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
Can the Minister confirm that criminals will not get tagged if they are classed as homeless? At the weekend, it was revealed that prisoners released early by this Government were given tents because there was no accommodation for them. So yes or no—will prisoners who are released and given a tent be tagged? Or will they be roaming the streets without any way of locating them, free to commit more crime?
Dyb, dyb, dyb!
I support the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington. They involve a perfectly reasonable and proportionate request for this House to have a role in scrutinising what is put forward by the Government and recommended by the Secretary of State. I spent six years as a Minister. I took countless statutory instruments through Delegated Legislation Committees. By and large, it is not a complex process; it requires a bit of time on the part of officials to get the <span id="29" class="column-number" data-column-number="29"></span>drafting right, but the process in this House is not complicated. It ensures that a Minister is directly accountable: they have to be on their brief, and they have to be able to clearly articulate the rationale behind what they are doing and, quite rightly, to be challenged by right hon. and hon. Members. That is so important in maintaining or even in creating trust from our communities—the transparency that that democratic accountability brings to what, as my hon. Friend clearly set out, will on occasion undoubtedly be relatively, if not significantly, contentious decisions relating to significant sums of money. My hon. Friend set out the case for amendment 95 very clearly. The powers in clause 10, when exercised, may well see some local authorities feeling that they are losing out, to the benefit of other local authorities. Without getting into what those decisions may be or where the money may go, in terms of process and democratic accountability, it is not unreasonable that both Houses should have the opportunity to scrutinise the powers in clause 10.
The hon. Lady appears to be making a point that I was not actually making in my remarks. My point is about the process. As I said before she intervened, I am not making a judgment on the decisions the Secretary of State may or may not make about those capital receipts; I am making a point about democratic accountability and transparency. Going back to the earlier group of amendments praised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, the procedure that is used when legislation comes before Delegated Legislation Committees in this House is not complex. It does not engender lengthy delay; it just ensures that our constituents can see that we are considering that legislation, that we are debating it and that the Minister can answer the questions put to him. I have no doubt, in the case of this Minister, that he will be able to answer them; sadly, it has not always been the case that every Minister, on both sides of the House, has been capable of doing that. However, I am sure this Minister would have no challenges in coming before a Delegated Legislation Committee and answering the questions put to him. Amendment 98, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, would require consultation before determinations were made on capital receipts. Again, consultations do not have to be overly complex or lengthy. If Members go on gov.uk, they will see that there are myriad Government consultations out there at any one time on very significant issues, down to issues such as, for example, the methodology used for reporting land use statistics in the country. The Government routinely consult on a whole range of things, whether <span id="30" class="column-number" data-column-number="30"></span>that be a significant, detailed and lengthy consultation on something complex or, often, a very short and sharp consultation. They give people the opportunity to have their say, and those who genuinely have something in the way of expert knowledge to contribute.
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.
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.<span id="31" class="column-number" data-column-number="31"></span> 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.
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.
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.<span id="61" class="column-number" data-column-number="61"></span> 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.
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.
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.
Don’t tempt fate!
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?
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.
The Minister pronounces it immaculately.
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 <span id="5" class="column-number" data-column-number="5"></span>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.
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?
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?
<Question HRSContentId="{C1357F26-5896-4C53-8584-EF97C15A365A}">T9. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{D86541E4-7FC1-4C3F-B56B-ABC878B01F2B}"></QuestionText>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?</Question>
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?<span id="191" class="column-number" data-column-number="191"></span> 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 <span id="192" class="column-number" data-column-number="192"></span>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.
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 <span id="125WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="125WH"></span>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.
<Question HRSContentId="{912B89DE-1350-49D3-9D13-9BFA02AB500B}">T1. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{6D8BEEF6-C965-4528-A67E-273376B01394}">If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.</QuestionText></Question>
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?
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.
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 <span id="456" class="column-number" data-column-number="456"></span>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.
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.
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.
<Question HRSContentId="{F9C2D9DE-E8E4-49EB-9725-23BC2B7569CE}">T4. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{D09D32BA-9BEF-4482-90BC-E9BF1DFAD3FD}"></QuestionText>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?</Question>
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?
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?
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 <span id="198" class="column-number" data-column-number="198"></span>about the Government’s plans to ensure that we have UK-based and UK-flagged repair capability for our subsea infrastructure?
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 <span id="153" class="column-number" data-column-number="153"></span>bring our allies together to freeze Russian and Belarusian tourist visas to protect us from their use to attack our country?
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.<span id="7WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="7WH"></span>
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.
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.<span id="80" class="column-number" data-column-number="80"></span> 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?
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.
<Question HRSContentId="{622BAF83-6139-4869-9116-E3B73451FAC1}">T1. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{A24D6A21-3B14-4DFB-AB0B-CF90DEC72AE5}">If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.</QuestionText></Question>
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?
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?
<Question HRSContentId="{3857DE7B-7116-41EC-B710-0E5BB447A8F4}">9. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{D89380C2-837A-4A43-BA06-F9FCDA0E3EFE}">What progress she has made on reforming the police funding formula.</QuestionText> </Question>
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.