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

1. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Reed

   Performance of Royal Mail

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

   Hansard source
2. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Reed

   Performance of Royal Mail

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

   Hansard source
3. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Mundell

   Civil Service Pensions

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

   Hansard source
4. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Davis

   Topical Questions

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

   Hansard source
5. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

   Topical Questions

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

   Hansard source
6. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

   Work-based Immigration

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

   Hansard source
7. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

   Work-based Immigration

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

   Hansard source
8. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

   Work-based Immigration

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

   Hansard source
9. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

   Work-based Immigration

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

   Hansard source
10. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

    Work-based Immigration

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

    Hansard source
11. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

    Work-based Immigration

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

    Hansard source
12. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Prostate Cancer Screening

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

    Hansard source
13. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Securing Scotland’s Future: Defence Skills and Jobs

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

    Hansard source
14. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Performance of Royal Mail

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

    Hansard source
15. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

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

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

    Hansard source
16. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    Civil Service Pensions

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

    Hansard source
17. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Chris Philp

    Violence against Women and Girls

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

    Hansard source
18. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Chris Philp

    Topical Questions

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

    Hansard source
19. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Chris Philp

    Topical Questions

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

    Hansard source
20. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Performance of Royal Mail

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

    Hansard source
21. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Performance of Royal Mail

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

    Hansard source
22. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Performance of Royal Mail

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

    Hansard source
23. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Performance of Royal Mail

    That is a point I will touch on with regard to transparency levels. There have been seven stamp price rises in four years, with the price of a first-class stamp having doubled since 2022. It is clear that residents in my constituency, and those represented by Members from across the House, are paying a first-class price for a second-class service. If consumers are expected to pay higher prices for a service, they rightly expect such a service to deliver on its promises, yet residents face a much different reality from what Royal Mail claims. Its local performance target of 87% of first-class post being delivered the next working day was achieved in only 42 of the 118 postcode areas—a statistic that resonates with my constituents and those of many Members here today. Every industry has a level of standard that it is expected to meet, and Royal Mail should not be any different, but it is failing. It is time for accountability and material action in order to deliver tangible results. Alongside the stark statistics that have been quoted, the House will have heard me and other Members express strong discontent in Westminster Hall last week about <span id="131" class="column-number" data-column-number="131"></span>the report earlier this year that Royal Mail will deliver 219 million letters late. With NHS waiting lists already too long, we cannot afford for more appointments to be missed due to late letter delivery. With the cost of living already debilitating families across the country, they cannot afford missed payment charges due to delayed bill arrival. To be clear, and in common with Members from across the House, I do not believe that the fault lies with the hard-working posties who serve our communities. We are grateful for all that they do to keep us connected, but action must be taken by the highest levels of management to quickly address the real-life experiences that are depleting customer confidence. Management are failing and, speaking from my own personal experience, I am sick and tired of the platitudes that come from Royal Mail. I echo and share the concerns of Members from across the House. In Westminster Hall last week, the Minister shared that she has been frank in her meetings with the chief executive of Royal Mail and will continue to do so for as long as necessary. However, with Christmas, the busiest time of year for postal services, only 60 days away, it is time for immediate action, not more meetings and passing the blame back and forth. Something that needs to be focused on is transparency around local delivery data, as has been suggested in the Chamber this evening. Can the Minister outline the material steps the Government are taking, alongside Ofcom, to ensure an improved service is delivered as quickly as possible? Do they have confidence that Royal Mail’s improvement plan will deliver the needed changes promptly? At what point is the service so bad that the Government decide that further action is necessary? Expecting what you paid for is a basic standard, not an unreasonable demand. The public are tired of a failing service that continues to worsen, disrupting daily routines and tarnishing its former reputation for reliability. This is a matter of national importance about a national institution, and I believe all our constituents would like to know specifically how the Government are working with Royal Mail and Ofcom to take concrete steps to correct these issues to restore public confidence.

    Hansard source
24. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Bob Blackman

    Rough Sleeping and Good Growth Funds

    I welcome the ambition of the Minister—and the Prime Minister—and I hope that she will succeed. The visible signs of homelessness are people sleeping rough on our streets, but in any one day there are 300,000 people sofa surfing who may end up on the streets tomorrow. Anyone who is rough sleeping now will be suffering in their mental and physical health. They may be addicted to drink or drugs, or they may be on the streets because of gambling—every case is unique. As the Minister rightly says, it is not just about putting a roof over someone’s head; it is about building a network of support around them. There are two things that I would ask. First, we know what works. Housing First works—building a network of support around the person to enable them to rebuild their life. The second issue is those rogue landlords who will exploit vulnerable people. The Minister knows what is coming next. When can we get my Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 in place so that we can stop those rogue landlords exploiting people, and potentially taking much of the money that the Government are offering?

    Hansard source
25. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Foreign National Offenders: Deportation

    There are 21,000 serious foreign criminals still in the UK. Today, a foreign criminal jailed for four years or more cannot use family or long residence exceptions to avoid deportation. Last week, the Government voted down our amendments in Committee to keep that rule and extend it to terrorists, making the Immigration and Asylum Bill softer on the worst offenders than current law. Will the Home Secretary admit that only leaving the ECHR will guarantee us that foreign criminals are deported?

    Hansard source
26. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Prostate Cancer Screening

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I declare my interest as an officer of the APPG for prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is a subject close to my heart: we all know that it affects black men, middle-aged men and men with a family history of it, and I tick all those boxes. My father has prostate cancer and is undergoing treatment. I thank all the staff at Kingston hospital for their swift treatment of him, given he was under active surveillance. That is an important point: he got a PSA test, discovered that he had prostate cancer and as a result was placed on active surveillance because he was below the threshold required for treatment. When that active surveillance proved that he needed to be treated, staff were able to act quickly. That has, fundamentally, saved his life. He would not be eligible for the Transform trial, which will now include black men, until 2028. Who knows how far the cancer might have progressed by that point? I take my health quite seriously and get a PSA test annually. I got my last PSA test last month and thankfully all is okay for me, but regular testing means I can keep track of it and pay attention to it. It is obvious that we need to encourage more men to get themselves tested. There are a lot of middle-aged men in this Chamber and I suspect that not everybody has had a PSA test, or had one recently. In August, the Department of Health and Social Care withdrew the prostate cancer risk management programme after 24 years. PCRMP provided a dedicated framework for the informed choice model for PSA testing among asymptomatic men. New guidance removes references to men over 50 being considered to be at increased risk. Now that the guidance underpinning the framework has been withdrawn, will the Minister clarify how requests for testing for asymptomatic men will be handled in practice? I would be grateful if she would also clarify the Government’s official position, stated last week at Health parliamentary questions. I would also appreciate her confirmation that should men suspect that they have symptoms they can go to their GP and seek a PSA test for prostate cancer.

    Hansard source
27. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alison Griffiths

    Road Traffic Collision Reporting: Cats

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to you for chairing this debate. I know that many of my cat-loving constituents are deeply invested in this issue, with 363 of them having signed the petition. In common with many Members, I place on record my deep affection for my childhood cats: Scruff, Jasper, Ziggy and my personal favourite, Eartha Kitt. Before we delve into the proposal in the petition, we should acknowledge the importance of reporting an incident through the existing channels where there has been a collision between a vehicle and a cat. Although there may not be a mandatory legislative requirement, I hope that most drivers, in the event of a collision, would show the level of British decency to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) alluded. If our own pet were involved in a collision, we would expect to receive the same British decency. There are more than 11 million cats across the country, living in one in four households. We should always strive to protect these cherished pets. Indeed, many are a key part of their owners’ families. As my right hon. Friend the Member also said, they are not merely affectionate members of the family; they are world class at pest control, even if that can occasionally produce a messy result. The death of any cat is naturally devastating to its owners, and we should support them by ensuring that they are informed of a collision, either so that their cat can receive treatment or so that they can achieve closure. Each person who signed the petition will feel the importance of this issue deeply. Rule 286 of the highway code states clearly: “If you are involved in a collision which causes damage or injury to any other person, vehicle, animal or property, you MUST stop.” I would hope that that requirement is adhered to, making it possible for someone to establish whether their cat has been involved in a collision. Reuniting cats with their owners has been made easier by the previous Government’s decision to roll out microchipping in England, ensuring that cats can be more easily identified and their owners contacted. I am aware that DEFRA has been asked to commission a research project: first, to understand the operational challenges that prevent some cats from being reunited with their keepers after a road traffic collision, and secondly, to establish an evidence base to inform best practice for local authorities. The Government previously said that the project would report this year. I am sure that petitioners will be interested to hear from the Minister when its findings will be published and considered. I have outlined those measures because I think we can all agree with the sentiments expressed by the petition. It would be disingenuous, however, to consider the comments made by the Government and the previous Conservative Administration and not conclude that there <span id="46WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="46WH"></span>is currently no intention to bring forward legislation on this issue. That is not to dismiss the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) when he shared details of the provision announced in this Chamber in 2015 in response to the campaign for Harvey’s law. His note to me says that “pets killed on the road must be collected, identified where possible, and their owners notified by the Highways Agency (now called National Highways)”, so this provision exists already. As a newly elected MP in 2024, I was not present when this issue was addressed in the House previously. A petition that almost mirrored this one was put forward in 2022 and followed by a debate in this Chamber in 2023. During the debate, the then Roads Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), said that the Government would look at the issue and that he would ask the Department to consider whether it would be appropriate to take further action. The Government subsequently indicated that they believed that a combination of microchipping and efforts by local authorities to reunite cats with their owners was the most effective way forward. However, we must note a difference between today’s debate and the one in 2023. Since the election, the Labour Government have presided over a reduction in police officer numbers. Requiring the police to deal with collisions involving cats would add to an increasingly challenging workload. Any further demands on police time must be even more carefully considered as a result. Although it would be simple to ask this Minister to show the same consideration as in 2023, the Government’s response to this petition suggests that the Department for Transport holds the same position as it did then. Furthermore, the Government’s road safety strategy does not mention animals or cats. Therefore, I will avoid reversing roles with the former shadow Minister by asking for the same things as Labour did in 2023, especially when the Government’s position appears to be clear. I will not step on the Minister’s prepared remarks by reiterating reasons given during the previous debate. Given the Department’s written petition response, I expect him to set them out again today. Instead, I ask the Minister whether anything beyond the measures that the Government have already outlined could be considered. That means going beyond best practice and considering how existing technologies could be utilised more effectively. That might include making things easier for those who need to access microchip database information. More broadly, are there ways of utilising technologies such as GPS collars to help identify more quickly a cat that has tragically been killed during a collision? If we are to consider ways of making things easier for owners, we should consider how information already provided by the private sector could be utilised where owners consent to it being used for this reason. As I said at the outset, we all share the sentiments set out in this petition. Cat owners are absolutely right to want their cat to be returned to them as quickly as possible. That is the least that all pet owners deserve. However, unless there has been a change of position, I am not clear on whether the Department for Transport believes that such a measure could be implemented effectively.<span id="47WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="47WH"></span>

    Hansard source
28. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Small Boat Crossings: Removal of Arrivals

    Ministers tell us that small boat arrivals are vetted, so we need not worry, but Mohammed Yaseen—who, as we all know, joined al-Qaeda at 16, was convicted as a Daesh terrorist in Germany, and, a British court was told, was a danger to the British people—was put by the Home Office not in a detention centre ready to be deported to Iraq, where the Iraqi people deserve to see him face trial and justice, but instead in a hostel in Windsor. He was free to roam British streets during daylight hours, along with too many of the 95% not yet deported. He is now back in prison, thanks to the newspapers. How can we have any confidence in the Government, when they allow a convicted Daesh member to be released on to our streets while his deportation is pending, and will the Home Secretary today give the commitment that he will be held in detention until he is on a plane, and that his ticket has been ordered?

    Hansard source
29. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Performance of Royal Mail

    A reliable post service is not a luxury; it is an essential public service. For our communities across Rutland, Stamford and the South Kesteven and Harborough villages, the consequences of poor service can be significant, and also unfair on the posties who face the brunt of those frustrations. In Carlby, some residents were left without post for 20 days in January, with many only receiving their post because they took the initiative to complain. One resident wrote her complaint on 26 January. The next day, a mammoth bundle of mail coincidentally arrived at her house, with some letters dating from 2 January—24 days late. In Ryhall, the village regularly goes without post for weeks at a time. It is not just an inconvenience; it is the norm. In Stamford, first-class post takes a minimum of four days to arrive, despite Royal Mail aiming to deliver the next working day. South Luffenham is no different. The Royal Mail comes once a week, or twice if locals are lucky. Indeed, I wrote to the residents of Cottesmore on 12 October and many received their letters only yesterday. One village resident has missed numerous medical appointments because letters arrive too late from the hospital—or she travels the 40 minutes to our local hospital to find out that the appointment has been cancelled. This is unacceptable. We are not asking for special treatment. In the last 18 months since the 2025 sale, something has happened that has broken Royal Mail. Residents have consistently been told they can only complain after seven days—a whole week of non-delivery. Again, the significant delays residents face every week are perfectly demonstrated by the fact that when I posted correspondence first class from my constituency office in Oakham, it took two weeks for the letters to arrive. To arrive where? In Oakham—some just one street away. I want to be clear that, as all Members in the Chamber have said, this is not an attack on our postal workers. Many work incredibly hard under considerable pressure in all weathers. We recognise the contribution they make, and we are grateful to them. I would like to turn briefly to a company called Enough, which uses the Royal Mail service to deliver its self-swab rape kits, despite having been publicly outed by me in this Chamber for sending SLAPPs—strategic lawsuits against public participation—to sexual assault survivors, rape charities and anyone who dares to speak out to question its motives or the claims on its kits. I have raised Enough’s use of Royal Mail services with <span id="103" class="column-number" data-column-number="103"></span>Royal Mail, because I believe its use of Royal Mail is not compliant with Royal Mail’s own guidance on the transportation of human specimens. First, a kit has to be sent by a qualified medical practitioner or requested by them. This is not the case. Secondly, the labelling on the packaging required is not currently in place. Thirdly, the packaging requirements are also not being met. Royal Mail is not taking the concerns I have raised with it seriously. The Minister knows very well the issues relating to Enough and has promised to look at how we regulate to deal with the fact that this company should not be in operation. It is important that Royal Mail comes back to me and that the Minister also raises this issue with Royal Mail. Rural communities cannot become an afterthought in the provision of essential services. Yes, distance and rural geography represent operational challenges, but they are not a permanent excuse for poor service. I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you have had the same issues in your very rural constituency. I urge the Government to take these concerns seriously and press Royal Mail for a clear and measurable improvement plan and improved powers for regulators. That plan must include: transparent local performance information that even I cannot get my hands on; an assessment of staffing and delivery arrangements; better communication with affected residents; and a straightforward process for reporting and resolving complaints. We are all very grateful to posties for what they do, but accountability means more than just acknowledging a problem. It means taking action and demonstrating results. The universal post service is an essential part of our national infrastructure. Its value is measured not by the number of letters delivered nationally, but by whether our communities can depend on it when they need it—and for too many, they cannot.

    Hansard source
30. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Victoria Atkins

    Topical Questions

    The Conservative DEFRA team met more than 100 farmers in Berkshire this week, ahead of the Budget, to continue our two-year campaign against the family farm tax and the family business tax. One farmer told us: “I’m sat with a ticking time bomb and it’s unsurvivable for me. I would have to sell the farm to pay the bill.” That is despite the Government’s humiliating partial U-turn. With six days to go before the Budget, can the Secretary of State explain why this Labour Government are putting families through that?

    Hansard source
31. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Victoria Atkins

    Topical Questions

    I can tell the Secretary of State now that I am not on the side of this Government. While Labour was complaining about black labradors and pubs at its party conference, the Conservatives were listening to rural business owners. They are being squeezed at every turn; the cost of energy, water, heating oil, petrol and diesel, as well as food prices, and the amount of red tape and taxes, are all up under this Government. The Secretary of State may have heard of two of them: Jeremy Clarkson and Cheerful Charlie—in fact, the Secretary of State has stood up Cheerful Charlie three times. They asked a question at our party conference that I hear in market towns and villages across the country under this Government: why would anyone start a business in this country right now?

    Hansard source
32. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    Saudi Arabia: RAF Support

    <em>(Urgent Question:)</em> To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of RAF Typhoon aircraft to defend Saudi Arabia, and the extension of air-to-air refuelling support for the Saudi air operations, including those against Houthi targets in Yemen.

    Hansard source
33. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    Saudi Arabia: RAF Support

    Thank you for granting this UQ, Mr Speaker. I am sorry that it was necessary, as there is a long-standing convention in this place that shadow Ministers—and, in fact, spokespeople from other parties—are briefed on a Privy Council basis in order to understand what is going on before there are military deployments overseas, but that seems to have fallen out of practice. Those of us—including my friend, the hon. and gallant Minister sitting across the Dispatch Box from me—who <span id="1282" class="column-number" data-column-number="1282"></span>have served in uniform and have briefed members of the Opposition should remember that we may find ourselves on the opposite Benches in a few years’ time, and it is good to get back into these habits. I will just say briefly why this is so important, and why I am asking this question and not my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), sitting beside me. This is a political decision and a political judgment. This is not purely a military deployment; it is a judgment on how to use the defensive arm of His Majesty’s Government and where it should go. It is a question that the Foreign Office is best placed to co-ordinate. The reality is that what we are getting is a parcelled-off process, and not a strategy for success. Where is, for example, the action in the United Nations? Where are the sanctions on the Houthis, who should be designated as a terrorist group? Where are the co-ordinating actions with others in the region? We have the state visit of the Sultan of Oman—one of Britain’s most important regional partners—but where are the voices co-ordinating our actions around not just Yemen, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, but the whole of the Arabian peninsula in response to Iran’s hostility? We have seen the regime in Tehran killing hundreds of thousands—perhaps even millions—of Sunni Muslims over the past half century since the poisonous creed of Khomeinism infected Tehran. This recent incident is not an isolated one; it is part of a pattern of violence. We have seen it pushing up energy prices in the United Kingdom, leaving us with our energy low and our storage short as winter approaches. Although the Jackdaw decision is the right one, it is a bit late, and it will not make a huge difference this winter, making Rosebank all the more urgent. Let me just ask a few direct questions. First, what actions have the Minister or his Cabinet colleagues taken to co-ordinate actions with allies in the region? Secondly, what support has been given to the defence of Cyprus, given Iran’s proxy Hezbollah’s attack on our bases recently? Thirdly, what plans are there to designate the Houthis as a terrorist organisation? Fourthly, what actions are planned at the UN to call out Iranian aggression, alongside its Russian and Chinese neighbours? Fifthly—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> Last one, Mr Speaker. Fifthly, will the Secretary of State commit to giving briefings before deployments? Finally, will the Secretary of State confirm that despite his predecessor saying—

    Hansard source
34. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    Saudi Arabia: RAF Support

    On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your guidance and advice on ensuring that the Government inform this House before military operations, and that they do not have to be dragged here with your indulgence for an urgent question when there is a clear need for this House to be able to debate the actions of His Majesty’s Government in order to support our forces? We all support our forces. I respect the Minister’s service and I am sure that he respects all those on the Opposition Benches as well.

    Hansard source
35. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    Retirement of the Clerk of the House

    Shame!

    Hansard source
36. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Wine Production

    <Question HRSContentId="{90BED1BD-7BB0-442B-BBA3-5D2F176E511F}">8. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{832EAB88-9507-4650-AD42-199268DCECB5}">What steps her Department is taking to support the wine production industry.</QuestionText> </Question>

    Hansard source
37. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Wine Production

    Is the Minister aware that Essex is now a centre of English wine production, with producers such as Danbury Ridge, Missing Gate, New Hall, Crouch Valley and Crouch Ridge all producing in my constituency? A number of them also offer vineyard tours, which are an important source of revenue. Will he support WineGB’s campaign for a wine tourism relief, to reduce the excise duty on cellar-door sales?

    Hansard source
38. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Topical Questions

    <Question HRSContentId="{B9A98BCF-DEBD-4F74-B0EE-1BF265F570DE}">T3. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{86F3C411-97B4-41AC-A8B1-8C1F2884257D}"></QuestionText>As well as producing extremely fine wines, Maldon produces excellent oysters—I would be delighted to welcome any members of the ministerial team to visit. Will the Department do more to promote the shellfish industry? In particular, will it look to introduce a specific aquaculture qualification to try to attract more apprentices into the industry?</Question>

    Hansard source
39. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Saudi Arabia: RAF Support

    I support the deployment of British forces in support of our Saudi Arabian allies, but, as has become clear, the distinction between “offensive” and “defensive” support is pretty fuzzy at best. Can the Minister say what assessment has been made of the possible increased threat to British nationals in the region, both civilian and military, and what is being done to meet that threat?

    Hansard source
40. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Local Government Reorganisation

    The Local Government Boundary Commission paused boundary reviews in areas affected by local government reorganisation proposals in February of last year, so the Government’s recent review of those proposals has not had any immediate practical impact. The commission will return to those boundary reviews when the reorganisation proposals are resolved.

    Hansard source