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

1. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·John Glen

   Civil Service Pensions

   Like many MPs across the House, I have a number of constituents who have been affected by this issue. I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response, but there is an issue that concerns me more than anything. When the procurement process happens, it seems that officials come to us and assure us that a series of decision points have been gone through, and that the options before us are the best ones available—as a former Minister, I recognise that. However, when these things go wrong, nobody is individually accountable. What would the Minister say to our constituents, who are alarmed at the fact that nobody is apparently responsible for such a dire outcome?

   Hansard source
2. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·James Wild

   The Enterprise Act 2002 (Specification of Additional Section 58 Consideration) Order 2026

   As the Secretary of State set out, the order introduces a new public interest test for mergers, enabling Government intervention where a transaction could threaten continuity of telecoms services. I think the objectives to protect critical infrastructure, safeguard public services and ensure that vulnerable customers are not left without connectivity will be supported across the Committee. However, the context for the order is a specific case concerning BT, TalkTalk and the 2.5 million customers involved—including, BT informs me, 5,000 in my North West Norfolk constituency. It also highlights regulatory gaps when a company in this sector may simply fold, and the need to protect customers. We will not oppose the order, but it raises important questions about the speed of the process, the potential impact on competition and, importantly, investor sentiment. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State thought it appropriate for her to come to the Committee, which underlines the concerns that are shared across parts of the sector. Let me turn first to the speed at which the intervention notice and the statutory instrument have come forward. As the Secretary of State said, she issued the notice on <span id="5" class="column-number" data-column-number="5"></span>5 October. The Competition and Markets Authority was then given only 10 working days to consider the transaction. Interested parties in a dynamic sector had only a few days to make representations on a detailed transaction. There is a concern that the transaction will further entrench BT’s significant role in the retail and wholesale markets. The Competition and Markets Authority has completed the phase 1 report, but we do not know what is in it or whether the Secretary of State will judge that a phase 2 study is appropriate. Can the Secretary of State confirm that adding this intervention power to the Enterprise Act through the order will provide the Government with a basis to override any competition concerns raised by the CMA or other parties? Of course, vulnerable consumers and public services need to be protected. Having worked in the telecoms sector a little while ago, when T-Mobile was still a retail brand in the UK, I am a little surprised that existing legislation, general conditions and other Ofcom powers could not have been used in this scenario. Can the Secretary of State assure the Committee that all alternatives were looked at? Outwith the order, is she looking further at this point and at how a supplier of last resort regime could be introduced, with reference to models from other essential services? Clearly, the transaction raises competition issues. Given the comments that were made when the intervention notice was issued and the approach taken with the order, the Government risk creating the impression that the outcome has effectively been decided in advance, limiting the ability of the competition authority to discharge its role in full. We should be very careful before setting aside competition implications for wider public interest considerations, particularly when the goal set by the Secretary of State—avoiding the loss of service—has been achieved. Clearly, we want to avoid any precedent where financial distress enables further market consolidation without appropriate scrutiny. How do the Government intend to reassure inward investors that the principle of encouraging competitive markets and investment remains to the fore? Can the Secretary of State assure other players in the sector that she will consider seriously the competitive impacts that may have been raised by the CMA—they have certainly been raised by a number of companies that have spoken to me—when she decides what the next steps are? Is she confident that the CMA had sufficient opportunity, in only 10 working days, to fully assess the implications of the transaction? Can she indicate when she might respond to the referral? We support the objective of the order in protecting consumers and maintaining vital telecoms services; however, we also support effective competition, proper scrutiny and confidence in the independence of the process. I therefore look forward to the Secretary of State’s response to the concerns and questions I have raised.

   Hansard source
3. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

   Prostate Cancer Screening

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on securing the debate and speaking on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I thank all Members who have spoken powerfully and in a considered manner, whichever side of the argument they are on, and the 100,000-plus people who signed the petition, including the 198 from my constituency. My thoughts go out to all those in my constituency and across the country who are affected by this terrible illness. In November 2024, I supported Cancer Testing South—run by one of my constituents—at a free screening event in Bordon. I took a PSA test myself. It was quick and simple, and it gave me peace of mind. It showed how important it is to make testing accessible and to reach men who might never otherwise consider it.

   Hansard source
4. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

   Prostate Cancer Screening

   I thank my hon. Friend for the work of her constituents in that important area. I must also recognise the previous Government’s work, particularly that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak)—whose commitment has continued beyond his time in office, as we have seen today—and that of my noble Friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton and my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly). With Prostate Cancer UK, we as the Conservative Government committed £42 million to launch Transform, the largest prostate cancer screening trial in the world. I welcome some of what the current Government have done, but important questions remain about access to testing, identifying men at highest risk and how evidence will translate into policy. First, on PSA testing guidance, as raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) and for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), the guidance setting out the right of men over 50 to request a PSA test was withdrawn earlier this year. The Government say that policy has not changed and attribute the concerns to “misinformed media coverage”, yet a written answer in September confirmed that no impact assessment was undertaken because there was “no change in policy to assess.” If the policy had not changed, why was the guidance withdrawn? And how was it established that the change had no impact without an assessment? On 21 October, the Government said that “officials continue to work with NICE”, which does not clarify whether the changes to the clinical knowledge summary were discussed. Prostate Cancer Research has asked the Department to confirm that higher-risk men can still access a PSA test once informed of its risks and benefits. As of 14 October, it has had no reply. Will the Minister confirm clearly that those men can access testing?<span id="22WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="22WH"></span> Secondly, on support for those at the highest risk, I of course respect the committee’s independence while it reviews the evidence, but the Government can take practical steps in the meantime. Prostate Cancer UK has called for GPs to inform black men and men with a family history of their elevated risk and to offer them a PSA test. What will the Government do to improve access for such men now, rather than leaving them to wait years for the wider review? Thirdly, on identifying BRCA2 carriers, an estimated 13,000 men carry that variant, yet most have never been tested and do not know. <em>The Telegraph</em> reported that only about 1,500 men will be invited for testing next year. How will the programme reach the wider population whom it is meant to benefit? The committee’s consultation document stated: “DHSC analysts are undertaking an exercise to estimate the cost of identifying new BRCA variant carriers.” Has that work been completed? Will it be published? What will the Government do to identify men who carry the variant without knowing it? Fourthly, on Transform and the NSC model, the committee will work with SCHARR—the Sheffield centre for health and related research—to update its modelling in the light of the trial’s findings, in particular for black men. It will also examine risk algorithms and biomarkers, including the Stockholm3 test, and whether family history can be more tightly defined. That work of course matters, but its impact depends on how quickly findings inform decisions and whether the public can see what is happening. Will the Minister commit to publishing by January of next year a dated programme for updating the model, covering the biomarker review and family history work, and reporting to this House every six months? Will she set a named decision point for black men, tied to the results of Transform’s first stage so that reconsideration does not default to the next scheduled review in 2029? What evidence will trigger a change to that model, and will independent experts be given access to it on terms similar to those NICE offers for medicines so that the assumptions can be tested? Finally, I have some questions about how the value of screening is judged. Since April, NICE has been able to approve a medicine for advanced prostate cancer at up to £35,000 per quality-adjusted life year—a threshold raised as part of the trade deal with the United States. The screening committee judged earlier detection against a figure of £20,000. Why does the NHS now appear to value treating late-stage prostate cancer more highly than preventing it? Will the committee’s forthcoming methods guide bring the two thresholds into line? In conclusion, I recognise the committee’s concerns about the harms of population-wide PSA screening, including overdiagnosis and treatment, and the uncertainties in the evidence for black men.

   Hansard source
5. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

   Prostate Cancer Screening

   My hon. Friend is a great champion for his constituents, especially on this issue but on others as well. He is absolutely right that while the committee is making its evidential findings, there is nothing to stop the Government promoting a number of these ways to make sure that those at highest risk are getting treatment as soon as possible. Cancer Research UK has highlighted the risks too. As my hon. Friend said, screening must be evidence-led, but Transform exists to address the limits of existing evidence, and improvements in testing and MRI-led pathways offer ways to improve how men are assessed, as many Members have mentioned. Uncertainty must not be the end; it must lead to research and progress, not delay. The former shadow Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), set out the position of His Majesty’s Opposition last August. He said we would “back the latest evidence and research to ensure patient care remains at the heart of testing guidance.” That is clearly the right approach: act where the evidence supports it, accelerate research where questions remain, and be clear about when decisions will be made. Men must not be disadvantaged by circumstances beyond their control. One may have no family records because his father died young, for example; another may simply want to discuss his risk with his GP. As my right hon. Friend said, no man with potential prostate cancer symptoms should be denied a test because of poor family records. To conclude, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support targeted screening for men at highest risk, Transform and the committee’s evidence-led approach. But we need clear guidance from the Government on PSA testing, practical support for men at the highest risk, a credible plan to identify BRCA2 carriers and a dated timetable for the model, with independent scrutiny of it and transparency about how Transform will shape policy. I hope the Minister will address those questions directly now; if not, will she write to me and set out clearly what patients can expect next?

   Hansard source
6. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

   Small Boat Crossings: Removal of Arrivals

   <Question HRSContentId="{EEC1C563-6922-4520-83B6-290177342DCA}">1. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{D97E76CD-6172-4CBB-A77F-B0BE592B5BDD}">What proportion of people arriving in small boats were removed in 2025. </QuestionText></Question>

   Hansard source
7. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

   Small Boat Crossings: Removal of Arrivals

   If small boat crossings were down by enough, the Government would not have to stand up asylum camps at places such as Ministry of Defence Bicester site A, which is just over the Oxfordshire border from my constituency. With 85,000 small boat crossings since the general election, the situation is at crisis point. MOD Bicester site A does not even offer value to the taxpayer; new modelling shows that over three years, the cost would come in at £385 per person per night—nearly double that of the equivalent asylum hotels. Will the Home Secretary actually get on and deport those who have come to our country illegally, rather than using sites like MOD Bicester site A?

   Hansard source
8. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

   Violence against Women and Girls

   Cheshire constabulary was named the best police force in England and Wales for the highest charge rates for crimes against women and girls—specifically, sexual offences, violence against the person, stalking and harassment. The chief constable, under whose leadership this has happened, is retiring next week. Will the Minister join me and fellow Cheshire MPs in congratulating him on his dedicated life of service, and is she, like me, surprised that the police and crime commissioner for Cheshire did not seek to extend the chief constable’s tenure when he offered to remain in service?

   Hansard source
9. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

   Rough Sleeping and Good Growth Funds

   Can the Minister clarify something for me? Over the weekend, it was revealed that criminals released early from prison under Labour’s appalling Sentencing Act 2026 were provided with tents, because no accommodation was available for them. Those are criminals who are now out on the street and homeless. Can the Minister let me know if some of the £874 million for homeless people goes to finding accommodation for those early-release criminals? If there is no accommodation for those criminals, where is the accommodation coming from for homeless people?

   Hansard source
10. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Prostate Cancer Screening

    Many in this House will know my previous position, but I will use my speech to talk about things I understand and things I do not. I understand why there is such a drive to pick up the screening programme. The numbers have been stated explicitly, and I understand why the Government are citing the evidence from the committee to make sure that this is measured. If there is a test that says someone may have cancer 75% of the time but does not pick it up 15% of the time, that is a matter of concern, especially when we read the statistics about 12 men in 1,000 tested being overtreated. Nobody has talked about what being overtreated means; it means a man who is perhaps 56 and asymptomatic suddenly suffering erectile dysfunction, though he never had a cancer that needed treatment. These are important points, and it is right that we expand the trial to understand more about what is going on.<span id="10WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="10WH"></span> Here is what I do not understand, which I will put to the Minister. The guidance for GPs has changed: formerly, when a man who was asymptomatic and over 50 requested a PSA, they could get it. We have a test that is not very good, and it is hard enough to get men in to see a doctor, but what are they most concerned about? Cancer. I have had those conversations; they understand the risks and still want that test. Why have the Government changed that, when their own consultation says: “There was no simple way of knowing from the data whether a PSA test had been done because of a patient’s request for one, a GP’s concern about a patient’s symptoms, as part of post-cancer treatment follow-up, or active surveillance”? The Government do not even know why PSA test access was changed. That is important. If a man goes in to ask for a PSA test, given everything he knows, he should have the right to that test until we get further information to tell him otherwise, because if I was that GP, I would be worried he would ask for my General Medical Council number and my name.

    Hansard source
11. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Prostate Cancer Screening

    Is the Minister therefore saying that a 52-year-old patient who understands the risks on both sides and wants their PSA has the right to get it, or is it the GP’s decision? The GP could deny it on a clinical basis even if the patient wants it. That is the change that people are worried about. Could she explain that point?

    Hansard source
12. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Prostate Cancer Screening

    Order. Colleagues will note that the debate is vastly oversubscribed, and we will not be able to get everybody in. There will be a two-minute time limit on speeches and Front-Bench speeches will begin at 5.28 pm.

    Hansard source
13. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Prostate Cancer Screening

    Well done, everyone; we got all the Back Benchers in.<span id="19WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="19WH"></span>

    Hansard source
14. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    Performance of Royal Mail

    Back in March, following a growing number of complaints from people across my constituency, I led a Westminster Hall debate on Royal Mail’s performance. It was well attended, like this evening’s debate, and it focused on the fact that while prices have continued to rise, the standard of service has declined, undermining public trust in Royal Mail, an institution that has been around for 500 years. I know this is a theme that will come up repeatedly this evening. Unfortunately, seven months later, I am still hearing the same complaints and constituents are still experiencing completely unacceptable delays. It is time for this House to act and for us to turn these debates into real action. It has been reported to me that people in Pinhoe in my constituency are receiving letters only once every two to three weeks, and I have heard similar accounts of households elsewhere in my constituency—Exmouth, Budleigh Salterton, Woodbury and Lympstone—going weeks without a delivery before receiving large bundles of post all at once. I know that many Members will have households in their constituencies who have had the same experiences.

    Hansard source
15. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    Performance of Royal Mail

    I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and—to raise a point made by the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore), who introduced the debate—this is not on the posties at all; the posties do a fantastic job. From the numbers for Royal Mail, it looks like asset stripping is going on, so we can understand why those posties are having a difficult time. There may be a perception that letters are no longer particularly important, but that is far from the case, especially in areas with elderly populations such as my constituency.

    Hansard source
16. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    Performance of Royal Mail

    I completely agree, and I think we will have a lot of consensus in the debate this evening, as we did in my debate in March. Royal Mail clearly says that it is now a parcel company that still delivers letters, and that is an issue that affects countries very close to us. Denmark has PostNord, which has operated for about 400 years, and they are going through the exact same problems as us. We have the universal service obligation, and we really need to work on that to make sure it is fit for purpose and there are repercussions for not fulfilling those roles.

    Hansard source
17. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    Performance of Royal Mail

    Again, we will find consensus here. I have a very mixed constituency with some really urban areas and some very rural areas, and there is a significant disparity in service delivery. When we think about the reasons why, we realise that it takes more time for posties to go out and deliver in some areas, which costs more money, and for a company that is stripping back quite significantly, we can understand why those problems arise. Going back to the point about those who have been waiting for NHS correspondence, financial documents and other time-sensitive information that they rely on, a constituent has told me that letters relating to their cancer treatment have been arriving late. For patients already facing the anxiety and uncertainty of cancer treatment, the added worry of not receiving important medical correspondence is completely unacceptable. For those people, many of whom do not use email or online services, these delays can have particularly serious consequences. I would like the Minister to address, if possible, a Royal Mail product called economy access mail. It is a non-time sensitive product, and organisations like the NHS and local councils will use it because it is the cheapest option, but they are not informing their customers that they are using it and that that is why correspondence arrives late more often than not. Particularly frustrating is the repeated cycle my office faces whenever we raise these concerns with Royal Mail, and we have heard very similar experiences tonight about poor communication. My constituents should not have <span id="92" class="column-number" data-column-number="92"></span>to be reaching out to their MP just to receive their post, nor can we keep having the same debates in this House without seeing any meaningful improvement. We have discussed some of the numbers, but according to Royal Mail’s latest quarterly performance figures, just 81.8% of first-class letters in the EX postcode of my constituency were delivered within the next working day, against a local target of 87%. Again, I could go into all the numbers, but I am sure that many other Members will be raising them. All this should be considered in the context of a first-class stamp now costing £1.80. My constituents are paying for a first-class service but too often receiving something considerably worse. I recognise that Royal Mail faces significant challenges. We are going through technological change on a level we have not seen over the last 500 years, and there are financial implications for businesses trying to operate in that environment. Letter volumes have fallen, operating costs have increased and the business model needs to be modernised. Royal Mail recently informed me that it has begun implementing a new delivery model at Exeter, which it says is going to improve output and save costs, but they are just commitments at the moment and after years of missed targets the public can be forgiven for wanting to see results rather than another improvement plan. It is important to look at the numbers to understand what is really happening. Royal Mail made a loss of £400 million three years ago and £200 million a year after and a £14 million profit last year. We have been seeing lots of fat being cut out of the business, from normal business operations that can cut away that fat, but we have cut into the muscle now, and it is starting to look a lot like asset-stripping. As I made clear in my previous debate, none of this criticism should be laid at the feet of the postmen or postwomen.

    Hansard source
18. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    Performance of Royal Mail

    We have yet more consensus. This is where we have to really dig into the universal service obligation and make sure that there are significant penalties if Royal Mail does not do what it has signed up to do and what we have asked it to do as a company.

    Hansard source
19. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    Performance of Royal Mail

    My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. If we look at those numbers again—losses of £400 million three years ago and then £200 million, followed by a <span id="93" class="column-number" data-column-number="93"></span>£14 million profit—they show that Royal Mail is baking the fines into its operating model and cutting away more and more muscle. We have to make sure that there is a cost that is unacceptable to Royal Mail and its shareholders so that we do not see these problems again. I am conscious that many Members want to speak in the debate so I will come straight to my questions for the Minister. Please will the Minister look at what the Government can do to address Royal Mail’s new delivery model? Secondly, on the imposition of significant fines, does the Minister believe that Ofcom’s current regulatory approach is effective, and what more can be done to hold Royal Mail to account?

    Hansard source
20. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    Performance of Royal Mail

    Will the Minister touch on the points that I raised about deferred mail? There should be more transparency over the economy service that Royal Mail offers. Constituents are receiving letters from the NHS or local councils, and do not realise that those buying these products have chosen a cheaper option.

    Hansard source
21. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Mundell

    Civil Service Pensions

    My constituents will welcome the robust tone of the Minister’s statement, but what difference will this make for constituents such as John Carroll from Annan, who worked at Dumfries prison and who has been waiting since February to hear anything meaningful from Capita? What difference will it make to the likelihood of a response?

    Hansard source
22. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Davis

    Topical Questions

    Following their convictions for LIBOR manipulation, Jay Merchant and Christian Bittar were deported from the UK and barred from returning. Earlier this month, their convictions were comprehensively quashed by the Court of Appeal. With their convictions thrown out, the reason for their deportation is completely invalid, but the deportation order will remain in place until removed by the Home Office. Will the Home Secretary look into those cases, accelerate the decision-making process on their applications and have their deportations revoked, so that they do not receive any more unearned punishment?

    Hansard source
23. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

    Topical Questions

    In our inquiry looking at the impact that serious and organised crime has on local neighbourhoods, we have heard evidence from Trading Standards that organised criminals are now using online second-hand marketplaces to sell stolen goods and launder money. What conversations <span id="21" class="column-number" data-column-number="21"></span>are the Government having with those online vendors to try to stop such sites being used by organised criminals to make money?

    Hansard source
24. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

    Work-based Immigration

    I am grateful for this opportunity to highlight the Home Affairs Committee’s new inquiry on work-based immigration and to explain the innovative approach we have used with this inquiry. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this statement. I know that the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), was staying just for that thank you; he is welcome to leave now. <em>[</em><em>Laughter.</em><em>]</em> When I was elected Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, one of the things I talked about was wanting to have a more informed and considered debate on immigration that recognises the distinction between legal migration—visas for work, family, study and humanitarian purposes—and irregular migration, which primarily means small boats nowadays, where the numbers are much lower but the attention much higher. We want a debate that digs into the reasons why net migration numbers have followed the path they have and how reducing those numbers, which is the stated aim of successive Governments, can be achieved in a fair way that serves our economic and national interests. To do that, the Committee decided to commission a series of deliberative workshops. Instead of relying on opinion polls or surveys, which can only give a snapshot of views, we partnered with the think-tank Demos to design and deliver a rigorous deliberative process, and I thank the Liaison Committee for supporting us financially. This process is one where ordinary people, selected to reflect the make-up of the local population, learn about the issue, discuss it with one another, and work towards agreeing conclusions. We chose work-based immigration as the focus of these workshops because it is an area of ongoing contention, the policy is constantly under review and therefore open to influence, and, importantly, the Government have effective levers to determine who is allowed to come to the UK on a work visa. So that people could better understand the complexities and the trade-offs in policy making, we wanted to hear from people in different parts of the country. We chose North Tyneside, Leicester and Renfrewshire. We wanted to share with them the kind of conversations that go on within Whitehall. We know these questions are hard to resolve. I have been a Minister in the Home Office, and I know that it is hard—I sympathise with the challenges faced by the current Minister, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White). Earlier this month, the Home Secretary revealed that she gets almost weekly requests from other Ministers to provide visas for foreign workers in different sectors. This is at the heart of the issue: the extent to which we <span id="70" class="column-number" data-column-number="70"></span>want to rely upon migrant labour and skills, and the weighing up of the economic and social factors that influence the decision. The report produced by Demos on the results of the workshops was published on 7 September, and it is available in the Vote Office. I hope it will be of interest to hon. and right hon. Members and to other Select Committees whose remit includes areas affected by immigration. Between them, the 89 participants at the three workshops produced a list of 13 principles that they thought should underpin policy on work-based immigration and ranked them. It was striking that the No. 1 priority at all three workshops, in three totally different parts of the country, was that the Government should focus on training, upskilling and employment opportunities for UK residents, especially young people, before relying on migrant labour. The second-highest ranked principle was the need to ensure that local infrastructure can support migrants and existing residents. The third and fourth principles were the need for better workforce planning and for migrant workers to be protected from abuse by employers. The fifth principle was about promoting an honest and balanced public conversation about immigration. That was our intention when we started this work, and I am pleased that the members of the public who participated at our workshops agreed with that aim. It is now up to us, in this House, to help promote that honest conversation. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has now joined us in calling for an honest discussion on this subject, although freedom of movement was not a question on the table when we started this work. We are also reliant on the media to move away from the soundbites, simplistic characterisations, misleading memes and social media disinformation that only serve to polarise and infantilise. While there was more support for restricting numbers of low-skilled migrant workers than higher skilled, there was also some support for restricting neither. Similarly, there were differing views on whether we should prioritise short or long-term work visas. The most common view was that we need both, but the discussions revealed interesting nuances. For example, participants who prioritised greater integration found themselves arguing for longer-term work visas, which was not necessarily their starting position. They saw how policy design can have wider impacts and considered the interaction between competing objectives in reaching conclusions. That is the value of this deliberative approach. When we received the report on the results of the workshops, we considered how best to use the conclusions to inform our future work on immigration. At the launch event for the report in Portcullis House on 7 September, I announced our intention to hold an inquiry based on the principles identified through the workshops. Our inquiry will focus on the top principle agreed in the workshops: to focus on training, upskilling and employment opportunities for UK residents, especially young people, before relying on migrant labour. We announced the full terms of reference on 15 September. These outlined the detailed questions that need to be answered in order to deliver an outcome that respects that principle. The Government have undertaken to link their immigration policy to skills. We will scrutinise how they propose to do that. We will also examine the role that migration does and should play in responding to labour shortages, and how that can be more firmly linked <span id="71" class="column-number" data-column-number="71"></span>to skills. We will look at the Home Office’s approach to managing the skilled worker visa, and how that links to wider skills policy. We plan to scrutinise the Labour Market Evidence Group—the agencies that advise on work-based migration policy—and test how the different objectives of different Departments are managed and how judgments relating to shortages and skill levels are made. We also plan to hear the views and voice of the public throughout our evidence sessions—both through the evidence we gather and from what we learned from the workshops. Artificial intelligence is affecting pretty much every aspect of life and will continue to do so. Consultations are no exception. Most of our inquires attract large volumes of written evidence. We value that evidence and draw heavily on it to inform our thinking, conclusions and recommendations. We depend on it to do our work, but there are signs now—I am sure that colleagues are seeing this in their constituency correspondence and in other Committees—that AI is increasingly being used to generate lengthy submissions that do not necessarily add anything new to the evidence base. There are resources implications for handling large volumes of written evidence, and questions around its value. Work is going on among Select Committees to look at how we can secure high-quality contributions to our inquiries: the experiences from those at the sharp end of policies and, when warranted, the considered views of an informed cross-section of the public. There are of course resource implications here as well, but I hope that the Liaison Committee might consider how best we allocate resources to best support our scrutiny of difficult policy issues in the age of artificial intelligence. Those of us who observed the workshops and spoke to the participants learned that, even on a subject as sensitive and divisive as immigration, people are capable of having a reasoned, respectful and constructive conversation. Not only that, but they obviously valued the opportunity to engage with each other—different communities that do not always mix—and with the political process, in a meaningful way. They valued being listened to, and at the end, their views on our political process were more positive. I look forward to returning to the House with the conclusions of the inquiry, and the Government response to it, in due course. In the meantime, I am happy to respond to any questions.

    Hansard source
25. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

    Work-based Immigration

    The hon. Gentleman—who I will call my hon. Friend—will be very much missed on the Committee. He is officially discharged this evening, along with the Minister, and it is a sad day for the Committee to lose his expertise. All of us who attended the workshops found that the conversations became sophisticated. People started off with polarised positions and opinions—they spent a day and a half together, hearing from experts and talking about the issues, and each of the workshops made 10 recommendations, which could be distilled into 13 recommendations in total—but from some very different places we finished with remarkably similar recommendations. The hon. Gentleman is right that the level of conversation and debate was heartening to hear and showed that those conversations can happen in an adult way.

    Hansard source
26. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

    Work-based Immigration

    The right hon. Gentleman makes his point eloquently. There are many skills that we simply do not train people in. Welding is another example: the pay is so good, why would anyone teach it on a much lower salary when they could be a welder themselves? That is why we have the problem with training welders in this country. The right hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point about sheepshearers. As an MP for a rural area, I do not have the sheepshearing problem, but I am sure that issues on dairy will be raised with me.

    Hansard source
27. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

    Work-based Immigration

    I thank the Chair of the Liaison Committee for her support allowing us to conduct this work. She makes an important point, and I am sure that many of us have enjoyed eating and drinking in the high-end, excellent restaurants in her constituency. We ensured that experts in the areas were involved in the evaluation committee, but it is a point that we will come back to during our work.

    Hansard source
28. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

    Work-based Immigration

    I would have been disappointed if I had not got the chance to respond to the hon. Member, so I appreciate his question. The Committee has just started work on the inquiry, but I note his comments and I am sure that evidence will be given to us on that issue, of which we will take account.

    Hansard source
29. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

    Work-based Immigration

    The hon. Lady is an esteemed member of the Public Accounts Committee, and I note the comments she has made. In my previous incarnation as Minister for modern slavery, tied employment was always an area where there was concern about potential abuse by the existing employer; as she says, there is also the question of what happens to the individual if their employment ends, as their immigration status makes them more vulnerable to exploitation. We have not yet had a chance to go through all the evidence we have received. We are open to receiving evidence—the inquiry is open, and we would really appreciate having that evidence. We will then make decisions about who we will get in to give oral evidence. I have noted the hon. Lady’s comments.

    Hansard source
30. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Prostate Cancer Screening

    Will my hon. Friend thank the high number of my constituents who signed the petition, putting West Worcestershire at the top of list for the number of signers who brought it before Parliament? Will he also praise the work of the Graham Fulford Charitable Trust which, working with the Worcestershire Ambassadors, brings so many free prostate cancer screening opportunities to people in my constituency?

    Hansard source
31. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Securing Scotland’s Future: Defence Skills and Jobs

    I thank the hon. Lady for her excellent report. Was she as shocked as I was to learn about the difficulty that defence firms in Scotland face in accessing basic banking services? Does she agree that the interpretation of ESG often does not recognise that, without strong defence, we would have no environment, society and governance in this country?

    Hansard source
32. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Performance of Royal Mail

    Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was not expecting to be called quite so early in the debate. I congratulate my Worcestershire colleague, the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore), on so ably setting out many of the problems that we also have in West Worcestershire. Having been a Member of Parliament there for many years, I have to highlight the fact that it has been only in the last year and a half that this has become a big issue in my postbag, if I can call it that—probably, by and large, in my email inbox. It has become the biggest issue that I hear about from my constituents, whether in Tenbury, Malvern, Pershore, Upton upon Severn or any of the villages in between. It is causing huge frustration to my constituents; the hon. Member has set out the issue, and many wish to speak in the debate, but I wanted to get that on the record. Whenever I write to Royal Mail about the issue, I never get a very convincing response. It often has to do with sickness in the sorting office or <span id="87" class="column-number" data-column-number="87"></span>something along those lines, and that does not seem like a compelling reason for things going so badly wrong in the last 18 months or so. I welcome this opportunity that the Backbench Business Committee has given us to get these concerns on the record. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how she will deal both with Ofcom, the regulator, and with the company itself. Clearly, we must all aim to get a better service for our constituents. It is a service that has been running in this country for hundreds of years, and it has gone wrong only in the last year and a half.

    Hansard source
33. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    The Enterprise Act 2002 (Specification of Additional Section 58 Consideration) Order 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I will speak briefly in my role as the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Telecoms is very new to our Committee’s remit, and indeed to that of the Secretary of State. I am very pleased to see her in her place today, and we look forward to scrutinising the Government’s work in this important area.<span id="6" class="column-number" data-column-number="6"></span> With that in mind, I have a few broad questions for the Secretary of State about the order. First, there are protections for vulnerable people and national infrastructure under previous legislation. I wonder if she could expand a little further on why she felt that they are insufficient for what she is seeking to achieve, in particular the protection of vulnerable customers. Secondly, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of how frequently this provision is likely to be used beyond the particular circumstances of TalkTalk? Does she assess that there are any other issues with the overall financial resilience of broadband providers and potential future use for this legislation? Further to that, will she consider publishing guidance setting out the circumstances in which this new provision might be applied? What evidence of a risk to continuity of service would she expect to see before she was to intervene? The continuity of telecoms services is obviously vital for consumers, but so are effective competition and opportunities to attract investment. Consumers rely on healthy competition to keep costs and bills down and to improve the quality of their broadband services, so how will the Secretary of State balance those objectives when assessing a merger? In particular, how does she assess the implications for competition of the BT-TalkTalk deal given that BT has a share of almost 40% of the broadband market alongside its ownership of Openreach? Without prejudicing the outcome of the investigation, does she think that the nexfibre-Netomnia deal raises similar questions about continuity of service and financial resilience, or does she see that there are important differences between the two cases? Can the Secretary of State tell us what mechanisms exist to protect consumers in cases where a provider fails and no buyer can be found? She mentioned that that might have been an issue in this case, so I wonder whether the Government have the powers and tools needed to maintain continuity of service in those circumstances, and whether this legislation will actually help to offer that. Finally, this process has been very fast. I understand that the CMA has now reported to the Secretary of State on BT and TalkTalk, but the pace of the process has been really unusual, with a very short window, in particular, for comments. Does she know on what basis the CMA decided on such a short window, and will she indicate when she expects to announce whether the matter will be referred for a more detailed investigation? I look forward to the Secretary of State’s answers today and to her ongoing engagement with the Select Committee on the resilience and competitiveness of the telecoms sector.

    Hansard source
34. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    Civil Service Pensions

    I thank the Minister for updating the House. I have had so much casework on this, as she will know, with some really heartbreaking stories. The fact is that the backlog, including the growing number of cases over 100 days old, is just continuing to grow. One of those in the backlog is my constituent Ann, who had to leave work with a life-threatening pulmonary embolism and severe pneumonia, and five months later she is still waiting to receive her money. She will be very disappointed with what the Minister has said today. I think she is looking for some really hard facts on the timescales. When will this be sorted once and for all? Are there meaningful sanctions? When will we hear whether Capita can be prevented from bidding for other Government contracts? Could there be some clawback of all the money her Department is spending on trying to put this right? When will there be compensation for my constituents who have had to wait so long?

    Hansard source
35. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Chris Philp

    Violence against Women and Girls

    Foreign nationals, including illegal immigrants, make up 23% of sex offenders. The Home Office knows that, and even hands out leaflets asking illegal immigrants nicely not to rape. That is why mothers in Piddington are now terrified that over 1,000 young male illegal immigrants are about to turn up. In order to protect women and girls, rather than allowing 95% of illegal immigrants to stay and accommodating them in Piddington or anywhere else, should the Government not leave the European convention on human rights and deport them?

    Hansard source
36. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Chris Philp

    Topical Questions

    In a speech in March, which I thought was rather good, the Home Secretary said that failure to implement her proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain in full would be “an affront” to British citizens, and would cost hard-working taxpayers £10 billion for care workers alone. Given how strongly she clearly feels about her policy, will she confirm to the House that she will implement her own plans in full, or are the Housing Secretary and the Energy Secretary now in charge of immigration policy?

    Hansard source
37. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Chris Philp

    Topical Questions

    The Home Secretary is clearly not standing by her own plans. Several times this year, the Home Secretary has used her power to prevent entry into the United Kingdom on the basis of individuals’ views, including people opposing mass migration. I recently asked her to prevent entry by Randa Abdel-Fattah, who planned talks around the anniversary of the 7 October massacre. Abdel-Fattah has glorified terrorism and said that massacre was “exhilarating”. Is it not shameful that the Home Secretary allowed this antisemitic supporter of terrorism into our country, where she likely radicalised our citizens?

    Hansard source
38. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Performance of Royal Mail

    I thank the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore), my constituency neighbour, and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), <span id="129" class="column-number" data-column-number="129"></span>who I know feels strongly and passionately about this issue. Indeed, we have spoken many times outside the Chamber about our mutual woes over the lack of performance on the part of Royal Mail. We are all aware of the importance of a reliable postal service. It keeps isolated and digitally excluded people connected, sustains relationships between loved ones during special times, and serves as the foundational communication network for vital public services such as the NHS. Hearing Members on both sides of the House speak about Royal Mail with such great concern, I was struck by the fact that it has become a topic that unites the House. Last week in Westminster Hall, Members heard about the array of problems that constituencies across the country are experiencing with Royal Mail. In my own constituency, residents of Bromsgrove and the villages are experiencing critical disruptions to their mail deliveries, the most prevalent being weeks of no post, only for them then to receive a bundle of outdated and expired letters. The problems range from missed NHS appointments and bank cards being reported lost to elusive household bills and overdue birthday cards. I think we also heard about a missed job opportunity as a result of postal delays. This is not just a matter of inconvenience; it is a matter of profound disruption that could and should have been avoided. Shockingly, in a survey that I conducted in my constituency, 87% of respondents believed that the service they were receiving was not reliable, and 96% believed that Royal Mail's postal delivery service needed improvement.

    Hansard source
39. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Performance of Royal Mail

    We have heard a great deal about nationalisation this evening, but I am pretty sure that my constituents believe the state should not be the actor that, in the first instance, provides the vast majority of services. The state does not have the best track record of providing everything. In this instance, it is incumbent on the Minister and the Government to ensure that Ofcom and Royal Mail are held to account, and that we see a tangible improvement programme. I know, as well as Members on both sides of the House, that people in north Worcestershire are experiencing comparable problems. Having made that further reference to my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Redditch, I will cut across north Worcestershire to the other neighbouring constituency, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier). People there are experiencing those problems as well—I know that, because I spoke to my hon. Friend today—resulting in financial losses for some of his constituents, and missed appointments as well. I understand that Royal Mail, along with many other businesses, will be facing pressing issues, including surging bill costs and increased bureaucratic red tape. May I ask the Minister whether the Government have discussed with Royal Mail specifically the impact of soaring bills and employment costs on the company’s ability to deliver services, and, in particular, challenges <span id="130" class="column-number" data-column-number="130"></span>relating to recruitment? It is clear, however, that, especially in recent years, the business has lost its way, and in the last 18 months that has become particularly acute. Royal Mail has a rich history. It is a 500-year-old institution, but it has failed to demonstrate an ability to adapt in recent years to society’s changing needs. Royal Mail will undoubtedly press that demand has changed. This evening we have heard many instances of parcels being prioritised over letters, which should not be the case. Over the last decade, we have seen technological advances that have undoubtedly had a significant impact on the way that people and businesses communicate, but the stats for Royal Mail are not in its favour. In 2024-25, first-class post hit a 77% service level against a 93% target, and second-class hit a 92.5% service level against a 98.5% target. That was enough for Ofcom to deem that Royal Mail was in breach of its obligations. In 2025-26, we saw 75.7% of first-class items delivered the next day—short of the 93% target—and 90.2% of second-class items delivered within three days, against a target of 98.5%.

    Hansard source
40. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Performance of Royal Mail

    What I recognise is that the problem is getting worse. As I have mentioned, it is incumbent on the Government to get a grip of the situation. I hope that the Government have heard loud and clear the concerns from Members across the House, regardless of political party, about what their constituents are facing, and that the Minister will address those concerns shortly.

    Hansard source