Tom Hayes MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 25 Feb 2026 · Post Office Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the announcement of £483 million to invest in our post offices around the country, and I join the Minister in thanking our postmasters and postal staff, particularly those at the Southbourne Grove, Malmesbury Park, Hengistbury Head and Sea Road post offices in my constituency. What happens at Royal Mail affects our postal services—it is unavoidable—so I am concerned about the adoption of the optimised delivery network in Bournemouth and more broadly. The Minister and I were recently at a meeting with the Post Office in which we had a private discussion about its future. Does he agree that the work of the Government in this area is key to building pride in our communities, tackling antisocial behaviour and having a diverse mix of offer on our high streets? That is the only way in which we will truly regenerate our high streets in Bournemouth and across the country.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Electronic Travel Authorisation: Dual Nationals · Hansard source

  More

  On behalf of my constituent David, I want to ask: has the ETA regime created a de facto UK passport requirement for British citizens? I also want to ask a question on behalf of my constituent Dolores, whose son, Tommy Roberts, an aspiring Royal Marine, was murdered in Bournemouth, aged 21, by somebody I will not name in this Parliament, who should not have been in this country. I thank the Minister for Border Security and Asylum for meeting me recently about this matter. We are not past Brexit, because that murder was possible as a result of a lack of intelligence sharing. Will the Minister share how, through these changes, the Home Office is taking action to stop illegal migrants and foreign criminals coming into our country?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a really important point about the restriction of phone use in schools, and he mentions pouches. I met Naomi from Smartphone Free Childhood Dorset last week, and she is concerned that the use of pouches reinforces the idea that children can have smartphones at school. Although access is mediated, this approach still accepts that smartphones can be present. She would prefer children to have brick phones at school. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady makes an important point about it not being a child’s fault that they are growing up in poverty. I grew up in poverty, caring for two disabled parents, and I would also say that it is not the parents’ fault; it is society’s fault. When we say that people should be poor, and we create the structures and systems that enable that, we are all responsible. The Bill is just one way in which this Parliament can say to the country, “We will not put up with poverty for anyone ever again—it is not people’s fault.” Does she agree?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Schools White Paper: Every Child Achieving and Thriving · Hansard source

  More

  I thank Bournemouth’s parents and teachers for shaping this plan—I can see their views in it. I thank in particular Andrew, Claire, their lovely son and his lovely grandparents. Teachers in Bournemouth have been calling out for national support, and now they have it. Some £165 million of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council’s debt is being paid off, there is the return of Sure Start, £1.6 billion has been promised for mainstream education, and now there is £1.8 billion for educational psychologists. Will the Secretary of State set out how quickly we will recruit and train those educational psychologists and get them into the system? If we support our school system, we help to fix our SEND system.

• 12 Feb 2026 · LGBT+ History Month · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak in a debate that was opened with such excellent speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne). It is also an honour to speak having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), whose mention of “Beautiful Thing” got me thinking about the different ways that queer culture has been depicted in our culture. He reminded me of a social media post a few weeks ago by the TV critic Scott Bryan, who said that over his lifetime, LGBT+ and queer storylines have gone from “being a rarity or…too controversial” decades ago, to being in soaps, where they were often depicted as a moral outrage, “to being occasionally mentioned but never explored (aka the gay best friend)”. In other words, LBGT+ characters were presented but their storylines were never developed. Later, there would be some exploration, but typically there would be a tragic ending and the character would die. Later still, a gay or LGBT+ character might be explored, but only after the watershed, and really only to be embraced by an LGBT+ audience. In more recent years, we have seen the creation of queer shows, which may be targeted at younger people to tell them that everything is going to be okay, or, as we saw with “Heated Rivalry”, something altogether different—I think I will leave my description at that. In thinking about that, I realised that what we are talking about are largely lesbian and gay TV shows, not trans TV shows. In turn, that made me realise that, although Pride is primarily of, by and for the people who dance under the same rainbow, it is also about liberation for everyone from prejudice. Really, we can only open our eyes to a safe and more compassionate society if we listen to trans people and protect them. I want to reflect what some of my constituents who are trans have said to me. They have told me that they believe that too often their identities, their rights and the care that they receive are separated completely from what they need, and politicians do not listen to what they have to say. We do not realise that, although we talk in debates about the difficulties that trans people face, the predominant narrative is not universally true. It is not the case that all trans people are constantly suffering, depressed or impoverished. Susannah, who lives in my constituency, said: “I am a very happy person leading an ordinary, productive and caring life. I am loved by my family, loved by friends. Trans people are doctors, accountants, crafts people, nurses, teachers, pilots, shopkeepers, carers… we are good and decent people spread across the country, leading productive lives.” When we tell stories like my constituent’s, we are telling stories about real people and real families, and we are talking about the harms and the opportunities that society chooses to prevent or permit. In telling these stories, I also want to pay tribute to the parents of trans children; when society at large seems to have it out for their kid, that often takes a toll on them. They have fierce, unwavering love, but often that is ignored and their concerns go disregarded. I want them to know that I am listening to their views, just as I am listening to the views of their trans children. That is particularly important because, although we do not choose our sexual orientation or gender identity, being openly gay or trans very much is a choice. I could no more be straight than a trans person could make themselves cisgender. The alternative is to stay in the closet and feel shame wash over you—a shame that can lead to anxiety, depression and sometimes even suicide. Being gay or trans is about choosing yourself—that is the choice. When our opponents try to make the cost of choosing yourself too severe to bear, when they try to make transgender people cisgender by denying them care or surgery, when they say that they seek to spare young people from medical care or surgery, they are effectively implying, although they do not say it, that people can be cured of being transgender—that all it takes to convert them is the denial of gender-affirming medical care or surgery. That is important to dwell on given that Parliament will—very soon, I think—be considering a ban on conversion practices. We can ban the practices, but we have to realise that the rhetoric itself can be used to attempt to convert. Opponents do not care at all about the danger involved in forcing a transgender person to be cisgender, and they do not care that it will not work. Just as they would not see that forcing a gay person to be straight is dangerous and will not work, so they do not realise it about transgender people. I choose to support trans young people in making their own decisions about transition, from early and more reversible options such as changing a name or pronouns, or starting puberty blockers, to less reversible options such as surgery, which usually come later. I choose to support trans youth in deciding their own identity and future, because it is wrong to force them to identify with the sex they were assigned at birth. In fact, all of us here would choose to support anyone and everyone, in deciding their identity, to choose themselves, whatever that means and whatever it may be. When politicians in this place, on issues affecting trans people, divide us with rhetoric that inflames, unconcerned by whether the things they say can be backed up by evidence, they are pursuing a politics based on scapegoating, not science. Those who say that this move can be contained to trans people should know this: trans people can never be sidelined or sacrificed, because every human is entitled to dignity and respect. That comes through in the words of my constituent Antonia, who says: “As a trans woman all I want is to receive the same health care, freedom and be able to live my life the same as everyone else. We work, pay bills, go shopping, watch TV and have friends. We’re not a cult or a freak show.” In the words of Mich, “The phobia whipped-up towards the trans and gender non-conforming is so disproportionate to the small numbers of us and how unthreatening we are — we’re just trying to live our lives”. On its own terms, the argument falls apart. When trans people are attacked, it is not just harmful to trans people; it is about attacking trans people today, potentially with a view to attacking other minorities tomorrow. History warns us what happens when the way is paved and the bar is lowered for all minorities to be attacked. Too many of us who are not trans or gay simply are not free in our society and our country to choose themselves in their everyday life, and that is a problem. We must all support trans young people. When we do not, it continues a problem that we have in our society of ignoring young people full stop. Whether it is about sexual orientation, gender or something else entirely, younger people go unlistened to. When that happens, it has a hugely negative impact on them. We should all choose to support trans and gay young people, but we should especially choose to support children and young people. If we listened to many young trans people and enabled them to choose, we would listen to what they have to say about puberty blockers. Puberty blockers are reversible, but puberty is not. Puberty blockers can stop the harms of an unwanted, irreversible puberty, as children watch their bodies change in ways that might be difficult or impossible to undo later. That is why it matters that young people do not miss the window in which blockers can prevent the irreversible physical changes of puberty while simultaneously extending the diagnostic period. In other words, blockers are a way to buy time and enable young people to have the choice and freedoms to explore their identity without the added stress of pubertal changes. With blockers, children report feeling less anxious and more comfortable with themselves. Liberated from the constant dread of puberty, they can bring their focus back to the things that matter in childhood and everyday life—learning, socialising and simply being kids. We know that pubertal suppression can help the mental health of trans children. I said that we need to think about the science; at least eight recent studies have linked pubertal suppression to improved mental health, including a UK study that found improvements in overall psychological functioning. Those who oppose or query what I say should look at Rosalia Costa’s piece in the Journal of Sexual Medicine from 2015. Similarly, a study by a Harvard medical school research group found that adolescents who received puberty blockers had lower odds of experiencing suicidal ideation later in life compared with those who desired blockers but were unable to access them. There was an article by Jack Turban in Pediatrics in 2020 that is comprehensive on that point. This goes to the point that we need all policy decisions to be led by the clinical evidence, but we also need to be clear-minded about what that means. In clinical medicine, it can never be known for sure what an outcome will be for patients. Medicine is always a field of probabilities, not certainties, and that will be true of puberty blockers. It is because they are so hotly politicised that we have to be careful to hold puberty blockers to the same standards as all other medication; we cannot allow the debate to fixate only on the risks and unknowns from medications that are emotionally charged and heavily politicised in our country. We need to do that, because gender dysphoria is real. It can show up in serious ways, including eating disorder symptoms and other mental health struggles. When we allow younger people and children to experience those harms, we are doing them and our society a disservice. I hope that all politicians in this place will be led by the science and by compassion. I hope that with this Labour Government, we will see not just the conversion practices ban come forward in the time before the next King’s Speech, but, over the course of the first term of this Labour Government, a movement towards a trans persons’ civil rights Act.

• 12 Feb 2026 · LGBT+ History Month · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister is talking about the introduction of same-sex marriage, and I want to emphasise that that was a moment of cross-party history. The Liberal Democrat Baroness Featherstone worked as part of the coalition Government with the Conservatives to introduce that legislation, which was carried overwhelmingly by Labour MPs. Does the shadow Minister recognise that as an example of cross-party consensus behind LGBT rights, which we should celebrate?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Commuter Safety · Hansard source

  More

  At the last minute, with spades set to go in the ground this summer and the design works within the financial envelope, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council is axing the money to improve safety and accessibility at Pokesdown railway station. I am left wondering what it is about Pokesdown, Boscombe, Southbourne and Bournemouth generally that means the Lib Dems constantly take money and opportunity away from us. I grew up caring for disabled parents, so making that station accessible means a lot to me. This decision also undermines safety and the growth sectors on which Bournemouth depends. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government will not look kindly on councils, such as BCP, that withdraw funding from key infrastructure that could unlock growth?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  Over the weekend I went on a walkaround with my local police officers in Boscombe and Springbourne, and they were talking about the need to make sure that, particularly over the summer months, neighbourhood police teams were not seeing—in their words—significant abstractions of police officers from our communities into the seafront and the town centre, because Bournemouth particularly sees very high levels of tourism and large numbers of people coming in from outside who sometimes cause criminality. They also welcome the neighbourhood guarantee, which will see an increase in neighbourhood police forces. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to ensure that we keep our neighbourhood police forces in their neighbourhoods?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Russian Influence on UK Politics and Democracy · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an eloquent point about how Reform’s Nathan Gill, who has been jailed for 10 years, was pushing out Putin propaganda in return for funding, and Reform has the most worrying of relationships with Russia. Is it also the case that Reform will ultimately do whatever its paymasters want? For instance, 50% of its income last year came from fossil fuel firms or climate change deniers—no wonder it is not in favour of net zero. Similarly, it is a fan of crypto chiefs and is embracing crypto donations, and as a consequence its policy would be to support cryptocurrency. Reform says it is on the side of ordinary people, but its Members voted against the Renters Rights’ Act 2025 and the Employment Rights Act 2025—historic Acts that shift power back to people. Is it not the case that Reform is just siding with vested interests?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Russian Influence on UK Politics and Democracy · Hansard source

  More

  War may not be declared as before and warfare may not be defined by the weapons of old—we may not, for instance, have Russian bombers over the skies of London—but does the hon. Member agree that this country is being forced to fight back against Russian disinformation, spying and sabotage every day? If she does, does she not see Russian financial interference in our democracy as a weapon of war? And if it is, is our country therefore in a form of warfare with Russia?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. I respect everyone’s democratic right to protest within the law. In Bournemouth, Dorset police is being forced to spend around £100,000 policing protests at the three asylum hotels, which were opened by the Conservatives at eye-watering expense. Often protests have to be managed by neighbourhood policing teams that we, as a Labour Government, are rebuilding. That means that police are spending their time policing protests rather than out on the beat in their neighbourhoods. When will Bournemouth’s asylum hotels begin to close, not just because they are bad for the people living in and around them, but because of the huge cost to our local police force and the abstractions to our neighbourhood policing teams?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Civil Service Pension Scheme: Administration · Hansard source

  More

  Public servants in Bournemouth East who gave decades of their lives are struggling after providing service to all of us. Probation officers, youth justice workers, prison staff and court clerks are struggling while Capita makes mistake after mistake. Does my hon. Friend agree that being good at winning public service contracts is not the same as being good at delivering them, and that we need accountability where people’s lives have been harmed?

• 29 Jan 2026 · Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for securing this debate, and for all his work to advance the rights of the Ukrainian people. I also thank all hon. Members here today to debate non-recognition of Russian occupied territory. It has now been more than 1,400 days since Russia launched a full-scale invasion, which we in this House, in the Government and in this country utterly condemn. Ukraine is a free country and has long enjoyed freedom, democracy and the right to choose its own destiny. It continues to have the sovereign right to decide its own future. We all agree that in attacking Ukraine, President Putin attacked democracy, freedom and the rights of nations across Europe to choose their own path. Put bluntly, we cannot allow that freedom to be snuffed out. I say to the people of Ukraine, who have endured unimaginable hardship for nearly four years, that Bournemouth stands with them and the UK stands with them. We all stand with their families and with their country. For all the bombs, tanks and missiles that Putin has thrown at Ukraine, he has failed in his central aim: he has not broken the Ukrainian spirit. Theirs is a courage that refuses to be broken. He has not crushed the national will of a people determined to live freely. As we have heard today from hon. Members, that is important, because it means that Ukrainians will never give consent for Russian occupation. Ukraine’s future must be shaped by Ukrainians, not imposed by brute force. The Donbas must not be traded away in backroom deals, nor must any other part of Ukrainian territory. I welcome the fact that our Prime Minister, along with European leaders, has been unequivocal that territorial integrity and borders matter, and that borders should not be redrawn by force. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), Europe learned those lessons the hard way, through devastation and bloodshed, and to forget them would be a grave mistake. Russia may occupy parts of Ukrainian territory, but occupation is not ownership, control is not consent and this temporary military reality must never become permanent legal recognition. The NATO Secretary-General and leading legal experts have been clear that there is no legal, moral or political case for recognising land seized by force, nor should there be. Recognition would not secure peace in Ukraine, nor would it secure peace around the world. It would reward aggression and invite more of it. We in this country need to be particularly cognisant of that, because we are repelling Russian cyber-attacks and disinformation every day. Every day, our security services fight against Russian spying and sabotage of our infrastructure. Those threats are, to a great extent, invisible to our public, and there is a sense that we do not want to draw too much attention to them lest we alarm people, but there comes a point when the scale, intensity and persistence of Russian attacks on our way of life need to be made public. One of the ways we can start to talk about that is by highlighting the threat of allowing Ukraine to in any way have its land ceded to Russia. In closing, we know that we need a peace that endures, not merely a pause, because we know what Putin would do with a pause. We know what he is already doing while “talk peace” is ringing around capitals in Europe: he is instructing his Russian military to strike hospitals, he is killing civilians and he is leaving millions without power in the depths of a cold, cold winter. If Putin does that while promising peace, imagine what he would do in any pause. We must strengthen our support for Ukraine and plan for a just peace, but we must also recognise Putin for what he is. We must intensify pressure on those bankrolling his war, including oil trades and the shadow fleet, and speed up the clean energy transition so that this country is no longer insecure and vulnerable to massive fossil fuel price hikes. We must always support Ukraine to defend herself and to exercise the right to choose her future, and because peace in Europe is secured by confronting aggression, we must never yield. We must never allow settlement to be imposed over the heads of the Ukrainian people.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories · Hansard source

  More

  The point about democracy and elections is important. The Government have launched an investigation into external influences on our own democracy, particularly financial influences, in the wake of the Old Bailey sentencing Nathan Gill, the elected Reform politician, to 10 and a half years in prison for pushing out Putin’s propaganda in the European Parliament. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is unacceptable for any elected British politician to pump out Russian propaganda? Does he agree that it is a particular problem that is unique to Reform? Does he welcome the investigation that the Government have launched?

• 29 Jan 2026 · River Habitats: Protection and Restoration · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Based on the start of his speech, he is clearly a dedicated environmentalist and conservationist. He represents Bridgwater, which is covered by Wessex Water, whose former CEO, Colin Skellett, got £12.6 million in pay and bonuses across a decade, with those bonuses totalling £3.4 million. Over a decade of Conservative rule, executives of the nine largest English and Welsh water and sewage companies got £112 million in pay and bonuses. If the Conservatives provided regulations, why did they let water bosses line their own pockets and allow them to pump out filth?

• 29 Jan 2026 · River Habitats: Protection and Restoration · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think that is a perfect example of leading with one’s chin; there is a little bit of brass neck involved in that. When we speak with our constituents and with the water sector, they are abundantly clear about the difference that this Labour Government, and these changes in particular, have made. We just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset about the poor performance of Wessex Water’s chief executives; earlier this year, its chief executive and chief financial officer took £50,000 in undisclosed extra payments from the parent company and a former Wessex Water chief executive was handed a huge £170,000 payment—again, from the parent company. I struggle to remember any significant fining of water companies under the Conservatives. Indeed, I have spoken to people from the water sector, and they told me that they felt it was like the wild west. They welcome the fact that we finally have a Government who are getting the situation under control. I welcome the Minister’s work on the Water (Special Measures) Act, which banned executive bonuses at failing firms and introduced “jail if they fail” for executives, automatic penalties for a range of offences, and mandatory real-time monitoring. I also welcome the Government’s work since, with the commitment to seeing sewage pollution and storm overflow spills reduced by 50% by 2030, as well as 10,000 water quality inspections per year, and with the Environment Agency securing a record £22.1 billion in investment over the next five years. I am particularly pleased to see investment of around £230 million by Wessex Water in my constituency and the wider area, and I have been to both sewage treatment plants to see how the work is going. I am pleased that we are making progress, and that includes the replacement of Ofwat, which has been failing for a long time, with an independent regulator. However, there is more to do. We need to protect communities from the dangers of flooding and drought through the creation of multi-benefit mosaic habitats. In so doing, we can unlock their full potential for nature recovery, carbon storage and flood mitigation. We need to help farmers to continue delivering our food security, by prioritising the deployment of buffers on marginal agricultural land so that farmers benefit financially and can mitigate impacts on food production. We need to boost biodiversity and nature recovery by enhancing river corridors and making space for rivers to return to their natural function. In so doing, we can boost biodiversity and nature recovery through the creation of new and more connected natural habitats. We also need to clean up our rivers. In the words of Martin Lines, the chief executive officer of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, healthy and functioning river corridors are “a practical way to improve water quality, reduce flood risk and restore biodiversity.” He says that farmers “are part of the solution”— he is right—and that “with the right backing, these nature-rich corridors can help futureproof both our land and our livelihoods.” Richard Benwell, the chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, says: “Carving out space to re-naturalise rivers would bring ecosystems to life, reduce flood risk and bring joy to millions.” In closing, I echo my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset in welcoming the first ever licensed beaver wild release in England, in our beautiful county of Dorset. It is good news for Dorset, it is good news for our country and I feel sure there is more good news to come.

• 29 Jan 2026 · River Habitats: Protection and Restoration · Hansard source

  More

  I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton)—my Dorset neighbour—for securing this really important debate. This issue matters an awful lot to him, and he represents it perfectly on behalf of his constituents. I note that this is the debut of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, my good friend the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), who is responding to the debate. I am pleased to see her in her place and look forward to hearing what she has to say. This is a timely debate: in the last day, a severe flood warning has been issued for the lower Stour at Iford Bridge Home Park and across Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, due to Storm Chandra. The levels of the River Stour are rising rapidly. I put on the record my thanks to my constituents, who have put up with Storm Chandra and the disruption involved. Many of them have had to be evacuated, and they have been stoical. My constituents’ lives have been made harder, though, because the electrical supply was unsafe at Iford Bridge Home Park, which is what forced evacuations. That was avoidable: the power supply was left unprotected by the owner, Hampshire Mobile Park Home Enterprises Ltd. It was fined over £27,000 last summer for failing to carry out 33 required actions that would, among other things, have improved electrical safety, but it has also failed to do that since. I will be seeking a response from the owner and pressing for answers, because my constituents deserve to feel safe in their own homes—always. Equally, there needs to be greater maintenance of our rivers. We need to dredge up and get rid of everything that raises the river bed so that, when flooding happens, what washes through streets is not detritus and sewage, which make people’s recovery from flooding so much harder. I thank the BCP council’s teams, and the Environment Agency, for responding and standing alongside my constituents in that difficult time. Water quality is uppermost in the minds of my constituents; it comes up often in my surgery appointments, on the doorsteps weekly and in my community visits. It is also particularly on the minds of my school students. Already, this calendar year, I have been to Avonbourne—a fantastic school doing amazing things—to speak with students on a youth enterprise scheme, and to St Walburga’s, Malmesbury Park, the Epiphany school and St James’ academy. Pretty much every question that I was asked in those classrooms was about the quality of water. Younger people care passionately about our planet, about its protection and about their right to swim without being washed over by sewage. They want the Government to get this right. At St James’ academy, I went into two different classrooms and spoke with the eco-councillors. They talked at great length, with great eloquence and expertise, about what we should be doing, so I wanted to talk a little bit about that in this debate. I also want to put on the record my thanks to Christchurch Harbour and Marine Society, which has been working with citizen scientists to make sure that Christchurch harbour’s water quality can be improved. In so doing, it is setting an example to the young people in the schools I mentioned. The society is calling for a dedicated conservation policy for the harbour. I know that is important, and I know, from testing water quality in that harbour, that much could be done to improve the situation. I know, too, that those school students are concerned about the situation in the River Stour. That is not surprising, really: as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset was saying, our rivers have been heavily modified and are not fit for purpose. An estimated 85% of the UK’s rivers and streams have been altered from their natural state. Landscapes cannot cope with the pace and the extent of climate impacts such as flooding from storms and heavy rainfall. Indeed, 20% of UK homes and 80% of UK farmers have already felt the negative impacts of those changes in our environment. On the same front, the UK faces a growing water-scarcity crisis. England alone will need an additional 5 billion litres of water a day by 2050 to support our growing population. We already use 14 billion litres a day, so that is equivalent to 35% of our current consumption. As we just heard from my hon. Friend, we have some of the unhealthiest rivers in Europe, thanks to the inheritance left us by the Conservatives. Only a third of the UK’s river stretches are in good ecological health, with many in dire states as a consequence of physical modifications, intermittent agricultural and road run-off, and continuous discharges from sewage treatment. Lastly, biodiversity across the UK is declining. On average, UK species have fallen by 19% since 1970, and just 3% of England’s land is effectively protected and managed for nature. Pollinators, native mammals and freshwater species such as Atlantic salmon or brown trout, which once thrived in our rivers, are on the brink of collapse. Is it any wonder that the younger generation are outraged and want us to act? And we are acting: this Government got to work quickly. It was a pleasure to sit on the Water (Special Measures) Bill Committee with my hon. Friend the Minister, where we heard much flim-flam from the Opposition. In spite of that, we managed to crack on with introducing significant measures, be it the banning of executive bonuses if firms fail— [ Interruption. ] I beg your pardon, Ms Butler; the Minister has made me laugh now.

• 29 Jan 2026 · River Habitats: Protection and Restoration · Hansard source

  More

  I will very happily, at this point, give way.

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman has slightly taken forward the point that I was going to make. I take the point that we live in a more insecure time, and that this country has to respond to that. He has given the example of Germany; it is able to do what it is doing because its indebtedness has not risen as extraordinarily in recent years as ours. We are in deficit to the tune of £2.7 trillion, and we pay £105 million in debt interest repayments every year before we pay for anything else, so we are in a particularly difficult situation as a Government, and that is due to our inheritance. However, the right hon. Gentleman’s thoughtful contribution is moving this debate into a more strategic conversation about the relationship of the UK to China. In my hand, I have an iPhone, designed in California and assembled in China. I assume that he has an iPhone, too—most people in this Chamber do. The point that I am making is that we have to figure out the relationship between our two countries. Economically decoupling so significantly could harm our quality of living, our trade balance and our investment opportunities, but we must also be mindful of the threat that China poses. What is the Conservative party’s posture on China?

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, as a Labour Member, I have had zero conversations with other Labour Members about this deal being motivated by some kind of post-colonial guilt—that is absolutely not a motivation, and I want to dispel that impression once and for all. He talks about consistency. Why was it that the Conservatives started the negotiations? Why was it that 85% of the negotiations were concluded by them? Does he not agree that, now that they are out of office, the Conservatives have suddenly discovered that they do not need to be consistent?

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  The Conservatives have argued against the Government’s position and have done so believing that that is what is right. They have never impugned the patriotism or the loyalty of the Labour party to this country, unlike the hon. Member for Romford. Does the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) agree that we should take no lessons from Reform, who take their line from either Musk or Moscow?

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  On the question of cost, can the hon. Member tell the House how much the Conservative Government were offering for such a deal? Was it higher or lower than Labour’s offer? If he does not know, will he table a written parliamentary question or make a freedom of information request to the Foreign Office to find out?