Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,578 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Matt Vickers

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)

   Clause 49 brings us to the practical question of what happens when an organisation fails to do what the law requires. We have spent preceding groups discussing what organisations must report, and how we must publish it. Those duties need to mean something. A business that takes its responsibility seriously should not find that a competitor can ignore the rules and carry on without consequence. We support effective enforcement against organisations that fail to comply without a reasonable excuse. The clause allows Ministers to establish financial penalties through regulations. The maximum for an individual penalty will be the higher of £1 million or 1% of the organisation’s total turnover, or of a public authority’s total budget. That is a substantial power. It is a ceiling, not a standard fine, and how penalties are set below it will matter enormously. There must be a sensible distinction between a genuine mistake that is quickly corrected and a deliberate refusal to comply. An organisation that has ignored repeated requests should not be treated in the same way as one that has made an isolated administrative error. Equally, the “reasonable excuse” provision must not become a stock response for those who simply cannot be bothered. Much of that detail is left to regulation. The clause allows for warning notices, representations and appeals. Organisations should know how a penalty has been calculated and have a fair opportunity to challenge a wrong decision. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed which of those safeguards the regulations will include, and how the seriousness of a failure will be assessed. There is a particular issue with fining public authorities. A fine on a public body ultimately comes out of public money, but that does not mean that public bodies should escape enforcement. However, moving money out of a service budget while leaving the same failures untouched would achieve very little. The Minister should explain how a penalty will lead to better conduct and how senior officials will be held accountable for putting matters right. The clause also provides for civil court enforcement; the Minister should explain how that route and the penalty regime will fit together, and who will make the decisions. There is an example here from the existing <span id="446" class="column-number" data-column-number="446"></span>law. The 2015 Act already allows the Home Secretary to seek an injunction against a business that fails to publish a statement, yet that power has, as far as I am aware, never been used. A strong power on paper is of little use if the enforcement team lacks the information or capacity to use it. The Minister should tell us what resources have been judged necessary and when the new arrangements will be up and running. Finally, we should be clear about what the penalties address. They concern failures to comply with the reporting duties. The compliance statement is not proof that exploitation is absent and a reporting penalty is no substitute for investigating evidence of slavery. Where such evidence emerges, there needs to be a clear route to the agencies that can protect victims and pursue the perpetrators. We support giving these duties proper teeth and we support clause 49. The test for Ministers is whether persistent non-compliance is tackled, whether decisions are fair and whether identified risks lead to action. I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of how the regulations will deliver that in practice.

   Hansard source
2. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

   Defence and Security: European Partners

   The Prime Minister told President Zelensky recently that he stood “in complete solidarity” with Ukraine over President Trump’s dirty diesel deal over Russian diesel exports, and I support the Prime Minister on that. Earlier, the Foreign Secretary mentioned hitting Russia in the pocket, so why are his Government still importing jet fuel and diesel, albeit through other countries? They have weakened the sanctions against Russian diesel and fuel, which I would suggest is a complete inconsistency in UK foreign policy.

   Hansard source
3. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

   Strengthening Community Resilience

   Be prepared.

   Hansard source
4. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

   Strengthening Community Resilience

   The Security Minister and Cabinet Office Minister knows that I have a huge amount of time for him, but I want to slightly break the consensus that has mostly held in the Chamber today. I think the Government’s communications—mass public communications—are confused on this issue. We are being asked by senior Ministers to stock up on corned beef, water and whatever, because of storms. Well—breaking news—there have been many storms over the last 80 years in Shropshire, and indeed across the country, and we have never been given this advice before. If this is about war preparedness and being on a war footing, as the Defence Secretary has suggested we should all be, I think the Government should just come clean and treat the British public with a little bit more respect. At the beginning of the Ukrainian war, defence intelligence was signed off by the excellent then Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, and shared with the British public, so that they came along with the Ministry of Defence and the Government. I think that the Security Minister needs to look at that as a good example.

   Hansard source
5. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   UK Nationals Detained Abroad

   When President Trump met Xi Jinping last month, the US President raised with the Chairman the case of imprisoned British citizen Jimmy Lai. Has the Minister had a readout from that conversation, and what can he tell us about his own efforts to bring about Jimmy Lai’s release?

   Hansard source
6. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

   Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

   I thank the Minister for giving way; he is always very generous with his time, and I think he is a very competent and diligent Minister in the Department. Can he provide the evidence base for what he has just said? I was the leader of a local authority, and I never once met a housing provider that told me they cannot build any more social housing because of the right to buy.

   Hansard source
7. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

   Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

   I ask genuinely about disposals, in a nice and polite way, so I wonder what the Minister’s comments will be. When housing associations or councils dispose of properties, they generally do so for a reason—for example, not being able to spend the money to get it up to a certain EPC grade that the Government have set for them. What evidence does he have that, where one company cannot do something for a social home, such as spending the money to increase the EPC rating, and therefore is selling it, another social housing provider will be able to do it? I want to understand where we are going with these amendments and this part of the Bill. When properties are disposed of, it is usually done for a reason. What makes him think that where someone cannot do it, someone else in the industry could?

   Hansard source
8. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

   Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I have lived in a shared ownership home, so I thought it only right to support this part of the Bill. Usually on Bill Committees, I speak against and ask the Government to take something out of a Bill, rather than keep it in. This is important. The Minister, on opening, summed up the issues that lots of constituents with shared ownership face right across the country. If the Government are already doing part of the review anyway, and if they are committed to that review, I do not see why it cannot stay part of the Bill. The cynic in me thinks that the only reason why the Government want to remove it from the Bill is so that they can change their mind and not actually do that review of shared ownership, which has been a long-standing feature of the housing market for a number of years. It is high time that we do a review. The hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip spoke eloquently about the issues that his constituents face in some of the developments in his constituency. That is not too dissimilar from developments in my constituency. Staircasing has major issues, particularly if ownership is shared with a large social housing provider, such as one of those that operate all across the south-east and London. Residents who buy those shared-ownership homes feel that the social housing provider is unaccountable. They lack transparency on their fees, and I have heard some horrific stories about people buying into shared ownership and wanting to use that as a stepping stone to buy a house on the open market, but having to buy selling packs off the social housing provider at extortionate costs, or the provider not getting back to them and the sale of their property falling through. New clauses 41 and 45 are trying to solve a number of issues in the Bill. If the Government are doing some of the work already and think that this review is needed, I urge them to keep it in the Bill. As I said, the cynic in me thinks that the Government want to leave it out so that a few months down the line they can say, “We’ve changed our mind. We’re not doing a review.” Do the Government really want a review of shared ownership and to listen to shared owners? The Minister outlined quite eloquently some of the issues that affect shared owners, such as leasehold and commonhold—we look forward to that Bill coming forward—but shared ownership does tend to fall through the cracks. We have not spent enough time speaking about the issues that shared ownership tenants face, so I really urge the Government to change their mind. I was left with the impression on Second Reading that clause 13 would remain part of the Bill and that the Government would accept the amendments tabled in the other place. I hope that the Government can reflect and keep this clause as part of the Bill.

   Hansard source
9. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

   Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)

   To draw out the point a little further, will the Minister commit to making an oral statement on the Floor of the House in the near future so that Members from across the House can ask questions and he can update us on what he is doing about shared ownership and improvements to shared ownership?

   Hansard source
10. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)

    Will the Minister make a statement?

    Hansard source
11. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Katie Lam

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    I thank the Secretary of State for her remarks. All of us, across the House, agree on the fundamental need to resolve this issue. As she movingly said, the appalling fire at Grenfell Tower and the resultant loss of life were horrifying. I join her in paying tribute to the victims, survivors and their friends and family. We all agree that home is the place where people ought to feel safest. It is deeply concerning that so many people across the country still live in a home that has been rendered unsafe, and we welcome the Government’s desire to put that right. The Opposition have concerns about some of the Bill’s provisions, and about whether the proposed measures will definitely ensure that more people end up living in a safer home. I will set out some of those concerns. We look forward to working with the Government to improve the Bill however we can. Remediation of unsafe cladding is often slow because there are simply not enough qualified people to do the work. This point has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), but I will spend a moment on it. Every affected building needs a specialist assessment of its external walls, at a time when fire engineers and assessors are in short supply. Training new specialists takes years, yet the Bill <span id="222" class="column-number" data-column-number="222"></span>does not lay out any particular plans for training those skilled professionals. Contractors face the same shortage of skilled labour and materials. Too often, owners who want to act cannot find anyone to carry out the work. Remediation is slow because the work is complicated and unpredictable. When old cladding is removed, contractors regularly find further defects, so the scope, cost and delays grow. On top of those practical difficulties, many of the buildings concerned are part-owned by their leaseholders. Remediation is also slow because when it comes to the practical implementation of the legal regime, the situation is fragmented. Implementation is managed building by building, and the responsibility is split between owners, managing agents, contractors and three overlapping regulators. Unsurprisingly, that drives up costs and drags out timelines, however willing the owners are. The Bill’s answer is to ask the three regulators to write a statement on how they will co-operate, which is not the same as getting the work done. We already have evidence that a legal obligation, such as the one proposed in the Bill, does not by itself guarantee timely remediation. Developers on the developer remediation contract, which the last Conservative Government implemented so that developers, not taxpayers, would cover the cost of remediation, are already bound by equivalent requirements, which is why the Bill exempts them. The Government’s figures show that developers have finished work on only a third of their buildings, and fewer than one in four of all their buildings with life-critical defects. Responding to the Public Accounts Committee, the National Fire Chiefs Council warned that limited workforce capacity was the primary bottleneck to remediation. The then NFCC chair, Mark Hardingham, put it best when he said that “we cannot enforce our way out of the cladding crisis.”

    Hansard source
12. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Katie Lam

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    I think it is fair to say that there are all sorts of ways in which the response to this appalling event and the wider questions that it raised did not happen as quickly and was not as effective as we might have liked—otherwise, we would not still be discussing it today. What is important now is that we make sure that whatever plan we come up with together, as a Parliament, is as effective as it can be to make sure that people are living in the safest possible homes. That is our responsibility now.<span id="223" class="column-number" data-column-number="223"></span> It should not come as a surprise that legislating to make something true does not make it so. Passing a law that says that buildings must be fixed will not create a single new fire engineer. Rather than easing those practical bottlenecks, however, the Bill too often assumes that the main blocker to timely remediation is owners deliberately choosing not to act. Our fear is that, as drafted, the Bill may risk making the problem worse. Under the Bill, every building must be assessed within a year, and every assessment that recommends work must be audited by Homes England, drawing on the same small pool of specialists. There are owners who obstruct, and they should face the full force of the law, but they are the exception, not the rule. I say once again that I do not doubt that the intentions behind the Bill are noble, but we must always be careful that legislation, even when drafted with the best of intentions, does not produce unintended consequences. Perhaps the clearest risk of unintended consequences comes with the proposed new legal duty. Owners could face two years in prison or penalties of up to half a million pounds for deliberately failing to remediate as soon as reasonably practicable. Those standards—“deliberately” and “as soon as reasonably practicable”—are broad and subjective, particularly given the severity of the punishments prescribed by the Bill. Given that many of the decisions about whether owners have complied with the standards will fall to the regulator, can the Government be sure that due regard will be given to the real practical hurdles to remediation? What guidance will regulators get on what counts as “reasonably practicable”? Doubtless the Government intend for these measures to be used only in the most extreme cases of deliberate obstruction or delay, but we must be incredibly careful when designing new legal duties and criminal penalties. Like it or not, these standards will hang over owners who are attempting to act in good faith, but who are constrained by the practical difficulty of remediation. Likewise, opening up directors to personal prosecution on grounds of neglect risks generating unintended consequences. While directors’ liability for building safety is long established, the Bill goes much further. Have the Government assessed how many capable people will simply refuse to be named as directors on remediation compliance plans? What will it do to the cost of directors’ insurance? What impact will it have on the willingness of well-run management firms to get involved in residential property? How many will conclude that it is simply no longer worth the legal risk? Have the Government assessed whether the Bill will have an impact on access to directors’ insurance more broadly, and whether it could create a disincentive to involvement in residential property by well-run management firms? Another point of concern derives from the Bill’s approach to group accountability for parent companies and firms that are deemed to exercise control. The Bill builds on powers in the 2022 Act, but extends them from recovering costs to imposing penalties for offences. The Government must do more to explain where this stops. In 2022, Parliament let a court or tribunal look through a company’s structure where it was just and equitable to do so. The Bill will allow a regulator to adopt quasi-judicial powers and enforce large penalties in doing so.<span id="224" class="column-number" data-column-number="224"></span> Limited liability is an important principle that, in its modern form, has endured in this country for more than a century and a half. It encourages investment and entrepreneurship. The erosion of limited liability that the Bill represents may set a worrying precedent. Until now, Parliament has qualified the principle only through the courts. The Bill qualifies the principle through regulators rather than judges. If that is acceptable in one sector, why not in others? Even if we confine ourselves to this sector, can the Government be sure that the erosion of limited liability will not create a direct deterrent to investment in large residential properties, including build to rent? Housing in this country is far too expensive for far too many people. People must be able to trust that their homes are safe, but they also need homes to buy or rent in the first place. Another concerning legal precedent emerges from the Bill’s provisions on retrospective liability for product manufacturers. In 2022, the previous Government gave building owners a route to claim against the manufacturers of defective cladding. The Bill goes much further. It loosens the test itself, so that a product need only have contributed “more than trivially” to a building’s being unsafe. The Government must explain why the 2022 test was not enough. Complying with the regulations in force at the time will no longer be a defence; firms that followed the rules can no longer rely on having done so. Nobody would deny the existence of bad actors—firms that have broken the rules or falsified evidence about their own compliance. Such firms have put people in danger, and some of the consequences have been unimaginably awful. They must be punished. However, there is no reason to believe that those firms would have complied had the legal standard been tougher. The point is that firms that break the rules are going to break the rules, no matter what they are. As is so often the case, the problem is one of enforcement. However, in an effort to tackle this non-compliant minority, the Bill extends retrospective liability well beyond what Parliament agreed in 2022—something that we must always be very cautious about doing. When firms or individuals cannot be sure that complying with the law today will ensure legal safety tomorrow, their behaviour can change. They may be more reluctant to enter the market in the first place, and will certainly be more reluctant to innovate. Insurers will price in that risk, and every new home will cost more to build. As with so many aspects of the Bill, the Government, in attempting to achieve a noble aim, risk undermining important principles. The presumption against retrospective legislation, the principle of limited liability and the principle of clear legal tests are foundational to the way in which we have designed the law in this country. Of course, we can deviate from them—in our country, Parliament is sovereign and can make whatever law it chooses—but when we do deviate, we ought to ensure that we do so with a full appreciation of the facts and implications. It ought to happen only when we can see no other way to solve the problem at hand, and only when we are sure that new legislation, rather than better enforcement or efforts to ease practical bottlenecks, is the right course of action. I reiterate my appreciation for the intention behind the Bill. That anybody should feel unsafe in their own home because of structural or material faults is a profoundly depressing state of affairs. However, we are concerned <span id="225" class="column-number" data-column-number="225"></span>that, in pursuing this noble aim, the Government may not have given due regard to some of the unintended consequences of the solutions they propose. As the Bill progresses, we will probe all those points and more. We look forward to working, with the same noble aim, to improve the Bill however we can.

    Hansard source
13. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Katie Lam

    Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

    I would like to acknowledge some of the Back-Bench contributions to the debate. The sheer volume and range of locations affected by unsafe cladding is remarkable and speaks to the scale of this terrible problem. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), and the hon. Members for Ipswich (Jack Abbott), for Woking (Mr Forster), for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey), for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), for Putney (Fleur Anderson), for Harlow (Chris Vince), for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) and for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale), who have all spoken of the challenges that their constituents have in dealing with that terrible problem. We of course heard from the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell). It must be a great responsibility to be the Member of Parliament for so many victims and survivors of Grenfell tower in his constituency—an area that we both know well. I am sure that he feels that acutely. Some of his descriptions of rogue and dangerous activity were shocking. As outlined in my opening remarks, those of us on the Opposition Benches share the fundamental aims of the Bill. We too believe that every building with unsafe cladding should be fixed—and fixed fast. The questions that the Opposition pose are not about the Bill’s aims, but about whether it will work in practice and whether the full implications of its provisions have been considered by the Government. The evidence suggests that remediation is slow mainly because there are not enough capable professionals to do the work, because the work is hard and unpredictable, and because delivery is fragmented. Elements of that have been acknowledged by Members on both sides of the House. In our view, there is a risk that a Bill that creates new legal duties, deadlines and penalties, but not <span id="261" class="column-number" data-column-number="261"></span>a single new assessor or contractor, may add more pressure on the system and risk making the problem worse. As the Bill progresses, I hope that the Government will be able to answer some of the questions raised in this debate. First, on capacity, every building in scope of the Bill must be assessed within a year of commencement, and every assessment that recommends work must be audited by Homes England. What assessment have the Government made of whether there are enough qualified people to meet that deadline and, if there are not, what happens to owners who miss the deadline through no fault of their own? Secondly, on the new legal duties and associated offences, owners could face up to two years in prison or a penalty of up to £500,000 for deliberately failing to remediate as soon as reasonably practicable. What guidance will the relevant regulators be given on what that means in cases where qualified professionals are simply not available? Can the Minister be sure that an owner who is trying in good faith to commence remediation, but cannot get the work done, will not be prosecuted? Thirdly, on group accountability, in 2022 Parliament allowed a court or tribunal to look through a company structure when it was just and equitable to do so. The Bill hands a version of that power to regulators through the power to issue penalty notices. Why was the judicial route not enough? Fourthly, on manufacturer’s liability, the 2022 Act gave building owners a route to claim against those who made defective cladding. The Bill loosens that test, but why was the 2022 test not sufficient? Have the Government made any assessment of what that will do to insurance costs and the cost of building new homes? There is also a great deal that we have not yet seen. Remediation management orders will be set out in guidance that has not yet been published. Councils are being given new duties, including the remediation backstop, with no clear sense yet of how they will be resourced. Parliament should see the detail before it can approve those powers. The Opposition intend to table amendments in Committee to test each of those points, and we look forward to continuing that discussion with our shared ultimate aim in mind.

    Hansard source
14. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·John Cooper

    Iran: Uranium Enrichment

    <Question HRSContentId="{284BE41A-2BAC-490B-B9F3-66CFF4EC8368}">2. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{94FFE21A-9A5E-470A-8C3D-D7C0B9D8B525}">What assessment he has made of future levels of uranium enrichment planned by Iran.</QuestionText> </Question>

    Hansard source
15. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·John Cooper

    Iran: Uranium Enrichment

    Iran is tiptoeing towards a bomb. It is an existential threat for our friend and ally Israel. I cannot understand how glad-handing the despotic Tehranian regime and making fake TikTok videos in New York helps world peace. Surely we can do more.

    Hansard source
16. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·John Cooper

    Topical Questions

    <Question HRSContentId="{2EAD7D9D-67B4-4D65-B858-2C887C88C463}">T7. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{81E057D4-6AC2-4B0D-A382-EF2ADF814AB5}"></QuestionText>The Foreign Office facilitated a trip to Dublin for the Scottish First Minister, John Swinney. There, he met the egregious Mary Lou McDonald of Sinn Féin to discuss the break-up of Britain. Why are British taxpayers paying for such nonsense?</Question>

    Hansard source
17. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·James Wild

    Cask Ale: Intangible Cultural Heritage

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) on picking up the mantle and securing this debate. It gives us an important opportunity to debate the merits of recognising the importance of the production and serving of cask ale, as an example of our living cultural heritage. This debate has been all one way so far and I will not be changing that. Cask ale is more than a drink; it reflects the combination of craftmanship, knowledge, tradition and community. Cask is produced by hundreds of small breweries, often using British hops and malt. My own county of Norfolk has a fine real ale brewing tradition, with our first-class malted barley. I should mention Duration Brewing in West Acre and its Grasshopper beer, which I was enjoying last weekend. As we have just celebrated Trafalgar Day, I also mention Woodforde’s Nelson’s Revenge.<span id="68WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="68WH"></span> As CAMRA, which does so much to champion it, says, cask ale is synonymous with our great British pub. Its significance lies not only in what is brewed, but in the craftmanship involved, in how it is made and served, and in how it brings people together. Because the final conditioning happens at the pub, both the brewer and the publican must have specialist knowledge. Much of that knowledge is practical and acquired through experience, and skills are often passed through generations. It is precisely that kind of living knowledge that intangible cultural heritage seeks to recognise and protect. Our brewing traditions reflect our local areas and local beer styles. By taking this step of recognition, we could safeguard a living tradition that has helped shape the cultural and social life of Britain for generations. The opportunity to recognise cask ale under the UNESCO convention follows its ratification by the last Conservation Government in 2024. I was talking to my noble Friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, who personally secured the ratification to support awareness of heritage and potentially increase demand across our country. For cask ale, such awareness could help support inward tourism—we have heard about the importance that people attach to the experience of a pint in a pub across the country. This debate comes at a time when the sector is facing challenges, as we have heard. SIBA has reported a 20% reduction in cask consumption year on year—part of a longer-term decline. Despite that, it is worth noting that smaller independent brewers are finding success in the sector—compared to some of the larger breweries that are withdrawing from the market. We heard a passionate speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) railing against Carlsberg’s recent decision. Breweries benefitting from small brewer relief now account for 58% of the cask market—up from 40% a decade ago. Small brewer success is centred on local pubs, community spaces and taprooms offering experiences that people want to go and enjoy. It is also important to recognise the role that beer festivals play in supporting cask ale, by introducing new people to the delights and the taste of cask ale. The Norwich beer festival is this week, and I heartily recommend it to everyone. I am planning to be there because I will be part of the judging panel for the champion bottled beer of Britain. It is hard work, but someone has to do it. Tomorrow, we have the Budget. UK beer duty is the second highest in Europe—nearly 12 times more than most of our European counterparts. The Prime Minister has talked about giving everyone breathing space, as well as pork scratchings. The practical way to do that would be to increase draught relief, as a number of hon. Members have referred to, which was introduced by the last Government. Along with many members of the all-party parliamentary beer group, I have signed a letter to the Chancellor calling on him to freeze beer duty and to increase draught relief to 30%, which would take 10p off a pint. We also need to see action on business rates, employment costs and energy prices. Cask ale culture has been submitted as an expression of interest, strongly backed by the 40,000 people who signed the petition and by hon. Members across the House. The Government have said that the panel is reviewing that submission. Can the Minister tell us <span id="69WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="69WH"></span>when she expects a final decision to be taken? Will she also confirm how the Government intend to meet the requirements under articles 13 to 15, regarding measures to safeguard living heritage? Such recognition for cask ale would show that cultural heritage is not simply about buildings and monuments; it is about traditions, customs and our communities.

    Hansard source
18. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4 Report: Government Response

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) on securing this debate. He has pressed this issue for many years under Conservative and Labour Governments and he deserves credit for his persistence. I want to begin where the inquiry did: with success. Baroness Hallett described the UK’s vaccine development as one of the success stories of the pandemic, and I am <span id="128WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="128WH"></span>proud of the leading role that the Conservative Government played in that. They backed vaccines early and, at risk, set up the vaccine taskforce under Kate Bingham. On 2 December 2020, the UK became the first country in the world to approve the Pfizer vaccine. In 2021, some 132 million doses were given—the largest vaccination programme in our history. The credit belongs to the scientists, the NHS workers, the pharmacists, the 360,000 volunteers who signed up for trials and the public. The inquiry’s report is not only a story of success, though. Its five recommendations set out what must be done better, and the Government’s response, published on 16 October, needs scrutiny. The Government agreed with recommendation 4, which is about having faster access to health data so that the MHRA can monitor vaccine safety, but say they will need “significant investment over time”. There is no timeline or funding promise. Reports to the yellow card scheme rose by 75% between 2020 and 2022, which shows that people are willing to report. The system must be able to act on what they tell it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, recommendation 5 is where the response is weakest. The inquiry said the Government “must reform the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme as soon as possible.” It set out a minimum of four reforms: raise the £120,000 payment, at least in line with inflation, and uprate it annually; introduce multiple levels of payment, according to the degree of injury; and provide fair transitional arrangements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) said, the Government’s response gives no date, no figure and no commitment to any of those recommendations. Meanwhile the cost of administering the scheme rose from £8.9 million in 2022-23 to £29.2 million in 2025-26. It cost around £83 million across four years. By my reckoning, awards over the same period came to about £31 million. A scheme that spends more than twice as much on administration as on compensation is not working for taxpayers or the claimants. My right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) ordered a review of the scheme before the last election, and I wish it had concluded sooner. But this Government have now had more than two years. I concede that on this occasion, the Government kept their word and responded within six months, but a response delivered on time is not the same as a response that commits to anything and, as I say, there is still no timetable. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) so eloquently put it, vaccine confidence matters. The best way to protect it is to show that when something goes wrong, the state stands behind the person. The vaccine programme was a success. Let us make sure that the system built around it is worthy of that success. I have a number of questions to ask the Minister. First, will the Government set out a timetable for their review of the vaccine damage payment scheme and the reforms they intend to make? Secondly, which of the inquiry’s four minimum reforms will the Government commit to? Thirdly, will they look again at the 60% threshold, set performance targets for processing claims and bring administration costs under control? Fourthly, will they strengthen the yellow card scheme with funding <span id="129WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="129WH"></span>commitments and a date for the health data framework? Fifthly, will the Minister meet with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), who has been seeking a meeting for a long time? Finally, will the Minister bring forward proposals before Second Reading of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, which, as he mentioned, is scheduled on 15 January? My hon. Friend and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

    Hansard source
19. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

    Strengthening Community Resilience

    In any emergency, communication is key. In answering the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) earlier, the Minister talked about restoring mobile services if they had been damaged in a storm, for example. But that rather misses the point for the villages that my right hon. Friend mentioned and the villages in my constituency, such as Cuddington and Bryants Bottom, that have no mobile signal right now. Through this resilience work, what more can the right hon. Gentleman do, with other Government Departments, to speed up delivery of the shared rural network and get those rural notspots the connectivity they need and deserve?

    Hansard source
20. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4 Report: Government Response

    Order. I will begin calling the Front Benchers at 5.08 pm, so if everybody is reasonably disciplined, each Back-Bench speaker can have four minutes.

    Hansard source
21. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4 Report: Government Response

    Last but not least, Esther McVey, who I will have to limit to three minutes.

    Hansard source
22. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4 Report: Government Response

    Order. Could we concentrate on the covid-19 inquiry module 4 report?

    Hansard source
23. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4 Report: Government Response

    Order. Could you please refer to Members of Parliament by their seat? You have been here quite some time, so you should probably know that.

    Hansard source
24. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Topical Questions

    His trial was unfair, and the 20-year sentence extension was arbitrary and outrageous—will the Secretary of State now unequivocally say that Ryan Cornelius should be released?

    Hansard source
25. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·George Freeman

    Polar Regions

    <Question HRSContentId="{E79929E3-325C-4FE8-A105-B776B0E6957E}">3. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{B0D615AA-1202-4C61-A034-69F68BEB51D8}">What assessment his Department has made of the level of strategic importance of the polar regions.</QuestionText> </Question>

    Hansard source
26. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·George Freeman

    Polar Regions

    It is good to be back. Given the accelerating rate of Arctic sea ice melt, we are not many years away from an ice-free summer in the Arctic, with huge implications for sea levels, ocean currents and weather systems, and growing commercial pressures for exploitation in the Arctic. Having been the Minister with responsibility for the British Antarctic Survey, I am delighted again to be chairing the APPG for the polar regions and to have joined the Minister at the Arctic Circle Assembly. Does she agree that in both the Arctic and the Antarctic, we are on the frontline of not only some very important science for global planetary sustainability, but geo-diplomacy and technology, with an increasing wild west, which this country has a major role to play in helping to regulate and convene good players in?

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

    Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

    I echo the Minister’s welcome: it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. This Bill fails the British people. It effectively destroys right to buy for millions of families. It does nothing to free up stock for British nationals. It fails to introduce efficient stock management regulations. Most egregiously, it fails to build a single social home—a point completely missed by the Government and the Liberal Democrats. In scrutinising the Bill line by line, it is critically important that we defend aspiration and refocus the debate on the delivery of new homes. I will speak to new clauses 55 and 57 and amendments 84 and 85, in my name. On new clause 55, in the past, Conservative Government-backed schemes such as Help to Buy and stamp duty discounts made a real difference to people buying their first home, and helped about 1 million first-time buyers to get on to the housing ladder. That contributed to 800,000 people buying their first home under the previous Government. However, since 2024 the Government have not shown that they <span id="7" class="column-number" data-column-number="7"></span>have the aspiration to match that. Instead, they have cut a lot of the products that turbocharged first-time buyers getting on to the housing ladder. Even when the Government try to support young people into property ownership, it emerges that all that glisters is not gold. I am primarily referring to the Your First Home scheme—a policy limited to new homes and expected to be constrained by income caps. Young people, especially young people in social housing, deserve better than that.

    Hansard source
28. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

    It rather depends on the detail, but if the income caps that we hear about in the press are even remotely accurate, we can rule out the whole of Greater London and the south-east of England, because people will not be able to access the financing. That would be yet another example of the Government pretending to do something without actually doing it, but we await the detail on that. Right to buy is not a shameful practice, nor is it an exercise in capitalistic greed. It is a hand up on to the housing ladder for those in need, and an extension in the fundamental rights of property. New clause 55 would help realise that for young people. After all, it is critical that more is done to help young people to buy their first home. They face the greatest barriers to home ownership of any recent generation, and yet the Government’s answer is to cut one of their only routes to property ownership. We believe that that approach is fundamentally wrong, and I urge colleagues to join me in supporting young people by backing new clause 55. On new clause 57, clause 1 in its current form not only enables the injustice of preventing future hard-working residents from owning their own homes but prevents current tenants from doing so. The Opposition are completely against that retrospective change. The Government have shown time and again that they have no regard for the property rights of individuals. The Government’s socialistic focus has targeted landlords, freeholders and renters, now they turn their gaze towards residents in social homes. The vast majority of people in social housing deserve a hand up on to the property ladder and a chance to share in the pride of owning their own home. Many people in social housing know that their best chance at getting that is through right to buy.

    Hansard source
29. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

    The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, but she does not say how the Government will increase home building. There is no increase in home building. The point of the new clause is to raise awareness of right to buy among 16 to 25-year-olds. The point of the new clause is about aspiration—something this Government have absolutely no idea about. Aspiration turned into opportunity by the Conservative party in the 1980s is being arbitrarily and retrospectively axed by a Bill that offers no other route into the housing market, builds no more social housing and effectively excludes 5 million people from the fundamental right to property ownership.

    Hansard source
30. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

    I will not give way. I need to make some progress. That is the least that can be done to support families aspiring to own their own home, whether they find themselves on the cusp of reaching their three-year qualifying period or on day one of the road towards making their home ownership dream a reality. On amendments 84 and 85, the Bill opens with a statement claiming that its purpose is to make provision about social housing, but clause 1 makes no effort to increase the supply, build-out rates or funding for social housing. Instead, an ideological aversion to property ownership—a fundamental right—takes the top spot at the very beginning of the Bill. Ever since Margaret Thatcher gave millions of people the chance to own their own home, rather than rent it from the state, local authority or a registered provider, Labour MPs have for generations sought to crush that right and the aspiration that it exists to serve.

    Hansard source
31. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

    No. More than 2 million households have exercised the right to become homeowners and gain a stake in society. Until 1980, that would have been out of reach for far too many British people, but the Government are determined to wind back the clock to the 1970s and cut off the right for hard-working families up and down the country to own their own home. Amendments 84 and 85 would take out the extended qualifying period from the day the Bill is passed, thus preventing clause 1 from coming into effect for three years following Royal Assent. That would delay the Government’s dogma and continue to support the right of 5 million people to find their place in the community, and to feel the pride and safety that comes with owning one’s own home.

    Hansard source
32. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

    What about new clause 29?

    Hansard source
33. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

    No, it wasn’t. I was not asked to speak.

    Hansard source
34. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

    I was not called.

    Hansard source
35. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 90, in clause 8, page 8, leave out from line 2 to end of line 18. <em>This amendment removes the restriction on those living in National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and areas designated as being exempt from Right to Buy.</em>

    Hansard source
36. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

    It is a pleasure, Mr Vickers, to speak to amendment 90, which stands in my name. Since 2024, when the Government have raised rural issues, they have often found themselves in trouble. The Opposition were therefore surprised to see the elements of clause 7 giving the Secretary of State the power to decide what is classed as rural housing and to restrict the rights of those deemed to live in rural areas.<span id="17" class="column-number" data-column-number="17"></span>

    Hansard source
37. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

    The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. He has made a point that has been made by Members today and on Second Reading: right to buy diminishes the social housing stock. I would agree on paper that it does, but that has to be read in the context, as shown by the House of Lords Library, that right to buy applies only to people in long-term tenancies who have been social tenants for a long time. Some 78% of people living in social housing are on lifetime tenancies. Those properties are not available. They could not be given to anybody else because they are lifetime tenancies. Right to buy is actually providing the receipts to build more social homes for people to live in.

    Hansard source
38. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

    I cannot give way; I am in the middle of an intervention.

    Hansard source
39. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

    Stopping people from getting on the housing ladder does not help one bit, because it does not increase the supply, and that point seems to have been missed completely by the Liberal Democrats and by the Government.

    Hansard source
40. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

    We do not share the Government’s position on this. We will be pressing for a Division on amendment 90. On amendment 83, I understand the point that the Minister made about recouping the cost. However, we believe that that is a convenience for local authorities, not for local people, and we are more interested in local people.

    Hansard source