Asked by: Matt Vickers (Conservative - Stockton West)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment she has made of the adequacy of protections available to homeowners where a developer leaves a new-build housing development before roads, pavements and other agreed infrastructure have been completed; and what recourse is available to homeowners where the developer and relevant local authority have been unable to secure completion of those works.
Answered by Justin Madders - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
The Government recognises concerns where developers leave housing developments before roads, pavements or other agreed infrastructure have been completed. Under section 38 of the Highways Act 1980, developers may enter into agreements with local highway authorities for new roads to be adopted once they have been constructed to the required standard. Where a Section 38 agreement is in place, local highway authorities will normally require a financial bond or other security to help ensure outstanding highway works can be completed if the developer fails to do so.
The Department for Transport recently commissioned independent research into the road adoption process in England and is considering the findings alongside wider cross-government work on unadopted estate amenities. The recourse available to homeowners will depend on the circumstances of the development and the legal arrangements in place but may include action by the relevant local authority under agreements entered into with the developer, including the use of any bond or other security.
Asked by: Matt Vickers (Conservative - Stockton West)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, what guidance the Crown Prosecution Service provides to prosecutors on the evidential use of social media content apparently recorded or uploaded by a defendant in prosecutions for (a) theft, (b) burglary, (c) vehicle crime and (d) dangerous driving.
Answered by Andy Slaughter - Solicitor General (Attorney General's Office)
The CPS does not provide specific guidance on the use of social media content as evidence in prosecutions for offences of (a) theft, (b) burglary, (c) vehicle crime and (d) dangerous driving.
However, prosecutors are required to use all available relevant and admissible evidence (including social media content) in prosecutions for all types of offence (including theft, burglary, vehicle crime and dangerous driving) in order to build the strongest possible cases.
Asked by: Matt Vickers (Conservative - Stockton West)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what discussions her Department has had with social media companies on the preservation and provision to law enforcement agencies of content depicting suspected criminal offences.
Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)
Home Office Ministers and senior officials regularly engage with key stakeholders, including social media companies, on a range of policy and operational issues.
It would not be appropriate to comment on the specifics of discussions with individual companies concerning the preservation or provision of content to law enforcement agencies, for reasons of operational sensitivity, national security and commercial sensitivity.
Asked by: Matt Vickers (Conservative - Stockton West)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what assessment his Department has made of the biosecurity risks arising from increasingly capable artificial intelligence models; and what safeguards are in place to assess and mitigate those risks before advanced models are deployed.
Answered by Kanishka Narayan - Minister of State (Cabinet Office) (Jointly with the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Technology)
The AI Security Institute works proactively with frontier laboratories to test the capability of AI models and advise them on where safeguards can, and should, be strengthened to prevent biological risks emerging.
The UK Biological Security Strategy sets out our ambition and approach to building national resilience to a spectrum of biological risks by 2030. This includes strengthening our sovereign capabilities to respond to naturally occurring pandemics, biological weapons and emerging biosecurity threats, such as those exacerbated or accelerated by AI.
The UK Biological Security Strategy Implementation Report, published in July this year, sets out the tangible actions we are taking to reduce biological risks, including around £1bn of investment in health protection measures to strengthen domestic resilience.
Earlier this year, the Ministry of Defence announced an investment of £115 million to raise the UK’s defences against the threats from AI, including using AI to improve our biological security and mitigate risks posed by autonomous AI agents. This is alongside investment of over £1.83 billion to establish a Network of National Biosecurity Centres, including £1 billion in Weybridge, £580 million in Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) Porton Down, and £250 million over this Parliament in Harlow to bolster defences against biological incidents, accidents and attacks.
Asked by: Matt Vickers (Conservative - Stockton West)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what assessment his Department has made of the potential implications for its approach to AI safety of recent evidence of advanced artificial intelligence systems engaging in (a) deceptive behaviour and (b) unauthorised actions when given access to external tools and online environments.
Answered by Kanishka Narayan - Minister of State (Cabinet Office) (Jointly with the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Technology)
The Government takes the risks from advanced AI extremely seriously and recognises the importance of ensuring our approach keeps pace with a rapidly evolving technology. The work of the AI Security Institute to build a rigorous, scientific understanding of the capabilities of the most advanced AI systems and the risks they pose, ensures that policy decisions on frontier AI are grounded in evidence. Further detail is provided in Written Statement UIN HCWS314 'Artificial intelligence update'.
Asked by: Matt Vickers (Conservative - Stockton West)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, whether he has made an assessment of the adequacy of existing testing and oversight arrangements for advanced artificial intelligence models in light of recent increases in their capabilities; and whether he plans to introduce further safeguards.
Answered by Kanishka Narayan - Minister of State (Cabinet Office) (Jointly with the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Technology)
In light of the capability developments demonstrated by the instances of unauthorised behaviour by AI models, AISI has reviewed its testing practices and made updates to increase the security of testing evaluations to reflect model capabilities. AISI recently completed pre-deployment testing of OpenAI’s newest model, GPT-6 Astra. We maintain daily contact with leading AI developers on AI security testing. Further detail is provided in Written Statement UIN HCWS314 'Artificial intelligence update'.
Asked by: Matt Vickers (Conservative - Stockton West)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many people were in receipt of subsistence-only asylum support as of the most recent date for which figures are available.
Answered by Anna Turley - Minister of State (Home Office)
The number of individuals in receipt of subsistence-only Home Office support is published in table Asy_D09 of the ‘Asylum support detailed datasets’. The latest data represents the number of people in receipt of support as at 30 June 2026.
Asked by: Matt Vickers (Conservative - Stockton West)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many addresses approved for subsistence-only asylum support are recorded as hosting more than one supported individual at the same time.
Answered by Anna Turley - Minister of State (Home Office)
This data is not held in a reportable format.
Asked by: Matt Vickers (Conservative - Stockton West)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what requirement exists for an asylum seeker to notify her Department of a change of address after leaving Home Office accommodation to stay with friends or family, where they are not in receipt of subsistence-only support.
Answered by Anna Turley - Minister of State (Home Office)
Where an asylum seeker makes an application for subsistence only support, an assessment is made on whether they are destitute. This may involve enquiries about the hosts circumstances where relevant to determining whether the asylum seeker is destitute.
Asylum seekers are required by Immigration Rule 358B to provide the Home Office with any change of address where they are not being supported by the Home Office. This includes where supported asylum seekers intend to leave asylum accommodation.
Asked by: Matt Vickers (Conservative - Stockton West)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what checks her Department undertakes on the immigration status of a person hosting an asylum seeker under the subsistence-only support route.
Answered by Anna Turley - Minister of State (Home Office)
Where an asylum seeker makes an application for subsistence only support, an assessment is made on whether they are destitute. This may involve enquiries about the hosts circumstances where relevant to determining whether the asylum seeker is destitute.
Asylum seekers are required by Immigration Rule 358B to provide the Home Office with any change of address where they are not being supported by the Home Office. This includes where supported asylum seekers intend to leave asylum accommodation.