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 3 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,012 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Iran is tiptoeing towards a bomb. It is an existential threat for our friend and ally Israel. I cannot understand how glad-handing the despotic Tehranian regime and making fake TikTok videos in New York helps world peace. Surely we can do more.
<Question HRSContentId="{2EAD7D9D-67B4-4D65-B858-2C887C88C463}">T7. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{81E057D4-6AC2-4B0D-A382-EF2ADF814AB5}"></QuestionText>The Foreign Office facilitated a trip to Dublin for the Scottish First Minister, John Swinney. There, he met the egregious Mary Lou McDonald of Sinn Féin to discuss the break-up of Britain. Why are British taxpayers paying for such nonsense?</Question>
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) on picking up the mantle and securing this debate. It gives us an important opportunity to debate the merits of recognising the importance of the production and serving of cask ale, as an example of our living cultural heritage. This debate has been all one way so far and I will not be changing that. Cask ale is more than a drink; it reflects the combination of craftmanship, knowledge, tradition and community. Cask is produced by hundreds of small breweries, often using British hops and malt. My own county of Norfolk has a fine real ale brewing tradition, with our first-class malted barley. I should mention Duration Brewing in West Acre and its Grasshopper beer, which I was enjoying last weekend. As we have just celebrated Trafalgar Day, I also mention Woodforde’s Nelson’s Revenge.<span id="68WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="68WH"></span> As CAMRA, which does so much to champion it, says, cask ale is synonymous with our great British pub. Its significance lies not only in what is brewed, but in the craftmanship involved, in how it is made and served, and in how it brings people together. Because the final conditioning happens at the pub, both the brewer and the publican must have specialist knowledge. Much of that knowledge is practical and acquired through experience, and skills are often passed through generations. It is precisely that kind of living knowledge that intangible cultural heritage seeks to recognise and protect. Our brewing traditions reflect our local areas and local beer styles. By taking this step of recognition, we could safeguard a living tradition that has helped shape the cultural and social life of Britain for generations. The opportunity to recognise cask ale under the UNESCO convention follows its ratification by the last Conservation Government in 2024. I was talking to my noble Friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, who personally secured the ratification to support awareness of heritage and potentially increase demand across our country. For cask ale, such awareness could help support inward tourism—we have heard about the importance that people attach to the experience of a pint in a pub across the country. This debate comes at a time when the sector is facing challenges, as we have heard. SIBA has reported a 20% reduction in cask consumption year on year—part of a longer-term decline. Despite that, it is worth noting that smaller independent brewers are finding success in the sector—compared to some of the larger breweries that are withdrawing from the market. We heard a passionate speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) railing against Carlsberg’s recent decision. Breweries benefitting from small brewer relief now account for 58% of the cask market—up from 40% a decade ago. Small brewer success is centred on local pubs, community spaces and taprooms offering experiences that people want to go and enjoy. It is also important to recognise the role that beer festivals play in supporting cask ale, by introducing new people to the delights and the taste of cask ale. The Norwich beer festival is this week, and I heartily recommend it to everyone. I am planning to be there because I will be part of the judging panel for the champion bottled beer of Britain. It is hard work, but someone has to do it. Tomorrow, we have the Budget. UK beer duty is the second highest in Europe—nearly 12 times more than most of our European counterparts. The Prime Minister has talked about giving everyone breathing space, as well as pork scratchings. The practical way to do that would be to increase draught relief, as a number of hon. Members have referred to, which was introduced by the last Government. Along with many members of the all-party parliamentary beer group, I have signed a letter to the Chancellor calling on him to freeze beer duty and to increase draught relief to 30%, which would take 10p off a pint. We also need to see action on business rates, employment costs and energy prices. Cask ale culture has been submitted as an expression of interest, strongly backed by the 40,000 people who signed the petition and by hon. Members across the House. The Government have said that the panel is reviewing that submission. Can the Minister tell us <span id="69WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="69WH"></span>when she expects a final decision to be taken? Will she also confirm how the Government intend to meet the requirements under articles 13 to 15, regarding measures to safeguard living heritage? Such recognition for cask ale would show that cultural heritage is not simply about buildings and monuments; it is about traditions, customs and our communities.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) on securing this debate. He has pressed this issue for many years under Conservative and Labour Governments and he deserves credit for his persistence. I want to begin where the inquiry did: with success. Baroness Hallett described the UK’s vaccine development as one of the success stories of the pandemic, and I am <span id="128WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="128WH"></span>proud of the leading role that the Conservative Government played in that. They backed vaccines early and, at risk, set up the vaccine taskforce under Kate Bingham. On 2 December 2020, the UK became the first country in the world to approve the Pfizer vaccine. In 2021, some 132 million doses were given—the largest vaccination programme in our history. The credit belongs to the scientists, the NHS workers, the pharmacists, the 360,000 volunteers who signed up for trials and the public. The inquiry’s report is not only a story of success, though. Its five recommendations set out what must be done better, and the Government’s response, published on 16 October, needs scrutiny. The Government agreed with recommendation 4, which is about having faster access to health data so that the MHRA can monitor vaccine safety, but say they will need “significant investment over time”. There is no timeline or funding promise. Reports to the yellow card scheme rose by 75% between 2020 and 2022, which shows that people are willing to report. The system must be able to act on what they tell it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, recommendation 5 is where the response is weakest. The inquiry said the Government “must reform the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme as soon as possible.” It set out a minimum of four reforms: raise the £120,000 payment, at least in line with inflation, and uprate it annually; introduce multiple levels of payment, according to the degree of injury; and provide fair transitional arrangements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) said, the Government’s response gives no date, no figure and no commitment to any of those recommendations. Meanwhile the cost of administering the scheme rose from £8.9 million in 2022-23 to £29.2 million in 2025-26. It cost around £83 million across four years. By my reckoning, awards over the same period came to about £31 million. A scheme that spends more than twice as much on administration as on compensation is not working for taxpayers or the claimants. My right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) ordered a review of the scheme before the last election, and I wish it had concluded sooner. But this Government have now had more than two years. I concede that on this occasion, the Government kept their word and responded within six months, but a response delivered on time is not the same as a response that commits to anything and, as I say, there is still no timetable. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) so eloquently put it, vaccine confidence matters. The best way to protect it is to show that when something goes wrong, the state stands behind the person. The vaccine programme was a success. Let us make sure that the system built around it is worthy of that success. I have a number of questions to ask the Minister. First, will the Government set out a timetable for their review of the vaccine damage payment scheme and the reforms they intend to make? Secondly, which of the inquiry’s four minimum reforms will the Government commit to? Thirdly, will they look again at the 60% threshold, set performance targets for processing claims and bring administration costs under control? Fourthly, will they strengthen the yellow card scheme with funding <span id="129WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="129WH"></span>commitments and a date for the health data framework? Fifthly, will the Minister meet with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), who has been seeking a meeting for a long time? Finally, will the Minister bring forward proposals before Second Reading of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, which, as he mentioned, is scheduled on 15 January? My hon. Friend and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
In any emergency, communication is key. In answering the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) earlier, the Minister talked about restoring mobile services if they had been damaged in a storm, for example. But that rather misses the point for the villages that my right hon. Friend mentioned and the villages in my constituency, such as Cuddington and Bryants Bottom, that have no mobile signal right now. Through this resilience work, what more can the right hon. Gentleman do, with other Government Departments, to speed up delivery of the shared rural network and get those rural notspots the connectivity they need and deserve?
Order. I will begin calling the Front Benchers at 5.08 pm, so if everybody is reasonably disciplined, each Back-Bench speaker can have four minutes.
Last but not least, Esther McVey, who I will have to limit to three minutes.
Order. Could we concentrate on the covid-19 inquiry module 4 report?
Order. Could you please refer to Members of Parliament by their seat? You have been here quite some time, so you should probably know that.
His trial was unfair, and the 20-year sentence extension was arbitrary and outrageous—will the Secretary of State now unequivocally say that Ryan Cornelius should be released?
<Question HRSContentId="{E79929E3-325C-4FE8-A105-B776B0E6957E}">3. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{B0D615AA-1202-4C61-A034-69F68BEB51D8}">What assessment his Department has made of the level of strategic importance of the polar regions.</QuestionText> </Question>
It is good to be back. Given the accelerating rate of Arctic sea ice melt, we are not many years away from an ice-free summer in the Arctic, with huge implications for sea levels, ocean currents and weather systems, and growing commercial pressures for exploitation in the Arctic. Having been the Minister with responsibility for the British Antarctic Survey, I am delighted again to be chairing the APPG for the polar regions and to have joined the Minister at the Arctic Circle Assembly. Does she agree that in both the Arctic and the Antarctic, we are on the frontline of not only some very important science for global planetary sustainability, but geo-diplomacy and technology, with an increasing wild west, which this country has a major role to play in helping to regulate and convene good players in?
I echo the Minister’s welcome: it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. This Bill fails the British people. It effectively destroys right to buy for millions of families. It does nothing to free up stock for British nationals. It fails to introduce efficient stock management regulations. Most egregiously, it fails to build a single social home—a point completely missed by the Government and the Liberal Democrats. In scrutinising the Bill line by line, it is critically important that we defend aspiration and refocus the debate on the delivery of new homes. I will speak to new clauses 55 and 57 and amendments 84 and 85, in my name. On new clause 55, in the past, Conservative Government-backed schemes such as Help to Buy and stamp duty discounts made a real difference to people buying their first home, and helped about 1 million first-time buyers to get on to the housing ladder. That contributed to 800,000 people buying their first home under the previous Government. However, since 2024 the Government have not shown that they <span id="7" class="column-number" data-column-number="7"></span>have the aspiration to match that. Instead, they have cut a lot of the products that turbocharged first-time buyers getting on to the housing ladder. Even when the Government try to support young people into property ownership, it emerges that all that glisters is not gold. I am primarily referring to the Your First Home scheme—a policy limited to new homes and expected to be constrained by income caps. Young people, especially young people in social housing, deserve better than that.
It rather depends on the detail, but if the income caps that we hear about in the press are even remotely accurate, we can rule out the whole of Greater London and the south-east of England, because people will not be able to access the financing. That would be yet another example of the Government pretending to do something without actually doing it, but we await the detail on that. Right to buy is not a shameful practice, nor is it an exercise in capitalistic greed. It is a hand up on to the housing ladder for those in need, and an extension in the fundamental rights of property. New clause 55 would help realise that for young people. After all, it is critical that more is done to help young people to buy their first home. They face the greatest barriers to home ownership of any recent generation, and yet the Government’s answer is to cut one of their only routes to property ownership. We believe that that approach is fundamentally wrong, and I urge colleagues to join me in supporting young people by backing new clause 55. On new clause 57, clause 1 in its current form not only enables the injustice of preventing future hard-working residents from owning their own homes but prevents current tenants from doing so. The Opposition are completely against that retrospective change. The Government have shown time and again that they have no regard for the property rights of individuals. The Government’s socialistic focus has targeted landlords, freeholders and renters, now they turn their gaze towards residents in social homes. The vast majority of people in social housing deserve a hand up on to the property ladder and a chance to share in the pride of owning their own home. Many people in social housing know that their best chance at getting that is through right to buy.
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, but she does not say how the Government will increase home building. There is no increase in home building. The point of the new clause is to raise awareness of right to buy among 16 to 25-year-olds. The point of the new clause is about aspiration—something this Government have absolutely no idea about. Aspiration turned into opportunity by the Conservative party in the 1980s is being arbitrarily and retrospectively axed by a Bill that offers no other route into the housing market, builds no more social housing and effectively excludes 5 million people from the fundamental right to property ownership.
I will not give way. I need to make some progress. That is the least that can be done to support families aspiring to own their own home, whether they find themselves on the cusp of reaching their three-year qualifying period or on day one of the road towards making their home ownership dream a reality. On amendments 84 and 85, the Bill opens with a statement claiming that its purpose is to make provision about social housing, but clause 1 makes no effort to increase the supply, build-out rates or funding for social housing. Instead, an ideological aversion to property ownership—a fundamental right—takes the top spot at the very beginning of the Bill. Ever since Margaret Thatcher gave millions of people the chance to own their own home, rather than rent it from the state, local authority or a registered provider, Labour MPs have for generations sought to crush that right and the aspiration that it exists to serve.
No. More than 2 million households have exercised the right to become homeowners and gain a stake in society. Until 1980, that would have been out of reach for far too many British people, but the Government are determined to wind back the clock to the 1970s and cut off the right for hard-working families up and down the country to own their own home. Amendments 84 and 85 would take out the extended qualifying period from the day the Bill is passed, thus preventing clause 1 from coming into effect for three years following Royal Assent. That would delay the Government’s dogma and continue to support the right of 5 million people to find their place in the community, and to feel the pride and safety that comes with owning one’s own home.
What about new clause 29?
No, it wasn’t. I was not asked to speak.
I was not called.
I beg to move amendment 90, in clause 8, page 8, leave out from line 2 to end of line 18. <em>This amendment removes the restriction on those living in National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and areas designated as being exempt from Right to Buy.</em>
It is a pleasure, Mr Vickers, to speak to amendment 90, which stands in my name. Since 2024, when the Government have raised rural issues, they have often found themselves in trouble. The Opposition were therefore surprised to see the elements of clause 7 giving the Secretary of State the power to decide what is classed as rural housing and to restrict the rights of those deemed to live in rural areas.<span id="17" class="column-number" data-column-number="17"></span>
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. He has made a point that has been made by Members today and on Second Reading: right to buy diminishes the social housing stock. I would agree on paper that it does, but that has to be read in the context, as shown by the House of Lords Library, that right to buy applies only to people in long-term tenancies who have been social tenants for a long time. Some 78% of people living in social housing are on lifetime tenancies. Those properties are not available. They could not be given to anybody else because they are lifetime tenancies. Right to buy is actually providing the receipts to build more social homes for people to live in.
I cannot give way; I am in the middle of an intervention.
Stopping people from getting on the housing ladder does not help one bit, because it does not increase the supply, and that point seems to have been missed completely by the Liberal Democrats and by the Government.
We do not share the Government’s position on this. We will be pressing for a Division on amendment 90. On amendment 83, I understand the point that the Minister made about recouping the cost. However, we believe that that is a convenience for local authorities, not for local people, and we are more interested in local people.
No, I will not. I am just summing up. We will press for a Division on amendment 83, because we think that 10 years is more appropriate than 35. On amendment 91, we also disagree with the Government. We think that there should be an affirmative rather than negative procedure for this, so we will also be pressing that to a Division. <em>Question put, </em>That the amendment be made.
I beg to move amendment 92, in clause 10, page 10, line 19, leave out “a determination” and insert “regulations”. <em>This amendment removes the power of the Secretary of State to make a determination, but that changes to the use of capital receipts must be made by regulations instead.</em>
The amendments concern the Bill’s proposals for the governance of capital receipts. Under clause 10, the Secretary of State would gain new powers to make significant determinations, including scope to vary provisions between local authorities and to apply determinations retrospectively. Much like my concern about deciding the definition and scope of “rural”, this is not about firming up an already over-rigid system, but about ensuring that the Bill does not tear away too much power from Parliament and give it to Whitehall. It is only right that Parliament, not unelected civil servants, should decide the criteria for the allocation of capital receipts. That is why we have tabled these amendments, so that a regulatory framework can be established to provide parliamentary oversight and to give confidence and certainty to local authorities. This is an essential change to the Bill, and we will seek to divide the Committee on it. As it stands, leaving determinations to the whim of the Secretary of State means leaving local leaders unsure of the direction of future decisions. It undermines precedent and destabilises already fragile funding requirements. The amendments replace the proposed determinations with clear and unequivocal guidance, with amendment 95 specifically ensuring that such decisions come with the approval of both Houses of Parliament. Amendment 98 doubles down on that by also requiring consultation with local authorities. The Minister may believe that bringing such decisions in-house comes with the bonus of speeding them up, but we believe that making decisions in Marsham Street’s corridors rather than in town halls means local authorities will be left with uncertainty, which will not speed up the building of social homes, but slow it down. Moreover, nothing would be a greater barrier to building social homes than watching receipts being siphoned away. Under clause 10, the ability to reallocate capital receipts between local authorities will always lead to some councils losing out. It is never going to be popular with councils when they find that, after running the numbers, planning the funding, consulting local people and preparing the foundations, the Secretary of State has robbed them of their funding and given it to another council. It sounds suspiciously similar to the injustice arising from the Government’s disastrously unfair funding review. I therefore urge colleagues to support amendments 92 to 98 and ensure that power stays local.
The Minister has said that his intent is to improve efficiency and, as always, I respect his sincerity and what he said. It is simply a point of difference between us. My right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston made a compelling case about the democratic accountability and transparency of the affirmative procedure as opposed to the negative procedure. The point that we have made in the amendments is about the process not the outcome, and our contention is that the process should be as democratically accountable and transparent as possible. We will therefore press all the amendments to a vote. <em>Question put, </em>That the amendment be made.
I beg to move amendment 82, in clause 12, page 12, line 31, at end insert— “(7) In exercising functions under this section and section 171A, the Secretary of State must have regard to the operational and financial independence of private registered providers.”. <em>This amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the independence of housing associations when exercising powers under new sections 171A and 171B of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.</em>
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I will be relatively brief. I tabled amendment 82 to introduce a vital legal safeguard to protect the structural integrity of the UK housing association sector. Private registered providers are independent, non-profit businesses. They work hard to run a fair and efficient sector providing social housing and to see much-needed homes built. The amendment would protect registered providers from overreaching state interventions that could have serious, if inadvertent, financial consequences. Housing associations can rely on private debt to fund development, and any perception that central Government can arbitrarily dictate their financial operations is a threat, both to business independence and to the positive outcomes that they effect. We must ensure that even well-intentioned regulatory oversight does not compromise the financial viability and building capacity of some of the most important businesses in our housing industry. We will seek to divide the Committee on the amendment.
I have heard the Minister’s response. As always, I do not in any way doubt his sincerity, but unfortunately he will not always be in post. We would prefer to keep the Government honest on this point, so we intend to press amendment 82 to a Division. <em>Question put</em>, That the amendment be made.
I rise to speak to new clauses 41 and 45, which are in my name. I was obviously aware that it is the Government’s intention to strike down clause 13 and remove it in its entirety from the Bill. I heard what the Minister just said about what the Government are doing at the moment. The Opposition are not convinced that the clause would require unnecessary duplication. What it would do is make sure that a review is actually done and published, so we disagree with the Government. My noble Friends in the other place worked hard and successfully on a cross-party basis to bring shared ownership into the debate and into this Bill. Shared ownership issues have gone on for far too long and for far too many people it has been a logistical, legal and financial nightmare when it should have been their first and proudest step on to the housing ladder. This is an important national issue, and the commitments that my noble Friends made must not be stripped from the Bill. Indeed, we must build on them. That is why I tabled new clause 41, which would require publication of a strategy for expanding shared ownership. I call on the Minister to repair shared ownership, back first-time buyers and support this new clause. New clause 45 asks the Secretary of State to publish a model of shared ownership agreement within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. The Opposition believe this is a crucial development for the future of shared ownership. What should be a pathway towards owning a first home is for so many people, as I have just said, a logistical and legal labyrinth of rent reviews, service charges, admin fees and staircasing costs, which makes the dream of home ownership a nightmare. A model shared ownership agreement would provide a consistent framework with clear protections for buyers, and it would also require registered providers to have regard to it. Not only do I hope the Minister agrees with that, but I hope he will give assurances as we debate the new clauses, even if the Government choose not to support them.
I will speak to new clause 30, which stands in my name. This is a probing amendment. There is much in this Bill that is fundamentally political or ideological, but I am sure that I speak for all Members when I say that supporting victims of domestic abuse is an issue that we all agree needs critical, cross-party work. We will not oppose any of the 52 amendments that the Government have tabled to this part of the Bill, because it is vital that anyone stuck in an abusive household receives the urgent care, support and access to legal pathways that they need. That is why I have tabled new clause 30, which would require the Government to assess the effectiveness of the provisions in protecting domestic abuse victims. If <span id="70" class="column-number" data-column-number="70"></span>the Bill is to make real change in this area, I believe it is only right that the Government give victims a guarantee that they will closely analyse and monitor the effectiveness of these measures. I look for an assurance from the Minister on that when he sums up.
I rise to speak to new clauses 40 and 58, which I tabled. Social housing is not a one-size-fits-all, and new clause 40 would protect the invaluable and expert knowledge of local authorities by giving them a greater say over the type of tenancy that they can offer to local people. That would preserve local authorities’ discretion to use fixed-term tenancies for social housing. Used appropriately, fixed-term tenancies allow a landlord to review a household’s circumstances at the end of a term and make sure that the home can be put to best use for those who need it most. They allow for the flexibility necessary to ensure that when a tenant’s situation has improved, a home can be made available for local people with the greatest need. The new clause is about empowering local authorities and delivering an efficient social housing system—two things that the Bill fails to do in many ways. Importantly, it imposes nothing and takes nothing away. It protects local knowledge, expertise and discretion.<span id="82" class="column-number" data-column-number="82"></span> Social housing exists for the express purpose of providing those who are most in need with not just shelter, but a place to call home. In a system under severe financial strain and lacking in adequate supply, it is essential that social homes are allocated to those in genuine need who are at the most severe risk, not just those who once needed them but no longer do. That is why we have tabled new clause 58, which would require local housing authorities to review lifetime secure tenancies every five years to ensure that social housing continues to meet tenants’ needs. It would also ensure that existing stock is used as effectively as possible. With 1.34 million people on the waiting list, a record number of people sleeping rough and a staggering 178,000 children in temporary accommodation, not a single social home can afford to be filled by somebody who could reasonably afford market rent or buy their own property.
As I said earlier, the Bill will not add a single social home to this country’s current tally. If social housing was in abundant supply, I would agree with the hon. Gentleman, but it is not. It is a scarce resource and the important thing that we are trying to make clear is about how we use that scarce resource. Right to buy generates receipts that can be reinvested in building more social housing. Given that the overwhelming majority of people living in social housing are in lifetime tenancies, regardless of their circumstance, that housing is not available to people on the waiting list. It is already occupied and nobody is saying that that should change. So, it is not the case that right to buy causes a depletion of available social housing stock— it simply does not. New clause 58 is not an eviction notice. It would not grant new powers to remove people from their homes. It is a common-sense move to assess how best to ensure that scarce resources are used for those who need a home most.
I rise to speak to new clause 42. If the Bill fails to build any new social housing, which we know it will, it could at the very least ensure that stock is allocated to those most in need. We believe that one of the fairest and most suitable ways to do so is to review the income eligibility thresholds for social housing. At present, up-to-date figures from the English housing survey suggest that around 186,000 social housing households have incomes above £50,000. That is both an injustice and an inefficiency in need of fixing, yet the Bill will not do so. We must ensure that any changes to the structure of the social housing system are made to enable a fairer and more effective programme for the most vulnerable to find shelter. Social housing is a safety net, not a guarantee. People’s circumstances change over time. Those who have the means to pay market rent should do so, and that is why new clause 42 would require regular reviews of income eligibility thresholds. Without the new clause, the Bill would provide no avenue through which we can manage stock to free up more homes, no route towards building more social housing, and no light at the end of the tunnel for the 1.34 million people on the waiting list.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. In a democratic society, we should be able to rely on an inquiry to establish accurately what happened, what should happen, and how things should happen better in the future. I am incredibly concerned that this inquiry is failing to do that with sweeping assumptions that from the start the vaccines were to be used—the phrase used was “safe and effective”. The module 4 report states that<span id="126WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="126WH"></span> “It is neither proportionate nor practicable for the Inquiry to reach a view on the safety of particular vaccines” but then goes on to declare, with the utmost assurance, that “the steps taken by the UK government and regulatory bodies did not compromise the UK’s rigorous safety standards.” How can they be sure when they have not reached a view on the safety of the vaccines? Time is limited, so I would like to go to an issue that happened to a woman, a mother, in my constituency, who was given the Moderna covid-19 booster vaccine in a care home. Her family recently succeeded in their claim to the vaccine damages payment scheme. Their case described mass, serious adverse events among the other residents of their mother’s care home, and the death of a second resident also attributed to the side effects. The family have spent years painstakingly collating evidence and research that shows that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency not only failed in its statutory duties by not properly investigating the clear safety signal of multiple care home residents suffering a series of fatal reactions, but failed to be honest about the wholesale lack of safety evidence for using Moderna in the frail, elderly, care home cohort, either as a main dose or as a booster. Some 70% of the elderly in our care homes have dementia and over half of residents are frail, yet, “Frail subjects with unstable health conditions and co-morbidities…including chronic neurological disease” were identified as “missing information” in Moderna’s own risk management plan. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on pandemic response and recovery, I have written to the MHRA twice, but have not yet heard from the agency. Will the Minister take the time to meet me and the family to discuss why we have not had a response?
My specific concern is about the MHRA, which is meant to highlight and give out warnings on <span id="132WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="132WH"></span>what is going on. The MHRA has failed throughout this situation; when we meet, can we also discuss its failings?