partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Edward Argar

   Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

   Over many years, I have found that consultation done properly leaves very limited legal risk. Where Governments get it wrong—I do not want to overly speculate on what has happened with the Government’s consultations and process around local government reorganisation—the hon. Member is right that there is a potential for JRs, although I would highlight that a judicial review can focus only on process, not on whether the decision should be relitigated. If consultation is done well—I would have thought that consultation on this issue should be fairly simple—I believe it can enhance the transparency that is important in bringing our constituents with us and in ensuring that the Government are directly accountable to hon. and right hon. Members in this House. When the legislation is introduced, under our amendments as a regulation, that consultation is there to be drawn on. I genuinely believe—I have seen it for myself—that when a Government are willing to listen to a consultation response, they can, if they do things openly, often come up with a slightly better or tweaked outcome.

   Hansard source
2. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Edward Argar

   Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

   I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point, but he makes the same point, in a sense, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, and it is not what I am speaking about, which is the process. I do not believe that a consultation would tie councils up in knots or delay things inordinately, or indeed that introducing these changes through regulations rather than by diktat of the Secretary of State would cause unnecessary delays. This process is about transparency and accountability. We have done it before in Government; indeed, this Government have done it with regulations. I have sat on a number of DLs; maybe I have upset the Whips at some point, because I sit on a DL almost every week, when I am not sitting in a Bill Committee—such is the fate of a former Cabinet Minister on the Back Benches. However, the point I am making is that this Government and other Governments have used the delegated legislation system to get things through quickly but none the less with democratic accountability to this House. That is the point being made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington in these amendments. It is about giving our constituents the confidence to trust that this House has debated what the Secretary of State recommends. Knowing the majority in the House at the moment, I have no doubt that the Minister would easily win any votes in a DL on matters such as this.

   Hansard source
3. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Edward Argar

   Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

   The very simple fact that there would be no vote on it by Members of this House, regardless of whether that was in a Committee, which is of course a subset of the House where we can debate and raise issues. I have a lot of time for the hon. Lady. I spent almost 10 years sitting on her local council before I was elected to this place, and I still closely follow Westminster politics. Consequently, I know that she is a hard-working and diligent Member who engages with all these issues particularly closely. However, the simple answer to her question is that Members would not have a vote on the Secretary of State’s determination. With that, I will conclude by again reiterating my support for the intent behind the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington has tabled.

   Hansard source
4. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Edward Argar

   Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)

   As always, Mr Western, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I rise to support clause 13 remaining part of the Bill. With his typical eloquence, the Minister set out both the opportunities and challenges presented to those with shared ownership, including the regulatory challenges sitting around it. He also described the very real impact that it can have on those individuals—who are often starting off on the path to home ownership—when it does not work well. I therefore think that clause 13 is important. I do not in any way want to gainsay the important work that the Minister is doing. As I said this morning, I have a lot of respect for the Minister; he is extremely able and I know that he will be pursuing this work with vigour. However, I believe that a statutory review offers the opportunity for a much broader look at this issue in the round, and actions such as those that the Minister has outlined can sit under such a review perfectly reasonably. The two things are not in contradiction. A statutory review would not stop the Minister from continuing to pursue some of the immediate actions that he has already set out. It just provides an opportunity to take a step back and look at this important sector of home ownership to assess whether it is working well. Where there are things that the Government or the Minister may have missed—as diligent as I know him to be— it gives that extra opportunity. I know that the Minister has been very clear in his determination to continue pursuing shared ownership, as he set out in his written statement and in his announcement. However, I have to say that this Minister, in whom I have a lot of confidence, may not always be in this post. When he inevitably ascends to higher office, his successor may not be as focused on this issue as him. Therefore, I think that a statutory review as set out in clause 13 offers the opportunity to publish something that has been considered carefully, which Members of this House and future Ministers can then refer back to when considering the way forward. I do not think that it trammels the Minister’s freedom in deciding what to announce or his discretion in any way; it would just be a very important addition.

   Hansard source
5. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Edward Argar

   Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)

   The hon. Lady amplifies what I have already said about the Minister. Before I do his political career too much harm by being too nice about him in front of his Whip, I have been very clear in my respect for the Minister and the work he is doing. However, as we have seen in previous Governments—not only Conservative but Labour Governments since 2024—Ministers come and go with an alarming rapidity. When something is as important as this is to so many people, there must be something underpinning it. Whether Ministers move—in this Minister’s case, I hope he ascends—or whether they leave Government, it is important that whoever succeeds that office and its responsibilities has something on which they can hang their hat and plan their strategy. That is why I think that a review would not be a hindrance to any Minister or Government. Actually, it could be of great help, not least in potentially giving the opportunity to objectively consider some of the issues that the hon. Lady has just raised further.

   Hansard source
6. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Edward Argar

   Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)

   It is always a pleasure to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am seeking to make the point that this review has the potential to underpin a much longer-term approach to this important sector. That is why the clause is important. I do not see the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington as in contradiction to that, but rather as complementary to it. There may be a question about phasing and how it works, but I do not believe that that is a reason not to retain the clause for what it seeks to do. The Minister is always a reflective man, so I hope that he will reflect on that carefully.

   Hansard source
7. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Edward Argar

   Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)

   On that basis, is the Minister prepared to commit—whether explicitly in the Bill or not—to the Government’s launching a formal review of this?

   Hansard source
8. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Edward Argar

   Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)

   I will speak briefly to this grouping, simply to reiterate what the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, has just said. In a Bill of this sort, there is inevitably much that we will to-and-fro across this Committee about and disagree on. However, throughout my time as Victims Minister, and under the new Government now, there has been significant consensus about a shared desire, on both sides of the House, to make progress in supporting victims of domestic violence and domestic abuse. I therefore just reiterate my hon. Friend’s and my party’s support for what the Minister seeks to do here. There is genuinely a high degree of consensus on this group; we want to move forward and make that difference.

   Hansard source
9. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Luke Evans

   Draft Renewables Obligation and Electricity Capacity (Amendment) (British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme Excluded Electricity) Regulations 2026

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. It is also a pleasure to be opposite the Minister. We last met at MIRA in my constituency to talk about some of these issues that affect the automotive industry. He will be pleased to hear that I will not be dividing the Committee, as it is welcome news that the Government are looking at ways to reduce costs on businesses. That being said, there are some fundamental questions about the regulations that need to be raised. The Government have correctly identified high energy costs as a major obstacle to British manufacturing, but their response seems to be to create a complicated system of exemptions that help selected businesses while leaving the majority facing uncompetitive costs. In essence, we need cheaper electricity for British industry in its entirety, so why are we effectively creating winners and losers, leaving the underlying problem unresolved? The question is: who ultimately pays? There is legitimate concern that households or businesses that are excluded from the scheme may face higher costs. Also, why are so many businesses excluded? The eligibility rules favour selected manufacturing sectors, leaving other businesses to face higher energy bills. Why is the scheme unnecessarily complicated, with several tiers setting out the percentage a business can claim back? And fundamentally, does it address the real underlying problem? The Minister has again pointed out that we have high industrial costs, some of the highest in the world. If BICS carves selected manufacturing out of existing electricity policy costs, that is welcome for them, and the Minister spoke repeatedly about those who are eligible. What about those who are not eligible? The Conservatives would get rid of the renewables obligation for every business, which would help every business. That brings me to a couple of questions I have for the Minister. What we have to think about is the wider economy, so I am glad he is double-hatted and can look at businesses, too. What about pubs, restaurants, corner shops and the manufacturers that are not in the selected 10,000 given special treatment? What guarantee is there that those outside BICS will see no temporary or permanent rise in their energy bills? The Government have accepted that carbon price support is no longer fit for purpose, and we agree. They accept that abolishing it will reduce electricity costs, and they intend to use the savings to offset the costs created by BICS. If removing carbon price support reduces electricity costs and helps finance industrial relief, why wait until April 2028? Why retain these wider carbon costs and continue to feed them into electricity prices? The question really is: why is CPS being retained through 2027-28 when BICS starts in 2027? That leads us on to the fundamental final question, and it is interesting with the Budget coming tomorrow: how much additional Exchequer funding is required for 2027-28 specifically because carbon price support will not be abolished until April 2028? These are clearly fundamental differences between the Opposition and the Government. We favour a plan that would reduce costs for all businesses, not the lucky selected few.

   Hansard source
10. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·David Reed

    Defence and Security: European Partners

    In recent months, our European allies have become increasingly forthright in publicly naming hostile states responsible for attacks on their countries, yet Britain appears reluctant to do the same, even though the Foreign Secretary has spoken very clearly about hybrid war. Over the weekend, it was reported that the crippling cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover was state sponsored. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that failing to publicly attribute such attacks only emboldens our adversaries and, more importantly, will he now name the state believed to be responsible for this unprecedented attack on British industry?

    Hansard source
11. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·David Reed

    Strengthening Community Resilience

    The Minister will know how much I want the Government’s Be Ready campaign to succeed—I have shared my views with him at length—because the threats are real and increasing. But if the Government are going to ask people to stock up on tinned food and wind-up radios, they must be honest when we are attacked. The shadow Minister raised the case of Jaguar Land Rover, and the fact that the former Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), said at the weekend that the incident was state sponsored. That is incredibly serious, so can the Minister use this opportunity to tell the House which state was responsible?

    Hansard source
12. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Topical Questions

    T9. Given the increasing evidence of hybrid attacks by Russia on British targets, will the Foreign Secretary rule out shaking hands with Sergey Lavrov at the upcoming G20?

    Hansard source
13. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Charlie Dewhirst

    Strengthening Community Resilience

    I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and join him in sending my condolences to the families of the two men who lost their lives in the storms over the weekend. We welcome measures to address the resilience gap—a process that started under the previous Government, as the Minister said. I am a little surprised that the Housing Secretary’s suggestion of stockpiling sauvignon blanc has not been taken on board by the Minister, but it is absolutely right that the Government tell people to be prepared for adversity. However, I have a number of questions that I hope he will be able to address this afternoon. First, the Government’s Be Ready campaign website lists 18 hazards, ranging from terrorism and adverse weather to animal and plant health and fires in the home. Which of those 18 hazards do the Government consider to be the highest risk, and have there been any recent changes to risk assessments that led to the launch of this campaign? Secondly, how do the Government plan to reach people who are digitally excluded, and will they be distributing printed resources? Not only are such resources vital for those who are digitally excluded, they could become a lifeline for anyone who is unable to access the internet at the time of an incident. In his statement, the Minister rightly pointed out that only 13% of people in the UK feel they are prepared for an emergency. This is in stark contrast to other countries, such as Spain, where I believe the figure is just below 70%. Can the Minister tell the House whether he has a specific take-up figure that he would like to achieve by the end of the Be Ready campaign? I now come to the issue of costs. We all know that times are tough for people right across the country, so how much do the Government expect this preparedness to cost the average family, and how much do they expect to spend on this campaign over the next three years? It has been reported that since the Government announced the campaign last week, supermarkets have seen water and baked beans sell out, as well as a run on wind-up radios and torches. Did the Government communicate with major supermarkets and other retailers to prepare them before they made this announcement, or was it just dropped on them? With reference to emergency response coverage, the most important thing across the nation is that we have a joined-up approach, so that nobody is left behind. We cannot have a postcode lottery of an emergency response system, so can the Minister tell the House how he is working with the devolved Administrations across the four nations, and how he is working with local authorities? The Government became familiar with the emergency alert system over the summer after using it to warn people about disposable barbecues. Has the Minister reflected since then and made any assessment of the threshold for future use of the system, and of how many people may have turned off their emergency alert capability following its use in August? Next, I would like to address vulnerable people, and what consideration the Government have made of them in the Be Ready campaign. How will the Government ensure that our vulnerable, our elderly, people with illness, parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities, and others are effectively communicated with and supported in a time of emergency? This cannot vary from place to place. Turning to national security, the former Defence Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), said this week that the cyber-attack that caused £2.1 billion of damage to Jaguar Land Rover last year was a state-sponsored attack. First, Jaguar Land Rover deserves to know whether it was a state-sponsored attack, and I hope the Government have told it. Secondly, can the Government say whether there needs to be more awareness among businesses that they are at risk from these types of attacks, and what more are they doing to support our critical national infrastructure with cyber-resilience and cyber-security? The Government have claimed that defence spending will reach 2.7% of GDP by the end of 2028. Considering the valuable work of our intelligence services, can the Minister confirm that the entire single intelligence account is included in that figure, and can he explain how this fits with the NATO definition of defence spending? Finally, the Government have refused to confirm whether improving broadband infrastructure is included in the classification of critical infrastructure for the purposes of reporting against the additional 1.5% NATO commitment. Can the Minister clarify today that improving broadband infrastructure does not contribute to the NATO spending commitment? In conclusion, we welcome the continuation of the previous Conservative Government’s efforts to address the resilience gap. We will support the Government where appropriate, and look forward to scrutinising the Be Ready campaign as it progresses.

    Hansard source
14. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Bradley Thomas

    Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4 Report: Government Response

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. Some here will be aware of the tragic case in Bromsgrove of NHS pharmacist John Cross, who developed paralysing complications after receiving a covid injection. The effects began two weeks after the vaccine and John was then hospitalised for seven months. He worked hard on his recovery through private physio and, under medical advice, applied to the vaccine damage payment scheme, where he was deemed to be 55% disabled, therefore falling short of the 60% requirement for qualification. A few months later, John tragically took his own life. Ater a gruelling five-year legal challenge by his family during a time when they should have been grieving the loss of their husband, father and grandfather, the decision was finally overturned. The Cross family is clear: the current vaccine compensation scheme is failing victims. The Government have repeatedly stated that they are evaluating options to reform the VDPS, yet no official timescale has been set for making a decision on any alterations or recommendations for a change. That is unacceptable. It leaves victims and their families trapped in a state of anxiety and uncertainty. Will the Government publish a timescale for conducting their review of the vaccine damage payment scheme, and the changes that they intend to implement to ensure certainty for victims? Having received fewer than 800 applications in the decade before covid-19, it is clear that the VDPS needs to adapt to respond to the significant increase in applications from those affected by covid-19 vaccines. Since the covid-19 pandemic began, the number of claims made has risen significantly, with more than 24,000 claims relating to covid-19 alone, yet despite that stark rise, just over 1% have received the tax-free payment. John Cross was part of the forgotten 99% until his family fought for justice. Do the Government believe that the 60% threshold is still appropriate, and is the binary yes or no process that awards a flat-rate payment for successful claims still fit for purpose? Has any consideration been given to the introduction of a tiered compensation framework that implements varying thresholds for payment amounts based on case-specific circumstances, such as the severity of the damage and long-term care requirements? The Cross family is one tragic story among many. I stress that I am pro-vaccine, as are the Cross family, but there must be clear accountability for severe side effects that people have suffered. Those impacted must receive the help that they are owed, particularly after they followed Government advice. The Cross family have always been unequivocal that their fight has never been about money. No amount will bring John back. To them, it has always been about accountability, the ability to give others in similar situations hope, and the need to change a system that effectively told a man that he was not disabled enough. I am proud to support the Cross family, and I will continue to do that until they receive the justice that they deserve.

    Hansard source
15. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Bradley Thomas

    Topical Questions

    Last year, the Intelligence and Security Committee concluded that Iran poses a widespread, persistent and unpredictable threat, and the director of MI5 has reported that the intelligence services have tracked at least 20 serious plots linked to Iran. Can the Secretary of State update the House on the Government’s assessment of the domestic threat posed by Iran? What diplomatic steps are being taken to tackle it?

    Hansard source
16. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    New clause 5 closes an anomaly that dates back to 1973, under which Commonwealth and Irish citizens living in the country when the Immigration Act 1971 came into force are protected from deportation by section 7, however serious their conduct. The new clause would let the Home Secretary decide that such a person is liable to deportation where they have been or could have been deprived of citizenship on conduct grounds. We support it and amendment 47, which brings it into force on Royal Assent. The Conservative plan is to deport all foreign criminals. Not some of them—all of them. Any measure that removes a barrier to deportation is a step in that direction. New clause 5 is indeed a step in the right direction, but it is such a small step that it is challenging to see that it will make a noticeable impact. It is a personal discretion, not a duty, for the Home Secretary. Every person it covers will still be able to resist removal under article 8 and article 3, through the Human Rights Act 1998. Compare that with the much more robust new clause 45, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), which would mean automatic deportation for every foreign national convicted of an offence. That is what our borders plan means by deporting all foreign criminals. For the purposes of the debate, I have three questions for the Minister. How many people do the Government estimate are protected by section 7 and could be made liable to deportation under new clause 5? What is the Government’s legal assessment of the clause’s reliance on conduct before commencement? How will the power apply to Irish citizens, given the common travel area, and have the Irish Government been consulted on the measure? We will support Government new clause 5, but if the Government accept the principle that dangerous people should not be protected from deportation by legal technicalities, I hope they will support our new clauses in that regard too.

    Hansard source
17. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    New clause 32 rewrites the exception to automatic deportation for foreign criminals who are victims of trafficking. At present, section 33(6A) of the UK Borders Act 2007 disapplies automatic deportation where removal would breach our obligations under the Council of Europe trafficking convention. The new clause would replace that with a test based on leave under section 65 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, including where the Home Secretary merely intends to grant such leave, even where she is under no duty to do so. A criminal conviction should trigger automatic deportation, and those deported as foreign criminals should not be able to make protection claims to stop that deportation. New clause 32 keeps a route by which a foreign criminal can avoid automatic deportation and it widens the discretion to use it. I am sure nobody in this Committee wants genuine victims of trafficking to be left unsupported, but in clause 38, the Government accept that people who pose a threat to public order should be disqualified from protection. Why, then, keep the exception to automatic deportation for people who have been convicted of crimes here? Why widen the range of cases where there is no duty to grant leave at all? How many foreign criminals relied on the trafficking exemption in each of the past three years? In what circumstances would the Home Secretary intend to grant leave under section 65 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 where there is no duty to do so? How many foreign criminals do the Government expect to benefit? Unless the Minister can show that this exception will be rare and tightly controlled, it is a back door through which foreign criminals will continue to avoid removal.

    Hansard source
18. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    New clause 33 makes the Immigration Services Commissioner’s penalties, refund orders and compensation orders enforceable as court orders across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland. These are technical improvements and we support them. Rogue immigration advisers do real damage. They take money from vulnerable people, and, too often, they coach claims designed not to establish the truth but to delay removal, including the late claim lodged the night before a flight, and the fresh claim built on a story that has changed. We would end immigration legal aid and limit judicial review to cases where the Home Office has acted outside its powers, which would remove much of the market that these advisers exploit. In the meantime, the regulator should have teeth. How many penalties has the commissioner imposed in the last three years, how much has actually been recovered and how many prosecutions for giving unregulated immigration advice have there been? As I said, we support this move, but I look forward to the Minister’s response.

    Hansard source
19. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    Mr Twigg, you and the Committee members will be pleased to hear that this will be the shortest speech of the day. The new clause adds the Bill, once enacted, to the list of “the Immigration Acts”. It is a technical provision, and we do not oppose it.

    Hansard source
20. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Blake Stephenson

    Topical Questions

    T4. Last year, more than 7,500 Eritrean nationals entered the UK illegally on small boats. Following talks to persuade Eritrea to accept the return of those illegal immigrants, the Eritrean embassy dismissed threats of visa sanctions as “a perfunctory political gimmick”. Will the Minister please update the House on what she is doing to apply diplomatic pressure to countries such as Eritrea that refuse to take back illegal immigrants?

    Hansard source
21. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Topical Questions

    I have had a great deal of trouble getting a straight answer from the Government on this for some months now, so I will give it one more go: on what specific date in August 2024 was Jonathan Powell appointed as the Prime Minister’s special envoy to the British Indian Ocean Territory?

    Hansard source
22. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Topical Questions

    On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On the question I have just asked the Foreign Secretary, I have asked several times for a straight answer about the appointment of Jonathan Powell. I put in a freedom of information request on 23 June. That FOI was delayed to 22 July, then to 20 August, then to 18 September, then to 18 October and then again to 13 November. What can I do to get a straight answer from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, given that it has now been delaying a response to an FOI for five months?

    Hansard source
23. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Strengthening Community Resilience

    Our subsea infrastructure is incredibly important; we know from recent reports that the Russians have been sniffing around it in their GUGI submarines, and that Russian trawlers have been investigating our undersea infrastructure. I am very concerned that we have only one UK-based and UK-flagged repair ship, the CS Sovereign, which is due to go out of service in 2030. Six months ago, I asked the former Department for Science, Innovation and Technology what it was doing to investigate replacing that capability. Could the Minister give us assurance about the Government’s plans to ensure that we have UK-based and UK-flagged repair capability for our subsea infrastructure?

    Hansard source
24. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Alicia Kearns

    Foreign Interference in Democratic Processes

    Moscow ships stalk our cables, Tehran’s agents seek to assassinate on our soil, and last week the Pentagon declared Confucius institutes a threat to our national security. In stark contrast, the powers I secured to allow these weapons of the Chinese Communist party to be closed here in the UK were scrapped by this Government. Does the Foreign Secretary think that Washington has got it wrong, and if not, will the powers be reinstated and deployed? While he is at it, will he expel every Iranian official with links to the Ministry of Intelligence and Security and bring our allies together to freeze Russian and Belarusian tourist visas to protect us from their use to attack our country?

    Hansard source
25. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Warinder Juss

    Prostate Cancer Screening

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. The early stage of prostate cancer frequently produces no symptoms, which means many men are diagnosed only after the cancer has progressed. Screening offers the possibility of detecting the disease before symptoms develop. The strongest case for targeted screening is for high-risk men. That includes black men, who are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer as non-black men—one in four black men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer during their lifetime—and they face a higher risk of dying from the disease. Equal treatment is not necessarily equitable treatment, because black men face a substantially higher risk of developing and dying from prostate cancer. Prostate cancer screening should certainly be available to all black men. My constituent Simeon Greene shared his experience of prostate cancer and the devastating impact the disease can have on black men and their families. He is a black man of African-Caribbean heritage and the youngest of four brothers. Tragically, all four brothers were diagnosed with prostate cancer before the age of 50, and all three of Simeon’s brothers have now died from the disease. The impact on his family has extended to the next generation; the son of Simeon’s eldest brother was diagnosed with prostate cancer at the age of just 39. His family’s experience demonstrates the devastating consequences of prostate cancer, particularly when it affects men at such a young age. We owe it to families like Simeon’s to amplify efforts to raise awareness, encourage early conversations about prostate cancer, and improve earlier detection and access to appropriate care. No family should have to endure what Simeon’s family has. We also need to provide greater support for trusted community organisations, which can play a vital role in raising awareness of prostate cancer and encouraging men to seek advice. The Wolves Foundation in my constituency recently hosted an event which used the reach of football to get men talking about the disease. They worked with local NHS specialists and those with personal experience of prostate cancer.

    Hansard source
26. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Warinder Juss

    Performance of Royal Mail

    We have heard repeatedly that Royal Mail has failed for a number of years and that Ofcom has repeatedly fined Royal Mail to no effect. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should look not at how Royal Mail might go out of business, but perhaps at a new business model for Royal Mail to take over? That might just be the renationalisation of Royal Mail.

    Hansard source
27. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Torcuil Crichton

    Securing Scotland’s Future: Defence Skills and Jobs

    I thank the Chair for the report, which is one of many valuable reports that have come from the Scottish Affairs Committee under her leadership. I welcome it in particular as it relates to unlocking the potential of SMEs in Scotland, which, according to the report, currently receive less than 0.078% of MOD spending. I was pleased recently to see the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry launch Project Safari at the MOD Hebrides range, which will make it easier and simpler for SMEs to access test and evaluation facilities here in the UK. Does the Chair agree that the 50 highly skilled jobs at the Hebrides range and the vast area of the Atlantic that it offers for test and evaluation are an invaluable contribution to the defence capability of this country and will help unlock the potential of Scottish SMEs to grow?

    Hansard source
28. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Torcuil Crichton

    Performance of Royal Mail

    On the universal service point, there are huge disparities across the country. A Consumer Scotland report recently laid bare the deep divisions, with quality of service in HS postcodes—Na h-Eileanan an Iar, the Hebrides—standing at 59% whereas across the UK it is 76%, and of course the Royal Mail target is 90%. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a danger of fragmenting the service, and that commercial priorities take over and rural communities are left behind? If there is to be a service, it has to be a universal service, not a postcode lottery across the UK.

    Hansard source
29. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tom Rutland

    Topical Questions

    Many of my constituents have raised the issue of antisocial behaviour and dangerous riding by people on e-bikes, particularly in Southwick, Shoreham and Lancing. What is the Secretary of State’s Department doing to crack down on such behaviour, which is blighting the lives of many people in my constituency?

    Hansard source
30. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tom Rutland

    Civil Service Pensions

    I have raised in the Chamber previously the appalling delays that my constituents are experiencing in gaining access to their civil service pensions. Those delays continue. Another problem they are experiencing is that if they do not agree with the amount that they receive when they finally receive it, there is no response to their concerns from Capita and, indeed, no response to my correspondence on their behalf. Will the Minister raise with Capita the need for it to respond, as a matter of urgency, to my constituents who are receiving lower amounts than they expected, and to make corrections where necessary?

    Hansard source
31. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tom Hayes

    Police Funding Formula

    9. What progress she has made on reforming the police funding formula.

    Hansard source
32. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tom Hayes

    Police Funding Formula

    I thank the Minister for that response. I want more funding for policing, as well as the fairer allocation of it, to tackle the issues blighting Bournemouth, whether illegal e-bike use or ketamine use. I thank the Minister for agreeing, in writing today, to meet constituents whose lives have been deeply affected by that drug. I understand why police reform and funding formula reform go hand in glove, but can I urge the Minister, as we move forward with those reforms, to do everything she can to minimise the number of consultations needed to achieve fairer funding for Dorset? The longer we have to wait, the longer Dorset is at a disadvantage.

    Hansard source
33. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tom Collins

    Rough Sleeping and Good Growth Funds

    In Worcester, I recently hosted a summit attended by representatives of over 30 organisations, from the national Government to regional agencies and authorities, and all the way to local charities and churches, which all pledged to work together to end rough sleeping in Worcester. One outcome of that summit was that it was clear that we need not only more resources, which are incredibly welcome; we also need to change the way of working. When people are affected by long-term ill health or disabilities, or the effects of crime and trauma, they need holistic support delivered relationally. This cuts across all Government Departments and services. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we might roll out, across Government, a change that wraps around people?

    Hansard source
34. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sureena Brackenridge

    Prostate Cancer Screening

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I start by offering my thoughts to all those in Wolverhampton North East and beyond who have lost loved ones to prostate cancer or who are themselves living with it, and their families. We owe it to them and to the men still at risk to do more to find this disease earlier. Finding prostate cancer early can save lives. In Wolverhampton North East, more than one in five of those men were diagnosed at a late stage, when their cancer was harder to treat or even incurable. That is why I welcome England’s first targeted prostate cancer screening programme, but we must ensure that it is rolled out promptly and that we move to target all high-risk men, in order to reach those who need it most. I am particularly concerned about the data that shows that one in four black men will develop the disease, while men whose father or brother have already had it are about two and a half times more likely to develop it than other men. That is why I was proud to support the launch of the Saving Black Men’s Lives manifesto at Molineux, led by Prostate Cancer UK and the West Midlands Cancer Alliance. Brothers Reaching Out for Support and its founder, Junior Hemans, as well as lots of campaigners and patient advocates, shared their devastating experiences. Since then, the Government have announced around £20 million for prostate cancer research and treatment, including plans to expand the Transform research trial. Will the Minister set out a clear timetable for the screening programme, explain how eligible men will be identified and outline what more is being done to raise awareness among higher risk groups and help GPs discuss risk proactively?

    Hansard source
35. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sureena Brackenridge

    Road Traffic Collision Reporting: Cats

    Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a simple act of responsibility, requiring drivers to report collisions, could prevent suffering of injured animals, as well as give families and owners closure over what has happened to their much-loved family pets?

    Hansard source
36. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sureena Brackenridge

    Performance of Royal Mail

    On behalf of my residents across Wolverhampton North East, I put on record our sheer frustration and disappointment about the delayed post. One constituent, Terry, told me that he received letters six weeks late and that 48-hour mail was delivered over a month late. Residents are frustrated that a service they have relied on for decades is no longer delivering the reliability that they expect. Vital correspondence, such as NHS appointment letters, is arriving too late, and delays to letters relied on for finances, such as bank cards, are causing anxiety. Residents deserve a postal service they can rely on. This situation is the fault not of posties and frontline workers, who are bearing the brunt, but of the decisions made by the bosses, who need to be held accountable. Recently, I visited Royal Mail’s Sun Street delivery office alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss). We saw some incredibly hard-working staff, but we also heard about the growing use of the five-day economy service by large organisations, including the NHS, banks and utility companies. That means that letters are being held and delivered together through residents’ letterboxes in large batches. That does not explain every delay, and it must not become an excuse for failing to deliver the service that people deserve. Residents need honest answers about what is going wrong and what is being done to put it right. Our posties, sorting staff and frontline workers must not be made the scapegoat. They work hard, often under immense pressure, to serve our communities. The CWU has raised concerns about bogus self-employment in the wider parcel delivery sector, where some companies can cut costs while workers lose out on employment protections. We need a level playing field where companies compete on service and reliability, not by driving down workers’ rights. I welcome the Government’s consultation on employment status reform, but we need robust rules and effective enforcement to ensure that these protections mean something in practice. Royal Mail management must also take responsibility, and I will continue to work closely with local CWU reps and staff across the delivery and sorting offices to monitor performance, support our workforce and challenge management to deliver improvements. Our postal service matters to every community, and I have heard that from across the House tonight. I ask the Minister a simple question: when residents are let down and frontline workers are under pressure, is this not yet another example of the failures of privatisation, and what will the Government do to ensure that the public interest comes first?

    Hansard source
37. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Steve Race

    Rough Sleeping and Good Growth Funds

    I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am very proud patron of Exeter’s local homelessness charity, St Petrock’s. I was very grateful for the opportunity to join the Minister this morning at the No. 10 rough sleeping summit to set out Exeter’s experiences, as we have one of the highest and increasing levels of rough sleeping in the country. The Prime Minister made the point that we need to treat people as people, not as numbers. That is absolutely the way of local charities, like CoLab and St Petrock’s, which know these people individually, and they should lead the way. Does the Minister agree that statutory services, like the NHS and the Prison Service, really need to step up and come on this journey with us, too?

    Hansard source
38. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Sonia Kumar

    Topical Questions

    The police funding formula disadvantages towns such as Dudley. We know that visible policing in town centres is essential when rebuilding public trust. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the formula needs updating to deliver fairer funding to Dudley, and that residents in St James’s should vote on 29 October for our Labour candidate Caroline Reid, who champions safer streets?

    Hansard source
39. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Shabana Mahmood

    Small Boat Crossings: Removal of Arrivals

    Small boat returns under this Government are at a record high, and our Immigration and Asylum Bill will help us to remove people faster than ever before. This Government are dealing with the small boats crisis left by the previous Government. Small boat crossings are down, and removals are at record highs.

    Hansard source
40. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Shabana Mahmood

    Small Boat Crossings: Removal of Arrivals

    Under this Government, small boat returns have increased. This is a crisis that began on the Conservative Government’s watch and got worse under the Conservative party; this Government are fixing the mess that they left behind.

    Hansard source