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

1. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

   Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)

   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.

   Hansard source
2. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

   Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)

   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.

   Hansard source
3. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

   Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)

   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.

   Hansard source
4. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

   Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)

   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.

   Hansard source
5. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

   Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4 Report: Government Response

   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?

   Hansard source
6. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

   Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4 Report: Government 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?

   Hansard source
7. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

   Electronic Monitoring of Offenders

   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?

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

   Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

   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.

   Hansard source
9. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Edward Argar

   Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

   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.

   Hansard source
10. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Edward Argar

    Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

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

    Hansard source
11. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Edward Argar

    Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point, but he makes the same point, in a sense, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, and it is not what I am speaking about, which is the process. I do not believe that a consultation would tie councils up in knots or delay things inordinately, or indeed that introducing these changes through regulations rather than by diktat of the Secretary of State would cause unnecessary delays.<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.

    Hansard source
12. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Edward Argar

    Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

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

    Hansard source
13. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Edward Argar

    Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)

    As always, Mr Western, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I rise to support clause 13 remaining part of the Bill. With his typical eloquence, the Minister set out both the opportunities and challenges presented to those with shared ownership, including the regulatory challenges sitting around it. He also described the very real impact that it can have on those individuals—who are often starting off on the path to home ownership—when it does not work well.<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.

    Hansard source
14. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Edward Argar

    Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)

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

    Hansard source
15. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Edward Argar

    Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)

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

    Hansard source
16. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Edward Argar

    Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)

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

    Hansard source
17. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Edward Argar

    Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)

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

    Hansard source
18. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

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

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. It is also a pleasure to be opposite the Minister. We last met at MIRA in my constituency to talk about some of these issues that affect the automotive industry. He will be pleased to hear that I will not be dividing the Committee, as it is welcome news that the Government are looking at ways to reduce costs on businesses. That being said, there are some fundamental questions about the regulations that need to be raised. The Government have correctly identified high energy costs as a major obstacle to British manufacturing, but their response seems to be to create a complicated system of exemptions that help selected businesses while leaving the majority facing uncompetitive costs. In essence, we need cheaper electricity for British industry in its entirety, so why are we effectively creating winners and losers, leaving the underlying problem unresolved? The question is: who ultimately pays? There is legitimate concern that households or businesses that are excluded from the scheme may face higher costs. Also, why are so many businesses excluded? The eligibility rules favour selected manufacturing sectors, leaving other businesses to face higher energy bills. Why is the scheme unnecessarily complicated, with several tiers setting out the percentage a business can claim back? And fundamentally, does it address the real underlying problem? The Minister has again pointed out that we have high industrial costs, some of the highest in the world. If BICS carves selected manufacturing out of existing <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.

    Hansard source
19. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    Defence and Security: European Partners

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

    Hansard source
20. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    Strengthening Community Resilience

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

    Hansard source
21. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Topical Questions

    <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>

    Hansard source
22. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Strengthening Community Resilience

    I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and join him in sending my condolences to the families of the two men who lost their lives in the storms over the weekend. We welcome measures to address the resilience gap—a process that started under the previous Government, as the Minister said. I am a little surprised that the Housing Secretary’s suggestion of stockpiling sauvignon blanc has not been taken on board by the Minister, but it is absolutely right that the Government tell people to be prepared for adversity. However, I have a number of questions that I hope he will be able to address this afternoon. First, the Government’s Be Ready campaign website lists 18 hazards, ranging from terrorism and adverse weather to animal and plant health and fires in the home. Which of those 18 hazards do the Government consider to be the highest risk, and have there been any recent changes to risk assessments that led to the launch of this campaign?<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.

    Hansard source
23. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4 Report: Government Response

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. Some here will be aware of the tragic case in Bromsgrove of NHS pharmacist John Cross, who developed paralysing complications after receiving a covid injection. The <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.

    Hansard source
24. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Topical Questions

    <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>

    Hansard source
25. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Topical Questions

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

    Hansard source
26. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)

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

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

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    New clause 32 rewrites the exception to automatic deportation for foreign criminals who are victims of trafficking. At present, section 33(6A) of the UK Borders Act 2007 disapplies automatic deportation where removal would breach our obligations under the Council of Europe trafficking convention. The new clause would replace that with a test based on leave under section 65 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, including where the Home Secretary merely intends to grant such leave, even where she is under no duty to do so. A criminal conviction should trigger automatic deportation, and those deported as foreign criminals should not be able to make protection claims to stop <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.

    Hansard source
28. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)

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

    Hansard source
29. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)

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

    Hansard source
30. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Topical Questions

    <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>

    Hansard source
31. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Topical Questions

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

    Hansard source
32. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Topical Questions

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

    Hansard source
33. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Strengthening Community Resilience

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

    Hansard source
34. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Foreign Interference in Democratic Processes

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

    Hansard source
35. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Civil Service Pensions

    I recognise the Minister’s efforts to resolve this issue, and I am grateful to her for meeting me recently, but far too often, Capita remains completely unresponsive. Sadly, trying to get an appointment at the MPs’ surgeries is proving very difficult. Last week, I wrote to her about four outstanding cases in my constituency. Will she commit personally to reviewing those cases and securing me a detailed update, so that my constituents know what to expect and when to expect it, and when they will get the money that they are owed?

    Hansard source
36. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

    Topical Questions

    The villages of Crick and Flore in my constituency are two small rural communities with few amenities, but both have hotels housing asylum seekers. The previous Minister responsible for asylum, in fairness, recognised that they are not suitable and said that they would be temporary, but all the communication I get now says, “It will be done by 2029”. Can I invite the Minister to visit these villages and see for herself how unsuitable they are for those hotels?

    Hansard source
37. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Prostate Cancer Screening

    I thank all my constituents who have contacted me about this vital point. Community diagnostic centres offer great resources to speed up screening. Does my hon. Friend agree that more emphasis should be put on those centres, particularly in rural areas like South Shropshire?

    Hansard source
38. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Road Traffic Collision Reporting: Cats

    I hope you received my note, Mr Vickers, indicating that I could not be here at the start. I offer my apologies to the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley), who moved the motion, and all other colleagues. I meant no disrespect; I was chairing a Committee upstairs. Street Farm House is on a corner opposite the village shop in a quiet, rural village. During rush hour, there is a fairly high volume of traffic. There is a 30-mile-an-hour speed limit that is hardly ever adhered to during the rush-hour. The illustrious cabinet member for highways and transport, Peter Osborne, a Reform county councillor, has chosen not to take any action to introduce traffic-calming measures, despite the fact that we have warned over and over again that it is only a question of time before a child or an elderly person—I can speak with some authority on that matter—will be killed crossing that bottleneck. On a light, bright morning six weeks ago, Baxter, aged two-and-a-half, chose to cross the road. It was totally out of character because, so far as we are all aware, he had never done it before. He was hit by a car travelling, at a guesstimate, well in excess of 50 miles an hour. The driver did not stop. Five other drivers did not stop. Unfortunately, the village shop CCTV did not pick up the number plate. Afterwards, one decent human being took the trouble to pull in, look after the dying cat and make sure that the owners—not me—were aware that their desperately loved family pet had been killed on the road. I have always had some strong feelings about this issue, but this incident has inevitably sharpened my attention. I understand entirely the concerns raised by Cats Protection and others about liability. That liability applies to dogs: when a dog is out of control and causes an accident, the owner may be liable for whatever damage is caused up to and including death in that accident. Those of us who love cats and dogs must accept that it is much harder to keep a cat under control than a dog— the expression “herding kittens” is probably appropriate. Nevertheless, cats are now microchipped. The point has been made, fairly, that the person who hits and kills or maims the animal is likely to be traumatised. Patently, that was not the case for the driver who hit the cat that I referred to. They clearly could not have given a toss; they drove straight on with gay abandon. If it is difficult for people to grasp to whom they should report something after stopping, then I respectfully suggest that it is no harder than to know to whom to report hitting a dog, so I do not think that is a valid argument. I believe very strongly that to leave any animal, but particularly a family pet, dying in the road and go on without a care in the world is simply not acceptable. It is not decent behaviour. It is not what the British do, with their affection for animals.<span id="36WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="36WH"></span> I would entirely support an amendment to the Road Traffic Act or, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) suggested, taking guidance and turning it into something statutory. I do not accept the argument that it cannot be done. It can be done; we have to find a way of doing it. I want to see Baxter’s law—or something similar—on a statute book as soon as possible.

    Hansard source
39. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Road Traffic Collision Reporting: Cats

    A similar campaign before 2015 provoked a similar debate in this place. I was the Minister responsible at the time, speaking from the Dispatch Box. I can tell the hon. Member—it might come as a surprise to him— that at that time I changed the guidance so that cats killed on roads must be collected, identified with their owners and notified to the Highways Agency. One of three things has occurred: the guidance has been ignored; the Department for Transport did not bring about what I announced from the Dispatch Box, which seems unlikely; or the guidance applied only to roads controlled by the then Highways Agency, which of course excludes the local roads, which are within the purview of local authorities. That guidance is on record and can be used as the basis for dealing with this excellent petition. I speak as a proud cat owner then and as a beloved cat owner now. And, by the way, they are not just companions; they are members of my family—Caterina and Gordon.

    Hansard source
40. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Road Traffic Collision Reporting: Cats

    The hon. Gentleman always makes such a valuable contribution to our considerations, as I told him just the other day. The guidance that I announced in this Chamber must exist. That could be made statutory, and a mechanism could be found to apply it beyond the trunk roads, as I mentioned earlier. Surely the Minister would have a fairly straightforward job—this would not require primary legislation. He may be able to do it at a stroke, following this debate.

    Hansard source