What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
My hon. Friend, as always, speaks a great deal of sense, as do her constituents. She is right, and the role of our G20 summit and—the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) made this point earlier—the work we do on debt, development and climate with our partners across the world is not just right for our values but right for our security, because failed states and climate breakdown are a threat to our security as well as to our values.
Our belief in the United Kingdom and in keeping our United Kingdom together is absolute and clear. The First Minister of Scotland can have his visits.
We do not engage in that way with the Russians and have not for a number of years. As I have said throughout this session, we are absolutely clear about the need to counter the Russian hybrid threat.
I think we have answered this question before. I do not have anything further to add to previous answers.
I think the answer came from Members in the right hon. Gentleman’s former party. The money that we spend on foreign aid is absolutely about preventing the problems from elsewhere in the world coming here—to his constituency and mine. At one and the same time, he complains about small boats, which is an issue partly caused by fragile states, and says that we should not be taking action to prevent it. I am afraid that I do not agree with him.
Yes, I do agree with the right hon. Gentleman. That is something that we are discussing with our UAE counterparts. Alistair Burt’s role will also be important in this. We absolutely want to see his release.
The issue of health and humanitarian access in Gaza is essential, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right that the blocking of aid is absolutely outrageous. I do not speculate on the sanctions regime, but it is important that we have it. We want to ensure that we unblock the aid.
The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. The role we will play is to bring home some of the lessons we have learned from taking action with allies, for example in relation to disinformation in Moldova, to ensure that we learn those lessons here in the UK.
Just over a year ago, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) were detained and then deported by Israeli authorities as we tried to enter the west bank. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Lara Bird), and the former MP Sam Tarry were similarly detained by Israeli authorities for eight hours while they tried to enter the west bank. Will the Secretary of State join me in condemning these cases and outline what steps the Government will take to ensure that MPs can visit the occupied west bank without obstruction or intimidation?
16. What steps his Department is taking to oppose the expansion of illegal settlements in the west bank.
As we speak right now, Israel is yet again pursuing its brutal policy of collective punishment in the west bank, with Hebron sealed off and more than 1,000 people due to have their homes demolished imminently. I welcome our Government boldly placing sanctions on illegal Israeli settlements. With Israelis going to the polls today, will the Secretary of State commit to maintaining the pressure until illegal settlement expansion ends once and for all and we can truly see the two-state solution that we all dream of?
T2. Ten years on from the EU referendum, we are still seeing the negative impacts of Brexit. It has hindered trade, stunted growth and deprived young people of opportunity. I am grateful for the Prime Minister’s honesty with the public about that. With all that in mind, can the Minister please tell us what work is being done with our EU counterparts to improve ties with the EU, so that our economy and our young people can benefit?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for securing this important debate. He focused on one particular aspect of module 4 on vaccines and therapeutics: the recompense scheme. I would like to broaden the conversation slightly. Alongside the learnings, the module contains a lot of positive narrative. As a public health consultant who worked during the pandemic, both here and with public health partners in other countries, I want to recognise the huge public value of the UK’s sustained investment in our NHS, public health and scientific research. Thanks to that investment, capabilities were in place prior to the pandemic that meant the UK was in a position to authorise and begin delivering effective covid-19 vaccines within a year of the first identified UK case. By September 2022, more than 150 million doses of the three principal vaccines had been administered in the UK, including the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, which was developed here in the UK thanks to years of scientific research. That research capacity is part of a wider global partnership that allows us to ensure that vaccine development can be undertaken swiftly and accurately, both during a pandemic and for other essential vaccinations, such as our flu response. I want to mention the Centre for Epidemic Response and Innovation in South Africa. It is a key partner, which identified the omicron variant during the pandemic, and it is now critical in identifying influenza strains for the development of our influenza vaccination programme every year. It would be good to hear from the Minister a little more about how we are continuing to build the international scientific partnership for vaccine development and pandemic preparedness, particularly in respect of the 100-day mission, where we aim to work with global partners to make safe, effective and affordable diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines available within just 100 days of identifying a future pandemic threat. As well as the importance of ensuring that we have the capacity to develop vaccines swiftly and efficiently as part of a global response, the module highlighted the issue of equitable access to vaccines, and the role that existing health inequalities played in UK vaccination coverage. The inquiry identified familiar themes regarding the reasons for lower uptake of the vaccine in some communities and groups of people. As the inquiry rightly highlighted, vaccine inequality is not simply an issue of individual behaviour; it is also a reflection of how services are designed, how communities experience public institutions and whether the health system can meet people where they are in their daily lives. There is also the issue of public trust in the system that is administering the vaccines. It should be noted that that cannot simply be manufactured through a national communication campaign at the moment of crisis; it must be earned over time through reliable services, honest information and meaningful relationships with communities. There is a useful distinction to be made between legitimate questions about vaccine safety and deliberate misinformation. We need to engage with this area proactively and positively, allow people to have their voices heard and ensure that all available facts and evidence are clearly communicated. Will the Minister please update us on how lessons learned from vaccine hesitancy and the health inequality patterns that were observed during the pandemic are now being used to inform our UK vaccination strategy, particularly in the light of worrying recent patterns in childhood vaccination for diseases such as measles and the dropping of the explicit World Health Organisation target of 95% coverage that was put in place to ensure population herd immunity? Finally, I want to acknowledge my public health, clinical and care colleagues who contributed so much to the pandemic response, some of whom tragically gave their lives in order to care for other people. Directors of public health, local authorities, primary care and community organisations should remain a central part of the solution to ensuring vaccine equity. We must ensure that the lessons learned from the inquiry allow us to support their essential work, so that we can respond swiftly to the next pandemic.
6. What discussions he has had with European partners on defence and security.
The attack on the then British Prime Minister’s home last year was linked to Russian-backed proxies attempting to undermine our democracy, and it concerns me deeply that our nation has become so anaesthetised by online disinformation that we collectively shrugged and carried on doomscrolling. I commend the creation of a national centre for information defence to counter cognitive warfare, but given the continued threat of Russian cognitive warfare, may I ask the Foreign Secretary how we can co-operate with European partners to counter disinformation, shut down the networks and hold technology companies to account?
I have constituents who are foster parents of children with extremely complex needs. It is a laudable but very challenging vocation. Placements often fail because the foster parents do not get the wraparound support and respite that they need. Such breakdowns can be even more challenging if the children are from out of area and then end up getting moved again. Does my hon. Friend agree that all councils must provide the correct support and respite for our foster parents?
8. What diplomatic steps he is taking to support UK nationals arbitrarily detained abroad.
My West Dunbartonshire constituent Jagtar Singh Johal was released on bail 26 days ago, but Jagtar is by no means free. While he may have walked out of Tihar jail, having endured 3,254 days of illegal detention, torture and abuse, he still cannot return home to his family in Dumbarton, and still faces eight outstanding cases and the death penalty. Over the last 26 days, has the Minister escalated Jagtar’s case to the highest diplomatic level?
The hon. Gentleman mentions Your First Home—the product that the Government announced to get young people on to the housing ladder. Does he agree that the targeted approach of that new idea is in stark contrast to the Conservative Government’s Help to Buy scheme? About half of the people who bought under that scheme were already able to buy a home, and it just allowed them to buy a bigger home, probably in a more affluent area.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the research that shows that up to 40% of homes bought under right to buy have actually ended up in the hands of private landlords? In fact, if we are looking to help people into long-term housing, right to buy is not the solution.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister has shown that he is willing to take action on the shared ownership eligibility cap, which I think has been frozen since 2019, and on which the previous Conservative Government took no action? He has already announced that he is raising the cap from £80,000 and £90,000 to £90,000 and £110,000 in London and outside London respectively. That shows the vigour with which he is progressing reforms to the shared ownership system.
Much of what my hon. Friend is saying has echoes in my constituency. Residents in Hanwell Locks have been in a battle with Bellway over remediation works to their building. There has been an acknowledgment that works are needed, but there is no clear programme of works, and no progress at all. Those residents, like those in his constituency, are having trouble re-mortgaging or selling, and they are worried about the continuing fire risk. Does he agree that the remediation compliance plans required in the Bill and the strong financial penalties against builders will make a difference to our constituents?
21. What steps his Department is taking to help improve the humanitarian situation in Palestine and Gaza.
Given the scale of civilian suffering in Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, can the Minister please outline what discussions have taken place and will take place with international partners to ensure that international humanitarian law is upheld, and that humanitarian workers can work safely?
I am a lover of craft ale and real ale, and that includes Mad Squirrel in my constituency and Tring Brewery in a neighbouring constituency. I declare an interest, in that I am a member of Tring Brewery, which is currently experimenting with some Japanese hops from my garden. I pay tribute to Jared, the chairman of Mid-Chilterns CAMRA—the Campaign for Real Ale—who has worked at Tring Brewery for many years as a beer sommelier and who, together with Rev. John Williams, organises a fantastic festival in our old town to promote real ale. Does my hon. Friend agree that recognition from UNESCO would have real tourism benefits, just as it has in Belgium, where Belgian beer has the status?
Southampton Itchen is one of the places in Hampshire with the most buildings with unsafe cladding. As hon. Members have said so eloquently, that means people live with the worry that the horrendous tragedy that befell Grenfell all those years ago could well befall them. Even where there has been action, it is hardly ideal. Nearly 200 of my constituents are currently out of their home. They were evacuated in the spring and summer of last year, and they will not be able to return until the summer of 2028 at the earliest. This is the stark reality that drives the urgent need for this Bill, and it is why I very much welcome it. I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for bringing forward the Bill. Like other Members, I pay tribute to residents and campaigners, including those from End Our Cladding Scandal who supported one of the very first public meetings that I conducted as a new MP, and who have not let go of this issue over the years. Since I was elected, I have listened to residents who are affected by unsafe cladding on their buildings, pressed Ministers, and submitted evidence to the Public Accounts Committee’s inquiry on remediation. The Bill is the next instalment in resolving these ongoing issues; it will certainly not be the last. I want to acknowledge the real progress that it makes, but also ask for important clarification from the Minister. Take Oceana Boulevard, a flagship development in the regeneration of brownfield sites in the centre of Southampton. It was built some 20 years ago, and its fire safety problems were first identified nearly 10 years ago. Since then, compartmentation works have been done, but that is all. Today, we have finally got in an application to the Building Safety Regulator, covering cladding, automatic opening vents and balcony remediation works, but—sadly, as we have heard, this is not an isolated story—there is still no agreement between the freeholder and the developer on who will pay for the non-cladding-related remediation, and none of that work is anywhere near starting. In the meantime, as we all know, residents’ costs have been skyrocketing. Ellie bought her flat in Oceana Boulevard brand new. Her service charge and insurance rose from £1,500 a year to £6,000 a year, and she has not been able to keep up with the payments, so she has handed her home back to the bank. People are losing their homes, even if not to fire, because of these issues, which have taken far too long to resolve. For that reason, alongside this very welcome remediation Bill, we must with all urgency progress the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, and the action that the Prime Minister recently announced on regulating managing agents.
We are all fighting for our constituents to be protected from the bills that are landing on them through no fault of their own. They certainly did not choose any of this. They want the simple comfort of having their own home, and they work incredibly hard to achieve that, yet look at where so many of them are. I welcome the mandatory auditing of fire risk assessments to that all-important single standard. A dispute about what is wrong with a building must never again, as in the case of Oceana Boulevard, outlast a decade; there has been constant back and forth about whether the parties accept what they read in the fire engineer’s report. I certainly agree with the comments made by Members on both sides of the Chamber about people picking and choosing who to commission a report from. In some cases, it seems that they decide whether they like what they read in a report before commissioning a different one. That has to come to an end. I welcome the message that waking watches are temporary. At Sirocco, a development in nearby Ocean Village, the residents paid for one for years. One of the residents, Ro, tells me that she had to use a freedom of information request just to see the fire risk assessments. Under this Bill, remediation plans have to be published, along with timelines and contacts. No resident should need an FOI request to learn the truth about their home. I welcome the legal duty to remediate. Ben and his family have told me their story, and again, unfortunately, it is not the only time I have heard such a story. They have put their life on hold and have put off having more children—growing their family—because they cannot sell and move on. Since when should anyone’s life aspirations be subject to the stalling of these companies, many of which have literally not bothered to get their own houses in order? Sadly, being unable to sell and move on is a story I have heard many times, and which other hon. Members have repeated. Remediation work at the Blake building close by began only this summer. It certainly will not finish before next summer, four years after enforcement action was first taken. It is clear that delays cost, and it is far too often still the residents who pay those costs.
I absolutely agree. As I will come on to say, it is simply unforgivable that too many companies still have no plan whatever for remediation, and people are paying the price, financially, but also with their life ambitions.
I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s closing point. The Bill must fix that, which is why I welcome its progress, but like Members from across the Chamber, I will follow its progress very closely to ensure it is not just a Bill that gets a headline, but instead fixes things and gets things right. The Blake building sits outside the developer contract, so this new duty will finally reach it. That is real progress from the Bill, but there are points on which residents still have questions, and campaigners are not yet convinced that all this goes far enough. I hope that the Minister will address some of those questions today. First, most Ocean Village buildings are subject to the developer contract, but the Bill excludes them from the new duty because “equivalent requirements” are already in place; however, physical works have still not started on Sirocco, Moresby, Hawkins or Oceana Boulevard. We have heard different statistics, but those I am looking at tell me that nationally, there are over 2,500 buildings in that contract, but for 854 of them, work has not started and there is no plan in place—not a single plan between them. What will the measures mean for those living in buildings with no plan? It must mean progress. Should they not have audited assessments, published timetables and a backstop if a developer stalls? I hope that the Minister will confirm that Ocean Village residents will benefit from all three. The Bill rightly focuses on cladding, but residents live in whole buildings, and internal safety matters, too, so I very much welcome the announcement made at the Dispatch Box today. When it comes to filling that gap, I hope that as the Bill progresses, we will hear more detail about what the grant funding will cover. Secondly, on enforcement, the Bill provides for prosecution, penalties of up to £500,000, and a backstop that allows Homes England or councils to step in, but as we all know, a power is only as good as the capacity to use it, and the route to the backstop will run through notices, representations and tribunals. How long will it take from first notice to a contractor on site? Will Homes England and councils such as Southampton city council be resourced to use that power? Finally, and most practically for residents like Ben, is the question of when. The duty is to remediate “as soon as reasonably practicable”, but the detail is left to regulations. The Government’s 2029 and 2031 deadlines, already put forward in the remediation acceleration plan, do not appear in the Bill. I ask the Minister to add them; my constituents would find that reassuring. If she will not, can she commit to dated milestones, and a hard stop date in those regulations, so that 2029 is the final, legally enforceable deadline that constituents need, not just an aspiration? Those who have been waiting years and cannot move on have asked if there is any way for the Government to buy back those homes while they are waiting. Now, I suspect that I know the answer, but I will ask—particularly as the Budget is tomorrow. The previous Chancellor amended some of the rules to ensure that council-owned properties are assets, not liabilities. By releasing people from the stalemate that they are in with their homes and families, could we be looking at assets that this Government, who need to build and own more housing, could very much use? I will proudly support the Bill on Second Reading. For everyone who needs the Bill to be the strongest it can be, I will be glad to engage with Ministers and others as it progresses through the House. We need to fix all our buildings. We need to ensure that the work is paid for by those who were responsible for this sorry episode, which I believe is an absolute stain on our history. In doing so, we might just be able to give people their futures back—people like Ellie, Ro, Ben, the hundreds of others in Southampton Itchen, and the thousands more across the country whose stories have been told by Members across the House. They have all had enough and want an end to the nightmare. The Bill—if we do it right—gives them that hope.
Having been a cabinet member responsible for council house building in Camden for seven years, and building 1,000 homes, I can say that it is a challenge when council homes can quickly leave our stock through right to buy. Having built them at great public expense, and having borrowed on a 30-year basis to deliver them, the possibility of losing that asset at a discount without recouping the investment is a material consideration. Does the Minister agree that authorities that do not build council homes but rely on housing associations might not see this as a problem, as housing associations are not included in right to buy in the same way?
The right hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. My experience is that local councils that are seeking to deliver new council homes have been calling for right-to-buy receipt reform for a long time. The previous Government had an overly restrictive approach to right-to-buy receipts. Councils were only allowed to keep a third of them for three years, and if they could not spend them within that time, they had to return them to the Treasury with interest. As a result, many decided not to take their receipts at all. It therefore seems quite sensible not to tie up councils that are trying to build new homes, which is quite a complicated and time-consuming process, in consultations and discussions, but to give the Secretary of State the flexibility to work with local authorities, to give them more receipts, to increase the period within which receipts can be used or to reallocate them to schemes and councils that can build within an acceptable period. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree?
I will speak briefly to the challenges of shared ownership, building on what the Minister has outlined in the Government response and the written ministerial statement. This issue was raised in the main Chamber when the Bill was discussed recently. Many of us passed on our constituents’ stories of shared ownership, the hopes of a first step on the ladder quickly turning into a nightmare—trapped, unable to staircase and facing all the responsibilities of ownerships, but none of the rights to decide about major works. They have to shoulder all the costs of major works, with mortgage increases and rent increases. They feel lost and unable to have a voice. With much of the Government’s agenda on reforming leasehold or improving the rights of tenants, many shared owners feel that they fall between the gaps with their specific and unique form of tenure. That is why when the Bill was first discussed, many colleagues were interested in the potential for review as a means to address some of those concerns and issues. I have been heartened by the Minister’s response and the written ministerial statement, which I think specifically commits to review those areas of concern. I have heard from my constituents about the challenges of buy-backs or when major repairs are needed. In particular on the Union Park development in my constituency, many shared owners are trapped at the moment with Home Group as their landlord, unable to get buy-backs unless they are in extreme financial distress and unable to sell, because the market value is now not there, with millions of pounds of repairs to cladding and heating systems due. Their lives change, as all our lives change, but when the need to move happens, they are unable to do so. I welcome the commitment to a comprehensive review of buy-backs and consideration of the challenges of staircasing. We would all envisage that shared ownership is initially a stake that we hope grows in future, but many find that that is not the lived reality of shared ownership. It becomes difficult to staircase and difficult to sell out of it. The written ministerial statement commits to hearing the voice of shared owners in the phase 2 review; will the Minister in his summing up elaborate a bit on how exactly he envisages shared owners will be involved in sharing their experience to shape its work? If he could outline the timeline for phase 2 a bit more, that would be very welcome.
I thank the Minister for referencing our previous debate on this topic. I welcome the Government’s action in developing guidance. I have seen worrying cases in my constituency of rent arrears being a barrier to victims of domestic violence getting a tenancy. There is concern that, even though rules have already been changed about local connection tests, they may not always be applied effectively, and local connection tests may still be used as a route to block victims of domestic violence. I welcome the development of guidance, but will the Minister commit to collecting evidence about the effectiveness of the guidance and whether further measures might be needed?
I completely agree that there is a desperate need for social homes in this country after decades of under-delivery, which this Government are starting to turn the tide on. It is interesting that earlier in Committee, Opposition Members were proposing amendments to support the further loss of council homes through allowing extensive right-to-buy provisions. The arguments do not seem to be compatible. Does the shadow Minister have any reflections on that? Does he not think that the threat of a review and potentially losing a council home if a person earns a bit more money might dampen their aspiration of trying to progress in life and get a better job?
On the point about specific bodies, can the Minister clarify whether this provision would extend to hospital trusts and prisons within the criminal justice system? I am sure he knows that one of the most significant routes on to the street is from both of those public sector institutions. Unfortunately, hospitals rarely if ever count those who are likely to sleep rough on discharge or are currently doing so. Positively, the Government’s rough sleeping strategy is committed to ending discharge to street from hospitals, but getting that engagement from the NHS and trusts as well as the asylum system and prisons will be crucial to making that happen. Will this new clause be a step forward in that regard?
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the steps that the Government are taking to ensure that the UK is the most resilient country that we can be. Let me begin by sending my condolences to the families of the two men who tragically died in storm conditions this weekend. It is an all-too-grim reminder of the devastating impact that storms can have. I saw that at first hand when I visited Cornwall in the wake of Storm Goretti earlier this year. Weather stations recorded wind speeds of 100 mph; some 50,000 homes, schools and businesses were left without power; and entire communities became trapped as fallen trees blocked country lanes. I heard families’ fear as they talked about how quickly the basic necessities of everyday life were stripped away—power, water and the internet. I thank the first responders for their tireless efforts in clearing roads and reconnecting homes. Those scenes will be familiar to Members right across the House. On 8 January, in the south-west, it was an extreme storm. Over the summer, across the UK, it was wildfires. This week, it has been Storm Austen and Storm Boelo. Climate change is making extreme weather not just more likely, but more powerful. This winter is set to be difficult, with El Niño increasing the likelihood of storms and heavy rainfall. Since we came into government in 2024, we have been hardening and sharpening the UK’s approach to resilience. We have re-written the Government’s pandemic strategy, investing more than £1 billion to build the UK’s biological defences. We have launched the home defence programme to ensure that our country is best prepared for the full range of potential threats, no matter how unlikely they might be. Up and down these isles, we are taking co-ordinated action to prepare our infrastructure for difficult weather this winter. We have £1.4 billion invested in flood defences in this financial year alone; £24 billion invested to maintain and improve our roads and rail network over the next four years; and £2.6 billion invested to climate-proof our rail infrastructure, with projects under way or completed in places such as County Durham, Derbyshire and Cumbria. Throughout the coming winter, I will be working across Government to ensure an effective response to storms as they occur. However, in reflecting on the experience of the people I met in Cornwall, it is clear to me that, in the middle of an emergency, our brilliant first responders cannot be everywhere all at once. It is clear that proper preparedness begins in our communities, streets and homes. Our research shows that just 13% of people in the UK feel that they are prepared for an emergency, such as a severe storm, that could cut them off from the services that they rely on. That figure is far lower than the figure for our European neighbours. The very same research showed that 84% of people in the UK want the Government to share more information about the steps that they can take to increase their preparedness. To give some credit to the Opposition, they recognised that resilience gap while in government and launched a new website to share preparedness guidance with the public. However, that website stopped short of a proper campaign; not enough people noticed it, and those who did found the guidance hard to follow. This Government are committed to having an honest conversation with the public about the risks that we face and helping them to prepare—household by household, step by step—to improve our national resilience. To that effect, we have published updated preparedness guidance for households and launched a three-year campaign to raise awareness of the simple steps that people can take to be ready for everyday emergencies. I want to be clear from the outset that we are not launching this campaign because of any specific or imminent threat. Instead, launching this campaign brings the UK into line with almost every single European country and countless others around the world that already run similar campaigns every year. In developing the campaign, the Government have worked with more than 500 different organisations—emergency services, businesses, voluntary groups and local authorities—to develop guidance that meets the needs of communities. I will touch briefly on the guidance before outlining the campaign. The guidance is designed to help households to be self-sufficient for three days in an emergency. We have published a full checklist of the simple steps that households can take. The two main actions are: ensuring that you have three days-worth of water and non-perishable food, and signing up to the priority services register if you or someone in your household is eligible for extra support in a utility outage. As many people who can follow that common-sense guidance should follow it. By playing their part, people will be helping themselves as well as others in their community, because, in an emergency, every household that has taken the steps set out on the checklist is one less household that the emergency services need to give extra support to. We are also encouraging people to check in on their neighbours and to be ready to help each other out. We have worked hand in hand with charities to ensure that the campaign is helpful for everyone, including organisations representing disabled people, people struggling with their mental health and people who rely on food banks. Many actions on the checklist—such as signing up to the priority services register—are completely free, and others can be ticked off over time by adding one item per week to the weekly shop. This is about helping as many people as possible to be ready for an emergency, so that help can arrive to those most in need first. To those who think this campaign is an overreaction, I say, “Think of the people I met in Cornwall and those in countless other communities across the UK, including the tens of thousands of people who were without power this very weekend.” Their lived experience proves otherwise. The campaign will run for at least three years, and is called “Be Ready”. It is being run hand in hand with our emergency services, local councils and resilience forums, and voluntary organisations. I am pleased to report that since launch, the campaign website has been viewed hundreds of thousands of times and the campaign checklist has been downloaded tens of thousands of times, and while it is too early to have formal polling data, anecdotal evidence and partner data shows that people up and down the country are heeding our advice. This is just the start, however; over the coming weeks, people will begin to see information about what they can do popping up online, on the radio, and out and about in their local community. That is just the point—this is a community-led campaign. Over the coming weeks, we will also be sharing toolkits that partners can use to get involved. I encourage Members across the House to support the campaign, read the advice and help their constituents to be ready. Together, we can ensure our communities are ready for everyday emergencies, whenever or wherever they occur. I hope that the Be Ready campaign will unite communities across the United Kingdom, and I am working closely with the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, all of whom back this campaign and the lifesaving advice it will share. Mr Speaker, before entering Parliament, I was proud to serve in the Parachute Regiment, whose motto, “Ready for anything”, comes to mind today. What you might not know is that, even longer ago—perhaps longer ago than I would care to admit—I was a Boy Scout, hard though that might be to believe.
I am sure that Opposition Members, and indeed hon. Members from across the House, will all know the motto of the scouting movement. It is not “Dyb, dyb, dyb”, as the right hon. Lady says.
It is “Be prepared”—thank you very much. The circumstances are certainly different, but I hope the House agrees that there is wisdom in both of those mottoes. Both remind us that we have a responsibility to be ready for the sorts of everyday emergencies that people faced just this weekend. Together, by taking the simple steps in this campaign, we can help people and communities right across the United Kingdom to be ready. I commend this statement to the House.
I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Member for the reasonable way in which he has presented quite a long list of questions today. I will endeavour to work my way through them in as systematic a way as I can; if I miss anything, though, I am happy to write to him or meet him to discuss this matter, not least because it is my intention that the work we do to make our nation more resilient is a shared endeavour across this House. I do not believe that it should be a matter of political disagreement. I think the measures we have brought forward are reasonable and common-sense ones, and I hope we can work together across this place to ensure our communities—our constituencies—are as resilient as possible, not least because that activity will contribute to our overall national resilience and national security as part of this work. The hon. Member asked an entirely reasonable set of questions, which I will run through as best I can. At the outset, he asked whether the campaign is in response to a range of different risks. He will know about the Government’s risk register, and will have heard me say earlier that this campaign is not a consequence of any specific piece of intelligence or born out of any specific concern. He and the House will understand that at any one time, the Government are tracking a range of different threats to the United Kingdom, and this campaign will contribute—I think effectively—to our overall resilience. I think he will also understand that there is a lot of merit in making sure we prepare households and communities at a local level for the kinds of everyday emergencies we have spoken about today, and that there is a broader and wider utility in that preparedness when it comes to other risks that have been debated recently, even those that are much less likely. The hon. Member made an important point about inclusion, particularly of people who are not online, and he is right to raise those concerns. Over the coming weeks and months, he will see a range of different activities under way to ensure we are able to reach every corner of the United Kingdom, including those who are offline. I mentioned the radio, but I am happy to think more about how we can ensure that nobody is unable to access this important messaging. The hon. Member asked about the take-up figure. I said in my statement that I expected the campaign to run for three years, but I think it likely that messages of the kind that we are discussing today will continue in the longer term. The work that we are now launching in the United Kingdom is, in fact, done routinely in other parts of the world, and particularly with partners in Europe and Scandinavia. Such messaging is routine in most countries, and I anticipate that this sort of activity will take on a certain normality in the future. The hon. Member asked me about the alert. The decision to launch any alert is taken very carefully, and we weigh up a range of different risks. Whenever an alert is launched there is an extensive process of review. We are working through the detail of the most recent alert, and I shall be happy to discuss that further with the hon. Member and with other Members. The hon. Member was right to raise the need to ensure that the vulnerable and the elderly are properly accommodated in the context of the campaign. We have worked very hard with a range of stakeholder organisations, including local resilience forums, the voluntary sector and the British Red Cross, to ensure that vulnerable people are properly catered for. The hon. Member will have heard what I said earlier about the importance that we attach to people signing up for the priority services register. There is a job of work that I hope every Member will do, namely looking into their own communities and encouraging their constituents to engage with this messaging and specifically, when they think they might be eligible—the criterion is fairly broad—to sign up for the register. The hon. Member rightly mentioned cost of living pressures. I hope that he heard what I said about there not being a requirement for households to assemble all these items in one go: this is the kind of thing that people can do progressively, perhaps adding a single item to each weekly shop. Although many households will probably already have many of the items on the checklist, I hope that, through the process of this campaign, they will think about how they can draw those individual items together and be better prepared should an everyday emergency strike. We are acutely conscious of the cost of living pressures on households throughout the country, and we are determined to ensure that the campaign is carried out in a value-for-money way. The actual costs are relatively low, and we think that it is very good value for money, but we will ensure that that is the case. The hon. Member asked about cyber, an issue that I take extremely seriously, both in my remit as a Cabinet Office Minister and through the Home Office. As the hon. Member will know, earlier this year the Government published a landmark cyber action plan to overhaul public sector digital security. The next stage of that plan is the introduction of the national cyber action plan, which will drive up standards in businesses and the wider society. A great deal of activity is under way across Government, and I hope we can all get behind that collectively. Finally, the hon. Member mentioned defence spending. I genuinely welcome this debate, because I think it important for our national security. As the Prime Minister has said, the Government’s commitment to the defence of our country is unwavering. We have already delivered the biggest sustained boost to defence spending since the cold war, committing nearly £300 billion over the next four years. We will honour our NATO commitment to spend 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035, and will specify a target date for 3% in the spending review. We are also delivering on our commitment to NATO by spending 1.5% of our GDP on wider security and resilience. That includes protecting our critical national infrastructure, defending our networks, ensuring our civil preparedness and resilience, and unleashing innovation and strengthening our defence industrial base.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the important work that he does in chairing his Committee. The piece of work that he mentioned is significant, and we look forward keenly to his Committee’s findings. He rightly mentioned the three-year commitment that we have made. I think that is the right duration to aim for initially, but as I said, we now live in a world in which I expect we will need to have constant conversations of this nature with communities throughout the country, in line with our European partners, and with our allies around the world—and yes, I can absolutely give him the commitment that he seeks that we will update his Committee and the House.