Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,578 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
No, I will not. I am just summing up. We will press for a Division on amendment 83, because we think that 10 years is more appropriate than 35. On amendment 91, we also disagree with the Government. We think that there should be an affirmative rather than negative procedure for this, so we will also be pressing that to a Division. <em>Question put, </em>That the amendment be made.
I beg to move amendment 92, in clause 10, page 10, line 19, leave out “a determination” and insert “regulations”. <em>This amendment removes the power of the Secretary of State to make a determination, but that changes to the use of capital receipts must be made by regulations instead.</em>
The amendments concern the Bill’s proposals for the governance of capital receipts. Under clause 10, the Secretary of State would gain new powers to make significant determinations, including scope to vary provisions between local authorities and to apply determinations retrospectively. Much like my concern about deciding the definition and scope of “rural”, this is not about firming up an already over-rigid system, but about ensuring that the Bill does not tear away too much power from Parliament and give it to Whitehall. It is only right that Parliament, not unelected civil servants, should decide the criteria for the allocation of capital receipts. That is why we have tabled these amendments, so that a regulatory framework can be established to provide parliamentary oversight and to give confidence and certainty to local authorities. This is an essential change to the Bill, and we will seek to divide the Committee on it. As it stands, leaving determinations to the whim of the Secretary of State means leaving local leaders unsure of the direction of future decisions. It undermines precedent and destabilises already fragile funding requirements. The amendments replace the proposed determinations with clear and unequivocal guidance, with amendment 95 specifically ensuring that such decisions come with the approval of both Houses of Parliament. Amendment 98 doubles down on that by also requiring consultation with local authorities. The Minister may believe that bringing such decisions in-house comes with the bonus of speeding them up, but we believe that making decisions in Marsham Street’s corridors rather than in town halls means local authorities will be left with uncertainty, which will not speed up the building of social homes, but slow it down. Moreover, nothing would be a greater barrier to building social homes than watching receipts being siphoned away. Under clause 10, the ability to reallocate capital receipts between local authorities will always lead to some councils losing out. It is never going to be popular with councils when they find that, after running the numbers, planning the funding, consulting local people and preparing the foundations, the Secretary of State has robbed them of their funding and given it to another council. It sounds suspiciously similar to the injustice arising from the Government’s disastrously unfair funding review. I therefore urge colleagues to support amendments 92 to 98 and ensure that power stays local.
The Minister has said that his intent is to improve efficiency and, as always, I respect his sincerity and what he said. It is simply a point of difference between us. My right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston made a compelling case about the democratic accountability and transparency of the affirmative procedure as opposed to the negative procedure. The point that we have made in the amendments is about the process not the outcome, and our contention is that the process should be as democratically accountable and transparent as possible. We will therefore press all the amendments to a vote. <em>Question put, </em>That the amendment be made.
I beg to move amendment 82, in clause 12, page 12, line 31, at end insert— “(7) In exercising functions under this section and section 171A, the Secretary of State must have regard to the operational and financial independence of private registered providers.”. <em>This amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the independence of housing associations when exercising powers under new sections 171A and 171B of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.</em>
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I will be relatively brief. I tabled amendment 82 to introduce a vital legal safeguard to protect the structural integrity of the UK housing association sector. Private registered providers are independent, non-profit businesses. They work hard to run a fair and efficient sector providing social housing and to see much-needed homes built. The amendment would protect registered providers from overreaching state interventions that could have serious, if inadvertent, financial consequences. Housing associations can rely on private debt to fund development, and any perception that central Government can arbitrarily dictate their financial operations is a threat, both to business independence and to the positive outcomes that they effect. We must ensure that even well-intentioned regulatory oversight does not compromise the financial viability and building capacity of some of the most important businesses in our housing industry. We will seek to divide the Committee on the amendment.
I have heard the Minister’s response. As always, I do not in any way doubt his sincerity, but unfortunately he will not always be in post. We would prefer to keep the Government honest on this point, so we intend to press amendment 82 to a Division. <em>Question put</em>, That the amendment be made.
I rise to speak to new clauses 41 and 45, which are in my name. I was obviously aware that it is the Government’s intention to strike down clause 13 and remove it in its entirety from the Bill. I heard what the Minister just said about what the Government are doing at the moment. The Opposition are not convinced that the clause would require unnecessary duplication. What it would do is make sure that a review is actually done and published, so we disagree with the Government. My noble Friends in the other place worked hard and successfully on a cross-party basis to bring shared ownership into the debate and into this Bill. Shared ownership issues have gone on for far too long and for far too many people it has been a logistical, legal and financial nightmare when it should have been their first and proudest step on to the housing ladder. This is an important national issue, and the commitments that my noble Friends made must not be stripped from the Bill. Indeed, we must build on them. That is why I tabled new clause 41, which would require publication of a strategy for expanding shared ownership. I call on the Minister to repair shared ownership, back first-time buyers and support this new clause. New clause 45 asks the Secretary of State to publish a model of shared ownership agreement within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. The Opposition believe this is a crucial development for the future of shared ownership. What should be a pathway towards owning a first home is for so many people, as I have just said, a logistical and legal labyrinth of rent reviews, service charges, admin fees and staircasing costs, which makes the dream of home ownership a nightmare. A model shared ownership agreement would provide a consistent framework with clear protections for buyers, and it would also require registered providers to have regard to it. Not only do I hope the Minister agrees with that, but I hope he will give assurances as we debate the new clauses, even if the Government choose not to support them.
I will speak to new clause 30, which stands in my name. This is a probing amendment. There is much in this Bill that is fundamentally political or ideological, but I am sure that I speak for all Members when I say that supporting victims of domestic abuse is an issue that we all agree needs critical, cross-party work. We will not oppose any of the 52 amendments that the Government have tabled to this part of the Bill, because it is vital that anyone stuck in an abusive household receives the urgent care, support and access to legal pathways that they need. That is why I have tabled new clause 30, which would require the Government to assess the effectiveness of the provisions in protecting domestic abuse victims. If <span id="70" class="column-number" data-column-number="70"></span>the Bill is to make real change in this area, I believe it is only right that the Government give victims a guarantee that they will closely analyse and monitor the effectiveness of these measures. I look for an assurance from the Minister on that when he sums up.
I rise to speak to new clauses 40 and 58, which I tabled. Social housing is not a one-size-fits-all, and new clause 40 would protect the invaluable and expert knowledge of local authorities by giving them a greater say over the type of tenancy that they can offer to local people. That would preserve local authorities’ discretion to use fixed-term tenancies for social housing. Used appropriately, fixed-term tenancies allow a landlord to review a household’s circumstances at the end of a term and make sure that the home can be put to best use for those who need it most. They allow for the flexibility necessary to ensure that when a tenant’s situation has improved, a home can be made available for local people with the greatest need. The new clause is about empowering local authorities and delivering an efficient social housing system—two things that the Bill fails to do in many ways. Importantly, it imposes nothing and takes nothing away. It protects local knowledge, expertise and discretion.<span id="82" class="column-number" data-column-number="82"></span> Social housing exists for the express purpose of providing those who are most in need with not just shelter, but a place to call home. In a system under severe financial strain and lacking in adequate supply, it is essential that social homes are allocated to those in genuine need who are at the most severe risk, not just those who once needed them but no longer do. That is why we have tabled new clause 58, which would require local housing authorities to review lifetime secure tenancies every five years to ensure that social housing continues to meet tenants’ needs. It would also ensure that existing stock is used as effectively as possible. With 1.34 million people on the waiting list, a record number of people sleeping rough and a staggering 178,000 children in temporary accommodation, not a single social home can afford to be filled by somebody who could reasonably afford market rent or buy their own property.
As I said earlier, the Bill will not add a single social home to this country’s current tally. If social housing was in abundant supply, I would agree with the hon. Gentleman, but it is not. It is a scarce resource and the important thing that we are trying to make clear is about how we use that scarce resource. Right to buy generates receipts that can be reinvested in building more social housing. Given that the overwhelming majority of people living in social housing are in lifetime tenancies, regardless of their circumstance, that housing is not available to people on the waiting list. It is already occupied and nobody is saying that that should change. So, it is not the case that right to buy causes a depletion of available social housing stock— it simply does not. New clause 58 is not an eviction notice. It would not grant new powers to remove people from their homes. It is a common-sense move to assess how best to ensure that scarce resources are used for those who need a home most.
I rise to speak to new clause 42. If the Bill fails to build any new social housing, which we know it will, it could at the very least ensure that stock is allocated to those most in need. We believe that one of the fairest and most suitable ways to do so is to review the income eligibility thresholds for social housing. At present, up-to-date figures from the English housing survey suggest that around 186,000 social housing households have incomes above £50,000. That is both an injustice and an inefficiency in need of fixing, yet the Bill will not do so. We must ensure that any changes to the structure of the social housing system are made to enable a fairer and more effective programme for the most vulnerable to find shelter. Social housing is a safety net, not a guarantee. People’s circumstances change over time. Those who have the means to pay market rent should do so, and that is why new clause 42 would require regular reviews of income eligibility thresholds. Without the new clause, the Bill would provide no avenue through which we can manage stock to free up more homes, no route towards building more social housing, and no light at the end of the tunnel for the 1.34 million people on the waiting list.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. In a democratic society, we should be able to rely on an inquiry to establish accurately what happened, what should happen, and how things should happen better in the future. I am incredibly concerned that this inquiry is failing to do that with sweeping assumptions that from the start the vaccines were to be used—the phrase used was “safe and effective”. The module 4 report states that<span id="126WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="126WH"></span> “It is neither proportionate nor practicable for the Inquiry to reach a view on the safety of particular vaccines” but then goes on to declare, with the utmost assurance, that “the steps taken by the UK government and regulatory bodies did not compromise the UK’s rigorous safety standards.” How can they be sure when they have not reached a view on the safety of the vaccines? Time is limited, so I would like to go to an issue that happened to a woman, a mother, in my constituency, who was given the Moderna covid-19 booster vaccine in a care home. Her family recently succeeded in their claim to the vaccine damages payment scheme. Their case described mass, serious adverse events among the other residents of their mother’s care home, and the death of a second resident also attributed to the side effects. The family have spent years painstakingly collating evidence and research that shows that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency not only failed in its statutory duties by not properly investigating the clear safety signal of multiple care home residents suffering a series of fatal reactions, but failed to be honest about the wholesale lack of safety evidence for using Moderna in the frail, elderly, care home cohort, either as a main dose or as a booster. Some 70% of the elderly in our care homes have dementia and over half of residents are frail, yet, “Frail subjects with unstable health conditions and co-morbidities…including chronic neurological disease” were identified as “missing information” in Moderna’s own risk management plan. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on pandemic response and recovery, I have written to the MHRA twice, but have not yet heard from the agency. Will the Minister take the time to meet me and the family to discuss why we have not had a response?
My specific concern is about the MHRA, which is meant to highlight and give out warnings on <span id="132WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="132WH"></span>what is going on. The MHRA has failed throughout this situation; when we meet, can we also discuss its failings?
Can the Minister confirm that criminals will not get tagged if they are classed as homeless? At the weekend, it was revealed that prisoners released early by this Government were given tents because there was no accommodation for them. So yes or no—will prisoners who are released and given a tent be tagged? Or will they be roaming the streets without any way of locating them, free to commit more crime?
Dyb, dyb, dyb!
I support the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington. They involve a perfectly reasonable and proportionate request for this House to have a role in scrutinising what is put forward by the Government and recommended by the Secretary of State. I spent six years as a Minister. I took countless statutory instruments through Delegated Legislation Committees. By and large, it is not a complex process; it requires a bit of time on the part of officials to get the <span id="29" class="column-number" data-column-number="29"></span>drafting right, but the process in this House is not complicated. It ensures that a Minister is directly accountable: they have to be on their brief, and they have to be able to clearly articulate the rationale behind what they are doing and, quite rightly, to be challenged by right hon. and hon. Members. That is so important in maintaining or even in creating trust from our communities—the transparency that that democratic accountability brings to what, as my hon. Friend clearly set out, will on occasion undoubtedly be relatively, if not significantly, contentious decisions relating to significant sums of money. My hon. Friend set out the case for amendment 95 very clearly. The powers in clause 10, when exercised, may well see some local authorities feeling that they are losing out, to the benefit of other local authorities. Without getting into what those decisions may be or where the money may go, in terms of process and democratic accountability, it is not unreasonable that both Houses should have the opportunity to scrutinise the powers in clause 10.
The hon. Lady appears to be making a point that I was not actually making in my remarks. My point is about the process. As I said before she intervened, I am not making a judgment on the decisions the Secretary of State may or may not make about those capital receipts; I am making a point about democratic accountability and transparency. Going back to the earlier group of amendments praised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, the procedure that is used when legislation comes before Delegated Legislation Committees in this House is not complex. It does not engender lengthy delay; it just ensures that our constituents can see that we are considering that legislation, that we are debating it and that the Minister can answer the questions put to him. I have no doubt, in the case of this Minister, that he will be able to answer them; sadly, it has not always been the case that every Minister, on both sides of the House, has been capable of doing that. However, I am sure this Minister would have no challenges in coming before a Delegated Legislation Committee and answering the questions put to him. Amendment 98, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, would require consultation before determinations were made on capital receipts. Again, consultations do not have to be overly complex or lengthy. If Members go on gov.uk, they will see that there are myriad Government consultations out there at any one time on very significant issues, down to issues such as, for example, the methodology used for reporting land use statistics in the country. The Government routinely consult on a whole range of things, whether <span id="30" class="column-number" data-column-number="30"></span>that be a significant, detailed and lengthy consultation on something complex or, often, a very short and sharp consultation. They give people the opportunity to have their say, and those who genuinely have something in the way of expert knowledge to contribute.
Over many years, I have found that consultation done properly leaves very limited legal risk. Where Governments get it wrong—I do not want to overly speculate on what has happened with the Government’s consultations and process around local government reorganisation—the hon. Member is right that there is a potential for JRs, although I would highlight that a judicial review can focus only on process, not on whether the decision should be relitigated. If consultation is done well—I would have thought that consultation on this issue should be fairly simple—I believe it can enhance the transparency that is important in bringing our constituents with us and in ensuring that the Government are directly accountable to hon. and right hon. Members in this House. When the legislation is introduced, under our amendments as a regulation, that consultation is there to be drawn on. I genuinely believe—I have seen it for myself—that when a Government are willing to listen to a consultation response, they can, if they do things openly, often come up with a slightly better or tweaked outcome.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point, but he makes the same point, in a sense, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, and it is not what I am speaking about, which is the process. I do not believe that a consultation would tie councils up in knots or delay things inordinately, or indeed that introducing these changes through regulations rather than by diktat of the Secretary of State would cause unnecessary delays.<span id="31" class="column-number" data-column-number="31"></span> This process is about transparency and accountability. We have done it before in Government; indeed, this Government have done it with regulations. I have sat on a number of DLs; maybe I have upset the Whips at some point, because I sit on a DL almost every week, when I am not sitting in a Bill Committee—such is the fate of a former Cabinet Minister on the Back Benches. However, the point I am making is that this Government and other Governments have used the delegated legislation system to get things through quickly but none the less with democratic accountability to this House. That is the point being made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington in these amendments. It is about giving our constituents the confidence to trust that this House has debated what the Secretary of State recommends. Knowing the majority in the House at the moment, I have no doubt that the Minister would easily win any votes in a DL on matters such as this.
The very simple fact that there would be no vote on it by Members of this House, regardless of whether that was in a Committee, which is of course a subset of the House where we can debate and raise issues. I have a lot of time for the hon. Lady. I spent almost 10 years sitting on her local council before I was elected to this place, and I still closely follow Westminster politics. Consequently, I know that she is a hard-working and diligent Member who engages with all these issues particularly closely. However, the simple answer to her question is that Members would not have a vote on the Secretary of State’s determination. With that, I will conclude by again reiterating my support for the intent behind the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington has tabled.
As always, Mr Western, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I rise to support clause 13 remaining part of the Bill. With his typical eloquence, the Minister set out both the opportunities and challenges presented to those with shared ownership, including the regulatory challenges sitting around it. He also described the very real impact that it can have on those individuals—who are often starting off on the path to home ownership—when it does not work well.<span id="61" class="column-number" data-column-number="61"></span> I therefore think that clause 13 is important. I do not in any way want to gainsay the important work that the Minister is doing. As I said this morning, I have a lot of respect for the Minister; he is extremely able and I know that he will be pursuing this work with vigour. However, I believe that a statutory review offers the opportunity for a much broader look at this issue in the round, and actions such as those that the Minister has outlined can sit under such a review perfectly reasonably. The two things are not in contradiction. A statutory review would not stop the Minister from continuing to pursue some of the immediate actions that he has already set out. It just provides an opportunity to take a step back and look at this important sector of home ownership to assess whether it is working well. Where there are things that the Government or the Minister may have missed—as diligent as I know him to be— it gives that extra opportunity. I know that the Minister has been very clear in his determination to continue pursuing shared ownership, as he set out in his written statement and in his announcement. However, I have to say that this Minister, in whom I have a lot of confidence, may not always be in this post. When he inevitably ascends to higher office, his successor may not be as focused on this issue as him. Therefore, I think that a statutory review as set out in clause 13 offers the opportunity to publish something that has been considered carefully, which Members of this House and future Ministers can then refer back to when considering the way forward. I do not think that it trammels the Minister’s freedom in deciding what to announce or his discretion in any way; it would just be a very important addition.
The hon. Lady amplifies what I have already said about the Minister. Before I do his political career too much harm by being too nice about him in front of his Whip, I have been very clear in my respect for the Minister and the work he is doing. However, as we have seen in previous Governments—not only Conservative but Labour Governments since 2024—Ministers come and go with an alarming rapidity. When something is as important as this is to so many people, there must be something underpinning it. Whether Ministers move—in this Minister’s case, I hope he ascends—or whether they leave Government, it is important that whoever succeeds that office and its responsibilities has something on which they can hang their hat and plan their strategy. That is why I think that a review would not be a hindrance to any Minister or Government. Actually, it could be of great help, not least in potentially giving the opportunity to objectively consider some of the issues that the hon. Lady has just raised further.
It is always a pleasure to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am seeking to make the point that this review has the potential to underpin a much longer-term approach to this important sector. That is why the clause is important. I do not see the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington as in contradiction to that, but rather as complementary to it. There may be a question about phasing and how it works, but I do not believe that that is a reason not to retain the clause for what it seeks to do. The Minister is always a reflective man, so I hope that he will reflect on that carefully.
Don’t tempt fate!
On that basis, is the Minister prepared to commit—whether explicitly in the Bill or not—to the Government’s launching a formal review of this?
I will speak briefly to this grouping, simply to reiterate what the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, has just said. In a Bill of this sort, there is inevitably much that we will to-and-fro across this Committee about and disagree on. However, throughout my time as Victims Minister, and under the new Government now, there has been significant consensus about a shared desire, on both sides of the House, to make progress in supporting victims of domestic violence and domestic abuse. I therefore just reiterate my hon. Friend’s and my party’s support for what the Minister seeks to do here. There is genuinely a high degree of consensus on this group; we want to move forward and make that difference.
The Minister pronounces it immaculately.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. It is also a pleasure to be opposite the Minister. We last met at MIRA in my constituency to talk about some of these issues that affect the automotive industry. He will be pleased to hear that I will not be dividing the Committee, as it is welcome news that the Government are looking at ways to reduce costs on businesses. That being said, there are some fundamental questions about the regulations that need to be raised. The Government have correctly identified high energy costs as a major obstacle to British manufacturing, but their response seems to be to create a complicated system of exemptions that help selected businesses while leaving the majority facing uncompetitive costs. In essence, we need cheaper electricity for British industry in its entirety, so why are we effectively creating winners and losers, leaving the underlying problem unresolved? The question is: who ultimately pays? There is legitimate concern that households or businesses that are excluded from the scheme may face higher costs. Also, why are so many businesses excluded? The eligibility rules favour selected manufacturing sectors, leaving other businesses to face higher energy bills. Why is the scheme unnecessarily complicated, with several tiers setting out the percentage a business can claim back? And fundamentally, does it address the real underlying problem? The Minister has again pointed out that we have high industrial costs, some of the highest in the world. If BICS carves selected manufacturing out of existing <span id="5" class="column-number" data-column-number="5"></span>electricity policy costs, that is welcome for them, and the Minister spoke repeatedly about those who are eligible. What about those who are not eligible? The Conservatives would get rid of the renewables obligation for every business, which would help every business. That brings me to a couple of questions I have for the Minister. What we have to think about is the wider economy, so I am glad he is double-hatted and can look at businesses, too. What about pubs, restaurants, corner shops and the manufacturers that are not in the selected 10,000 given special treatment? What guarantee is there that those outside BICS will see no temporary or permanent rise in their energy bills? The Government have accepted that carbon price support is no longer fit for purpose, and we agree. They accept that abolishing it will reduce electricity costs, and they intend to use the savings to offset the costs created by BICS. If removing carbon price support reduces electricity costs and helps finance industrial relief, why wait until April 2028? Why retain these wider carbon costs and continue to feed them into electricity prices? The question really is: why is CPS being retained through 2027-28 when BICS starts in 2027? That leads us on to the fundamental final question, and it is interesting with the Budget coming tomorrow: how much additional Exchequer funding is required for 2027-28 specifically because carbon price support will not be abolished until April 2028? These are clearly fundamental differences between the Opposition and the Government. We favour a plan that would reduce costs for all businesses, not the lucky selected few.
In recent months, our European allies have become increasingly forthright in publicly naming hostile states responsible for attacks on their countries, yet Britain appears reluctant to do the same, even though the Foreign Secretary has spoken very clearly about hybrid war. Over the weekend, it was reported that the crippling cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover was state sponsored. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that failing to publicly attribute such attacks only emboldens our adversaries and, more importantly, will he now name the state believed to be responsible for this unprecedented attack on British industry?
The Minister will know how much I want the Government’s Be Ready campaign to succeed—I have shared my views with him at length—because the threats are real and increasing. But if the Government are going to ask people to stock up on tinned food and wind-up radios, they must be honest when we are attacked. The shadow Minister raised the case of Jaguar Land Rover, and the fact that the former Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), said at the weekend that the incident was state sponsored. That is incredibly serious, so can the Minister use this opportunity to tell the House which state was responsible?
<Question HRSContentId="{C1357F26-5896-4C53-8584-EF97C15A365A}">T9. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{D86541E4-7FC1-4C3F-B56B-ABC878B01F2B}"></QuestionText>Given the increasing evidence of hybrid attacks by Russia on British targets, will the Foreign Secretary rule out shaking hands with Sergey Lavrov at the upcoming G20?</Question>
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and join him in sending my condolences to the families of the two men who lost their lives in the storms over the weekend. We welcome measures to address the resilience gap—a process that started under the previous Government, as the Minister said. I am a little surprised that the Housing Secretary’s suggestion of stockpiling sauvignon blanc has not been taken on board by the Minister, but it is absolutely right that the Government tell people to be prepared for adversity. However, I have a number of questions that I hope he will be able to address this afternoon. First, the Government’s Be Ready campaign website lists 18 hazards, ranging from terrorism and adverse weather to animal and plant health and fires in the home. Which of those 18 hazards do the Government consider to be the highest risk, and have there been any recent changes to risk assessments that led to the launch of this campaign?<span id="191" class="column-number" data-column-number="191"></span> Secondly, how do the Government plan to reach people who are digitally excluded, and will they be distributing printed resources? Not only are such resources vital for those who are digitally excluded, they could become a lifeline for anyone who is unable to access the internet at the time of an incident. In his statement, the Minister rightly pointed out that only 13% of people in the UK feel they are prepared for an emergency. This is in stark contrast to other countries, such as Spain, where I believe the figure is just below 70%. Can the Minister tell the House whether he has a specific take-up figure that he would like to achieve by the end of the Be Ready campaign? I now come to the issue of costs. We all know that times are tough for people right across the country, so how much do the Government expect this preparedness to cost the average family, and how much do they expect to spend on this campaign over the next three years? It has been reported that since the Government announced the campaign last week, supermarkets have seen water and baked beans sell out, as well as a run on wind-up radios and torches. Did the Government communicate with major supermarkets and other retailers to prepare them before they made this announcement, or was it just dropped on them? With reference to emergency response coverage, the most important thing across the nation is that we have a joined-up approach, so that nobody is left behind. We cannot have a postcode lottery of an emergency response system, so can the Minister tell the House how he is working with the devolved Administrations across the four nations, and how he is working with local authorities? The Government became familiar with the emergency alert system over the summer after using it to warn people about disposable barbecues. Has the Minister reflected since then and made any assessment of the threshold for future use of the system, and of how many people may have turned off their emergency alert capability following its use in August? Next, I would like to address vulnerable people, and what consideration the Government have made of them in the Be Ready campaign. How will the Government ensure that our vulnerable, our elderly, people with illness, parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities, and others are effectively communicated with and supported in a time of emergency? This cannot vary from place to place. Turning to national security, the former Defence Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), said this week that the cyber-attack that caused £2.1 billion of damage to Jaguar Land Rover last year was a state-sponsored attack. First, Jaguar Land Rover deserves to know whether it was a state-sponsored attack, and I hope the Government have told it. Secondly, can the Government say whether there needs to be more awareness among businesses that they are at risk from these types of attacks, and what more are they doing to support our critical national infrastructure with cyber-resilience and cyber-security? The Government have claimed that defence spending will reach 2.7% of GDP by the end of 2028. Considering the valuable work of our intelligence services, can the Minister confirm that the entire single intelligence account is included in that figure, and can he explain how this fits with the NATO definition of defence spending? Finally, the Government have refused to confirm whether <span id="192" class="column-number" data-column-number="192"></span>improving broadband infrastructure is included in the classification of critical infrastructure for the purposes of reporting against the additional 1.5% NATO commitment. Can the Minister clarify today that improving broadband infrastructure does not contribute to the NATO spending commitment? In conclusion, we welcome the continuation of the previous Conservative Government’s efforts to address the resilience gap. We will support the Government where appropriate, and look forward to scrutinising the Be Ready campaign as it progresses.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. Some here will be aware of the tragic case in Bromsgrove of NHS pharmacist John Cross, who developed paralysing complications after receiving a covid injection. The <span id="125WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="125WH"></span>effects began two weeks after the vaccine and John was then hospitalised for seven months. He worked hard on his recovery through private physio and, under medical advice, applied to the vaccine damage payment scheme, where he was deemed to be 55% disabled, therefore falling short of the 60% requirement for qualification. A few months later, John tragically took his own life. Ater a gruelling five-year legal challenge by his family during a time when they should have been grieving the loss of their husband, father and grandfather, the decision was finally overturned. The Cross family is clear: the current vaccine compensation scheme is failing victims. The Government have repeatedly stated that they are evaluating options to reform the VDPS, yet no official timescale has been set for making a decision on any alterations or recommendations for a change. That is unacceptable. It leaves victims and their families trapped in a state of anxiety and uncertainty. Will the Government publish a timescale for conducting their review of the vaccine damage payment scheme, and the changes that they intend to implement to ensure certainty for victims? Having received fewer than 800 applications in the decade before covid-19, it is clear that the VDPS needs to adapt to respond to the significant increase in applications from those affected by covid-19 vaccines. Since the covid-19 pandemic began, the number of claims made has risen significantly, with more than 24,000 claims relating to covid-19 alone, yet despite that stark rise, just over 1% have received the tax-free payment. John Cross was part of the forgotten 99% until his family fought for justice. Do the Government believe that the 60% threshold is still appropriate, and is the binary yes or no process that awards a flat-rate payment for successful claims still fit for purpose? Has any consideration been given to the introduction of a tiered compensation framework that implements varying thresholds for payment amounts based on case-specific circumstances, such as the severity of the damage and long-term care requirements? The Cross family is one tragic story among many. I stress that I am pro-vaccine, as are the Cross family, but there must be clear accountability for severe side effects that people have suffered. Those impacted must receive the help that they are owed, particularly after they followed Government advice. The Cross family have always been unequivocal that their fight has never been about money. No amount will bring John back. To them, it has always been about accountability, the ability to give others in similar situations hope, and the need to change a system that effectively told a man that he was not disabled enough. I am proud to support the Cross family, and I will continue to do that until they receive the justice that they deserve.
<Question HRSContentId="{912B89DE-1350-49D3-9D13-9BFA02AB500B}">T1. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{6D8BEEF6-C965-4528-A67E-273376B01394}">If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.</QuestionText></Question>
Last year, the Intelligence and Security Committee concluded that Iran poses a widespread, persistent and unpredictable threat, and the director of MI5 has reported that the intelligence services have tracked at least 20 serious plots linked to Iran. Can the Secretary of State update the House on the Government’s assessment of the domestic threat posed by Iran? What diplomatic steps are being taken to tackle it?
New clause 5 closes an anomaly that dates back to 1973, under which Commonwealth and Irish citizens living in the country when the Immigration Act 1971 came into force are protected from deportation by section 7, however serious their conduct. The new clause would let the Home Secretary decide that such a person is liable to deportation where they have been or could have been deprived of citizenship on conduct grounds. We support it and amendment 47, which brings it into force on Royal Assent. The Conservative plan is to deport all foreign criminals. Not some of them—all of them. Any measure that removes a barrier to deportation is a step in that direction. New clause 5 is indeed a step in the right direction, but it is such a small step that it is challenging to see that it will make a noticeable impact. It is a personal discretion, not a duty, for the Home Secretary. Every person it covers will still be able to resist removal under article 8 and article 3, through the Human Rights Act 1998. Compare that with the much more robust new clause 45, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), which would mean automatic deportation for every foreign national convicted of an offence. That is what our borders plan means by deporting all foreign criminals. For the purposes of the debate, I have three questions for the Minister. How many people do the Government estimate are protected by section 7 and could be made liable to deportation under new clause 5? What is the Government’s legal assessment of the clause’s reliance on conduct before commencement? How will the power apply to Irish citizens, given the common travel area, and have the Irish Government been consulted on the measure? We will support Government new clause 5, but if the Government accept the principle that dangerous people should not be protected from deportation by legal technicalities, I hope they will support our new clauses in that regard too.
New clause 32 rewrites the exception to automatic deportation for foreign criminals who are victims of trafficking. At present, section 33(6A) of the UK Borders Act 2007 disapplies automatic deportation where removal would breach our obligations under the Council of Europe trafficking convention. The new clause would replace that with a test based on leave under section 65 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, including where the Home Secretary merely intends to grant such leave, even where she is under no duty to do so. A criminal conviction should trigger automatic deportation, and those deported as foreign criminals should not be able to make protection claims to stop <span id="456" class="column-number" data-column-number="456"></span>that deportation. New clause 32 keeps a route by which a foreign criminal can avoid automatic deportation and it widens the discretion to use it. I am sure nobody in this Committee wants genuine victims of trafficking to be left unsupported, but in clause 38, the Government accept that people who pose a threat to public order should be disqualified from protection. Why, then, keep the exception to automatic deportation for people who have been convicted of crimes here? Why widen the range of cases where there is no duty to grant leave at all? How many foreign criminals relied on the trafficking exemption in each of the past three years? In what circumstances would the Home Secretary intend to grant leave under section 65 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 where there is no duty to do so? How many foreign criminals do the Government expect to benefit? Unless the Minister can show that this exception will be rare and tightly controlled, it is a back door through which foreign criminals will continue to avoid removal.
New clause 33 makes the Immigration Services Commissioner’s penalties, refund orders and compensation orders enforceable as court orders across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland. These are technical improvements and we support them. Rogue immigration advisers do real damage. They take money from vulnerable people, and, too often, they coach claims designed not to establish the truth but to delay removal, including the late claim lodged the night before a flight, and the fresh claim built on a story that has changed. We would end immigration legal aid and limit judicial review to cases where the Home Office has acted outside its powers, which would remove much of the market that these advisers exploit. In the meantime, the regulator should have teeth. How many penalties has the commissioner imposed in the last three years, how much has actually been recovered and how many prosecutions for giving unregulated immigration advice have there been? As I said, we support this move, but I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Mr Twigg, you and the Committee members will be pleased to hear that this will be the shortest speech of the day. The new clause adds the Bill, once enacted, to the list of “the Immigration Acts”. It is a technical provision, and we do not oppose it.