5,575 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

   Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

   Apropos the point that has already been rightly made, does the hon. Gentleman really believe that? The Red Book gives a very different story. What we are talking about is RDEL—the resource departmental expenditure limit or day-to-day spend on our armed forces. That means reserves—I am one—not getting their reserve training days, ships that cannot put to sea because of a lack of fuel, no bullets and no exercises. Is that what he wants? What does that say to the brave men and women who populate our armed forces?

   Hansard source
2. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

   Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

   I could not really make up my mind, when listening to the Chancellor, whether the Budget was a gathering note for an early general election or simply a wasted opportunity. Well, we have been told in the last few minutes that the Prime Minister has said to reporters: “I can rule out calling a general election in the next 12 months.” So that has sorted that one. I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches will be heartily relieved.<span id="400" class="column-number" data-column-number="400"></span> We are left with a wasted opportunity: a Budget that contains no growth strategy worth the name; nothing on welfare, except for one or two small rises here and there; and nothing on reducing the size of the state. While countries in Europe are giving serious attention to reducing the size of the state following covid, this Government are doing very little indeed, to put it politely. The Netherlands is reducing the headcount in its civil service by 15%, except in the military and the police. If we were to do something even approaching that, it would be the thick end of a headcount of 100,000, freeing up resources for deficit reduction in the interests of generational fairness. I am particularly focused on good growth in the BA12, BA13 and BA14 postcodes, but my constituents are seeing none of it. What they did see, practically on day one of this Government two and a half years ago, was the cancellation of the A303 improvements. They saw the long-grassing of the north-south strategic study to link the south coast with the M4. That seems to have gone by the board, meaning no Westbury bypass after all these years. We see continuing fiscal encouragement for the much-loathed plan for an incinerator at Westbury. We have seen VAT and charitable rate relief changes for independent schools, which has closed a foreign languages college in my constituency that brought in a great deal of foreign investment. We have also seen the retrenchment of one independent school, and only yesterday we received news that a further school that is very close to my constituency is finally, after over 100 years, closing down as a direct result of Government policy. There is not much growth there. We have seen the family farm tax. We have seen the family business tax. We have seen the carbon border adjustment mechanism, which was included in the Finance Act 2025. It will come in on 1 January to add to farmers’ woes—something that I had thought the Government might mention in the Budget. It was said earlier that farmers have hardly featured at all in this Budget. Well, CBAM was an obvious thing to look at to reduce the cost of fertiliser. There are farmers in my constituency who are seriously considering not planting this year because of the cost of fertiliser. This was the opportunity to put that right. My constituency is very military. We heard a deafening silence on spending 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this decade, making a complete mockery of the now Chancellor’s resignation in June. Goodness me—his namesake, Denis Healey, must be turning in his grave. In 1969, he famously said that “once we cut defence expenditure to the extent where our security is imperilled” —the grounds on which the current Chancellor resigned in June— “we have no houses, we have no hospitals, we have no schools. We have a heap of cinders.”<span id="vol779_col551" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="551" data-volume-number="779">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 5 March 1969; Vol. 779, c. 551.]</span> Yet it is precisely this issue—the welfare of our defence personnel and our ability to protect the state—that the now Chancellor resigned over in June. I have to say that that is quite extraordinary. Now we find that RDEL will be cut in real terms over the next two years. In the time available to me, let me explain what that means. It means defence personnel’s accommodation will not be kept up to the extent that it should be. It means establishments will not be renovated. <span id="401" class="column-number" data-column-number="401"></span>It means there will be no fuel for ships at sea. It means dockyard workers will not get overtime, which means ships will be anchored off at a weekend rather than service people being able to get home to their families. It means no exercises. I speak as a reservist, and it means no reserve service days, which means demoralising our reserve. This is catastrophic, and it is no way to behave. It is certainly not indicative of a Government who are halfway serious about the defence of this country.

   Hansard source
3. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Douglas Lumsden

   UK Energy Independence

   The Labour Government’s answer to energy independence was to create GB Energy, which we were told was going to create 1,000 jobs in Aberdeen. Two years in, it has just 132 employees, and only 86 of them are based in Scotland. The chairman and the chief exec are not based in Aberdeen—the people of Aberdeen were sold a lemon with GB Energy. Does the Secretary of State now accept that the best way to boost employment in Aberdeen is to get Britain drilling again?

   Hansard source
4. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Davis

   Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

   I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says—I have been a critic of some privatisation myself—but it does not explain why those same malaises did not apply during the Blair years.

   Hansard source
5. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

   Draft Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 (Specified Purposes Related to Policing) Regulations 2026

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for what I believe is the first time, Mrs Hobhouse. I have a message to the Whips: if they put the Chair of the relevant Select Committee on a Delegated Legislation Committee, they may find that it takes slightly longer than they were expecting—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> I am fine for now, but the Whips might want to think about that. I want to take the opportunity put a few questions to the Minister. First, will this measure be used purely for immigration offences? When I was invited by the Metropolitan police to join the policing operation for Notting Hill carnival, I was very struck that the majority of the offenders who were picked up by the facial recognition technology being deployed were actually wanted for sexual and domestic abuse offences. I thought that such an event was a very good way to attract those offenders, as it is one where people are scantily clad and therefore might attract those who are <span id="6" class="column-number" data-column-number="6"></span>more inclined that way—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> I can see Members’ looks of shock, but that is the point the police made to me. The Notting Hill carnival is an occasion that people want to attend purely for the opportunity to offend and sexually abuse those taking part, which is absolutely wrong. The facial recognition technology was picking up sexual offenders, not drug offenders or the other things that we might think of with Notting Hill carnival. This legislation could be used beyond just immigration enforcement—for violence against women and girls and other offences—and I hope the Minister can confirm that it will be. I am also curious to know whether “policing” will include immigration enforcement. Again, from the work we have done in the Select Committee I have been struck by the number of people who have arrived, claimed asylum and do not have the right to work but do continue to work, and immigration enforcement should be able to share information on trailers and other vehicles if people who are here without the right to work are trying to work, so that we can stop that and remove that incentive. My final point is wider. I wonder whether the Government are looking at extending the registration scheme to boat engines, perhaps in a Europe-wide scheme. If we had a Europe-wide register of boat engines, law enforcement across the continent might have more traceability of those boats that are trying to leave northern France, Belgium and other places. I wonder whether there may be scope to further the measure. 4.41 pm

   Hansard source
6. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

   Oil and Gas Sector: Jobs

   <Question HRSContentId="{605C8BF0-44C9-42A3-9854-897BE37C0E05}">2. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{0F1AD6CA-1805-47FE-86D0-7FD886D2D47D}">What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on support for jobs in the oil and gas sector in Scotland.</QuestionText> </Question>

   Hansard source
7. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

   Oil and Gas Sector: Jobs

   In 2024 the Scottish oil and gas industry supported 118,000 direct and indirect jobs, and after much dither and delay, thankfully the Government have approved Jackdaw, which will safeguard jobs that <span id="283" class="column-number" data-column-number="283"></span>otherwise would have been lost, and create more. The Government need to do more to support Scottish oil and gas, so what steps is the Secretary of State taking?

   Hansard source
8. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

   Draft Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 (Specified Purposes Related to Policing) Regulations 2026

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the Minister for those detailed opening remarks. <span id="5" class="column-number" data-column-number="5"></span>The protection and enforcement of our laws protecting our borders must be an absolute priority for Government. Whether individuals are coming across the channel in small boats or concealed in trailers, we must do all we can to prevent and deter these dangerous journeys. Unfortunately, the tragic consequences of people smuggling in trailers are all too clear. It is right that the people who previously committed these crimes are now in prison, but that should not prevent us from remaining vigilant and taking steps to stop such tragedies from happening again. During the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Committee, the Government received our support for the clauses that underpin the draft regulations. Therefore, they will continue to receive our support for them today. The specified purposes related to policing that are set out in the legislation are very sensible and will rightly enable the lawful sharing of trailer registration information held by the DVLA with policing bodies. Allowing the police and the Home Office to share that information where it is used for the same purposes is also an entirely appropriate measure. I hope the Government will utilise these powers effectively to identify and arrest anyone responsible for illegally bringing individuals into our country. Given the time available to scrutinise the Government’s approach to border security in the ongoing Immigration and Asylum Bill Committee, which the Minister and I are enjoying session after session, I will not belabour the broader issues with this approach. However, I hope the Government will acknowledge that if we are to stop illegal migration, which should be the overall aim, we must not only seek to smash the gangs, as this legislation aims to do, but deter all forms of illegal entry. Illegal entry to the UK is both incredibly dangerous and damaging to the British population, and we owe it to both parties to remove the incentives that encourage illegal migration. To overcome the failures that we have seen in tackling illegal migration, measures such as the draft regulations need to be accompanied by a message that anyone who comes to the UK illegally will not be allowed to remain in this country. I fear that without such changes, this well-meaning legislation, while an improvement, will prove unable to address the much broader problems.

   Hansard source
9. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

   Impact of Government Policies on Businesses

   <Question HRSContentId="{076C2A26-C521-4743-90BD-8BD81AA4E759}">6. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{A708560A-E18B-4B43-A895-E6F5FBE51163}">What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of Government policies on businesses in Scotland.</QuestionText> </Question>

   Hansard source
10. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Impact of Government Policies on Businesses

    Scotland’s fishing industry makes a vital contribution to coastal communities in every part of Scotland. Last year, Labour negotiated away 12 years of access to our seas to the EU in a disastrous deal for the UK. Can the Minister guarantee that our fisheries will not suffer in any way from the sanitary and phytosanitary deal with the EU or lose any of our remaining freedoms outside the common fisheries policy?

    Hansard source
11. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Aphra Brandreth

    Oil and Gas Sector: Jobs

    <Question HRSContentId="{6EB45330-0EE4-4FF9-80D8-DC265ADB768D}">11. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{245B72DD-26B1-43CA-8E64-92B916A067D8}">What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on levels of employment in the oil and gas sector in Scotland.</QuestionText> </Question>

    Hansard source
12. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Aphra Brandreth

    Oil and Gas Sector: Jobs

    The Government are accelerating the decline of an industry that supports thousands of jobs across Scotland, while promising replacement jobs that are not materialising quickly enough. Scotland’s oil and gas workers are paying the price for the Government’s ideological opposition to the oil and gas sector. Will the Secretary of State confirm now whether he supports Labour’s ban on new licences?

    Hansard source
13. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for granting this point of order. I am seeking some clarity because both this week and last week, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero indicated that no decision had been taken on whether they were going to grant approval to the Rosebank oilfield. However, the Office for Budget Responsibility’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” publication today states that the Government’s projected oil and gas receipts for the next year, which are now expected to raise £5.1 billion for the Treasury, include: “production from currently producing fields (including Jackdaw), and the NSTA’s estimate of production from development of new fields, which includes Rosebank, and from future discoveries.”<span id="403" class="column-number" data-column-number="403"></span> Madam Deputy Speaker, might you be able to offer some guidance on how this House and the country can get some clarity on whether or not the Rosebank oilfield has been granted approval or will be granted approval, and whether the OBR’s forecast can be trusted at all?

    Hansard source
14. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Polar Regions

    We hear warnings from allies about China’s Arctic ambitions, and the risk of Beijing and Moscow dominating emerging shipping routes. China is an Arctic Council observer, and two Chinese nationals were arrested in Norway in May on suspicion of espionage. What concrete action is the Minister and the Foreign Secretary taking with Norway and our NATO allies to protect Britain’s security, trade and undersea infrastructure from hostile Chinese activity, and to prevent research and investment becoming cover for Beijing’s Arctic mission?

    Hansard source
15. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    Topical Questions

    Mr Speaker, I hope you will indulge me as I say a very quick thank you to the Clerk of the House, who is in his place and who was my Clerk on the Foreign Affairs Committee. He is probably more to blame for me standing here today than many other people in the House.<span id="169" class="column-number" data-column-number="169"></span> May I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he now accepts the Bill in the name of Lord Weir that has passed in the Lords?

    Hansard source
16. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    Topical Questions

    I thank the Foreign Secretary for his comments. The reason I asked about the vote in the Lords is this: there seems to be a real problem with the way that we approach this debate. The will of Parliament, as expressed in the Lords only last week and in treaties signed in the ’60s and ’80s, is being superseded by courts that have no mandate over the issues that are being debated. I ask him again: does he accept the will of this Parliament—the elected will of the British people—or does he instead seek to accept the now politicised will of courts that have Russian and Chinese judges, and are fundamentally mis-shaping and distorting agreements that were signed decades ago? We have seen what China has done, from locking up Jimmy Lai to threatening the Marine reserves that he claims to champion. Whose side is the Foreign Secretary on?

    Hansard source
17. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Domestic Farming and Food Supply

    I regularly meet South Shropshire farmers, who work night and day to put food on the table, and hear about the challenges that they face. Does the hon. Member agree that everything should be done to unlock all the red tape that the farmers have to deal with to produce food? Food production should be considered part of national security and resilience, because we need to ensure that we are self-sufficient.

    Hansard source
18. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Strengthening Community Resilience

    In rural South Shropshire we face flooding and power cuts every year, so I welcome this campaign. However, I do not believe it has landed as the Government intended, because the strategic defence review set out a whole-of-society approach and a national conversation about the threats we face to our resilience. We have talked about the Finnish model. The Finns clearly know the threats through proximity. I believe that to get the public on side, we have to clearly set out the threats to critical national infrastructure that could close the internet down for several weeks or lead to power outages and so on. Does the Minister agree that taking that approach will help the country to prepare better?

    Hansard source
19. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Foreign Interference in Democratic Processes

    Does the Foreign Secretary accept that it would be a disservice to the democratic process to identify attempts to interfere with it with invalidation of the result? Does he, like the Prime Minister, now accept that whatever Russia tried to do, it did not have any decisive effect on the referendum on whether to stay in or leave the European Union?

    Hansard source
20. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Electronic Monitoring of Offenders

    I welcome the fact that the Government are experimenting with a scheme of tagging prisoners at the point of release, but a question then arises. Those of them who do not have an address to go to and who choose to remove the tag are going to be very difficult to find. Is there a solution to that?

    Hansard source
21. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Strengthening Community Resilience

    If rule No. 1, as far as resilience is concerned, is “be prepared”, does the Minister agree that rule No. 2 should be “have a reliable back-up system”? In that connection, does he share my concern that both in the field of telephony and in the field of banking, back-up systems do not seem to exist? In particular, were the Government consulted before British Telecom decided not only to move to an internet-based telephone system, but to dismantle the copper wire system, which could have given us useful resilience in an emergency?

    Hansard source
22. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Council Housing

    Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he can see the level of interest in the debate. We must have short interventions, please. Two or three more words and then we will let the hon. Gentleman respond.

    Hansard source
23. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Council Housing

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I remind all Back-Bench colleagues that you should continue to stand up, so that we know you still want to be called. You can see that there is a great deal of interest in this debate. I suggest that you all keep to about two and a half minutes; that way, we will get everybody in.

    Hansard source
24. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Council Housing

    The good news is that I can be a little more generous and allow you all a whole extra 30 seconds each. With three minutes, I call Josh Newbury.

    Hansard source
25. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Council Housing

    I thank the Back-Bench speakers for their co-operation and discipline. We now come to the Front-Bench speeches, beginning with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
26. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Council Housing

    In the interests of order, I should probably make it clear that other private Members’ Bills are available.

    Hansard source
27. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Domestic Farming and Food Supply

    Carla Lockhart will move the motion, and the Minister will respond. I remind all other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention in shorter debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

    Hansard source
28. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4 Report: Government Response

    It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stuart, not least because, in generously taking over from me, you allowed me to participate in the debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), not just for his skill in securing the debate but for his long campaigning on behalf of those who have been injured by covid vaccinations. Between he and I, we must have met and discussed the issue with almost every holder of the Minister’s job and the Secretary of State’s job over the past few years. On reform of the vaccine damage payment scheme, the argument that I want to concentrate on is not about the wisdom or otherwise of mass vaccination. Quite remarkably in my judgment, many of those who were injured or lost loved ones in the mass vaccination process during the covid pandemic support the idea of mass vaccination, but they take the view, which we should all support, that it is only right that those who were doing what their Government asked them to do are properly compensated for any loss or damage that they have incurred.<span id="122WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="122WH"></span> People such as my constituent Kate Scott, whom my hon. Friend mentioned and the Minister has met, have maintained throughout that what is wrong with the vaccine damage payment scheme essentially comes down to two things: first, the amount of money available and the fact that it is an all-or-nothing amount; and secondly, the requirement for someone to have 60% disablement in order to take advantage of the scheme. It is fair to point out that when the scheme was developed, nobody ever claimed that it was designed to be the only compensation available, but, as I know the Minister appreciates, the reality is that it is extremely difficult to obtain compensation by any other route, including through the courts. It therefore seems that vaccine damage payment scheme reform is about two things: fairness to the individuals affected and the effectiveness of Government policy. I know this will concern the Minister, as I hope it does the rest of the Government. It would be brave of any of us to claim that this sort of widespread pandemic event will never happen again. If it does, we will once again rely on the confidence of the British public to literally roll up their sleeves and assist in the process of combating whatever disease we face next. Their confidence in a mass vaccination programme will depend on whether they think people who have been injured in that process have been fairly treated. Thus far, they have not been, so if the Government want to be confident of the effectiveness of a future pandemic response, they need to deal effectively with the fall-out of the previous pandemic response. Finally, let me simply make the point that my hon. Friend made: there is urgency to this. People who have been injured or bereaved do not just expect a fair response from the Government; they expect it soon. There is a mismatch between the urgency described in the report of Baroness Hallett and the approach that the Government have taken in their response. For example, with regard to the 60% threshold, Baroness Hallett said: “This part of the scheme should be reformed as a matter of urgency”. Let us compare and contrast that with the wording of the Government’s response. They accept that there is a “need for reform” of the scheme, which I welcome, and say that they are “committed to reviewing the scheme to ensure it is fit for purpose”. However, they then say that they “will provide further details in due course”. Those of us who have served in government know that that does not mean an urgent response. I know the Minister will recognise that this situation deserves just that.

    Hansard source
29. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4 Report: Government Response

    On the Minister’s point about whether graded payments might be available under the scheme, will she be clear that she is considering linking that to the disablement requirement? Of course, an outcome we would not want is a simple reduction of the £120,000 for those who are 60% disabled or more. We are interested in perhaps giving some money to those who are below the 60% threshold; will she confirm that is what she is thinking about?

    Hansard source
30. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    UK Nationals Detained Abroad

    British citizens Ryan Cornelius and his partner have now been detained for 18—nearly 19—years, without due process, by the United Arab Emirates. The reality is that the UAE supports a huge amount of terrorism in Sudan, where it is responsible for huge loss of life. To make matters worse, it has nominated Lana Nusseibeh of the UAE to be UN Secretary-General. Apart from demanding the release of Ryan Cornelius and his partner, will the hon. Gentleman condemn the UAE for its brutal involvement in Sudan, and block its nominee for Secretary-General, who should never be allowed to take over the UN?

    Hansard source
31. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Cask Ale: Intangible Cultural Heritage

    I remember the first day I tasted a true cask ale—I think it was my 18th birthday, when I first supped a pint of Timothy Taylor’s Landlord. It is a truly beautiful pint and something that I hope many 18-year-olds and people of advancing years continue to enjoy, but it is under threat. I congratulate the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) on <span id="60WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="60WH"></span>securing the debate because it is important. In the historical boundaries of Staffordshire, we have been under assault, with the shutting of some of our greatest, best and longest-standing breweries. First, Carlsberg decided to close the Park brewery in Wolverhampton and then the Marston’s brewery. Frankly, a company that thinks Special Brew is a good alcoholic beverage does not have much care or consideration for true, quality cask ales. We see a real challenge in our brewing industry. The Swan in Brewood has a bar serving some of the finest cask ales from across the country, with 12 always on tap. That was once seen regularly across the country, but it is increasingly rare today. Although the number of small brewers has grown over the last 30 years, with some 1,500 breweries across the country, some major breweries—as we have seen with Carlsberg—have been pulling out of cask ale. The point has already been raised that major breweries are misleading customers by making them think that they are getting a true cask ale, because it is served from a traditional handpump, when in reality these are not cask ales. As companies such as Carlsberg shut historic brewery sites such as the Park brewery in Wolverhampton and Marston’s in Burton, skills and traditions are being lost. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), I note that the Chancellor is not a passive observer. Tomorrow, he can do something important for the brewing industry and all our communities by making changes to the duty relief for cask ale. He can also support our pubs, because if we do not have vibrant pubs in our communities, we do not have a cask ale industry. If the breweries do not have anyone to sell to, they will simply wither and die. Yes, it is about duties, but it is also about rates. So many pubs across my constituency still feel the squeeze from a double impact imposed by this Government not just on rates but on the cost of employing young people. There is an opportunity for the Chancellor to stand up, with a traditional alcoholic beverage by his side—I would suggest a nice pint from the Lymestone brewery in Stone—to celebrate and toast our brewers by not only helping them with the duties charged on cask ale but by helping out every single pub in our constituencies by getting rid of the national insurance increases imposed by the previous Chancellor. I very much support the arguments advanced for special heritage status for our cask ale industry. Everything that we can do to promote the industry, and to make sure that people understand how special it is and how much work goes into every single cask, is for the best. I would also be interested to hear from the Minister about whether the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has dragged the chief executive of Carlsberg into the Department to demand to know why he is wrecking and doing so much damage to our brewing industry. She should demand answers and a commitment to investment in these incredibly important historic breweries, which are at the heart of so many of our communities.

    Hansard source
32. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Cask Ale: Intangible Cultural Heritage

    I welcome the work that the Government are doing, but has the Secretary of State dragged in the chief executive of Carlsberg? This seems to be a pattern of behaviour, happening not just in Burton, but in Wolverhampton as well. It seems intent on closing down all its cask ale breweries.

    Hansard source
33. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Electronic Monitoring of Offenders

    The Government have not yet set out the number of domestic abusers who have been released under the early release scheme. Will the Minister set out to the House what that number is, and the total number of domestic abusers who will be released under the scheme?

    Hansard source
34. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Strengthening Community Resilience

    We all know that at points of emergency, such as power outages and so many other things, mobile networks are incredibly important. The villages of Huntington and Hatherton have virtually no signal at all. With the withdrawal of the shared rural network, which provides funding for rural communities to get better mobile services, what should such villages do to ensure that they have access to the mobile networks that are so important at critical times?

    Hansard source
35. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    Strengthening Community Resilience

    In the early 1980s, along with other enthusiasts, I set up the National Council for Civil Defence, and worked with Willie Whitelaw. We achieved a major milestone in the form of the Civil Protection in Peacetime Act 1986. The NCCD was taken over by the local government office as a serious organisation. When the cold war ended, the whole civil defence effort atrophied, because there was considered to be no threat. We now live in a very different world, so will the Minister make an attempt to improve our entire civil defence structure? There was a leaflet issued by the then Conservative Government called “Protect and Survive”. I know a war is very unlikely, but it is best to be prepared.

    Hansard source
36. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Cask Ale: Intangible Cultural Heritage

    Hon. Members should rise in their places repeatedly if they wish to catch my eye.

    Hansard source
37. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    SEND Provision: Rural Communities

    I remind hon. Members not to rise to catch my eye unless they have the permission of both Mr Jermy and the Minister to speak.

    Hansard source
38. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Christopher Chope

    Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4 Report: Government Response

    I beg to move, That this House has considered the Government response to the Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4 Report. It is refreshing to see the Public Health Minister in this debate. If anybody will be empathetic on this topic it must be the right hon. Lady, as she has campaigned fearlessly on behalf of another group of victims: the victims of contaminated blood scandals. Although I do not want to overdo the comparison between the victims of contaminated blood and victims of vaccine damage, the responses of successive Governments to those tragedies have had a similar pattern: total denial of responsibility to start with, then recognition that people have suffered but not because of anything for which the Government were responsible, and then eventually conceding the cause and effect of the damage but still stalling on providing any effective redress. It is that stalling on which I wish to concentrate. The Hallett inquiry made clear recommendations in April this year. Recommendation 5 stated: “The UK government must reform the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme as soon as possible. The reform should include as a minimum: increasing the £120,000 payment, at least in line with inflation to date; subsequently applying annual increases in line with inflation; introducing multiple levels of payment, commensurate with the degree of injury suffered; and any transitional arrangements necessary to provide for fairness between applicants to the existing scheme and applicants to the revised scheme.” The Government’s response, published earlier this month, is inadequate. That may be because the Minister has been in post for only three months; it may be because Government officials have not done the review work that for the last several years they have assured me and others that they were doing. We will hear from the Minister in due course. I hope she will be able to say that the Government agree to increase the £120,000 payment, that they will apply annual increases in line with inflation, that they will introduce multiple levels of payment, commensurate with the degree of injury, and so on.

    Hansard source
39. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Christopher Chope

    Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4 Report: Government Response

    I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. It is fair to remind everybody that he participated in the first debate I had on this subject, on Friday 10 September 2021. That was the occasion on which I moved the Second Reading of a private Member’s Bill and, in so doing, drew attention to what were then 1,632 yellow card reports of deaths having taken place shortly after vaccination.<span id="118WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="118WH"></span> I also drew attention then to the public petition that had been put to Parliament, and the Government’s response. The petition called for improved support for those injured or bereaved through covid-19 vaccines. The Government response stated: “Once more is known about the possible links between the vaccine and potential side effects, it will be considered whether a wider review of the VDPS is needed.” Well, that was more than five years ago. We have now had that review, had the public inquiry and had the outcome, yet we have not had the Government’s acceptance of the clear recommendations to which I have already referred. Back in September 2021, I requested that the then Secretary of State establish an independent review of disablement caused by covid-19 vaccines and the adequacy of the compensation awarded. I was not requesting a mammoth public inquiry, but only a short, judge-led inquiry into how we should most fairly compensate those who suffered adverse consequences. I also contrasted the Government’s pessimistic view with the World Health Organisation’s COVAX scheme, which, as the Minister will know, indemnifies claims for vaccine damage in third-world countries. We, the British taxpayers, pay for that, but we do not have an equivalent scheme in our own jurisdiction. On 2 March 2022, I raised the specific subject of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 in an Adjournment debate. In that debate, I referred to Kate Scott, whose husband, a fit 44-year-old software engineer, spent 124 days in hospital following a severe brain injury caused by the vaccine. Boris Johnson, the then Prime Minister, had written to Kate Scott and her family back in August 2021, stating: “You’re not a statistic, and must not be ignored.” He said that the Government would—I use the word again—consider Kate’s suggestions for reform of the scheme. In concluding my speech on that occasion, I referred to what David Ennals, Labour’s Secretary of State for Social Services, had said back on 5 February 1979, when introducing the legislation. He said: “For most people, vaccination is a beneficial procedure, and it is right for the community to give financial aid and support to those who suffer as the result of vaccinations given as part of the public policy programme.”<span id="vol962_col32" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="32" data-volume-number="962">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 5 February 1979; Vol. 962, c. 32.]</span> That was the rationale for the vaccine damage payment scheme, a scheme introduced by the then Labour Government in their dying days. I will not criticise them for having made that a priority at the end of their term of office. In responding to my Adjournment debate in March 2022, the then Minister, Maria Caulfield, refused even to accept any causality. She said that there had been 920 claims by then, but: “The work currently going on is establishing whether there is a causal link between the vaccine and the adverse events that people have been suffering.”<span id="vol709_col1151" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="1151" data-volume-number="709" data-external-id="D795F2B4-8938-4783-AD77-128F267095AB">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 2 March 2022; Vol. 709, c. 1151.]</span> Fast forward to today, and we see that we have the findings, to which I have already referred, and then the Government response: “The government…accepts that there is a need for reform of the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme, and is committed to reviewing the scheme to ensure it is fit for purpose and delivered effectively.”<span id="119WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="119WH"></span> That implied that it was a review that would start after the inquiry had reported; however, when I and other people campaigning on behalf of the victims met the then Public Health Minister, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), probably about a year ago, she told us that the Government were already reviewing the scheme. We asked her in what respect they were reviewing the scheme, but she said she could not say, although she conceded that they were reviewing it. It now seems as though the Government are starting afresh, saying they are “committed to reviewing the scheme…we will work closely with the vaccine injured and their families as we consider how the scheme could be strengthened in the future.” That is a long way from the specific, clear and strong recommendations made by Baroness Hallett. Let us think about what the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, said to Kate Scott in in August 2021: he said he would review it. Has the review not already taken place? I assume it must have. There is another issue here. We now know that, as of 30 June, 264 claims had been successful and 582 claims under the scheme had been rejected where causation had been established but the claimant did not meet the 60% disability threshold. On my calculation, that means that about £32 million has been paid out in compensation, yet in answer to a question I asked, which was answered on 3 September, I found out that over four years the costs of the staffing, the non-staffing, the medical assessment and payments to health care bodies is no less than £82 million. All that public money was spent on bureaucracy to try to block people who have suffered damage—in some cases, bereavement—as a result of doing the right thing and taking the vaccines. That is just unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will include within her response an explanation of what the Government are going to do to simplify the scheme, stop blocking legitimate claims through technical measures, and ensure that instead of spending another £82 million over the next four years on bureaucracy, we actually use some of that money to compensate the people who have suffered as a result of the vaccine programme. I can help the Minister because I anticipated this debate, in a sense, when we had the private Members’ Bill ballot. I put in a number of presentation Bills, one of which is the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (UK Covid-19 Inquiry) Bill. That is set for Second Reading on 15 January 2027, so it is ideally timed to be able to incorporate any recommendations that the Minister comes forward with in this debate. The long title of the Bill is: “A Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for the implementation of Recommendation 5 of Module 4 of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, relating to the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme; and for connected purposes.” The Bill represents a legislative opportunity for the Government, and I hope that they will take advantage of it. In the meantime, during this Session, the Government have been blocking my Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Payments Bill. It has already been published, and the explanatory notes to the Bill set out a number of suggested reforms, including looking at the benefits of having a system that does not cost the Government anything but would ensure that people got recompense. That would be done <span id="120WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="120WH"></span>by introducing a scheme similar to that which covers motor insurance, for example—the Motor Insurers’ Bureau scheme or the Financial Services Compensation Scheme—where the industry pays for the costs of the compensation arising from problems with the way in which those schemes have operated. What could be more equitable than that? Instead of doing that, both the previous Government and the current Government are indemnifying big pharma against any costs associated with vaccines that do not work properly, which is intolerable. My Bill has a number of recommendations and suggestions. I hope that the Minister will be able to engage with me on them, if not in this debate then privately afterwards.

    Hansard source
40. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Christopher Chope

    Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4 Report: Government Response

    I am grateful to the Minister for that response and grateful to everybody who has participated in the debate. Nobody can doubt the sincerity of what the Minister said. I hope that she will talk not just to the families but to parliamentarians because this issue affects lots of our constituents. A headline in <em>The Daily Telegraph</em> states: “Paralysed vaccine victim ‘not ill enough for payout’”. That is an example of the issues. That particular victim worked for the NHS as a nurse. We need action. The tone of what the Minister said seems more like a placebo. Placebos have their place in healthcare but we need to go further. She talks about the spring; we are still in the autumn. Why can we not get some action now? All the time the Government knew what was going on at the inquiry. The victims gave evidence to the inquiry. The inquiry made its recommendations. Why can the Government not accept the four parts of recommendation 5? I do not understand that, and I am not satisfied in that respect. I shall continue to campaign on this issue—I hope not for another five years. <em>Question put and agreed </em><em>to</em><em>.</em> <em>Resolved</em><em>,</em> That this House has considered the Government response to the Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4 Report.

    Hansard source