5,750 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 3 Nov 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

   Video Games: Consumer Law

   The hon. Member makes a perfectly valid point with which I sympathise. It is certainly true that there are a number of different games providers and some are backed by large amounts of money and debt. We have to distinguish clearly between the variety of games providers out there; I will go on to say something about the smaller providers, but the principles that underlie this issue seem clear. It is incumbent on games companies to make it absolutely clear to consumers when there is the possibility that their games may become unplayable after a period of years. I hope that the video games industry will be happy to accept that responsibility by using clear consumer messaging; I would certainly expect the two industry trade associations to ensure that that happens as a matter of course. As I noted, however, we must also bear in mind the cost to video game publishers of continuing the software; this could become an unfair burden, especially on games producers that are comparatively small, independent businesses, which are all already facing increased costs. Will the Minister take this opportunity to reassure the industry generally that she is battling for the interests of the creative industries as a consideration in the forthcoming Budget that the Chancellor is in the process of writing? The Government also have responsibility for evaluating whether the protections in place for consumers are both effective and sufficient—we cannot simply assume that they are. Consumers are predominantly protected by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. The CRA ensures that if software on sale is not supported by the provider, that should be made clear—on product webpages and on physical packaging and labelling, for example. Does the Minister believe that existing labelling and consumer information are sufficient? As I said, we cannot simply assume that because the law and regulations exist. We have had recent experiences in other fields—Oasis tickets and Ticketmaster, for example—where the Competition and Markets Authority found that consumers were not given sufficient information. If the number of games being disabled or deactivated is increasing, perhaps it is time to consider whether the existing information is suitable. If digital content does not meet the CRA’s quality rights, the consumer is entitled to a repair or replacement or, if that is not possible, money back up to 100% of the cost of the digital content. Those rights apply to intangible digital content, such as a PC game, as well as tangible content, such as a physical copy of the game. Has the Minister made an assessment of how successful consumers are at seeking redress from video publishers? Consumer protection rights, which the last Government put into primary legislation, prohibit commercial practices that omit or hide information that the average consumer needs to make an informed choice, and prohibits traders from providing material in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner. As with the CRA right to redress, does the Minister believe that the existing route—via Citizens Advice, trading standards, and, where appropriate, the CMA—is an appropriate avenue for consumers? Can the Minister update us on how many consumers have achieved compensation via those routes? The Government have already confirmed that they have “no plans to amend existing consumer law on disabling video games.” That may be a proportionate approach on the basis of what we currently know. However, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 will give Ministers the power to add, amend or remove a description of a commercial practice that is, in all circumstances, considered unfair. Will the Minister be willing to use those powers in the case of video games, if the evidence suggests that the industry’s commercial practices fall short? Will the Minister confirm that the Government will ensure that the disabling of games is monitored to determine whether it is increasing? Can she confirm that the CMA will look at the existing information requirements for consumers to identify whether it is adequate? All said, the previous Government recognised the importance of the sector. I hope the Minister ensures that, while she considers whether more can be done to address this issue, any new measures do not stifle growth. Consumers must be protected, but we have a great UK video games sector. The Opposition want to see it go from strength to strength.

   Hansard source
2. 3 Nov 2025·Parliament·James Cartlidge

   Drone Procurement

   According to their own written answer, the Government ordered only three drones for the British armed forces in their first financial year. At June’s Defence oral questions, I suggested that Labour could find the money to buy drones at the scale we need by scrapping the crazy Chagos deal. They rejected my proposal then, but given that the Secretary of State has just failed to deny £2.6 billion of cuts at the MOD this year, is it not even more urgent that they scrap their crazy £35 billion surrender and spend every penny on the uncrewed revolution for our own armed forces?

   Hansard source
3. 3 Nov 2025·Parliament·James Cartlidge

   Topical Questions

   In the Secretary of State’s strategic defence review statement to Parliament on 2 June, he said that the defence investment plan would be “completed and published in the autumn.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 72.] Will he keep that promise?

   Hansard source
4. 3 Nov 2025·Parliament·James Cartlidge

   Topical Questions

   The Secretary of State did not answer the question. I am afraid the worry is that it is yet another delayed defence Command Paper. That prompts the obvious question: what exactly are the Government delivering for defence except delayed defence Command Papers? Is not this the truth: they are putting the British Army back in the dock, they are surrendering Diego Garcia for £35 billion, and all the while—they have not denied this today—they are cutting £2.6 billion from the frontline this year? Don’t the men and women of our armed forces deserve better?

   Hansard source
5. 3 Nov 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

   Public Office (Accountability) Bill

   As a six-year-old, I remember the death of Joe McCarthy, who lived on my road in west London, so it is not just about those who lived in Sheffield or elsewhere. It affected everyone across the country, and this Bill is so important for that reason.

   Hansard source
6. 3 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Neil Hudson

   Draft Environmental Protection (Wet Wipes Containing Plastic) (England) Regulations 2025

   It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Desmond. I thank the Government for bringing these draft regulations to us today. As members of the Committee will be aware, the Conservative Government set out their ambition to ban the most problematic plastic waste products in their 2018 resource and waste strategy for England. Action was taken to prohibit the supply of single-use plastic straws, plates and cutlery, plastic-stemmed cotton buds and drinks stirrers. In addition, that Government introduced a successful single-use carrier bag charge policy, which by 2024 had reduced the number of bags given out by the main supermarkets by over 98%. The resource and waste strategy outlined that to ban products, it must be considered an appropriate action and there must be sustainable, plastic-free alternatives. It was under that premise that in April 2024, the Conservative Government announced their intention to ban wet wipes containing plastic, which were quite rightly identified as a significant contributor to plastic pollution in rivers and oceans, with harmful microplastics entering that environment. I note the Minister’s comments about the impact that that has on the environment and the animals and wildlife therein. That announcement from the Conservatives was particularly welcome to me as someone who has long called for us to tackle the scourge of plastic pollution in our rivers and seas. In the last Parliament, I sat on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which shone a spotlight on the scourge of plastic waste through its specific inquiry and report into the matter. It recommended, among other things, the banning of plastic waste exports. I pay tribute to the Conservative Environment Network, of which I am a member, which has long called for action on plastic pollution in our waters and which was instrumental in helping to shift the dial and lead us to where we are today. With the timing of the election last year, the previous Government did not have the opportunity to lay these regulations. I am pleased that the new Government have brought them before us today. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Putney for her hard and concerted cross-party work in this area. The regulations make sensible exemptions, including for medical and industrial uses, to ensure that where wet wipes containing plastic are necessary and there are no viable alternatives, they can still be supplied. In a 2022 article for the National Health Executive, Professor Jean-Yves Maillard, professor of pharmaceutical microbiology at Cardiff University, highlighted the medical reasons that plastic is still required in wet wipes. He said that if the plastic, which is loaded with detergents, cleaning agents and in some cases powerful disinfectants, is removed, “you’re left with a less effective, less useful wet wipe”, which has “real-world consequences for patient care and patient safety in healthcare.” The Government have noted that most manufacturers have already commenced the transition to producing plastic-free wipes. It is important that these regulations do not limit access to plastic wet wipes where they are still required. What assessment has been made of the effect of the regulations on the supply and cost of plastic wet wipes for medical or clinical environments and other settings where plastic wet wipes are still required due to there being no viable alternatives? We should still aim to become plastic-free, even in professional products, but we are not quite there yet. When do the Government anticipate that full transition will be possible? When will effectiveness in the medical, clinical and scientific environments no longer be affected? I hope that the Minister can provide reassurance on how the enforcement powers will work during the transition period. Will she confirm that the enforcement powers will not be used disproportionately? Will she confirm that the regulations are not intended to prohibit or penalise members of the public who have an existing stock of wet wipes at home and want to use them up? Will the Minister publish a table of enforcement action by councils, to provide transparency on how councils are interpreting and enforcing the regulations? Given that the regulations have attracted criticism from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, what steps have been taken to address that Committee’s concerns? Although it is right that action is taken to limit unnecessary sources of pollution, we must avoid unintended consequences. I hope the Minister can provide clarification and reassurance.

   Hansard source
7. 3 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Public Office (Accountability) Bill

   Today is the day that, first and foremost, at the front of our minds will be one group of people, some of whom join us in the Gallery: those harmed by the state, those misled by the state, those lied to by the state. But those same people refused to accept that and would not take no for an answer. Those people knew the truth—the truth of what happened to them and to their relatives—and fought on to make sure everybody else knew it as well. The movement towards greater accountability and transparency in public life owes everything to them. The Hillsborough disaster stands as the example that many of our constituents will perhaps think of first. Ninety-seven lives were lost on 15 April 1989, and many others were profoundly affected, as the Prime Minister so powerfully articulated. As the Prime Minister also pointed out, among them was a Member of this very House. The hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) was 16 years old at the time and was a spectator at the match. He has been an unrelenting advocate for those who shared with him the horror of that day and what happened afterwards. As if the tragedy of those events was not enough, what followed served only to compound it over generations. In the decades that followed, despite multiple inquiries, reviews and inquests, the truth of what happened remained obscured by lies—by a cover-up. We would all wish to be able to say that this is the only example of institutional defensiveness, of covers-ups and of the reputation of organisations being prioritised over doing what was right, but as this House sadly knows, it is not. Between the 1970s and early 1990s, thousands of UK patients contracted HIV and hepatitis after receiving contaminated blood, blood products and tissues. Reflecting on the findings of his inquiry into the matter, Sir Brian Langstaff said quite simply that: “People put their faith in doctors and in the government to keep them safe and their trust was betrayed.” Experimentation, deception, cover-up. And there are more examples. We have all been shocked to hear about the trauma and experiences of our postmasters and their families, as they were ruthlessly pursued by the Post Office and the Crown Prosecution Service over many years, with the failure of successive Governments to exercise their oversight to protect them. We have seen other failures in healthcare, policing and housing, some well known and others not so well known. But whether 97 lives are lost or just one, the impact on families is lifelong and severe. The themes have been consistent: the resistance of the state to accept its wrongdoing; the aggressiveness of the state in responding to challenge; and the willingness of individuals working for the state to put themselves first over the people they are expected to serve. Again and again, David and Goliath battles are played out as the resources of the state, in all its forms, have been deployed against innocent people, innocent victims. As we reflect on the proposed measures before us, it is sensible to consider the changes that have been made in this area. On legal representation, the means test for legal help and representation at inquests for applications to the exceptional case funding scheme has been removed and we have seen a steady number of applications over recent years. Measures were introduced to promote candour in policing, when the offence of police corruption was created in 2017. In the health service, the duty of candour was introduced following the Francis inquiry into catastrophic failings in health at Stafford hospital. Through part 2 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, we legislated for the creation of an Independent Public Advocate, whose role is to ensure victims and bereaved families are properly supported and represented after major incidents. However, a desire to do more has remained. Bishop James Jones’s report, “The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”, reflected on the experiences of the Hillsborough families and set out key lessons for public bodies. It called for the bereaved to have “proper participation” at inquests where public authorities are represented, and identified other key areas for reform; alongside work by the Law Commission, it provided a key basis for the Bill before us. It should be noted, however, that Bishop James emphasised that legislation alone is insufficient. As mentioned, a statutory duty of candour already exists in parts of the public sector, particularly in the NHS, but question marks remain over the success of its implementation. The lesson is clear: legal change must be accompanied by cultural change. In principle, we welcome the aims that underpin the Bill and which we are asked to consider on Second Reading. It is, however, always incumbent on this House to reflect on and consider whether the legislation we pass is as good as it can be, no matter how laudable the aim, and to ensure that we avoid any unintended consequences. It is no secret that despite a very long-standing commitment on the Labour Benches to bring legislation of this nature forward, the Government themselves wrestled with how to do so appropriately. This Bill should be one that Members scrutinise closely. Members and our staff are quite rightly on the extensive list of public servants who will be in scope, under schedule 4. We will be able to look at the implications of the Bill and reflect on how it might interact with our work, where contention and disagreement are often at the heart of our decisions. As such, there are a number of questions and points for consideration that I would like to raise with the Government. First, are we sure that the language in the Bill will provide the necessary legal clarity to underpin its successful operation? The Bill makes use of terms like “reckless” and “seriously improper”. It also states, for example, that the Act is designed to “ensure that public authorities and public officials at all times perform their functions…in the public interest”. How often do we disagree in this House on what constitutes the public interest? How often do we question the truth of what is being said? Although superficially it might seem obvious—in the examples we have considered today, which are at the forefront of our minds, the failure to act in the public interest is clear and unquestionable—in other situations, we might be left with conflicting views as to what the public interest is. How will we differentiate between interpretations of the public interest in a way that does not allow individuals to escape the measures being proposed in the Bill? We have seen Government decisions that the Government consider to be in the public interest challenged repeatedly, and often successfully, in the courts. Individual public servants will also have their own views on what is or is not in the public interest; we will need to consider that, too. Further, how will the Bill be utilised by campaign groups that wish to legally challenge the Government in support of what they consider to be in the public interest? That is not to say that we cannot make the Bill work, but we need to consider its terminology carefully. Part of the Bill deals with misconduct in public office. This represents one of the most significant changes to the way in which we hold public officials to account. Under the proposals, the common law offence of misconduct in public office will be replaced with two new statutory offences: seriously improper acts, and breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury. This follows recommendations by the Law Commission, which suggested that the current offence be replaced with a clearer statutory provision that is both less broad and easier to interpret. The Opposition fully recognise that this is an area of the law in need of clarity, but, for all its many imperfections, the common law offence has at least provided flexibility as a means of addressing serious misconduct that might not fit clearly into an approach based on specific statutory offences. I would be grateful for the Government’s reassurance on that point. Will the Government also share their view on the reduction in the maximum penalty from life imprisonment, as available under the current common law offence, to between 10 and 14 years’ imprisonment under the statutory offence? Misconduct in public office strikes at the heart of public trust in Government and the rule of law, and we must ensure that the penalties available to the courts reflect that seriousness. The area where I would most welcome assurance is in considering whether the measures in the Bill will fall most squarely and most strongly on the right shoulders. In its critique of the existing legal framework for misconduct in public office, the Law Commission said there was “a concern that it tends to be used primarily against relatively junior officials, rather than more senior decision-makers that members of the public might more readily expect to be held criminally accountable.” Of course, public servants, no matter how junior, are accountable for their actions, but how can we be sure that these measures will ensure that accountability goes all the way to the top? We all know that influence and power can be exercised over junior staff without there ever being an email, written instruction or any other proof. Junior staff in an organisation with the wrong culture can come to understand what is expected of them and that there are consequences if they do not comply, regardless of what we might be able to readily prove in court. I know that this Bill will be deeply welcomed by campaigners and Members who have long called for its measures. I mentioned one particular Member at the start—the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby—but I know that Members across the House, across different causes and across different constituencies have challenged these issues. The principle of what the Government are trying to do—to stop the voice of the state and public bodies drowning out the voices of our constituents, whether through use of resources or misconduct—is the right one. We all know the fallibility of the state and the ways in which the wrong people take the wrong decisions for the wrong reasons: for their self-interest, to protect themselves or to protect their organisations. No Bill alone can guarantee against that, and perhaps there are ways in which this Bill can be improved. However, the Opposition welcome the start of its consideration, and we stand ready to play a constructive role.

   Hansard source
8. 3 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

   Topical Questions

   T5. According to media reports, the Secretary of State recently revealed in a speech that the UK had deployed troops to Israel to monitor the ceasefire in Gaza. Could he take this opportunity to update the House on the number and activities of any troops deployed there?

   Hansard source
9. 3 Nov 2025·Parliament·David Reed

   Defence Industrial Base

   I associate Conservative Members with the Secretary of State’s remarks about the appalling attack in Huntingdon over the weekend. We all know that the Government cannot deliver a strong defence industrial base without seriously boosting defence spending, yet multiple media outlets have very recently reported that the Secretary of State’s Department is asking the armed forces to make cuts of £2.6 billion this financial year. Very simply, can he tell us what will be cut to find the money?

   Hansard source
10. 3 Nov 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

    Video Games: Consumer Law

    Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows he cannot intervene, having not been here at the start of Mr Goldsborough’s contribution. That is a House rule.

    Hansard source
11. 3 Nov 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

    Video Games: Consumer Law

    Order. I am sure that if Members make specific references to games and their various levels, they will share that information directly with Hansard.

    Hansard source
12. 3 Nov 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

    Video Games: Consumer Law

    I hope that a game out there has the hon. Member for Strangford as a character. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 702074 relating to consumer law and videogames.

    Hansard source
13. 3 Nov 2025·Parliament·David Davis

    “Soldier F” Trial Verdict

    The Front Benchers have rightly referred to the pain of the relatives of those who died on Bloody Sunday. We all share their sympathy, but nothing justifies the persecution of innocent people, particularly innocent veterans. The judge in the trial said: “The evidence presented by the Crown falls well short of…the high standard of proof required in a criminal case”. Nevertheless, in two weeks’ time, there will be another case involving another soldier from 53 years ago, which has already been reviewed for four years by the Director of Public Prosecutions and ruled as “no case to answer”. Despite that, with no evidence whatsoever having been provided since that time, that man is being put through misery and persecution now—a 78-year-old man sitting in anxiety in his home, waiting to be prosecuted for a case that should never have been brought. Does the Secretary of State not recognise that this is injustice? Wrap it up however he likes, it is injustice, and his legislation will mean that many more such cases will occur.

    Hansard source
14. 3 Nov 2025·Parliament·David Davis

    “Soldier F” Trial Verdict

    During his responses today, the Secretary of State has said two things: on the one hand, he said that letters of comfort do not give immunity; and on the other hand, he accepted that letters of comfort stopped the prosecution of Mr Downey for the Hyde Park bombing. It seems to me that those two statements are inconsistent. What way is available to him to correct Hansard and put one of them right?

    Hansard source
15. 3 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

    Huntingdon Train Attack

    I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and associate myself with the tributes to the emergency services and the train crew. Our thoughts are with the victims. When we have more information, I am sure that my Home Affairs Committee will want to consider what happened and learn lessons from it. I draw the Home Secretary’s attention to our inquiry on new forms of radicalisation. If things come out of the investigation that are relevant to my Committee’s inquiry, I ask that we ensure that we learn from them, and ensure that they are included in the inquiry as soon as possible.

    Hansard source
16. 3 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    “Soldier F” Trial Verdict

    Fifty-one years ago this month, 21 people were murdered and 200 people were injured in the Birmingham pub bombings. Last week the Minister for Security, the hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), issued a statement saying that he would not be recommending a public inquiry and that, instead, the Justice for the 21 campaigners could pursue justice via the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, which the Secretary of State has referred to. But BBC Northern Ireland is reporting that, because there has been an inquest into those bombings, it would not be in scope for the commission to look into the Birmingham pub bombings. Could the Secretary of State, at the Dispatch Box, confirm to the families in Justice for the 21 that it would indeed be possible for the commission to look into that?

    Hansard source
17. 3 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    Defence Industrial Base

    As the Secretary of State said, the defence industrial strategy promises to boost British export success, British businesses and British jobs. As such, I am sure he is as excited as I am about the Aeralis bid to replace the Red Arrow Hawk aircraft, which would deliver around 600 skilled jobs at StandardAero in my constituency. Will he ensure that there is an early decision on the replacement of the Hawk aircraft, and that that decision fully reflects the opportunity that exists to create high-value jobs, drive exports, strengthen British sovereign capability, and enable the United Kingdom to design and build its own aircraft?

    Hansard source
18. 3 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    “Soldier F” Trial Verdict

    The Secretary of State is right to say that this Remembrance Month underlines the debt of gratitude that we owe to those who serve our nation, but many in my constituency feel that that stands in stark contrast to the fundamental failure in our nation’s duty of care to veterans of Operation Banner. The Secretary of State suggests that the troubles legacy Bill will not increase the risk of veterans being dragged through the courts, but veterans feel that the reality is different. In the letter that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) referred to, they call it “lawfare”. They say that there is a legal conveyor belt of several actions that are taking place. Is it not time for a time limit on civil actions relating to historical military operations?

    Hansard source
19. 3 Nov 2025·Parliament·Chris Philp

    Huntingdon Train Attack

    I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. Our thoughts are with the victims of this appalling attack and their families, as the Home Secretary rightly says. I join her in paying tribute to the emergency services who responded so fast and the brave interventions by members of the public and the train staff that prevented an even worse tragedy from occurring. They are truly heroes. This attack has horrified and shocked the whole nation. People simply travelling by train were indiscriminately attacked. The horror the passengers experienced will likely stay with them forever. Anthony Williams has now been charged. As the Home Secretary says, he had been involved in previous incidents in Peterborough and, in the early hours of Saturday morning, was also allegedly involved in an attack on the docklands light railway in London. Will the Home Secretary confirm that, as I have been told, police in London knew Williams’s identity following that attack, and if so, whether Cambridgeshire police were informed so that they could track him down? In essence, I am asking whether there were any opportunities to prevent this attack from occurring. The Home Secretary says that Williams was not previously known to the security services, Counter Terrorism Policing or Prevent. Can she tell the House whether Williams was previously known to the police more widely or to mental health services? This all comes just weeks after a murderous Islamist terror attack on a Manchester synagogue and just days after the horrendous murder of Wayne Broadhurst by an Afghan asylum seeker, both using knives. Although homicide has thankfully fallen by about 15% since 2010 and, as the Home Secretary said, knife crime has fallen in recent years, every homicide and every knife attack is one too many. The Minister for Policing and I saw the grief it causes at the funeral of 15-year-old Elianne Andam, who was murdered in Croydon just over two years ago. Speaking in general—not in relation to this incident—does the Home Secretary agree that knife crime and knife homicide figures are still too high, and that we must do yet more? Does she agree that more knife crime offenders should go to jail? This is important because when offenders are in jail, they cannot attack the public. Does she agree that we must ensure that more people who carry knives, especially where they use them to threaten others, are jailed? Of course, there is pressure on prison places, but by deporting more of the 10,000 foreign nationals in prison, we could create more space. We also need to take more knives off our streets, which means we have to dramatically increase the use of stop and search. A study this year by Professor Lawrence Sherman, the Met’s former chief scientific officer, found that raising stop and search levels in London to 2011 levels would lead to a one-third reduction in knife homicide. Some complain that stop and search is used disproportionately in relation to some groups, but, when measured in relation to the offending population, the disproportionality disappears, as was set out in a recent Policy Exchange study. We should triple the use of stop and search to get knives off our streets, and we should introduce year-round surge policing in the top 5% of high crime hotspots, which will include many train stations. We must also use technology more. I know that there is work under way at the Home Office on scanning for knives at a distance, and it is hoped that it can distinguish knives from keys or mobile phones. This could help police rapidly identify those carrying a knife in a public place. I wonder if the Home Secretary could provide an update on the development of that work, either straightaway or in writing later if she would prefer. I really do think that it could make a big difference. Finally, retrospective and live facial recognition can identify wanted criminals, including those involved in knife crime. In Croydon town centre—the borough that the Minister for Policing and I represent—in the last couple of years around 200 wanted criminals were arrested using live facial recognition, including two wanted rapists and others guilty of knife crime who would not otherwise have been caught. Crime in Croydon town centre, including knife crime, has gone down as a result. The images of innocent passers-by are immediately and automatically deleted, which addresses civil liberties concerns. I really hope that the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing agree that rolling out this technology nationally would make a dramatic improvement to public safety, and they will certainly have my full support if they choose to roll it out. I know that everyone in the House wants to see knife crime eradicated—today more than ever before, I am sure—so I hope the House will also support the tough steps needed to eradicate knife crime. We owe the victims of these appalling crimes actions as well as words.

    Hansard source
20. 3 Nov 2025·Parliament·Chris Philp

    Points of Order

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think the Home Secretary may have misheard me during my question. I was saying that I was not concerned about the disproportionality of stop and search, because when we compare its use with the offending population, there is no disproportionality. I was encouraging further use of the tactic. I wanted to make sure the Home Secretary had heard and received that message.

    Hansard source
21. 3 Nov 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Public Office (Accountability) Bill

    Order. The hon. Member means to say the then shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hackney somewhere or other—apologies for not knowing.

    Hansard source
22. 3 Nov 2025·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Defence Sector Innovation

    May I first associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks about the attack on the train at the weekend? Last week the Ministry of Defence announced the launch of Project Fairfax, which will see a defence technology cluster established alongside RAF Wyton in my constituency. I thank the Minister for his support in bringing the project forward; it has been warmly received not only by industry but, crucially, by my constituents, who are excited about the opportunity presented by specialist defence careers and increasing regional growth that will be delivered best via option E of local government reform. What steps could he take in giving Huntingdonshire the opportunity to create a wider defence ecosystem to meet the eligibility criteria for consideration for funding from the Defence and Security Accelerator?

    Hansard source
23. 3 Nov 2025·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Huntingdon Train Attack

    This has been a difficult and challenging weekend for Huntingdon. My thoughts are with the victims of this terrible tragedy; with the LNER crew member whose heroic and selfless actions, placing himself in harm’s way, saved lives at the cost of his own safety, and who remains in a critical but stable condition; with the other four victims who remain in hospital with stab wounds; and with the four who were discharged yesterday, as well as those who bore witness to the attacks and will still be processing their own experiences. I would like to place on the record my praise for the emergency services’ response: to Cambridgeshire constabulary, whose unarmed response officers and firearms officers were able to place Anthony Williams in custody within eight minutes of receiving the 999 call; and to Cambridgeshire fire and rescue service, our air ambulance services, and the East of England ambulance trust for their incident response and for getting the casualties to Addenbrooke’s hospital. I also praise the train driver, Andrew Johnson, and the signalling staff, whose speed of thought in moving the train on to the suburban line from the high-speed line meant that the train could make the unscheduled stop at Huntingdon—a decision that curtailed the attack by several crucial minutes, that allowed the police to apprehend the suspect and that undoubtedly saved lives. The swift action of all those involved prevented a horrific attack from being far, far worse. I am sure that the Home Secretary, and indeed the whole House, would wish to share in my sympathies for those impacted by this horrific attack, and in my pride in the conduct, leadership and professionalism of the responders and railway staff.

    Hansard source
24. 3 Nov 2025·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    “Soldier F” Trial Verdict

    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the verdict in the trial of Soldier F.

    Hansard source
25. 3 Nov 2025·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    “Soldier F” Trial Verdict

    Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I, too, begin with a thought for the families left bereft by the events of that day in 1972. It was a Conservative Prime Minister who, 15 years ago, said to the House that what happened on Bloody Sunday was both “unjustified” and “wrong”, and “on behalf of our country—I am deeply sorry.”——[Official Report, 15 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 740.] He did so, of course, after the publication of the Saville inquiry, which took 12 years and cost in today’s money about £325 million. Even after such an extensive inquiry, there has been no conviction. Indeed, Judge Patrick Lynch told Belfast Crown court that the evidence fell well short of the standard required. He said: “A 53-year-old statement cannot be cross-examined, nor can I assess the demeanour of a sheet of A4 paper”. That goes to the heart of what my party argued when passing our legacy Act. As time goes by, it becomes vanishingly difficult to obtain convictions. The 1998 agreement was 27 years ago, and the ceasefires were 31 years ago. That of course has implications for the Government’s troubles Bill, which will reopen many cases where there is no prospect of resolution, only a prospect of ongoing legal process. Under the Bill, there is almost no possibility of bringing terrorists to court, but it ultimately leaves open the likelihood of ever more vexatious complaints against our veterans. We are talking about claims like that thrown out by the High Court in Belfast last month; the judge described the challenge as “utterly divorced from reality”, although not before a former special forces soldier had to endure four years of investigation. Last week, it was reported that a similar case, from 53 years ago, may soon go to trial. No wonder that on Friday, Special Air Service veterans published a letter in the Financial Times, in which they said that “‘legacy’ has become an industry that keeps wounds open while rewriting history.” We ask the Secretary of State to think again.

    Hansard source
26. 30 Oct 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Sudan: Protection of Civilians

    If I may, I will start by thanking the Minister for his update on Hurricane Melissa. On behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, I add my thoughts and solidarity for all those affected at this time. I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question and to the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) for raising the matter, because the reports of a massacre at the Saudi maternity hospital in El Fasher are appalling. The deliberate targeting of civilians, including women and newborns, is a disgrace. These latest atrocities underline the urgent need for renewed international resolve to protect civilians and ensure accountability for those responsible. The Conservatives have consistently called for stronger, co-ordinated international action in Sudan. As the UN Security Council penholder, the UK has both the platform and the responsibility to lead. Will the Minister tell the House what concrete steps the Government will take next? Will there be further targeted sanctions? What diplomatic action is being taken to deter the entities whose support continues to sustain the conflict? The Government hosted the international humanitarian conference on Sudan earlier this year. What has materialised from that? Has new funding been disbursed? What progress has been made since those pledges were announced? The collection and preservation of evidence is vital if perpetrators of these terrible crimes are to face justice. Will the Minister tell us the latest developments in the UK’s support for accountability mechanisms? Will the Government now redouble those efforts? On humanitarian assistance, millions remain displaced, with aid routes under constant threat. Will the Minister update the House on whether British aid is reaching those most in need? What assessment has been made of its efficacy? Sudan matters to its people, to regional stability and to our shared humanity. The UK must not shrink from its responsibilities to protect civilians, to pursue peace and to support the path to a democratic future.

    Hansard source
27. 30 Oct 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Business of the House

    It would not be business questions if I did not raise a certain topic, but I have let the newly appointed Leader of the House settle into his role before I raise the issue of Aldridge train station. In 2021, the Conservative mayor committed £30 million to build a new station in Aldridge and we were absolutely delighted about that. However, that risks being undermined by the Labour mayor of the combined authority in the west midlands, who has diverted the funding elsewhere. Will the Leader of the House put some pressure on the Mayor of the West Midlands to respond to my letter of many, many months ago and look at ways to reinstate that funding?

    Hansard source
28. 30 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Sudan: Protection of Civilians

    Can the Minister explain to the House what is the attitude of other states in the region towards this conflict? Is there any prospect that they could unite and possibly make some form of physical intervention to separate the warring sides in Sudan?

    Hansard source
29. 30 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Business of the House

    May we have a statement from a local government Minister about calculated abuse of the planning system—cases in which people knowingly proceed with projects without planning permission, and then apply for retrospective permission? Cash-strapped councils feel, on the advice of their officers, that they should grant that permission, as otherwise they might have to fight a legal case. Should there not be a presumption against granting retrospective planning permission when the offence has been deliberate?

    Hansard source
30. 30 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

    The Minister is clearly totally committed to this subject, and I thank him for the way in which he reaches out to the MPs he knows have an interest in it. Will he join me in commending IBCA for the quality of its communications? Both the website and the MPs’ toolkit recently sent out could not be more free of jargon, which sets an excellent example. Going back to the point raised by the chair of the APPG, the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), as I understand it, if a compensation grant is made to the family of someone who has already died, those relatives will receive it tax-free, but if the grant is made to the individual shortly before their death, the very same family members might have to pay inheritance tax on it. That is clearly an anomaly, so will the Minister speak to the Treasury about it?

    Hansard source
31. 30 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Israel-Palestine Conflict: Government Response

    I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her Committee’s report. In response to the seventh recommendation about a Palestinian state, the Government state: “Our message to the terrorists of Hamas is unchanged and unequivocal. They must immediately release all the hostages, sign up to a ceasefire, disarm and accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza.” Did the Foreign Affairs Committee give consideration to what should be done if Hamas refuse to disarm and give way to, for example, the Palestinian Authority?

    Hansard source
32. 30 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Ageing and End-of-life Care

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way; I know he is pressed for time. The charity Together for Short Lives points out that where children’s palliative care is concerned, there is wide variation across different regions in the country. Is he afraid that this applies to the ageing population as well—that there is no consistency in the amount of palliative care available?

    Hansard source
33. 30 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Property Service Charges

    I start by putting on record my gratitude, which I suspect echoes the views of many right hon. and hon. Members, to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) for securing the debate and setting out so clearly in her opening remarks the significance of this issue and the corrosive impact it has on so many people. The number of speeches, the tone of those speeches and, sadly, the regular themes we have heard through those speeches tell a really tragic and frustrating story. The experience of constituents across many different parts of the country is unfortunately consistent. They are in a situation where they feel trapped, powerless and voiceless, and where the balance of power is completely unfair. And that is all wrapped up in something that should be a positive experience: owning a home and being able to enjoy your home and its surroundings. The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) summed it up very well as something that is meant to be a dream turning into a nightmare. That a consistent theme we have heard. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders). He clearly has not just passion on this issue, but real experience of it. I also pay tribute to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed). I was struck by his confession that his normal mild mannered demeanour was sacrificed after a meeting. I know his background—I am not sure if all right hon. and hon. Members know it—and I can assure the House and the management companies that he is not someone they should inspire to lose his temper. Today’s debate has been held in a very positive spirit. This is an issue, as has been evident today, that generates genuine cross-party agreement. I am proud of the fact that my party in government started the process of reform in this area. I will concede that we did not complete the process—we absolutely recognise that. A number of things that we put in place have made a difference, but we recognise that there is more to do. I have no intention of trying to play party politics on this matter. This debate has shown that whether a leaseholder is living in a—currently—Labour-held constituency, a Lib Dem constituency or a Conservative constituency, their pain and suffering is real, and I think we are all collectively duty bound to do something about it. That is why I encourage the Government to continue with the process of implementing the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 and ensure that the appropriate secondary legislation is fully in place, and to do so quickly. Like others, I have received numerous pieces of correspondence from people whose properties are managed by FirstPort and others, and our constituents want us to get a grip of this situation. There are political and legitimate philosophical differences across this House. The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) made a great point about a by-product of what my side of the House regard as an incredibly positive move by the Thatcher Government in the ’80s—I know that not everyone will agree that it was positive, for completely legitimate reasons. One of the practical implications of that move is a mixture of ownership types within a block of properties, and that has to be resolved. That resolution is not a political issue, but a practical one. Finding opportunities to work across the House to deliver those practical responses is absolutely key. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) recognised in his speech that there is cross-party unity and focus on this matter, and my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) made it clear that implementation is key. People do not want grandstanding on this issue; they want actual shoulder-to-the-wheel delivery. I have no doubt that I speak for all Members of my party when I say that in the boring, behind-the-scenes, get-stuff-done bit of this House’s business, the Government will enjoy our support in using the legislation that we started off to bring about a better living environment for the people whom we serve. I will not detain the House much longer, because the message we need to send to the people we serve is that we recognise this challenge and we recognise that the market forces that provide consumer choice are not working properly in this situation. People are not able to choose between alternative providers; the professionalism that is forced on commercial organisations through the pressure of competition is not working here, which is why we are seeing costs that are hidden, obscured and, in some instances, completely created out of thin air. That is not how a market is meant to work. There has to be Government intervention in this. As a free-marketeer Conservative, that is not my default setting, but in this instance it is clearly what we have to do. I will conclude by saying that when the Government take action to deliver on this matter, they can rest assured that the Opposition will give them practical support and will be chivvying them along at every opportunity.

    Hansard source
34. 30 Oct 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Property Service Charges

    I beg to move, That this House has considered property service charges. It is a privilege to bring this important debate to the House today. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I remember vividly the day, over 20 years ago now, when I picked up the keys to my first flat in south-east London. It took time to get to a position where my salary was sufficient to secure a mortgage and to save up the deposit, but I managed to do it. I spent the first few weeks on a mattress on the floor while I saved for a bed, but it was the most amazing feeling in the world to own my own home. I was fortunate enough to have purchased the freehold, so I never had to face paying service charges that I could not afford and I never had to rely on a third-party management company to make essential repairs. When the time was right for me to move on, my flat was easy to sell. Others have not been so lucky. They have bought leasehold on a private estate, and with that comes a life sentence. Today, I want to give a voice to those people on the hook for ever-increasing service charges, trapped in homes they cannot afford but cannot sell either, who thought they were buying their dream home when actually it was the start of a nightmare. Make no mistake—this is no exaggeration on my part—people’s lives have been and are being ruined by excessive service charges. Let me start, Madam Deputy Speaker, by telling you about Park 25, a housing estate in Redhill. It was built 18 years ago and has 500 homes, a mixture of houses and flats. It is a contemporary and stunning site, with the type of homes that people want to live in. It is particularly attractive to key workers, such as doctors and nurses, due to its proximity to East Surrey hospital. Like many new estates, it was built by private developers with no arrangements made for the local authority to adopt the communal land after completion, so FirstPort was appointed as the property manager to maintain the estate. This means that residents of Park 25 pay an expensive service charge to FirstPort, on top of their mortgage and on top of their council tax, for pretty basic services. Those service charges are going up significantly every year, driving some homeowners to the absolute brink. I first became aware of the issue when I met Louise, a single mum, at my first ever surgery last year—a meeting I will never forget. She told me how she had purchased a one-bedroom flat on Park 25 when they were first built, but the service charges quickly increased, becoming unaffordable for her, in part due to the expensive biomass communal heating system. In desperation she tried to sell, but three times over she lost her buyer. She now lets out the flat and has moved back in with her family, unable to access the equity that would allow her to buy somewhere else. She is trapped, not able to move on with her life. Then there is Alfie, who purchased a two-bedroom flat in 2018. He was “thrilled to get on the property ladder at the age of 23, thinking it was a valuable investment.” His first service charge payment was just under £2,200 per annum. Six years later, it is over £3,600—a 70% increase. For that, he says “they basically cut the grass and insure the building”. When heating is included it gets even worse, due to the biomass system. The first amount becomes £3,400, going up to a whopping £8,000 per annum—a 135% increase. Again, Madam Deputy Speaker, I remind you that he is paying council tax and a mortgage on top. Alfie did consider challenging the service fees at a tribunal, but he was advised by the Leasehold Advisory Service that for any chance of success he would need to appoint a surveyor to review the service charges. However, to do that there needed to be a recognised tenants’ association, and to set that up, over 50% of leaseholders needed to agree. In the case of Park 25, he quickly found that to be an impossible task as many rent out their properties and so are not easily traced. With that door closed to him, he tried to sell his property for over two years—even for £50,000 less than he bought it for just to cover the mortgage. There was lots of interest, but every time the potential purchaser found out about the service charges, they withdrew. Alfie says: “Understandably, nobody wants to buy it. The ‘we buy any property’ companies won’t touch it and even the auction sites which run a ‘no sale no fee’ policy don’t want to take it on”.

    Hansard source
35. 30 Oct 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Property Service Charges

    I completely agree. To add insult to injury, Alfie told me that FirstPort charges an £80 administration fee if payment is not made within 30 days of demand. In 2023 he received his fee on Christmas day while in discussions about a payment plan to settle outstanding fees. FirstPort refused to remove the charge despite his financial struggles. Alfie has now left the UK and is renting his flat out at a loss, because that is the only option available to him.

    Hansard source
36. 30 Oct 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Property Service Charges

    I thank the hon. Member for raising that point. I completely agree that is very much an issue, as I have heard that too. Alfie and Louise, sadly, are not alone. So many other people on Park 25 find themselves in the same situation: trapped, unable to sell and move on with their lives, and wishing they had never bought the property in the first place. Sam, another resident, said that “it’s not an exaggeration to say this is ruining people’s lives”. He has a wife and child and wants to have another, but he cannot move to a bigger property as he cannot sell this one. It is literally stopping them growing their family. He even tried selling his flat for £80,000 less than the valuation, and he still could not sell it due to the service charges. This is devastating for them as a family.

    Hansard source
37. 30 Oct 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Property Service Charges

    I thank my right hon. Friend for providing that very useful context. I will come on to that in my speech. One of the challenges we have is that property service companies are seeking to make a profit, yet they are unregulated and free to do as they will. It is for this place to get a handle on that. I hope that today we can think constructively about potential solutions to address the problem, the scale of which, across the House, we all recognise. We do not want our constituents to continue to face it. I am afraid to say that FirstPort is not covering itself in glory. I have now heard hundreds of times over about its lack of responsiveness, lack of transparency on costs and inadequate explanations of service charge increases. Residents have told me about being billed for services they have never received, like window cleaning, with no avenue to formally challenge and remediate. Any opportunity to charge a resident is used to the full. These things are all symptomatic of an industry that prioritises extracting maximum value from leaseholders, regardless of the human cost. There is no incentive for property service companies to act any differently. It is incredibly hard for leaseholders to remove them, so the companies have free rein to do pretty much what they like. This fundamental power imbalance must be addressed, and it must be made easier for leaseholders to take their business elsewhere. The Park 25 service charge for the year ending 30 April 2026 is estimated to be just under £1.9 million— 13% higher than last year’s estimate. The increase in costs is primarily to cover the future replacement of playground equipment, street lighting, road repairs and other infrastructure. Park 25 residents are also paying council tax for exactly those types of things outside the estate. Out of the £1.9 million service charge, FirstPort keeps around £142,000 in fees, which works out at just under 8% of the total service charge. How easy was it for me to find that £142,000 figure in FirstPort’s costs breakdown? Not very—I had to total up numbers across many pages of costs, as there is no nice, neat summary at the front showing the total amount. That 8% may or may not be out of kilter with industry—I found it difficult when researching to confirm one way or another, which is an issue in itself. The key point to recognise here, though, is that there is absolutely no incentive or requirement for FirstPort to keep the cost base low. In fact, the more money it spends on maintaining the estate and the more people it employs to deliver services, the smaller the percentage proportion its management fee appears to be—a perverse incentive indeed. It would be very easy for me to berate property service companies throughout my speech, and I suspect that others will take up that mantle during the debate. However, we must recognise that it is the current system that allows the companies to operate in this way.

    Hansard source
38. 30 Oct 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Property Service Charges

    I thank the hon. Member for that point. An important debate for us to have today is about what we do going forward, both for those who have not yet bought a leasehold and to help our constituents who are in this situation right now. I am really interested to hear everyone’s views on that. These companies are a symptom of the problem; they are opportunists making money from an inequitable system. It is this House that must take responsibility for addressing the intrinsic unfairness and urgently make the changes needed to unshackle leaseholders. I hope that we will today hear hon. Members’ views on the solutions, not just the issues. We cannot keep building new housing estates under this same model, perpetuating the problem. This is increasingly important in the light of the Government’s ambitious plan to build 1.5 million new homes over the next few years. I have to say, if nothing has changed when the time comes for my children to purchase a property, I will be strongly advising them not to purchase a leasehold on a private estate. To start us off, I will give the House my view. I think making it easier for leaseholders to change property service company is important, as is better regulation and higher standards, but that will not fundamentally transform the situation. What is needed—what is critical—is a change to the default model, so that homeowners are not paying both the council and a private company for the exact same services. One sensible and equitable option would be that local authorities are obliged to adopt communal land and infrastructure on completion of new estates in all but the most exceptional cases. For that to work in practice, developers would need to be obliged to ensure that the infrastructure meets the council’s standards before transfer. That way, owners of leasehold properties would be put on an equal footing with everyone else, paying for communal services once through their council tax. That would certainly deal with future issues. But what about those who, like our constituents, are already trapped? It may be that something more radical is needed, such as a mandatory direction to all local authorities to adopt communal land where requested by existing estates. It would be difficult, I know, in this current financial environment and with the likely variability of estate quality, but it would certainly address much of the issue and allow my constituents to sell their properties and move on with their lives. I know that this Government are also keen to move forwards and towards commonhold arrangements, especially for flats, which essentially put management of the estate in the hands of leaseholders themselves. There are some benefits to commonhold over the current model, but it is not the silver bullet that is needed and brings its own set of problems. Anyone who, like me, has been involved in a residents’ association or similar organisation—or, indeed, who simply understands human nature—will know that most people do not want to pay out for significant works, so the works will not get done, which in time will result in crumbling roads, failing roofs and falling home values. Again, it will become difficult for residents to sell their properties. It is just another version of the same trap, and one that pits neighbours against each other. I urge the Government to think again on plans to make commonhold the default tenure for new build flats.

    Hansard source
39. 30 Oct 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Property Service Charges

    I thank the hon. Member for his encouragement and I will keep coming up with radical ideas. Before I finish, I want to raise the issue of education and information provision to homebuyers. If most people knew the current problems with leasehold arrangements, they would not buy them—or they certainly would not pay as much for them. I am sure that conveyancers include warnings and information when managing the sale and purchase process, but it is not cutting through. People are sleepwalking into purchases with little or no understanding of the uncapped service charges they are signing up to, and we must do more to ensure that people are adequately advised and informed before signing on the dotted line. I would be most grateful if the Minister could today give his view on a few things. How can we best address the current power imbalance between leaseholders and property service companies? What role does he see an industry regulator playing in driving up standards? What default tenure model should be used for future housing estates to reduce the incidences of these issues in the first place? I would also appreciate his views on my suggestion to move to a mandatory adoption model after development completion.

    Hansard source
40. 30 Oct 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Property Service Charges

    I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for participating today. I also thank all Members for leaving politics at the door, on the whole. Everyone recognises that there is a challenge, we all agree that that challenge is impacting our constituents’ lives in a detrimental way, and I think everyone came here today to try to solve that, and I thank them for that. I also thank the Minister, who has clearly listened closely to everything that was said today. I am grateful to him for taking this with the seriousness that it deserves. He has already contacted FirstPort—that is incredible and I thank him for it. I thank the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), for his contributions and the Liberal Democrat spokes- person, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this debate. I think we can all agree that it was time well spent, and I am sure that the Committee will be happy with the number of hon. Members who were here to speak today. In summary, we have heard some truly astounding things today. I am sure that we are all horrified by what some leaseholders have to endure. It is clear that some property service companies are exploiting leaseholders for their own benefit and profit. Some do not provide a value-for-money service, do not adequately maintain communal areas and are most certainly not transparent in their dealings. Their actions trap residents in homes they cannot afford and cannot sell, but the law of the land currently allows those companies to do that. It is a travesty and an absolute scandal. I look forward to the Minister and the Government acting quickly to prevent further abuse, and I will support them and cheer them on in that. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered property service charges.

    Hansard source