the water industry is already at rock bottom.

    Ministers have still not explained how investment in the sector will actually be paid for. Indeed, the Secretary of State’s predecessor had to admit that so-called private water industry investment is in reality paid for by higher bills, and the Secretary of State has repeated that today. Families already struggling with the cost of living should not become the safety net for a company that rewarded its executives while letting its infrastructure crumble. This is an important moment for the Government to show that they can balance financial stability with strong regulatory oversight and put accountability and the interests of billpayers and the environment at the heart of water reform. The Government must now deliver on the big promises they made during the election for the water sector.

    Emma Reynolds

    I am always happy to receive brownie points, Mr Speaker, so thank you for what you said.

    The shadow Secretary of State rightly says that untreated sewage has poured into our waterways, and it did, in the long years that her party was in government. They cut the Environment Agency’s enforcement budget and moved to an approach where water companies marked their own homework—the so-called self-monitoring approach. She has some brass neck in lecturing us when we saw a series of failures under her Government.

    We are here today, and we as a Government inherited record levels of pollution in our waterways, because of the failure by the Government of the right hon. Lady to see what was happening before their eyes. It was a failure of regulation, a failure of the regulators and a failure of the previous Government.

    I am proud of what we have achieved in the two short years that we have been in power. I am proud of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. When did the Conservatives ever cap polluting water bosses’ bonuses? Never. The right hon. Lady lectures me about amendments to our Act. Our Act did more in less than a year than her party did in 14 years to ensure a fairer deal for customers and a better deal for the environment.

    The right hon. Lady asks about nationalisation. I gently say that a special administration regime is not the same as nationalisation. [Interruption.] I am just clarifying for the House; I do not wish to have an exchange with her across the ballot box—sorry, the Dispatch Box—if I can possibly help it. The ballot box might be at some other point. There is a difference between nationalisation and a special administration regime. With nationalisation, the Government would be taking ownership of the company. With a special administration regime, the Government would finance a special administrator appointed by the courts to run the company.

    The right hon. Lady talks about public trust in our water sector being at record lows. All I can say is that we are clearing up her party’s mess. [Interruption.] It was under her Government that Thames Water was plunged into unmanageable levels of debt.

    Mr Speaker

    Order. Can I just say to the shadow Secretary of State that I want to hear the Secretary of State? We do not need a running commentary all the way through. I made sure that those on the Government Front Bench listened to her.

    Emma Reynolds

    I am not surprised that there are not many Opposition Back Benchers here, given the Conservatives’ terrible record on the water industry. In our clean water Bill, which we will introduce later in the Session, we will take forward a desperately needed, once-in-a-generation reform of the water sector to introduce a powerful single regulator that holds water companies to account.

  • Emma Reynolds – 2026 Statement on Thames Water

    Emma Reynolds – 2026 Statement on Thames Water

    The statement made by Emma Reynolds, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in the House of Commons on 16 June 2026.

    Before I begin, let me say that this is a solemn day, as we remember our dear friend and colleague Jo Cox—I got to know her when we were living in Brussels in our 20s. I pay tribute to her formidable sister and their family for all their vital work to honour her memory.

    I will make a statement regarding the position of Thames Water and the proposed recapitalisation package under consideration. This Government were elected with a clear mandate to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas, having inherited record levels of pollution incidents from water companies. Thames Water has underperformed for 15 years. It has regularly missed performance targets, it has unacceptable levels of serious pollution incidents, and the company is heavily indebted. This situation, which delivers poor outcomes for consumers and the environment, cannot continue.

    To fix this, over the course of the past two years, the company has been undertaking a recapitalisation process to seek vital long-term funding. The Government have been clear throughout that any investor will need to have a credible and robust turnaround plan, the implementation of which must be monitored by regulators and must restore the company’s financial resilience and operational performance. Ofwat, with the support of Government, have been in discussions with the London and Valley Water consortium—a group of Thames Water’s creditors—regarding the terms of a proposal. On 6 March, the consortium presented its proposal for Thames Water to both Ofwat and the Government. Ofwat has been continuing its discussions with the consortium since then, and I wanted to update the House on the next stage of the process.

    Ofwat is currently evaluating the consortium’s proposal and, as the independent regulator, is responsible for deciding whether to accept it. If Ofwat decides to accept the proposal, this would be subject to a public consultation and a court-sanctioned restructuring process. A recapitalisation process of this size is complex and will take time. As the Environment Secretary, I have several duties, set out in section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991. These include protecting consumers, securing the proper delivery of water and sewerage services, and ensuring that companies can finance those services and that statutory obligations are properly carried out. Today, I can confirm that I have sent a letter to Iain Coucher, Ofwat’s chair, outlining my early views on the proposal linked to my section 2 duties. These should not be taken as, nor do they constitute, a direction from Government to Ofwat.

    I do not believe that the current proposal goes far enough to protect customers and the environment. I have three particular concerns about the proposal: the unfair cost to customers, delays to vital infrastructure investments, and delays to environmental improvements. The 16 million Thames Water customers are front and centre of my consideration, and I am primarily worried about the impact on them. There is an expectation in the proposal that customers will fund—and therefore bear an undue cost for—investment in the company.

    In addition, I am not convinced about the proposal’s request to reduce performance standards, nor about the significant delay to vital infrastructure investments. This would mean delays to environmental improvements, particularly those related to waste-water treatments linked to statutory requirements, as well as to projects that are important for drinking water safety and supply. I am therefore concerned that the long-term resilience of the water and waste-water systems may not be adequately protected. The Government will always act in the national interest, and my priority as Environment Secretary is protecting customers and the environment. We will stand ready for all eventualities.

    I conclude by emphasising this Government’s commitment to turning around the water sector. In under two years, we have taken swift, decisive action. We have introduced the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 to raise standards, enforce accountability, and make pollution cover-ups a criminal offence. We have banned more than £4 million in bonuses for polluting water bosses; we have unlocked £104 billion of private investment to rebuild vital infrastructure; and we have commissioned Sir Jon Cunliffe to lead the most comprehensive independent review of the water sector since privatisation. Together, those steps have paved the way for the landmark clean water Bill announced in the King’s Speech. The Bill fulfils the commitments we set out in the water White Paper earlier this year and will deliver the fundamental reforms that are so desperately needed. This once-in-a-generation Bill will create a single powerful water regulator, moving away from a system where water companies mark their own homework by putting in place stronger, active supervision. This will strengthen water companies’ financial resilience and the long-term stability of the sector, with modernised economic regulation and new powers to drive turnaround where companies perform poorly.

    Additionally, the reforms will strengthen the consumer advocate, providing a more independent, authoritative voice that can challenge the system, drive improvements in outcomes and ensure that customers’ interests are put first. We will also improve water quality by cutting pollution at its source. Finally, we will avoid the situation we are discussing today happening again: our reforms will give the new regulator the powers to ensure water companies do not accumulate unmanageable levels of debt. More broadly, they will secure the long-term stability of the sector and ensure that companies are financially resilient. Put simply, our reforms will deliver better outcomes for customers and the environment.

    I commend this statement to the House.

  • Lindsay Hoyle – 2026 Comments on Jo Cox

    Lindsay Hoyle – 2026 Comments on Jo Cox

    The comments made by Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, in the House on 16 June 2026.

    Colleagues, today we mark the 10th anniversary of the murder of our former colleague and friend to so many in this place, Jo Cox. Jo was proud to be the Member of Parliament for Batley and Spen. She was dedicated to serving her constituents and was a relentless campaigner for equality, human rights and social justice.

    Jo’s death while carrying out her constituency duties shocked Members across the House. In my role as chair of the parliamentary security committee at the time of her death, and since then as Speaker, I have made it my personal mission to improve the security and safety of Members, their families and staff, because no Member should fear carrying out their democratic duties.

    In remembering Jo today, I invite all the House to reflect on the words she shared during her maiden speech, when she said:

    “we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.”

    Our thoughts are with Jo’s family and friends on this day.