House of Commons
Speaker’s Statement
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
Before we begin proceedings, I would like to note that today would have been the 100th birthday of Her Majesty the late Queen Elizabeth. She was the longest serving monarch this country has known; her reign saw unprecedented social, cultural and technological change. I pay tribute to her lifelong dedication to public service across the nations, overseas territories, Crown dependencies and the Commonwealth. Her devotion to duty remains an example to us all.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
Mr Speaker, may I associate myself entirely with your remarks about Her late Majesty?
The illicit finance summit will convene a coalition of international partners to scale up global enforcement against illicit finance. The summit will forge new partnerships to combat this shared threat, including illicit gold, money laundering in the property sector and the abuse of cryptoassets. The summit builds on our long-term commitment to this agenda, which is also shown in the 2025 UK anti-corruption strategy, and will complement our upcoming presidency of the Financial Action Task Force and other meetings.
Steff Aquarone
The summit is an opportunity for global action on the dirty money that flows through our financial systems, but the Foreign Secretary might rightly be asked by our international partners why overseas territories, who fly our flag and have our King as their Head of State, are preventing transparency and accountability for billions of pounds of illicit finance. Britain should be a world leader in tackling dirty money, but we have to get our house in order. Can the Minister assure the House and our international partners that he will bring overseas territories into line, and can he outline which of his powers he will use to do so?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Member will know from my previous answers in this place how seriously I take this issue. Our commitment across the whole of our British family on these matters is very clear. I have been working closely with leaders of the overseas territories. We have seen some important progress from a number of them, but a number have not gone far enough; I have been very frank with them about that. We are working in partnership and providing technical advice and support, and I am very hopeful that we will achieve progress, particularly on legitimate interest access to beneficial registers of ownership.
Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
The UK is a strong advocate for Interpol, recognising its critical function in supporting international law enforcement co-operation. We also support its ongoing reform programme to ensure there is no space for states to wilfully misuse its systems. The UK is represented at Interpol meetings, where the adequacy of its systems are discussed, and where we work with like-minded partners to enhance safeguards against abuse.
Richard Quigley
My constituent Ollie Bennett is wanted by Interpol for an alleged crime in Morocco three decades ago. Ollie has always maintained his innocence, and following a debate in this place, his crewmate was granted a full royal pardon for the same charges. Ollie, however, was not. In December, he was arrested and detained in a French police cell. Although he is now safely home, Ollie remains at risk of arrest each and every time he goes abroad. The irony is that the Moroccan authorities have never filed to extradite Ollie, yet a Moroccan-sponsored Interpol red notice for Ollie remains active. Will the Minister commit to meeting me, to ensure that Ollie can access the support that he needs to successfully appeal this red notice and finally end this 30-year-long groundhog day?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is a committed advocate for his constituents. I would be very happy to meet him. As he will know, it is a matter of long-standing policy and practice that the UK can neither confirm nor deny the existence of an Interpol alert in a public forum, to protect legitimate criminal justice inquiries, but I would be delighted to meet him.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Government recently informed me that they have received 64 category 2 type B extradition notices under section 70 of the Extradition Act 2003, of which 56 have been certified. Fewer than five of those come from Bangladesh. Can the Minister confirm how many of those relate to Members of this House, and whether there are any Interpol red notices that apply to Members of this House?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Member will have heard the point I just made: it is a matter of long-standing policy and practice that we do not confirm Interpol notices in public.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
Mr Speaker, may I join the tributes to Her late Majesty the Queen?
The UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs reports that over 2,500 Palestinians have been displaced by evictions, settler violence and demolitions this year alone. The UK is clear that Israeli illegal settlements and decisions designed to further them are a flagrant violation of international law. Our position is clear and unequivocal: the Israeli Government must stop the expansion of settlements, stop the threats of forcible displacement and annexation, and stop the unacceptable levels of settler violence.
Ruth Cadbury
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that a full ban on all forms of trade and economic activity with those illegal settlements it long overdue, so that UK businesses, the public sector and charities are prevented from having any dealings with them?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend will know that goods from illegal settlements are already not entitled to tariff preferences under the UK-Israel agreement, or the agreement with the Palestinian Authority. We are deeply concerned about reports of the decision to establish 34 new settlements, which would be added to the 68 settlements established since the Netanyahu Government came to office, and by the E1 settlement proposals, which are completely wrong. We will continue to work with our partners internationally to keep pressure on the Israeli Government on this issue.
Jeff Smith
Tariff preferences are one thing, and I know we cannot solve this problem alone, but we must do whatever we can to put pressure on the Israeli Government to stop. The Israeli Government are using the fog of war in Iran to make a Palestinian state unviable by an expansion of these settlements. What more do they have to do before we take action and ban settlement trade?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend will know that we have already introduced three packages of sanctions related to settler violence in the west bank, including measures against Cabinet members in their personal capacity, for their incitement of violence. We continue to look at the issue of sanctions. My hon. Friend is right to point out that this is fundamentally about the two-state solution, and it also risks undermining the Gaza peace process. The UK recognised the state of Palestine in September directly to support the viability of a two-state solution, and that continues to be at risk.
Mr Foster
After the destruction of Gaza and the deaths of in excess of 72,000 Palestinians, it is evident that the Israeli Government have turned their attention not only to Lebanon and Iran, but also to the west bank. In the west bank there are now daily reports of extreme violence and death, as well as the forceful eviction of Palestinians and the continued expansion of illegal Israeli settlements. That is not only immoral, but yet further evidence of illegal Israeli Government-sponsored activity. Does the Secretary of State agree that the violence in the west bank must stop immediately, as must the continued expansion of illegal settlements? Can she assure the House that despite the continuing conflicts in Ukraine, Lebanon, Iran and Sudan, the Government are very much still focused on Gaza and the west bank?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with my hon. Friend. The number of settler attacks has reached new heights, and there were more attacks in 2025 than in any year since the United Nations started recording such incidents more than 20 years ago. These attacks are horrendous, and they must stop. I have continued to raise the issue directly with the Israeli Government and our international partners. I also agree that in the end, all the work that is rightly being done to get progress and talks in Lebanon, and to find stability elsewhere in the middle east, will be badly undermined and will topple over if there is not action over the west bank.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Alongside what is happening on the west bank, in Lebanon, more than 1 million people have been forcibly displaced. The Guardian has reported that Israeli strikes on medical facilities in Nabatieh have killed health workers and ambulance crews; it notes that such incidents are becoming increasingly common. The UN is clear that the forced displacement of civilians and the targeting of civilian infrastructure may constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity under international law. What concrete measures are the UK Government putting in place to ensure that Israel ceases targeting civilian infrastructure, and stops forcible displacement in Lebanon?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member will know that we called for the ceasefire to be extended to Lebanon, and we condemned the escalation of Israeli airstrikes. We have also strongly condemned the Hezbollah attacks on Israel, which must stop. The issue exposed clearly at the beginning of this conflict was that Hezbollah was simply being a proxy for Iran, and is not in any way the representative of the Lebanese people. That is why talks between the Lebanese Government and the Israeli Government are so important. The ceasefire is also incredibly important, but the huge displacement has devastating humanitarian consequences. That is why the UK is providing additional funding. People must be able to return safely to their homes in Lebanon.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Israel is acting illegally in supporting settlement expansion, in committing genocide in Gaza, and in attacking Lebanon and Iran. As the Secretary of State says, all those actions are flagrant violations of international law. She says that we must “put pressure” on Israel, but she is doing nothing. Time and again, she and her Ministers come to the Chamber to condemn, but take no action. When will she ban settlement trade? When will she stop all military co-operation with Israel, which is conducting these illegal attacks? When will she take action?
Yvette Cooper
The UK Government have put in place a series of measures that include introducing sanctions against Cabinet members in the Israeli Government. We have taken action around sanctions and arms sales. We have been maintaining continuous international pressure, working with allies, including around the negotiations on Lebanon. We have been pressing strongly for those negotiations, including directly with the Israeli Government, the Lebanese Government and the US Government, who have hosted those talks.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
While atrocities are being committed against Palestinians in the west bank every single day, including the killing of hundreds and hundreds of children, it is disgusting to learn that British citizens are being offered Palestinian land, which they can purchase with virtually the same ease with which they do their everyday online shopping. Declassified UK has found that Israeli charity Shivat Zion is helping British citizens to move to illegal settlements. That breaks international law; and, to rub salt in the wound, British taxpayers are implicated, as the charity claims UK gift aid. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that she will look into the matter urgently and sanction any organisation, charity or otherwise, complicit in Israeli illegal land grabs?
Yvette Cooper
No one should be building illegal settlements on the west bank. It is essential that everyone abides by international law. We would expect any organisation in the UK and people living in the UK to abide by international law. We maintain our position that these settlements are illegal under international law.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
The brutal suffering of Palestinians on the west bank remains unchallenged, and the Norwegian Refugee Council has now exposed that depraved sexual violence by Israeli soldiers and settlers is rampant against Palestinian women and girls. That is abhorrent. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us what she is doing to take a firm stand against this cruelty, and will she commit to holding Israel to account for its heinous crimes against innocent Palestinians?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend has raised with me the Norwegian Refugee Council report, and crimes around violence against women and girls. We have made tackling violence against women and girls, including those in conflict, a priority for the Foreign Office. We will take the matter immensely seriously. It is a crime, and the use of this violence as a weapon of war, which we have seen in conflicts across the world, is horrendous. We will continue to pursue the issue.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary has just reiterated that it is this Government’s stated objective and aim to recognise the Palestinian state, yet there are Members of the Israeli Government who say that it is their policy to expand illegal settlements in order to undermine a viable Palestinian state. Will she take firm action, ban the trade in settlement goods, and look at further sanctions on members of the Israeli Government and Members of the Knesset who promote these illegal policies?
Yvette Cooper
As the hon. Lady knows, we have already introduced three packages of sanctions related specifically to the settler violence on the west bank, including sanctions against Cabinet members. She will appreciate that we do not discuss sanctions in advance, but we continue to look at the issue of sanctions, and to take immensely seriously the expansion of settlements. The decision that the UK took in the autumn to recognise the state of Palestine depends on progress with the peace process in Gaza, and on ensuring that the west bank can be a viable part of a Palestinian state.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
My constituents have shared with me their concern that Benjamin Netanyahu’s Security Cabinet is committing international war crimes in Gaza, the west bank and Lebanon, under the cover of the war that he launched with Donald Trump. As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) has just said, the Government were right to finally recognise the state of Palestine, yet the actions of the Israeli Government on the west bank are explicitly intended to destroy the prospect of a two-state solution. I am deeply concerned that what the Foreign Secretary has laid out today is not enough to show the Israeli Government that this Government are serious about prohibiting that. Let me ask again: will the Foreign Secretary do everything in her power to ban all settlement goods from the UK? Will she look again at measures to prohibit all UK individuals, businesses and banks from enabling illegal settlement?
Yvette Cooper
We expect UK organisations, charities, businesses and individuals to abide by international law. We also expect them to recognise that the settlements on the west bank are illegal; in particular, the E1 settlement is blatantly breaking the law. We expect UK organisations to abide by the law. There are already restrictions to prevent goods from illegal settlements benefiting from tariff preferences, and we take immensely seriously engagement with those illegal settlements by UK businesses.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
We have long been clear that the human rights situation in Iran is totally abhorrent. As I speak, the regime continues its repression, whether through executions, including of political prisoners and protesters, or through its ongoing internet blackout. January’s crackdown was an appalling reminder of this regime’s brutality. That is why we have sanctioned senior Iranian decision makers and members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps for their rights violations, and led the call for an urgent fact-finding mission at the Human Rights Council.
Mr Barros-Curtis
As was referenced, in January, the Islamic Republic unleashed hell on its own citizens, with a brutal crackdown on civilian protests that reportedly saw more than 30,000 people killed and thousands arrested. The subsequent UN Human Rights Council report found that many of Iran’s actions may amount to crimes against humanity. As these abuses continue with impunity, what steps are my hon. Friend and the Foreign Office taking to hold Iran to account and ensure that any negotiated settlement includes clear, enforceable commitments to end such atrocities?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to these issues. I described our work on an Iran human rights resolution at the UN Human Rights Council, and on 12 January the Foreign Secretary spoke to her Iranian counterpart, Foreign Minister Araghchi, setting out the UK’s total abhorrence of the killings, violence and repression, and urging the Iranian authorities to change course urgently. We continue to support negotiations between the US and Iran for a lasting resolution to this conflict.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Lindsay and Craig Foreman are incarcerated in Iran in brutal circumstances, and are being tortured in many ways. They are not my constituents, but their family approached me. May I be clear to the Government, and have them be clear to us in their response? Are the Government saying publicly that they are not spies, but innocent tourists? Will they formally declare the detention to be arbitrary? What else can they do to try to draw attention to the plight of these two innocent tourists?
Mr Falconer
I have been in regular contact with the family of the Foremans. This is a terrible case, and it is absolutely obvious that they are innocent tourists—that is clear to all concerned. We have made that point repeatedly to the Iranian regime, and I have raised it countless times with Iranian representatives, as the Foreign Secretary has done with her counterparts. We will continue to pursue this case; it is an injustice.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The barbaric regime in Tehran has murdered tens of thousands of its own people. It remains the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism and is responsible for appalling antisemitism, and for spying on the British Jewish community. Why did the Government not stop Iran from being appointed to prominent positions in the United Nations Economic and Social Council, as the United States did? If Iran is found to be behind the disgusting attacks on Jewish sites in recent weeks in London, will the Government move forward with the proscription of the IRGC, and act against any financial institutions in the UK that are involved in funding state-sponsored terrorist activity in the UK?
Mr Falconer
As I understand it, the United Nations appointment to which the right hon. Lady refers was a decision of the Asia-Pacific committee—it was not a decision in which His Majesty’s Government had any role—and was subject to an automaticity process, rather than a vote. We did not have an option to block that appointment, although the Foreign Secretary did raise her concerns about it at the United Nations.
The right hon. Lady has rightly highlighted the malign role that Iran plays, not just domestically—as I described to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis)—but internationally. As has been said in this House before, Iran has continued to try to threaten communities in the UK, particularly British Jews. I have said to the Iranian ambassador here, in no uncertain terms, that if British Jews are ever found to have been harmed because of the actions of the Iranian regime, we would treat that with the utmost seriousness, as it deserves. We have sanctioned the entirety of the IRGC, we have imposed more than 550 sanctions, and we have very capable security services in this country. When the Iranians seek to act in the UK, we do find them.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I recently visited Ukraine again—Lviv and Kyiv—and saw again the brutal impacts of Russia’s illegal war on the civilians and, in particular, the children of Ukraine. That is exactly why we are determined to clamp down on the individuals and companies who are supporting Russia’s war on Ukraine and the sources of revenue for that war. We have imposed over 1,200 designations against Russia, including 300 new sanctions in February. We have led international efforts to disrupt the shadow fleet, sanctioning almost 600 vessels, and collectively our efforts with other countries have denied Russia access to at least $450 billion since its full-scale invasion four years ago.
Chris Coghlan
On Friday the United States agreed to extend the partial lift on sanctions on Russian oil exports. Does the Minister agree that this helps President Putin to fund his illegal and murderous war in Ukraine, and that it works directly against the national security interests of both Ukraine and the United Kingdom?
Stephen Doughty
The issues to which the hon. Gentleman refers are of course for the United States. However, we are very clear that we will continue to ratchet up the economic pressure on Putin, to force him to come to the negotiating table and to provide support to Ukraine. Our sanctions remain in place, and we continue to work closely with others to increase that pressure. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I have been very clear that we cannot allow the current global situation to result in any kind of bonanza for Putin.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The verified number of Ukrainian children stolen by Russia has increased—it now stands at 20,570. In part, that increase in the verified number is the result of the tracing mechanism supported by this Government, and we hope that work will continue. However, last month a report by the Yale Humanitarian Research Laboratory found that over the past two years the Russian state oil producers Rosneft and Gazprom have been implicated in the forcible deportation and re-education of at least 2,158 of those children. Will the Secretary of State review and fully investigate those findings and, where appropriate, consider the imposition of further sanctions?
Stephen Doughty
As ever, my hon. Friend is right to raise this crucial issue. I was very privileged to see for myself the incredible work that we are supporting to trace what has happened to those Ukrainian children. The figure she has cited is correct, and it is absolutely appalling. I am very proud of the work that we are doing with other countries on that issue, and I will certainly look at the issues she has raised. Of course, we have already taken action against the oil companies she mentioned.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
In recent months, western sanctions have really been biting Putin, with the foundations of Russia’s economy failing. However, as we highlighted with the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation in December 2025, concerns have been reported that Russian crude is reaching refineries—including one part-owned by Lakshmi Mittal—via shadow fleet vessels, showing that gaps remain. Will the Government now lead efforts to crack down on those networks and press those refineries in Turkey, China and India to stop processing Russian oil?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Lady will know about the work we have already been doing on this crucial issue, which she is right to raise. We have been very clear on this. Under her Government, there was of course a ban on Russian liquefied natural gas imports, which we continued. We have gone further by announcing our intention to introduce a maritime services ban, and of course we will continue to co-ordinate with international partners on the issue she raises. We cannot allow those revenues to be used to fuel Russia’s terrible actions.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
I returned overnight from a series of meetings across five countries in Europe, the middle east and Asia, and I spoke directly with more than a dozen of my Foreign Minister counterparts, as well as joining the 50-country summit hosted by the Prime Minister and President Macron. This is a critical diplomatic moment. The agreed two-week ceasefire runs until Thursday, and we need it to be extended. We need the negotiations to reach a comprehensive conclusion to this conflict, and we need the reopening of the strait with no conditions and no tolls. Our work is to maintain and build the biggest possible consensus around the rapid opening of the strait.
Naz Shah
Following reports that the Israeli military has published a map designating south Lebanese territory as a buffer zone, and given Israel’s refusal to confirm whether displaced Lebanese families will be allowed to return, can the Foreign Secretary tell the House what specific representations the UK Government have made to Israel to ensure that this does not become a de facto annexation? Does she agree that any permanent occupation of Lebanese sovereign territory would not only violate international law, but actively undermine the US-Iran talks being mediated by Pakistan?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is completely right. Lebanese people need to be able to return to their homes. These are their homes, and it is a humanitarian disaster that so many people have been displaced from them. I have raised this issue directly with the Israeli Government, and we have made continued representations and raised this matter in international forums. We have also raised it with the US, which has been hosting the talks between Israel and Lebanon. It is hugely important that those talks progress, the ceasefire is maintained and Lebanese people can return home.
Sarah Edwards
My constituents in Tamworth are already paying the price for the blockade of the strait of Hormuz, with fuel costs soaring. My logistics sector is also facing the brunt of those fuel costs, which ultimately will be passed on to consumers. While I welcome the Prime Minister’s refusal to drag Britain into the United States’ reckless war, what steps is the Minister taking to secure the reopening of the strait and to bring down costs for my constituents and for the United Kingdom?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. We did not get involved in the start of this conflict, but we will work to bring it to a close and do everything we can to get the strait reopened. It is affecting the cost of living back at home in her constituency, across the country and across the world. No country should be able to hijack international shipping lanes or hold the global economy hostage. We have held repeated summits and meetings on the reopening of the strait, and we will continue to argue across the world for no tolls.
Steve Witherden
While energy giants and Wall Street banks cash in on the war, ordinary people pay the price. In the first month of the US-led war with Iran alone, the world’s 100 largest oil and gas companies made more than $30 million an hour in unearned profit. What discussions has the Minister had with the Chancellor on the merits of introducing windfall taxes to directly fund a cost of living support package, making life more affordable for people and businesses across the UK?
Yvette Cooper
The Chancellor will be making a statement later this afternoon, because she has been focusing in particular on the cost of living and the importance of supporting people and businesses across the country during this global crisis. Another concern is that Russia is seeking to benefit from this conflict, which is yet another reason why we need to get the strait open as rapidly as possible.
Mr Dillon
Given President Trump’s latest threats to destroy bridges and power plants—attacks that would be against international law—has the Foreign Secretary made representations to her US counterpart that threatening war crimes is not the way to achieve peace or to open the strait? More importantly, if Trump does start to attack civilian infrastructure, will she withdraw US access to British bases?
Yvette Cooper
We have been clear from the start that UK bases could be used only for defensive operations, not offensive operations. There is currently a ceasefire in place, although it runs only until Thursday and we badly need it to be extended. As part of the G7 discussions, which included the US, we raised the importance of not attacking any civilian infrastructure. That was included in the G7’s agreed communiqué and reflects the importance that we attach to those issues.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Has the Foreign Secretary made any assessment of what impact the conflict is having on the horrendous humanitarian situation in Yemen? Given Iran’s continued support for the Houthis, does she believe that in discussions to end the conflict there will be some opportunity to make a positive impact on that conflict?
Yvette Cooper
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), has met the Yemeni Prime Minister in recent days, to engage with the Yemenis, to express our support and to ensure that they can address humanitarian issues. There is obviously a particular issue with Yemen, where Iranian proxies have been mobilised in the past, and it is important that does not happen now. It is another example of how vulnerable, low-income and conflict-affected countries are the most heavily affected by the restrictions on the Gulf and the strait of Hormuz.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Foreign Secretary’s push for consensus is to be welcomed. Hopefully, the strait of Hormuz will be open shortly, which will lead to short and medium-term progress. In the longer term, does the Foreign Secretary agree that a lasting peace in the middle east will be more easily secured if we can take action against neighbouring states and elements within those states that threaten the absolute annihilation of the state of Israel?
Yvette Cooper
Israel’s security needs to be protected, and so does the security of Gulf countries that have been attacked as part of this conflict. We need security right across the region. The hon. Gentleman says that we hope the strait will soon be open. We have proposed that, as an immediate confidence-building measure, the Iranians should agree to the International Maritime Organisation’s proposal to start moving the stranded ships and the stranded seafarers. It could get on with that right now, even while negotiations are continuing. We need to get those ships moving and those seafarers home. That is what the IMO has proposed, and we have been building international support to pursue that as an immediate step.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The difficulty of ships passing through the strait is leading to fears across all sectors and supply chains, including food production, so the price of food is at risk as well as the price of oil. Increasingly offensive and bizarre social media posts by President Trump are bound to be making diplomatic efforts more difficult, and make us worry whether anything he says can be taken seriously. What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure that all parties are coming to the table in good faith?
Yvette Cooper
I met Pakistan’s Foreign Minister in the last few days, and the hon. Lady will know that Pakistan is leading the mediation work as part of this effort. I have also spoken frequently to the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and we have been engaging with a whole series of countries. Over the last few days, I have met more than a dozen Foreign Ministers and counterparts to ensure that everyone is pressing the same messages as part of this process. We need the ceasefire extended and a swift resolution, but we must have the strait opened and we must have no tolls. Proposals for tolls have been circulating, but that would be deeply damaging and would go against the law of the sea.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Lebanon’s humanitarian flash fund secured less than a third of the money that was required. Some 20% of the Lebanese population is currently displaced, and 40,000 housing units have been destroyed. Lebanon is on the brink of economic collapse and social tensions are rising. I thank the Foreign Secretary for the humanitarian support sent to date, including cash transfers, but I ask her to do more. We need to press for a real ceasefire, provide practical support to Lebanon’s armed forces, help the state to tackle negative influences that are trying to undermine its sovereignty and, finally, vigorously oppose the illegal expansion of Israel’s buffer zone in south Lebanon.
Yvette Cooper
I can tell my hon. Friend that the Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), was in Beirut at the end of last week, where he pressed those exact points and engaged with the Lebanese Prime Minister. We need an urgent ceasefire, and we need to support the work of the Lebanese armed forces and the Lebanese Government. That is why we have directly provided £30 million of humanitarian support for Lebanon since the beginning of this crisis. I believe that makes us one of the biggest donors to Lebanon, but we must continue to provide support.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
A huge proportion of the global fertiliser market works its way through the strait, which is obviously going to impact on food security and food prices in this country, but it could also cause devastating famines in many countries in Africa and Asia. Research from the University of Minnesota shows that 762,000 people have died as a direct result of US aid cuts since January last year, and some will undoubtedly have died because of our decision to cut our aid budget too. Is this the moment to do the right thing by increasing our spending on international aid and protecting people from the calamity of famine?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member will know from our statement that we have focused our support on fragile and conflict-affected states. We are also working, including with the World Bank, to monitor the states most heavily affected by shortages of fertiliser, and of food and oil supplies, which are having a huge impact.
I just want to correct the point I made about the additional funding we have provided for Lebanon being £30 million from the beginning of the crisis. As I understand it, the figure is £30 million since the beginning of this year and £20 million since the beginning of the crisis. However, Lebanon is one of the countries we have ensured we are protecting by continuing to invest and by providing humanitarian support.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
As I have said many times in this House, Diego Garcia is a key strategic military asset for the United Kingdom, the United States and our allies, and ensuring its long-term operational security is and will continue to be our priority. We remain confident that the UK-Mauritius treaty is the best way to defend the future of the base. We are obviously disappointed with the delay, which I set out the other day, but we will continue to work with the United States and Mauritius on the way forward.
David Simmonds
The Chagos islands are even further from my constituency than they are from Mauritius, which is saying something, but this is having a significant local impact. Hillingdon council is now caring for hundreds of Chagossians fleeing to this country through Heathrow airport to escape the consequences of the Government’s proposed deal, which is placing huge financial pressure on my local authority. Will the Minister undertake to cancel this proposed UK-Mauritius treaty, to bring certainty about the future of the base and ensure that my constituents do not continue to bear the consequences of those forced to flee by the Government’s actions?
Stephen Doughty
I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I simply disagree with the premise of what he says. Chagossians who have been coming to this country have come because of agreements made under the previous Government for them to acquire British citizenship, which entitles them to come here. Support has been provided to councils, and I have worked closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on this issue. If he has any further concerns or requests to make sure, he should do that through the usual channels.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Last week, this feeble Government limped to this House to announce that their shameful Chagos surrender Bill was being ditched—a diplomatic failure entirely owned by this Labour Government. Our friends and allies alike around the world were left bemused by the deal that this Government came up with. This week, the Government have sent a team of officials to Mauritius. Can the Minister make it clear that that team have been told unequivocally to tell the Mauritius Government that the deal is dead, the UK will be sending no money to the Mauritius Government and the Chagos islands will be remaining British?
Stephen Doughty
With the exception of when I broke my ankle before Christmas, I have never limped to this House on any occasion. I came here with confidence to set out the reasons why this treaty was needed for our national security. Our officials engage regularly not only with Mauritius, but with the United States and other partners. This deal was of course welcomed by our allies, including our Five Eyes partners, so I simply do not accept what the shadow Minister has said.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
Yesterday I appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee—its Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), is in the House—after the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, to set out this process and to engage in the very important scrutiny that the House provides on this matter. We are all committed to fully implementing and ratifying the treaty as soon as possible to realise its benefits for the people of Gibraltar. There is obviously a complex process, but my understanding is that provisional application of the treaty will be possible from 15 July, which will secure the key benefits of the treaty for the people of Gibraltar, including the fluid border, allowing businesses and working people more certainty and prosperity.
Peter Fortune
I ask the House to note my relatively recent visit to Gibraltar, which is declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The naval base in Gibraltar is of high strategic importance and the decision to allow the Spanish authorities to monitor equipment going to the British military is highly concerning. Will the Minister guarantee that the treaty will neither directly nor indirectly in any way limit the operations, access or security of the UK naval base?
Stephen Doughty
I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman of that. We would not have signed off the deal without those assurances. The Ministry of Defence, the Defence Secretary and others were fully involved at all stages of the process. We have been very clear that the treaty protects the operational autonomy of our military facilities, which will continue to operate unfettered, as they do today.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I congratulate the Government on this significant announcement. Does the Minister agree with me that the agreement provides additional safeguards to Gibraltar’s sovereignty, while creating new economic opportunities for its people? Does he agree that anyone in this House who has any concerns should listen to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, who knows better than anyone what is best for the people who elected him and he represents?
Stephen Doughty
I can assure my hon. Friend of that. It is important to note that Gibraltar’s sovereignty was never on the table in the negotiations—we have been very clear about that throughout. The agreement has been supported by and worked through with the Government of Gibraltar throughout, and it was unanimously supported by Gibraltar’s Parliament. That is very important to note in this House.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Minister made a statement to the House on 26 February. Sadly, that has not been followed by the detail that Parliament was promised. In his most recent answers to my written parliamentary questions he says that the final treaty will be laid “As soon as possible” after EU processes conclude, yet the Government of Gibraltar have stated that it is provisionally due to come into force in July. Will the Minister set out a clear timetable for implementation and confirm when Parliament will be given proper time to scrutinise the full details? Will he guarantee that scrutiny under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process will take place before provisional application?
Stephen Doughty
As I set out yesterday, the timetable is not entirely in our control, because it relates to the other party in the treaty, the EU, and its processes. Mr Speaker, you will know that I brought forward the entire text of the draft treaty so that this House had a chance to scrutinise it. I have also provided briefings to the right hon. Lady and her colleague, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), as I did yesterday in the Foreign Affairs Committee. We will follow the CRaG process in the usual way. I will ensure that the House is kept fully informed and is able to scrutinise as appropriate.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
Yesterday, the Prime Minister updated the House on the fact that UK Security Vetting recommended against granting vetting of Peter Mandelson, and that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office instead took the decision to grant the vetting. The Prime Minister, the former Foreign Secretary and I should have been told that there was an issue and I am very troubled that we were not. The result is that Parliament was not given all the information it should have been given. As I informed the Select Committee over the weekend, I have commissioned a review of all the information provided and I will write to the Chair further on that shortly.
The permanent under-secretary is no longer in post, and I want to recognise Sir Olly Robbins’ many years of dedicated public service, as the Prime Minister did yesterday. I also want to pay tribute to the FCDO and the incredible staff who work not just here in the UK but across the world promoting UK interests and values at an incredibly unstable time. That is what has made it possible for me to travel through five different countries in the past six days, pursuing international diplomacy. The scale of global insecurity impacting our economy and our national security will rightly continue to be the central focus of the FCDO and this ministerial team.
Naz Shah
As the conflict in the middle east has fundamentally demonstrated, modern warfare has evolved. Ballistic and hypersonic missiles are capable of overwhelming traditional air defence systems, and energy supplies, food security and critical goods are increasingly weaponised as instruments of coercion. Will the Foreign Secretary set out what specific steps the Foreign Office is taking, in co-ordination with the Ministry of Defence, to ensure that the United Kingdom is prepared for those threats, to protect our people and our country?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the changing technology, geopolitics and security threats. We now face very different threats to our country. That is why we are increasing both the defence budget and the Foreign Office’s work around a range of hybrid threats, including cyber and others, and we will need to continue to do so. I suspect that we will need to accelerate that work, too.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
This morning, we heard Sir Olly Robbins say that there was a “dismissive attitude” and an atmosphere of pressure from No. 10 towards security vetting due to its desire to get Mandelson in post as soon as possible. Given Sir Olly’s account, why did the Foreign Secretary lose confidence in him last week? Surely the Prime Minister passed the buck for his own failures and appalling judgment.
Yvette Cooper
The starting point was the appointment of Peter Mandelson; he should never have been appointed to his post. The Prime Minister made that clear, and has apologised not just to the House but, more importantly, to the victims of Epstein, which is where that apology should lie. The right hon. Lady will know that Ministers have a responsibility to provide accurate information to the House and to ensure that we get that information from officials. Ministers, including the former Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, should have been told about the UK Security Vetting conclusions and recommendation, which I think was relevant information that should have been provided to the House in September.
Priti Patel
Like the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary will be aware that Peter Mandelson was on the board of Sistema alongside Russian spies. Has she now checked whether the concerns raised during vetting related to Mandelson’s business links with enemies of the United Kingdom, including Russia and China? Has she asked for the details of the mitigations Sir Olly mentioned this morning and whether they were put in place around Mandelson? Does she know what kompromat our enemies have on him, and is she reviewing all his activities as ambassador for any compromise of UK national security?
Yvette Cooper
I have been informed of the conclusions of the UK Security Vetting report and assessment and its recommendation; I have not seen the detailed content of its report. I do think there is a distinction between the individual personal information that is provided and the conclusion and recommendations UKSV provides. The right hon. Lady will know that the Prime Minister has instigated a full investigation by Sir Adrian Fulford into this entire process and what was known, as well as the whole vetting process. Information is also being provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I know of my hon. Friend’s commitment to these issues and of the concern in Burnley. I raised exactly those concerns about the west bank with counterparts from the United States—with high representatives from the board of peace—and most importantly with the Palestinian Prime Minister, who is doing everything he can to ensure that people on the west bank are protected from settlement violence. Settlements have expanded at an historic rate and are a subject of deep controversy both in Israel and in this House. We will continue to raise these issues with the seriousness that they deserve.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
This morning the Foreign Affairs Committee learned that officials in No. 10 put pressure on the FCDO to find a job as ambassador for Matthew Doyle, a close friend of a convicted sex offender. Does the Foreign Secretary see a pattern here? Does she find it incredible that No. 10 told FCDO officials not to tell her predecessor about this proposal? Will she commit to investigating and publishing all records held by the FCDO about this proposal from No. 10? Is she concerned that political decisions by No. 10 about FCDO staffing have grossly eroded trust and morale among her hard-working civil servants?
Yvette Cooper
Obviously, I was the Home Secretary at the time that I understand that took place, so I was not involved and do not know the circumstances. I am, of course, extremely concerned at any suggestion that the permanent secretary or permanent under-secretary of the Foreign Office would be told not to inform the Foreign Secretary. As for the case that the hon. Member raised, I can confirm that it would also not have been an appropriate appointment.
Let me respond to the wider issue. As I said in my opening statement, I pay tribute to the phenomenal dedication of the people who work right across the Foreign Office. They work with me every single day at a time of immense global instability, and they are continuing to work with huge dedication on pursuing UK interests and UK values, because that is what makes us stronger at home.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
Yvette Cooper
I am glad that my hon. Friend raises this issue. In Berlin last week with my German, French, US, EU and African Union co-hosts, we called for an urgent ceasefire, a humanitarian truce and humanitarian access. It is deeply distressing that this conflict is continuing. Participants also pledged over £1 billion to support the humanitarian response, which includes £146 million of UK humanitarian funding this year for Sudan and an increase in the support given to local aid groups. However, it is desperately urgent that we get a ceasefire, because it is the worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st century.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Yvette Cooper
As the Prime Minister set out yesterday, we believe that Ministers should have been informed that the UK Security Vetting recommendation was against granting developed vetting to Peter Mandelson. That is significant and important information. It should have been disclosed to the Prime Minister at the time, and it should certainly have been disclosed to me at the time when I was answering specific questions from the Select Committee that were particularly about security concerns and what the response had been to them. Again, as the Prime Minister has said, he spoke to Sir Olly before making the decision.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Yvette Cooper
The most immediate, urgent thing we need to do internationally is get the strait of Hormuz reopened. That is what I have been pursuing in a series of diplomatic meetings over the last few days across five different countries with 12 different Foreign Ministers. On the domestic issue, the Chancellor will be making a statement shortly.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Mr Falconer
I want to reassure this House that the Government have not taken our eye off events in Lebanon or indeed in Israel and Palestine. That is why I was in Beirut last week with the Lebanese Prime Minister, President and various others and in Brussels yesterday with the Palestinian Prime Minister and a range of other key actors. Clearly, what the European Union does is a matter for itself. We have taken a series of steps in the way that the Foreign Secretary has already set out, and we will keep those under close review.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
In my constituency, I recently met a young woman from Somaliland who in recent years has lost 14 members of her family to fighting in the region. She and other campaigners from Somaliland are understandably reticent to use the new e-visa system introduced by the Somalian Government due to fears about privacy and data protection. Will the Minister raise those questions with his counterparts in the Somalian Government to ensure that Somalilanders can travel to their country without fear?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and offer my condolences to her young constituent. The British embassy in Mogadishu has raised e-visas with the Federal Government of Somalia. We will provide further updates to travel advice in due course, as necessary. We continue to raise these issues and call for peaceful talks to bring about a sustainable peace in Somalia.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Yvette Cooper
We discussed this issue directly at the Berlin conference. I agree with the hon. Member. To be honest, I think that the international community has failed the people of Sudan. The war continues in the most horrendous circumstances. We have urged anyone who can to put pressure on the RSF and the SAF, and they must allow humanitarian access to people who desperately need it.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Businesses in my constituency including trailer manufacturer Indespension are labouring under a mountain of repetitive, costly and unnecessary paperwork because the last Government failed to negotiate a regime for mutual recognition of conformity assessments. What progress has the Foreign Secretary made, with the Paymaster General, in removing the Brexit barriers to trade that are holding back British businesses abroad?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
My hon. Friend raises an important question on behalf of his constituents. Our long-term national interest, and indeed the interest of businesses in his constituency, requires a closer EU partnership anchored in common understanding. We are tackling trade barriers, and we are working hard on these issues with the Paymaster General. We continue to discuss the challenges faced by manufacturers on both sides, as well as trade and co-operation agreement implementation, at the trade specialised committees. We will have a chance to discuss many of these issues at the further summit that we will have later this year.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Mr Falconer
As the hon. Member may know, I have repeatedly summoned the Iranian ambassador on concerns about what goes on in the UK. Some elements of the alleged attacks in the UK are still sub judice, but I want to leave him in no doubt about how forcefully we have raised these points with the Iranian ambassador, and indeed with the Iranian regime.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Constituents involved in my local Rotary club have contacted me about the global polio eradication programme. I am reliably advised that Ministers want to concentrate resources for the best impact. Can the Minister reassure my constituents that the UK remains determined to protect the important gains made in polio eradication for the future?
Chris Elmore
I can offer my hon. Friend that reassurance, and I pay tribute to Rotarians who have worked for the eradication of polio over so many decades. We will continue to support global polio eradication directly until December 2026 and then support our polio eradication fund through £248 million of fully flexible core funding to the World Health Organisation between 2025 and 2028. We remain utterly committed to eradicating polio around the world.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Last month, the Rycroft review confirmed that the UK faces persistent and strategic interference from hostile states and warned that our defences against information warfare are “worryingly weak”. With important elections across the country in two weeks’ time, including in my Stockport council area, what steps are the Government taking, working with our allies, to prevent disinformation from overseas aimed at those participating in UK elections?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Lady raises a crucial issue, and I work closely with the Security Minister and others on these matters. Our electoral system is highly resilient and to date we have not seen evidence of successful Russian interference in UK democratic processes. However, we know that the Kremlin is seeking to sow discord in the west and in the UK and to undermine our institutions. We are working on a series of measures to ensure that it cannot achieve that foothold in our society or our democracy.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
On 1 January, Israel revoked the licences of 37 international non-governmental organisations working in the occupied west bank and Gaza. The United Nations human rights chief called the suspensions “outrageous” and said that they made
“an already intolerable situation even worse for the people of Gaza”.
What is the Minister doing to ensure that the Israeli Government allow lifesaving aid to enter Gaza, reverse the suspensions of the licences and do not politicise or weaponise aid and humanitarian relief?
Mr Falconer
We have continued to raise the importance of all the necessary aid getting into Gaza. It is welcome that over the last week the amount of aid that has gone in has increased, but it is still not adequate to the needs. We have raised the question of restrictions directly and repeatedly with the Israeli Government and we will continue to do so. It is vital that aid gets to the people who need it.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Would the UK consider a state to be a democracy and would it continue normal diplomatic relations with that state were it to introduce a differential death penalty based on ethnicity?
Mr Falconer
I think the hon. Member refers to the legislation passed in the Israeli Knesset. We oppose the death penalty everywhere. On 29 March, we joined many of our friends across the world to condemn that specific measure, and the Foreign Secretary has raised it specifically with the Israeli Foreign Minister. I can leave the House in no doubt about our opposition to the measures.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the comments of the Foreign Secretary with regard to the Foreign Office and the dedication and hard work of its officials? At a time like this, we are particularly in need of a Foreign Office that is absolutely at the top of its game, not just in this country but across the world. However, the Foreign Affairs Committee’s concerns remain about security more than anything else, and the impact of employing Peter Mandelson causes us great concern. During his time as the ambassador to the United States, he was given access to top secret information. How can we protect our country against his leaking any of that, given his record?
Yvette Cooper
I know that my right hon. Friend has been taking evidence on that issue and that she has raised issues around security. We take the issue of security extremely seriously. She will know that there is a police investigation under way, which raises some of those issues. She will appreciate that I do not want to say anything that would cut across that, but I am happy to discuss the matter with her further.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Point 13 of the first phase of the Gaza peace plan negotiated by the United States is very clear that Hamas must disarm, dismantle their terrorist infrastructure and play no role in Gaza’s future. The Government have expressed support for that and they are right to do so, yet Hamas have been equally clear that they are not going to disarm, and every indication is that they are doing the reverse. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the removal of Hamas and the demilitarisation of Gaza become a reality?
Mr Falconer
I was discussing precisely these issues yesterday. Hamas must disarm; there must be a process by which their weapons are decommissioned. There are ongoing discussions on those questions. Hamas must agree, voluntarily, to disarm. That is vital and it is a key component of the 20-point plan. Without agreement on that point, it will be difficult to make progress. I was discussing that with a range of our international counterparts yesterday and we will continue to remain very focused.
Mr Speaker, may I take the opportunity quickly to correct—
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
On Sudan and the failing international response, will the Foreign Secretary consider further economic measures and sanctions, including against the nationals of the countries that support the belligerents? Will she encourage the Prime Minister to prioritise Sudan in his international engagements so he can show the leadership that she has shown?
Yvette Cooper
I can assure my right hon. Friend that we are continuing to raise matter this as well. We assess that around a dozen countries are providing different kinds of arms flow support to the warring parties. That is an extremely serious concern and we are raising it with a range of countries. We also continue to look at the issue of sanctions.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Following the Minister’s answer to Question 1 on illicit finances, we still do not have publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership in the overseas territories, nearly 10 years after this House passed the necessary legislation and made it clear that they must be set up. When will the Government put their foot down, say that there has been enough delay and obfuscation, and fully open up these registers to proper scrutiny now?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman will know that we have publicly accessible registers in some of the overseas territories—in Gibraltar and Montserrat—and there has been welcome progress on legitimate interest access registers in a number of them, including in recent weeks, but I absolutely agree that we need to go much further. We are working closely to ensure that there is progress, and I have set out my expectations very clearly.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
I have always been assured by both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary that the case of my constituent, Jagtar Singh Johal, who has been arbitrarily detained in India for eight and a half years, would continue to be raised at all levels, but I understand that the Foreign Secretary met her counterpart Jaishankar on two occasions recently and was unable to do so. Can I have the Foreign Secretary’s assurance that she remains committed to raising Jagtar’s case and is actively working to secure his release?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we continue to raise the important case of Jagtar Singh Johal and to seek a resolution to his case as soon as we can.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
Last month, the United Nations General Assembly voted to demand that countries including the United Kingdom pay reparations for slavery. Astonishingly, the Foreign Secretary instructed our ambassador to abstain and to issue a pathetic hand-wringing statement that failed to mention the United Kingdom’s unique role in the eradication of this great evil. Are we a punchbag or are we a great, proud country? Will the Foreign Secretary explain her decision and state to the House unequivocally that the United Kingdom will never pay a penny of British taxpayers’ money in reparations?
Chris Elmore
We are, of course, against reparations, and when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Conservative party, I think he was against them, but who knows what he is for or against now? Goodness only knows. Let’s face it, Mr Speaker, he has just got his clip for social media, and this is all the response that he deserves.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
March was one of the deadliest months on record for settler violence in the occupied west bank. For communities such as Jayyous, life is becoming intolerable. Will the Government go further than the diplomatic pressure currently being exerted and expand sanctions on the many Israeli officials explicitly and brazenly empowering settler violence against Palestinians in the west bank?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. As I said earlier, it remains uppermost in our minds, and we discussed it with our partners yesterday. He will have heard Ministers say before from this Dispatch Box that we will not speculate on further sanctions, but we treat this issue with the seriousness it deserves.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary has made it clear that a ceasefire in Sudan is a key priority. In the light of the Berlin conference’s shortcomings, can she detail the diplomatic, economic and political levers she is using to bring an end to the violence, particularly with the UK’s allies, including the UAE, with direct stakes in the war?
Yvette Cooper
I can tell the hon. Member that as well as discussing this matter intensively at the Berlin conference, I discussed it with the UAE Foreign Minister, whom I met a couple of days ago. I also discussed it with the other members of the Quad—the US, Saudi and Egypt. We are continuing to work not just with the Quad but much more widely to engage all countries in pressure to get to a ceasefire.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Can the Foreign Secretary give a guarantee that there is nothing in the so-called reset negotiations with the European Union or the rumoured reset Bill that is incompatible with section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020?
Stephen Doughty
The Minister for the Cabinet Office has set out answers to those questions.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, as a matter of objective fact, this House was misled about the circumstances of Mandelson’s security vetting, even if that misleading was inadvertent?
Yvette Cooper
The House was not given the full information. It is important that it should be given the full information, and I have undertaken to write to the Select Committee ensuring that full, as well as accurate, information is provided.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
In the UK, we pride ourselves on allowing people to practise their religion freely. Can the Minister update the House on what he is doing with any new regime in Iran to protect the rights of Christians to worship openly there?
Mr Falconer
Freedom of religious belief continues to be an important issue that the Foreign Office pursues with vigour. I am glad that we are joined in the Chamber by our envoy on that question, my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith). We have raised questions of freedom of religious belief with the Iranian Government on countless occasions. It is clear, given the scale of restrictions that they have put on their own people, that they are not listening to the United Kingdom’s advocacy on these questions, but we will continue to raise these questions and pursue the matter with our partners.
Mr Falconer
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to correct the answer I gave the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), in relation to the Iranian appointment. While it is true that our diplomats have raised concerns about human rights issues in general, the Foreign Secretary has not herself raised within the United Nations the question of this appointment. There has been no opportunity for her to do so.
Middle East: Economic Update
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
With permission, I will update the House on the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the continued action that the Government are taking to strengthen our economic and energy security in response to the conflict in the middle east.
We did not start this war and we did not join this war, but since the war in the middle east broke out, I have been clear-eyed about my duty: to be responsive to a changing world and responsible in the national interest. The best economic policy today is our diplomatic policy—negotiation, de-escalation and the permanent reopening of the strait of Hormuz.
Last week in Washington, I held talks with world Finance Ministers, including the US Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent. I struck a joint agreement with 10 other major economies, calling for a swift and lasting negotiated resolution to the conflict and agreeing to avoid unnecessary trade restrictions to support energy and food security. We agreed to maintain maximum economic pressure to ensure that Russia cannot profit from this war. I was proud to announce the UK’s third tranche of the Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration funding for Ukraine’s defences, as well as continuing to work with the US Administration to increase economic pressure on Iran.
The Prime Minister has also led global action, convening a summit of nations with the President of France to work together to support freedom of navigation through the strait of Hormuz. The UK will continue to play its part, including engagement with the insurance industry to support shipping when conditions allow.
We are continuing to plan for every eventuality, but we must deal with the economic costs that are already being felt. I reject the demands for a knee-jerk response to this crisis that would put household finances at risk through higher inflation and higher interest rates. Every choice that I make will be about keeping costs down for families and businesses. That is why I have extended the 5p cut for fuel duty twice since the election, saving the average motorist £90 a year compared with the plans that I inherited. It is why I have frozen prescription charges for two years in a row and frozen rail fares for the first time in 30 years; it is why I am taking £150 off energy bills with additional help for those struggling with the cost of heating oil; and it is why I have expanded the British industrial competitiveness scheme to over 10,000 manufacturers, addressing long-term competitiveness and cutting electricity costs from this year.
During the last energy shock, the previous Government’s package of unfunded and untargeted support saw more than a third of direct energy bill support go to the wealthiest households. That meant higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher taxes. I will not repeat those mistakes. Last week, the IMF said that my plan is “the appropriate response” to the conflict. I led a joint statement, with 10 other major economies, agreeing to co-ordinate our domestic responses, to ensure that they are responsive and responsible. This Government have the right plan for our economy. At the spring forecast, we saw how the action that we have taken since the election has prepared Britain to better weather this conflict. Inflation was at 3% and set to fall to target—a lower base than at the outset of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, when inflation was high and rising. Borrowing was set to fall more over this Parliament than in any other G7 economy. We are set to reduce the deficit by £20 billion, from 5.2% to 4.3% of GDP this year. I increased our financial buffers, with headroom against the stability rule of £23.7 billion, so that we can weather shocks and keep borrowing costs down.
Last week, the IMF welcomed the UK’s “notable improvement” in our public finances. I am clear that the best way we can build a stronger, more resilient economy is through economic growth. I welcome recent figures showing that the economy grew by 0.5% in the three months to February and upgraded growth for the three months to January to 0.3%. I also welcome this morning’s labour market figures for February, which show unemployment coming down and real wages continuing to rise, as they have in every month since I became Chancellor—adding to the evidence that the Government have the right economic plan to steer our economy through the uncertainty ahead.
However, as I have said, the war in Iran will come at a cost. Last week, the IMF published its updated forecasts for the global economy in response to the war. It reduced its expectations for GDP growth in the United Kingdom and increased its expectations for inflation. That builds on the IMF’s judgment that the UK is more exposed to energy price shocks than our counterparts—a problem that the previous Government failed to address in 14 years—and on its observation that, since the last energy crisis, the UK has had higher inflation than other countries. The aftermath of Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-Budget, and the previous Government’s untargeted and unfunded support package, contributed to a more persistent rise in inflation and interest rates than in other countries around the world.
The IMF’s forecasts are a stark reminder of why we must stick to our economic plan and go further and faster on delivering economic security. Since the election, we have invested in clean, home-grown energy, in renewables and in nuclear power. In 2025, we imported 17% less gas than in 2021, and gas generation now sets the wholesale price of electricity around a third less frequently than it did in the early 2020s, meaning that our energy system is now more secure and less exposed to volatile global energy prices.
Today we are going further, with a package of changes to reduce our reliance on imported oil and gas, boost the use of renewables, and smooth the impact of energy price shocks. First, oil and gas production from the North sea is an important and valuable resource, and its workforce is a vital asset for our country. That is why we are harnessing our domestic supply by managing existing fields for their entire lifetimes, including by allowing tiebacks for those fields to ensure that they remain viable. Today, in advance of legislation, we are publishing further details on tiebacks, which I first announced in the Budget. External analysis has predicted that they could result in tens of millions more barrels of oil and gas being available for UK supply. Today’s announcement gives industry greater clarity to support investment in those projects and maximise supply from our existing sites to support our energy security.
Secondly, we are sweeping away the barriers to new renewables investment by accelerating vital grid infrastructure, reforming land access rules and extending permitted development rights, as well as making more public land available for renewable infrastructure, which could unlock up to 10 GW of capacity, and helping households and businesses to switch to clean, cheaper renewable electricity through plug-in solar panels and better electric vehicle charging.
Thirdly, we are reforming our energy system. Currently, households and businesses pay more for their electricity when the gas price is high. The electricity generator levy already recoups some of the excess returns made by generators due to high gas prices. Today, I am announcing that I will extend the electricity generator levy beyond its scheduled conclusion in 2028, and, ahead of that, I will increase the rate of the levy from 45% to 55%. That will ensure that a larger proportion of any exceptional revenues from high gas prices are passed back to Government, providing a vital revenue stream so that money is available for Government to support businesses and families with the impacts of the conflict in the middle east. Crucially, it will encourage older low-carbon electricity generators, which supply about a third of our power, to move from market pricing to fixed-price contracts for difference.
New proposals, set out by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero today, will further weaken the link between high gas prices and the price paid for our electricity, and limit the spikes in energy prices from driving up inflation and costs for households and businesses.
The Government have the right economic plan—a plan that was right before this conflict in the middle east started and is now essential to weather the impact of that conflict. The plan, backed by the IMF, will keep costs down for everyone and provide support for those who need it most. In a world that is more uncertain, it is a plan to build a Britain that is stronger and more secure. I commend this statement to the House.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Lady for advance sight of her statement.
The UK has some of the highest energy prices in the world. That is crippling our economy and pushing up the cost of living, and it leaves us particularly exposed to energy shocks such as the one we are experiencing right now. Yet the Government seem totally unwilling to accept the scale of the problem and to shift in their dogmatic commitment to a net zero agenda, which is making us poorer.
Last year, we Conservatives came forward with our cheap power plan. We said that the Government needed to scrap carbon taxes and the renewables subsidies, which are pushing up bills, and reverse the nonsensical decision to rely on imported oil and gas instead of pursuing the common-sense approach of extracting our own resources from the North sea. Under pressure from this Conservative Opposition, there has been some progress at least, but it has been made at a snail’s pace. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has been dragged, with oh so much reluctance, in the direction that we have set out.
The action taken goes nowhere near far enough and is not fast enough. At the Budget, the Government announced they would take 75% of the cost of renewables off bills, but they did not abolish the subsidies, as we called for them to do. They are still being paid—maybe not out of people’s energy bills, but out of the pockets of hard-working taxpayers. When it comes to the vast majority of businesses in our country, this Government have done nothing for them.
The proposals announced today risk locking in the costs of those subsidies by including them in the new contracts for difference, to which the Government are hoping that energy producers will sign up. Can the Chancellor confirm that this is the case—that under these arrangements, these subsidies will not only persist but will be guaranteed? The new contracts announced today are, of course, voluntary, so on what basis do the Government think these changes will lead to an overall reduction in energy bills? Presumably, generators will only sign up to these arrangements if it is in their commercial interest to do so. How will the Government ensure that companies do not simply game the system and end up being guaranteed higher prices?
By how much will these announcements reduce energy bills? Has the Energy Secretary even provided the Chancellor with an estimate of the impact on bills? If there is no estimate, how can the Chancellor be confident that bills will indeed be reduced, not increased? On that point, we can put a number on our plan: it would mean £200 off household bills. Why can the Chancellor not do the same with this latest announcement?
The Government have also said they will get rid of carbon price support. That is welcome, but they are not doing it until next year, and the CPS is only part of the carbon tax, which the Opposition are clear needs to be scrapped completely. It costs both households and businesses, and it needs to go. Why will the Chancellor not commit to removing these taxes completely? On taxes, the Chancellor noted the importance of keeping fuel duty down, but once again she had nothing to say about the onerous increase that she still plans to bring forward in September.
Finally, we have had no meaningful action today on the issue of North sea oil and gas. The Chancellor says she wants to reduce our exposure to global energy prices, yet the Government are choosing to leave us more reliant on imported hydrocarbons. We all know that she is in a completely different place on this to the Energy Secretary. He is committed to the gradual smothering of our oil and gas sector, regardless of the cost to our economy and the loss of those jobs and tax revenues. Why does the Chancellor not urge the Prime Minister to overrule the Energy Secretary on these matters? The revenues from new oil and gas extraction are vital, given the state of our public finances.
The current crisis shows how exposed we are and how damaging the Government’s net zero obsession has been to our economy, to households and to businesses. The Government are right to want to reduce that exposure, but they are doing too little, too late. We need an urgent change of course, not dither and delay. We need a proper cheap power plan to get bills down, and we need it now.
Rachel Reeves
That response exposes a shadow Chancellor who is out of credible ideas. I was sad to read in the weekend’s newspapers that once again, he is being lined up for the sack by the Leader of the Opposition, but to be honest, after his performance today, I can understand her choice.
The shadow Chancellor talks about the IMF. Yes, the IMF did downgrade the forecast. Why? It is because of a war, which his party unquestioningly backed, and because of our high exposure to global energy markets, which his party allowed. We are taking the right choices. We did not back this war, nor did we follow the calls of the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of Reform to join in. We are investing in and reforming our energy market, so that we can take back control of our energy security.
The shadow Chancellor talks about the economy. Well, let’s talk about the economy. Before this war broke out, our economy grew by 0.5% in the three months to February and 0.3% in the three months to January. Inflation was expected by the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility to return to target, and interest rates had been cut by their fastest rate in 17 years, compared with hitting 5.25% under the Conservatives, which saw mortgage costs going through the roof. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) says it is the Bank of England’s job to address inflation, but we had the same Bank of England when the Conservatives were in government. It has cut interest rates while we have been in government because we got control of the public finances, and the Conservatives lost control of the public finances.
The shadow Chancellor says that the response to a fossil fuel crisis is to rely more on fossil fuels and to reduce investment in clean, home-grown energy. He is ignoring the fundamental lesson of both Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the conflict in the middle east. The shadow Chancellor opposed new solar energy, opposed onshore wind power and did not invest in either Sizewell C or small modular reactors, as this Labour Government are doing. Just today, the CEO of RenewableUK has said that
“reducing the link between the volatile global gas prices and the cost of electricity is the best way to protect households, businesses and industries against the unpredictable and volatile costs of fossil fuels in the long term, to strengthen the UK’s energy security.”
The shadow Chancellor says that tiebacks make no difference, yet Offshore Energies UK says that
“developing fields as tiebacks reduces costs, lowers emissions, and extends the life of existing critical infrastructure”,
which is exactly why we are doing it.
The shadow Chancellor says that delinking would lead to higher prices. It is the exact opposite. The whole aim here is to move to fixed prices. By increasing the electricity generator levy—we do not know whether the Conservative party supports or opposes it—we incentivise those energy companies to come off the levy and come on to contracts for difference. We are beginning the negotiations with industry, so that we can reduce that volatility in prices. As the CEO of E.ON has said today,
“For too long, the value in our energy system has flowed to those at the top of the chain. Today’s move starts to turn that around”,
because we can take out of the system the volatility and the spikes, which are so damaging for both family finances and business finances. But the shadow Chancellor had nothing to say on that.
Fuel duty was never lower in 14 years under the Conservatives than it is today. Of course, we are keeping all scenarios under review, but it is quite clear that the best way to bring down fuel prices is to de-escalate this conflict, not ramp it up like the Conservatives want to do.
The shadow Chancellor has nothing to say on international co-operation, nothing to say on global negotiations to keep the strait of Hormuz open, nothing to say on reform of our energy market and nothing to say on investment in our infrastructure. Why? It is because he has no plan. Why? Because he does not have any ideas. Why? Because his party has no economic credibility. Labour has the right plan for our country. The Conservatives would take us right back to the bad days of high inflation, high interest rates and the mess they made of our economy.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The conflict in Iran is also a matter of energy security and the cost of energy. It is a reminder for the second time in four years of the dangers of being dependent on international fossil fuel markets and of the need to reduce our dependence. The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee has heard a lot of evidence about the importance of decoupling the price of electricity from the price of gas, so may I encourage the Chancellor to bring forward measures that will reduce the amount of time that gas can continue to set the price of electricity? It is a pity that the Conservative party did not take that approach following the invasion of Ukraine in 2022 when it had the chance.
Rachel Reeves
I thank the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee for that question, and for his important work on this issue. There are two ways to reduce the number of days in which the gas price sets the electricity price. First is to invest more in home-grown renewables and in nuclear, so that more of the mix is made up of electricity. The second way is to delink gas and electricity prices, first by increasing the electricity generators levy to bring in money but also—this is crucial—by incentivising those companies that are currently getting the market price to go instead on to a contract for difference, which gives greater certainty for families, pensioners and businesses with their bills. That is exactly what we are doing.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I thank the Chancellor for advance sight of her statement.
The Chancellor should have come here today to explain how she was going to use the £20 million extra that the Treasury is pulling in every single day through higher VAT, a higher energy profits levy and other taxes, to tackle the immediate cost of fuel crisis that is facing families and businesses today. The Chancellor is fundamentally wrong when she says that a knee-jerk response would have put household finances at risk through higher inflation and higher interest rates. We need just to look at what other countries are doing. The Government could have used that £20 million to drive down prices—the price of petrol at the pump, the price of train and bus fares, and the price of home-charging electric vehicles. Slashing those prices could have helped the Chancellor to control inflation and higher interest rates. That is what other countries are doing, and what we Liberal Democrats are calling for.
The Liberal Democrats were the only political party to have in our manifesto a commitment to break the link between gas and electricity prices, so we are glad that 18 months on, the Government have finally listened.
In addition to the measures outlined today, may I ask the Chancellor about two specific things? First, has she spoken to any banks about rolling out low-interest loans for householders who want to do the right thing and adopt energy-saving measures, but are struggling with the up-front costs? Secondly, I met the Competition and Markets Authority on Monday. The CMA and Ofgem both agree that there is a case to answer about the broken energy market and why hospitality and small businesses are being blocked. Will the Chancellor join me in writing to Ofgem and asking it finally to investigate, without any further delay, a broken energy market that is blocking hospitality and small businesses from accessing the best deals?
Rachel Reeves
I welcome the fact that the hon. Lady and her party opposed the war and did not want the UK to become involved, unlike the Conservatives and Reform. However, I find what she has just set out fundamentally economically illiterate. The idea that a great fiscal policy is to close the strait of Hormuz! Why did we not think of that when we came to office? If we close the strait of Hormuz, all our problems will be over because we can get in all this money—that is what the hon. Lady is suggesting; that we will get some great windfall from a tax. The truth is that the IMF and every other forecaster are clear that tax revenues will be lower, not higher, because of the conflict in the middle east. The money that the hon. Lady wants us to spend simply does not exist. I am afraid she is falling into the failed economic policies of the Conservatives, who delivered untargeted, unfunded support that resulted in higher interest rates, higher inflation and higher taxes. She is suggesting an untargeted approach, but that is what got us into the mess we are in today.
I welcome the fact that the hon. Lady supports us on decoupling, which is the right thing to do with our gas and electricity prices. I regret that she and her party did not support the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which enables us to build the homes and energy infrastructure that we need. On working with banks, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is working with every high street lender and energy company to help people who are struggling with their bills.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
As my right hon. Friend mentioned, in 2022 Liz Truss launched a household energy support package that provided blanket support to every household, including the most well off. It was estimated to cost between £57 billion and £60 billion, just over the first six months; that was predominantly funded by borrowing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the right and fiscally responsible thing to do during this crisis is to provide targeted support to those who need it most?
Rachel Reeves
More than one third of that support for energy bills went to the top third of households. That makes no sense at all, especially when those households then end up being burdened with higher interest rates on their mortgages, higher inflation in the shops, and higher taxes for years to come. The right approach is a targeted one, to keep costs and interest rates down for everybody. Of course, the best economic policy would be a de-escalation of this conflict, not ramping it up, as the Conservatives and Reform want to do.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The Chancellor will be aware of how important aviation is to the UK economy, particularly Heathrow, which is responsible for a huge amount of air freight and economic activity in my constituency. Given the reports regarding the supply chain for kerosene used in aviation, what measures is the Chancellor taking to ensure kerosene supply? What consideration has she given to tax relief to ensure that our aviation sector is sustainable and continues to contribute to the UK economy?
Rachel Reeves
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are a big supporter of our airports and the aviation sector. That is why we are backing a third runway at Heathrow, a second runway at Gatwick, as well as expansion at Stansted and Luton airports. We are in regular contact with the aviation sector. It is currently not reporting any challenges with security of supply, but as the hon. Gentleman and the House would expect, we are planning for all different scenarios. The best way to ensure security of supply is to reopen the strait of Hormuz by working to de-escalate this conflict.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I welcome the fact that in this time of economic shocks, the Government are playing their proper role in protecting UK households from the worst harms, and I thank the Chancellor for the work that she is doing with other Finance Ministers and Governments to bring about a de-escalation of the war—unlike others, who advocate for escalation. Does she agree that, in addition to taking the measures that she has talked about today, and that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has announced, she must continue, alongside the rest of the Government, to press other Governments for de-escalation of the war? That is the best way to protect UK households.
Rachel Reeves
That is why the whole House welcomed the Prime Minister and the French President convening a meeting of 50 countries on Friday, to work on how we could reopen of the strait of Hormuz and, crucially, on the protection of vessels travelling through it, when it is safe for them to do so; and it is why I have been working with the insurance industry to ensure that the right cover will be available to vessels, when it is possible to travel through the strait again. When I was in Washington last week, I met our allies from the Gulf countries, who made clear the importance of reopening the strait of Hormuz and preserving toll-free travel through it.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Prices are going up, and if the Chancellor’s 5p increase in fuel duty between September and next March goes ahead, we will be the European country with the eighth highest fuel duty. Surely this is not the time for that increase. If she wants certainty, the best thing she could do, at that Dispatch Box, is cancel the fuel duty hike.
Rachel Reeves
I understand the concerns that people have about filling up their car with petrol and diesel right now. We have introduced the cheaper fuel finder tool, so that people can compare prices and get the best deal when they fill up their car, and we have had all the petrol retailers into No. 11 Downing Street to ensure that we do not have any price gouging. There are still four and a half months until September. We are preparing for every eventuality. I have extended the fuel duty freeze and the 5p cut twice already, which means that the average motorist is saving £90 more than they would have done under the plans that I inherited from the Conservative party.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The conflict in the middle east has again highlighted just how vulnerable our off-grid rural households are to fossil fuel-driven energy shocks. Does the Chancellor agree with me that the warm homes plan is a major opportunity to upgrade rural housing and cut bills? Will she confirm what further steps the Government are taking to encourage the take-up of low carbon technology?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the challenges felt in many rural communities. Those challenges are why I put in place additional money to help people with the cost of heating oil. We recognised that the £150 off energy bills introduced in April does not apply to heating oil, and we wanted to ensure that people had support with that. We are also extending and increasing the generosity of the warm homes plan, in particular by including boiler upgrades. That will help people in all communities, including rural communities, where the cost of heating homes is often higher.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
We are very fortunate in Scotland to already produce more renewable electricity than we consume, and of course we produce more oil and gas than we consume as well. Unfortunately, we do not experience any benefit in our bills. The Chancellor had the cheek to say that she regards the oil and gas workforce as a vital asset to the country, but they certainly do not feel like that, because a thousand of them are losing their job every single month. If she believes in jobs, investment, energy security and reducing climate emissions, will she outline why she has not yet moved to the oil and gas price mechanism? Why is the Chancellor allowing the Energy Secretary to overrule her and prioritise imports of liquefied natural gas, rather than supporting domestic energy sources?
Rachel Reeves
People in Scotland, and right across the UK, benefited from the money off their energy bills. We are one of the few countries in the world where energy bills for households went down in April, rather than up. That was because of the changes that I made in the Budget. Of course, that benefits households in Scotland as well. Today, the Energy Secretary and I have announced changes around tiebacks. The previous Government could have made such changes, but they did not. Offshore Energies UK has said:
“developing fields as tiebacks reduces costs, lowers emissions, and extends the life of existing critical infrastructure.”
This policy will help to create and support more jobs in Scotland in this vital sector. If the Scottish National party is so concerned about jobs, why does it not back nuclear in Scotland, just as this Labour Government back nuclear in England and Wales?
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I welcome the Chancellor’s statement and the announcements made by her and the Energy Secretary. We have seen two fossil fuel shocks in just the past five years, which have done untold damage to our economy. Half the recessions since the 1970s have been caused by similar fossil fuel shocks. It is clear that the move to clean, home-grown energy is good for the economy, good for security and good for household bills. What conversations have she and the Energy Secretary had with organisations that might be taking up voluntary agreements? When might those agreements be made, and when will we see the benefit of breaking the link between gas and electricity prices?
Rachel Reeves
Investment in nuclear and renewables can ensure security of supply, and security of price. Investment in fossil fuels cannot secure security of price, because that price is determined by international markets. A third of power is electricity that is not covered by a contract for difference. We are trying to get that on to contracts for difference, so that we can stabilise prices and avoid the spikes that we see because of the volatility in fossil fuel prices that my hon. Friend mentioned. The Energy Secretary and I have already met representatives from the energy sector to discuss this policy and the negotiation of contracts for difference. After the negotiations, and given the incentive to avoid the higher electricity generators levy, we are confident that many businesses will be happy and willing to move, through a negotiated price, on to contracts for difference.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The strangely cheerful outing by Treasury Front-Bench Members today makes them the equivalent of the band playing on the deck of the Titanic, as the Government sink around them after hitting the iceberg that is Peter Mandelson. If the Chancellor thinks that anybody out there genuinely feels that she has made the economy more resilient to economic shocks, then I am sorry to say that she is living in cloud cuckoo land. I have met the families who have less money in their pay packets because of her tax raids. I have met the businesses that are making people redundant, cutting investments or facing closure because of her tax rises. If she wants to help people in the economy, she should cut taxes.
Rachel Reeves
Today we have announced an increase in the electricity generators levy to help the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, and all our constituents, to get lower prices for electricity. Instead of talking the country down, he might want to mention the fact that the economy grew by 0.5% in February, unemployment went down today, we have the fastest deficit reduction pace of any country in the G7, and in every single month that I have been Chancellor, wages have risen by more than prices. That is very different from what happened when his party was in charge.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement. I agree that the best economic policy today is diplomatic policy. Given the situation in Iran, will she tell us more about her plans for putting economic pressure on the leadership there to de-escalate this dreadful situation?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the best economic policy is diplomatic policy; it is reopening the strait of Hormuz, and de-escalating this conflict. That is why the Prime Minister hosted, with France, the coalition meeting last Friday, and why, when I met the US Treasury Secretary last week, we committed to doing more to increase the sanctions and the economic pressure on Iran. My team of Treasury officials met US Treasury officials last week to work out what more can be done, following the excellent work that our two Treasuries have already done together to increase economic pressure on Iran.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
As a result of this war, agricultural inflation is running at 7.6%—more than twice general inflation levels. Red diesel has doubled in price and fertiliser supply is under serious threat. Predictably, food prices are likely to rise, causing hardship for millions of people, partly because of Britain’s lack of food security. Is it not time for the Government to U-turn on the Conservative policy that they inherited, which means that England is now the only country in Europe that does not use its farm payments to actively support its farmers to produce food?
Rachel Reeves
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his representation of the agricultural sector. As he knows, on the two occasions when we have extended the 5p cut in fuel duty, a commensurate benefit has been applied to red diesel, but I recognise the challenges faced, in the current conflict, by the agricultural sector and other sectors that are big users of diesel. That is why we are working hard with industry to ensure that the sectors get the support that they need. Crucially, we are also trying to de-escalate the conflict and reopen the strait of Hormuz to improve the availability of diesel and fertiliser.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I congratulate the Chancellor on her statement. The setting of electricity prices to international gas prices has long been blamed for the erratic nature of our electricity bills—indeed, that was previously accepted by the Conservative party. While the Conservatives complained about it and did nothing, this Government are seeking to take action to disconnect those two issues. Will the Chancellor advise when she thinks that families will start to see a benefit from the decoupling of electricity prices from international gas prices?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend knows what she is talking about, not least because she is the MP for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, but also as a result of her previous career before taking her seat at the last election. There are two ways in which people will benefit. The first is in the short term, through the higher electricity generator levy. We have increased the rate from 45% to 55%, which will bring in money this year that can help us as a Government to relieve some of the pressure on families and businesses. We will also use the higher levy to negotiate the contracts for difference at a good price for bill payers and taxpayers so that we get rid of that volatility. I am confident that in the months ahead, while we have the higher electricity generator levy in place, we will be able to negotiate the new contracts and reduce the volatility. Crucially, the reduction in volatility will benefit both households and businesses.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I welcome the couple of positive references that the Chancellor made a little while ago to civil nuclear power? Given that we have in this country Rolls-Royce, a world-leading specialist in the design and construction of small modular mobile nuclear reactors, what plans do the Government have to support this particular sector so that we are less dependent on the whims of Iranian dictators in future?
Rachel Reeves
I was really pleased last week to sign with Rolls-Royce the contract for the first fleet of small modular reactors in the UK. They will be located on Anglesey, but they will create jobs for people from Derby to Warrington and from Manchester to Sheffield, and of course in north Wales and on Anglesey itself. We are also working with Rolls-Royce as it looks to secure contracts overseas, as it already has with Czechia, creating more good jobs here in Britain for this exciting new technology, which will also have the benefit of secure, home-grown energy.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
Because of the action of this Government, rural communities in Norfolk received the highest payment of support for heating oil, with more than £3 million in the whole of England. However, a huge concern is that more than 60% of the applications that have been made have not been completed by the local Conservative-run council. What will the Chancellor’s action be to ensure that Norfolk county council gets these payments into the pockets of my constituents?
Rachel Reeves
I am sorry to hear that the Conservative-run council in South Norfolk has not completed 60% of the applications for help with heating oil. The Government made more than £50 million available and targeted it at such places and at my hon. Friend’s constituents, who need it most. I am very happy to follow up with the council to ensure that people get the support they need.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I am relieved that the Government are now committed to breaking—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Can we proceed without an unseemly exchange across the Dispatch Box? I would like to be able to hear the question from the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), and I am sure that the Chancellor might also like to hear it so that she can respond.
Carla Denyer
I am relieved that the Government are now committed to breaking the price link between expensive gas and cheap renewables, but given that the proposed solution is voluntary for electricity generators, how will the Chancellor ensure that the proposals that she and the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero are putting forward will actually deliver substantially lower bills? If I send them to her office, will she consider the proposals from the think-tank Commonwealth for a mandated, not-optional, fixed-price model to ensure that billpayers are not left at the mercy of the volatile international fossil fuel market?
Rachel Reeves
As I set out in my statement and as the hon. Lady said, we are delinking gas and electricity prices. That is the right policy, and we will achieve it through the increase in the electricity generator levy. By increasing it from 45% to 55%, we are providing a very strong incentive for companies that still get market prices to move on to contracts for difference to avoid the electricity generator levy. If they do not go on to a contract for difference, they will continue to pay the electricity generator levy, which I have extended today, and we can use that money to help people with their prices.
The hon. Lady’s commitment to lower prices and more secure supply would be a bit more credible if the Green party did not oppose new nuclear and the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which will make it easier to build the infrastructure investment in renewables and clean energy that we desperately need to lower bills and get ourselves off fossil fuels.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement and for the work that she and the Energy Secretary have done in this regard. The focus on renewables and the decoupling of gas and electricity is most welcome, but may I point something out? One of the problems that we inherited from the Conservatives, who have the gall to complain about the high cost to businesses and households, is that we are heading towards curtailment fees in 2030 of around £6 billion per annum. Would the Chancellor be kind enough to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) to discuss some of the technological options available to us to mitigate those soaring costs?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for the interest that he has in this really important area. We are doing a number of things on this front. The Planning and Infrastructure Act, which passed through Parliament at the end of last year despite the opposition of the Conservatives and the Greens and the indifference of the Liberal Democrats, will enable us to build the infrastructure to get energy from offshore wind to people’s homes and businesses, as well as investment in battery technology so that we can store energy. My hon. Friend will also have heard the announcement last week that we will enable differential pricing at different times—for example, to be able to get free electricity in some cases at weekends, when the demand for energy is lower. Those are some of the things we are doing to better balance demand and supply on the grid, and I would be very happy to meet him to discuss the matter further.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Is the Chancellor aware that the price of gas in the US is 10% lower than at the start of the war, while here in the UK it is 30% higher? That proves that if we produce what we consume, there is actually a domestic price of gas. Will she have a word in the shell-like ear of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and tell him to get on and approve the licences at Jackdaw and beyond, including onshore? That would mean more gas, more production and lower prices.
Rachel Reeves
I think that the hon. Gentleman has just said that he is in favour of fracking. If so, I look forward to campaigning against him on that.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement and for the work she is doing at this globally difficult time. As a proud coastal, naval and defence city, Portsmouth understands that economic, national and climate security are inseparable, from household bills to flood resilience and defence jobs. Will she reassure families and businesses in my constituency that today’s actions, such as decoupling, will protect them from rising costs, support the jobs that are so vital to our city and ensure that we have a city for future generations?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for standing up for her constituents in Portsmouth. The purpose of decoupling gas and electricity prices is to reduce the volatility. We all know from our constituencies how much lower-income families and pensioners, in particular, struggle with volatility in gas and electricity prices, because electricity is an essential and people need it for everyday use. Decoupling will smooth out some of the volatility in the price of energy, giving greater certainty to families, pensioners and businesses, which all have to contend with the volatility of the fossil fuel market. That is why we want to move to more contracts for difference, and that is what today’s policy will achieve.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
In her statement, the Chancellor outlined a plan for tomorrow, but no help for today. The residents of Newbury—the small businesses and farmers—want to know how high the Chancellor will allow the prices of petrol, red diesel and fertiliser to go before she decides to take positive action and reduce the impact of the cost of living crisis on those people. How high do those prices have to go, Chancellor?
Rachel Reeves
In Newbury, and indeed in all of our constituencies, people got £150 off their energy bills in April this year. There are very few countries in the world where energy bills fell in April; in most countries they are going up. That was possible only because of the measures I took in last year’s Budget. I have extended the 5p cut in fuel duty two times already since becoming Chancellor. Obviously, we are following very carefully what is happening in the middle east and looking at the impact on the UK economy, families and businesses, and we will be ready to respond. However, the best way to get bills and prices at the pump down is to de-escalate this conflict and reopen the strait of Hormuz. That is the policy of the hon. Gentleman’s party, and it is the policy of this Government, because that is the best way to help people with the costs of energy.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister was right not to take part in the war led by Donald Trump and Netanyahu, and the Chancellor is right not to engage in a knee-jerk reaction to this economic difficulty. However, will she keep under active consideration those who are most vulnerable—those who are on benefits and the hard-working families who will struggle to put food on the table, choosing between that and paying energy bills—and if need be, will action be taken immediately?
Rachel Reeves
When the previous Government intervened in the case of an energy price shock, more than a third of the benefit went to the top third of income earners. That makes no sense at all when Government resources are stretched and when it resulted only in higher interest rates, higher inflation and higher taxes for the exact same people. That is why we are looking at what targeted action could be taken. It is also why, at the beginning of this month, the new state pension increased by up to £575 and we got rid of the two-child limit on universal credit, which will lift almost half a million children out of poverty over the course of this Parliament.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
No farmers means no food, no hauliers means empty shelves, and no construction means a country that is not moving forward. In Northern Ireland, those three industries are now taking to the streets to protest, which is clear evidence that this Government’s inaction is pushing them to the brink. Will the Chancellor today do the right thing and commit to cutting fuel duty, scrapping punitive carbon taxes, and properly supporting the industries and sectors that are fundamental to this country’s security and stability?
Rachel Reeves
In Northern Ireland and across the country, people got £150 off their energy bills in April, and of course Northern Ireland was the biggest beneficiary of the support for heating oil—that support went disproportionately to Northern Ireland, given its greater reliance on heating oil compared with the rest of the country. The British industrial competitiveness scheme will reduce business energy costs for 10,000 manufacturing firms from this year, taking up to 25% off their electricity costs, and decoupling will reduce electricity prices for both businesses and households. When those contracts for difference come in, that will have a direct impact, but in the meantime the higher electricity generator levy that is coming in this year will provide revenues so that the Government can help cushion this shock for businesses and families.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I plan to let this statement run only until 2 o’clock. Many Members are still standing, so short questions and perhaps short answers would be very helpful in allowing me to get in as many as possible.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor is right: this was not our war, but its impacts are being felt by businesses and families in my constituency. What is almost as shocking as the recent price hike is how exposed our country is because of a decade of under-investment by the Conservative party in nuclear, onshore wind and updating our power networks. Can the Chancellor reassure me that while we keep a razor-sharp focus on the cost of living for families, we will also do our utmost to speed up the development and renewal of our energy networks, so that we can power this country from our own sources and not just rely on imports?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is not our war—we chose not to join it, unlike the Conservative and Reform parties, which were egging us on to do so. However, we do need to become less exposed to global fossil fuel markets. That is why we passed the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which will enable us to build the energy infrastructure we need. It is why we signed off Sizewell C and a fleet of small modular reactors; it is why we are giving planning permission to solar farms; and it is why we have ended the effective moratorium on onshore wind—the cheapest form of electricity—to keep prices down for families, businesses and pensioners.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Chancellor said in her statement:
“Every choice I make will be about keeping costs down for families and businesses”.
However, when I speak to small business owners on high streets across my constituency of Twickenham, Teddington and the Hamptons—especially café and restaurant owners—they tell me that the soaring energy and food prices that are a result of war are only compounding the pain they were feeling as a result of the Chancellor’s choices to hike national insurance for employers and, in some cases, double their business rates. What action will she take this month and this quarter, not in a year’s time, to help those businesses stay afloat? We need them to stay open for the sake of our communities.
Rachel Reeves
The best thing we can do as a Government is to keep inflation and interest rates down. Since I became Chancellor, wages have risen faster than prices in every single month, giving people more money to spend, and interest rates have been cut six times—which will benefit all of our constituents, but those in London perhaps most of all, given that house prices are more expensive in places such as Twickenham—putting more money in people’s pockets. Today’s announcement about the British industrial competitiveness scheme will take up to 25% off energy bills for 10,000 businesses from this month, and decoupling will help all businesses with their energy costs. The electricity generator levy will bring in money this year, and then the new contracts for difference will reduce volatility and price spikes for all businesses.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
In my constituency, I hear from many small businesses that are worried about rising energy bills and what that means for their ability to grow and create jobs. As such, I welcome the measures that the Chancellor has outlined today, particularly decoupling gas and electricity, which will help to safeguard my constituents from these international spikes. However, everyone in this situation has to play their part. The Government are doing their bit, but could the Chancellor set out what conversations she is having with the energy companies themselves on how they can further support businesses with their energy costs at a time of global instability?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I understand the concerns that families and businesses have about the cost of energy and the risk of second-round effects if those costs are passed on to other goods and services in the economy. That is why my focus is on keeping interest rates and inflation down for everybody, and it is also why we are working to de-escalate this conflict. We are also working with energy companies to ensure that people who are struggling with energy debt, for example, are supported, and that people are not taken off contracts.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
On 3 March, during the Chancellor’s vacuous spring statement, I raised with her that the war which had just started in the middle east would have an inevitable and immediate consequence for energy prices. I asked her what she was going to do about it, and she said that she had no plans to do anything about it. Today, the Chancellor comes to the Chamber like the coo’s tail, talking about fiddling about with contracts for difference next year while my constituents are currently paying nearly £2 a litre for diesel. In Ireland, the Government spent €750 million to support farmers, hauliers, agriculture, fisheries and household energy bills. If the Chancellor were to do the same, the figure would be £8 billion. Where is the £8 billion for our communities, Chancellor?
Rachel Reeves
In the past two weeks, we have announced up to 25% off energy bills for 10,000 manufacturers, starting this month. Today, we have announced tiebacks to exploit more of our energy resource in the North sea, which has been welcomed by OEUK, and we have announced an increase in the electricity generator levy to bring in money to help with the costs of energy. We are one of the few countries in the world where energy bills went down in April, because of the decisions that I made in my Budget. Since I became Chancellor, wages have risen by more than prices in every single month and interest rates have been cut six times. That is the difference we are making. It would be nice if the SNP used the record funding we have given it to cut NHS waiting lists, rather than seeing them rise and rise.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement and her nimble response to the energy shock, including support for heating oil consumers, who make up half the households in Na h-Eileanan an Iar. The future of energy security is not an either/or. We must pursue renewables with a community share in the wealth of wind, and we must use the tiebacks that she detailed to exploit existing licences in the North sea fully. Will the Chancellor encourage other Ministers to match her commitment by hastening the review of Jackdaw and Rosebank? That would not just ensure energy security, but send a message to workers that we are with them in the North sea and the wild Atlantic for years to come.
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need a balanced energy policy. While some parties oppose renewables, some parties oppose nuclear and some parties—oh, they have gone—oppose any oil and gas, this Government have a balanced energy policy. We are investing in new nuclear—small modular reactors and Sizewell C; we are investing in renewables—solar and onshore and offshore wind; and we are ensuring a bright future for North sea oil and gas. That is why today we set out our policy and more detail on tiebacks. It is also why, in the not-too-distant future, the Energy Secretary, in a quasi-judicial way, will make a decision on Jackdaw and Rosebank after the courts quashed the previous Government’s decision.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
We welcome the Government’s announcement on cutting the link between wholesale gas and electricity prices, which will help to shield families across the UK from volatile fossil fuel prices. They are using the very measure that the Liberal Democrats proposed more than a year ago. It is now time to go further and faster to fix a broken energy market that results in households and businesses that are powered by solar and wind not having cheaper energy bills, and even having to pay on their energy bills to turn off wind farms in British waters. I have written to the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. Will the Chancellor meet me to discuss our proposals to accelerate reforms, bring down energy bills and secure our energy supply?
Rachel Reeves
I agree with the hon. Lady about decoupling. We are using an increase in the electricity generator levy to bring in money immediately and to incentivise companies to move on to contracts for difference. In terms of having to pay when solar and wind cannot be used, what the hon. Lady says would be a little more plausible if the Liberal Democrats had not sat on their hands during consideration of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. That legislation will enable the energy infrastructure to be built that will bring electricity to people’s homes, lower people’s bills and give us the energy security that we want to see.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The Chancellor will know that AutoTrader announced last week that, for the first time, the average cost of a new electric vehicle has fallen below the average cost of a new petrol vehicle. There has never been a better time to switch to EVs. Can the Chancellor elaborate on how these targeted announcements, and some of the changes she is making today, will support the switch to electric vehicles?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are a couple of things we are doing today to make it more cost-effective to get an electric vehicle. First, the decoupling of gas and electricity prices will mean that electricity prices will not be set by high gas prices. That reduces the costs of filling up an electric vehicle with electricity. We are also making it easier for people to install electric vehicle charge points, including on their streets and in their homes. We are making solar panels more available, including in high street shops, to enable people to benefit from that cheap electricity, which they can use to power their homes and their cars.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
Kevin Brewer is a domiciliary care worker from Northern Ireland. He says that he loves his job, but he drives 70 miles every day. He told the BBC this week that for the first time he considered phoning in and saying that he could not do his job. In the end, he decided to put the cost of the fuel on his credit card. Chancellor, people are suffering across the country. I invite her to meet people such as Kevin at the national fuel tax protest on Whitehall on Monday, where motorists, white van men and women, care workers and many others from across the United Kingdom will come together to ask her to take action now to cut VAT on fuel and to say that she will not increase fuel duty in September.
Rachel Reeves
Fuel duty was never lower in the 14 years when the right hon. Gentleman was a Conservative Member of Parliament than it is now. As I have said on numerous occasions, we are keeping fuel duty under review. The best way to reduce costs for people who are reliant on their cars is to de-escalate this conflict, which is the exact opposite of Reform UK’s policy. It wanted to join in this conflict and said when the conflict started that we should stand with America. I do not agree that we should be standing with America; we should be standing up for our own country and families and businesses in our country.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
It is important that we look at long-term measures such as decoupling gas and electricity prices, because we know that previous temporary measures have not stopped our exposure to these shocks, leading to further insecurity for residents and businesses. Can the Chancellor say how quickly households and businesses such as textile manufacturers in Huddersfield will benefit from this new pricing model? Can she say a little more about accelerating vital grid infrastructure?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the concerns of people in Huddersfield. From this month, we are helping 10,000 manufacturing businesses in the industrial strategy sectors with the cost of electricity, reducing it by up to 25%. Today, we have announced that we are increasing the electricity generator levy, which will bring in more money to the Exchequer. We can use that money to help people with the costs of this war which we did not start, but of which people in Huddersfield, Leeds and around the country are feeling the consequences.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
On heating oil, members of the Chancellor’s Treasury team have been keen to point out that the small amount of funding—the equivalent of about £35 a household—was just the first step. Can she outline when the next step will come to support houses that are dependent on heating oil?
Rachel Reeves
We were pleased to be able to announce tens of millions of pounds to help people with the cost of heating oil, in the same way that we brought down gas and electricity bills for families and pensioners across the UK because of my Budget decisions last year. It is important that local authorities now make sure that that money is available to people. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), for example, that 60% of applications in Norfolk have not been processed. We need to make sure that that money gets to the people who need it. As I have said, we will keep additional support under review. The best way to bring down bills for families, businesses and pensioners—the hon. Gentleman’s party agrees with this—is to de-escalate this conflict and reopen the strait of Hormuz. That is why our diplomatic policy is so important.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
According to modelling from the National Energy System Operator, gas will still set the price of electricity 30% of the time by 2030, despite most of the energy being produced from renewables. Solar and wind are far cheaper than other forms of energy, and it is right that households across the UK, and in Derbyshire Dales in particular, can benefit from the lower prices. Will the Chancellor therefore outline what steps she is taking to decouple the price of renewables from the price of gas and to drive down energy prices for homes in Derbyshire Dales?
Rachel Reeves
This is the second energy price shock caused by a lack of availability of oil and gas in just four years. It shows that we need to invest more in home-grown energy to ensure security of supply and price to help people in Derbyshire Dales and right across the country. That is why we are increasing the electricity generator levy. We are using that money to help people now, but crucially as an incentive to get electricity providers on to contracts for difference, so that we do not have to pay more for electricity just because the price of gas is high.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
The Chancellor said that we did not start this war and have not joined this war, and the reason for that is that this war is illegal. Iran never posed an imminent threat. Pakistan has taken valiant steps to negotiate a deal, which led to Iran opening the strait of Hormuz, but unfortunately and absurdly, Donald Trump is blocking the strait, causing a major economic crisis for everyone. I welcome the 5p cut in fuel duty and the £150 reduction in energy bills, but the reality is that they are having an insignificant impact on families, especially vulnerable families. What imminent steps will the Chancellor take to help and shield them?
Rachel Reeves
I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Pakistan for the work that it is doing to de-escalate this conflict by hosting peace talks. I would expect all Members of the House to urge all parties to return to those negotiations as quickly as possible, so that we can end the bloodshed but also ensure that bills come back down for families and prices fall at the pumps. We are already taking action to reduce household energy bills through the help with heating oil. Today’s announcements on decoupling and tiebacks, and last week’s announcement on reducing business energy costs through the BIC scheme, are all things that we are doing to help families and businesses with the cost of electricity.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Does the Chancellor agree that economic security, energy security and national security all go hand in hand, which is why home-grown lower-carbon power that we control is so important? Can she tell us more about how small modular reactors, which are being delivered by Rolls-Royce and are backed by this Labour Government, will play their part in delivering power, security and good British jobs?
Rachel Reeves
It was great to meet Rolls-Royce apprentices with my hon. Friend in Downing Street last week to see what difference this Government’s investment in small modular reactors through the National Wealth Fund will make. The investment in nuclear is creating good jobs that pay decent wages, providing export opportunities through this new technology and, crucially, giving us energy security on both supply and price.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
Just so the Chancellor is aware, my constituents in Lagan Valley did not get £150 off their electricity bills. I am sure the Chancellor knows that that is because Northern Ireland is not in the same electricity market as the rest of the UK. Even if we add together the sums that we received through the Barnett consequentials, they do not total £150. We hope that her lack of knowledge does not reflect the importance of Northern Ireland when this Government come to tackling the cost of living crisis. When will the Chancellor meet my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive to discuss how to help us through this crisis?
Rachel Reeves
Northern Ireland benefited from the Barnett consequentials, with the money going to the Northern Ireland Executive. As the hon. Lady says, Northern Ireland is in a different electricity market. At the same time, we listened carefully to what MPs and Members of the Northern Ireland Executive said about Northern Ireland’s exposure to heating oil. When we made the support available, we did so through local authorities and locally, rather than as a national scheme, recognising the higher exposure to heating oil in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the country.
Points of Order
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance, in what I believe is truly a genuine point of order, as to how Parliament and the public should understand the terminology in “Erskine May” about inadvertently misleading the House. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) pointed out:
“The Prime Minister has said various things about Peter Mandelson’s vetting process…that have now turned out not to be true.”
He asked:
“Does he accept that he inadvertently misled the House of Commons?”
The Prime Minister replied:
“No, I did not mislead the House of Commons.”—[Official Report, 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 51.]
He then argued that other information that had been withheld from him had led to this situation.
My understanding is that giving the House wrong information, but in good faith, is precisely what is meant by inadvertently misleading the House. The Prime Minister does not seem to understand that, and nor does the Foreign Secretary, to whom I asked a similar question this morning. Is it me who is misunderstanding the meaning of the term “to inadvertently mislead the House”?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order, and for providing notice of it. Although Ministers are responsible for the accuracy of their remarks at the Dispatch Box, I am very clear as Chair that this is of the utmost importance and that Ministers must take their responsibilities to this House seriously. If the right hon. Member requires further advice on what may or may not constitute this House being inadvertently misled, I suggest that he follow up on the specific concerns with the Clerk of the Journals in the first instance.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, the Chancellor has left the Chamber. She did give a response to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), but we have some concerns about what she has said, as I expressed to you when I came to the Chair about 15 or 20 minutes ago. The Chancellor referred to the £150 reduction, but we do not think it applies to Northern Ireland—that is our assumption. I cast my mind back to when the Prime Minister was here last Monday, when he referred to the help with home heating oil that has been given to Northern Ireland and said he would consider providing more. We had hoped that today’s announcement would ensure that those in Northern Ireland get extra help, but clearly that is not the case. I am not here to catch the Chancellor out, because it is not about that; it is about getting accuracy and honesty in the responses. What can Opposition Members do to ensure that the Chancellor can correct the record?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order, and for giving me some notice of it. He will have heard my earlier response. The Chair is not responsible for ministerial answers, but Ministers should take their responsibilities seriously to make sure that answers are correct. I note that representatives of the Treasury Bench are still sat there. I am sure the message will be passed back to the Chancellor, but he will have heard her response to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood). I do not intend to continue this debate via the Chair.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I believe it is important to set the record straight. In response to my question, the Chancellor suggested that households in Northern Ireland got £150 off their energy bills in April. That is factually wrong and somewhat misleading, and I believe it is important that the record is set straight, because households in Northern Ireland will not see £150 off their bills like those in GB. The money received as a result of the Barnett consequentials is still sitting in the Sinn Féin Economy Minister’s departmental purse, and there has been a refusal to engage with the Treasury to get the money spent. Not only do we need the record to be set straight, but we need a plan to get the money to our constituents, who are hard pressed. Will you advise me on how I can progress this matter?
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Lady will have heard my earlier responses. She has most certainly put the matter firmly on the record. As I have said, the Chair is not responsible for ministerial answers, but I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench have heard her and other points of order loud and clear this afternoon.
Road Surfaces (Maximum Noise Levels)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the use of road surfacing materials which generate in-vehicle noise levels above a specified maximum; to require the resurfacing of existing roads which generate in-vehicle noise above that maximum; and for connected purposes.
In Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, everybody knows the A180. It is the road that carries people to work, to school, to hospital appointments, to our courts and back home again. It is the road that all visitors, loved ones and hopeful away fans have to take on their way into our towns. It is a road of huge economic importance. It supports industry, freight and trade, and it connects our communities to the rest of the country.
Sadly, this main artery that supports life in our town is known locally for an entirely different reason, and that is noise. It is not a minor irritation or a bit of background hum that drivers should simply learn to live with; it is a serious quality of life issue, a road safety issue, a public health concern and, increasingly, a question of whether we are prepared to accept outdated standards on roads that thousands of people rely on.
The A180 opened in 1983 as an extension to the M180. At the time, it was described as the noisiest road in the United Kingdom; more than 40 years on, the same continues to be true—the problem has not gone away. Large sections of England’s strategic road network were built with concrete in the 1960s and 1970s, and according to National Highways there are about 400 miles of concrete roads on the network, which is about 4% of England’s motorways and major A roads.
Those roads are now nearing the end of their working lives. National Highways has itself accepted that replacing them with modern road surfaces improves ride quality and reduces noise, and I welcome its concrete roads programme as a long-term plan to replace existing concrete roads with modern roads built to current standards. The A180 is exactly the kind of road that demonstrates why this programme must be delivered at top speed, and why noise must be treated as a core design standard, not an afterthought.
For well over a decade, the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and I have presented the A180’s issues to a variety of Transport Ministers. I believe they only truly understand those issues following a trip on the road itself. Indeed, through conversation, it often becomes apparent that those Ministers have been on the road—to go to the football at Blundell Park or to visit family—and they remember that road and recall the conversations they had, or at least tried to have, at the time about just how noisy it was. I am pleased that we are now beginning to see the fruits of our labours.
I welcome the steps that Ministers have taken since the general election to address some of the issues. Last month, we saw the announcement of a £27 billion investment to fix England’s ageing roads, including full reconstruction of parts of the A180 and the M180. The works, funded through the road investment strategy 3 allocation round, will entail a full reconstruction of the A180 from Brocklesby interchange to Barnetby interchange. While that is long overdue and welcome as an intervention, the case of the A180 shows that investment alone is not enough unless noise is explicitly part of the standards we expect our roads to meet.
In July 2025, following conversations I had had with National Highways to push this issue, a close proximity road surface noise survey was carried out on the A180 between Stallingborough and Grimsby. The survey found that tyre and road noise levels on the concrete sections were generally in the range of 106 to 108 dB. While this is an external road surface measurement rather than a measurement taken inside the vehicle—and I would encourage National Highways to carry out a comparable in-vehicle study—it gives us a very clear sense of what motorists are up against. To make that tangible, 106 to 108 dB is in the same broad range as very loud machinery, a nightclub or a chainsaw.
In the United Kingdom, the Health and Safety Executive says that employers must assess risk at 80 dB and provide hearing protection at 85 dB, and that exposure above 87 dB must not be exceeded after hearing protection is taken into account. Drivers on the A180 are sitting for up to an hour a day in an enclosed environment with the equivalent of a pneumatic drill. It is so loud that people can no longer hear anything in the vehicle, causing them to unwittingly add to it by turning up their radio, or drivers and passengers having to shout to be heard despite sitting right next to each other. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Hon. Members have turned up in their droves to listen to the hon. Lady’s ten-minute rule Bill; they might have the courtesy to listen quietly while we are hearing about road noise on the A180.
Melanie Onn
I appreciate that—thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Maybe we all need ear defenders in this place once in a while.
We have clear rules and protections for prolonged noise exposure in many workplaces because we understand that repeated exposure can damage hearing and affect health, yet when it comes to people who drive for a living—delivery, heavy goods vehicle and logistics drivers—as well as road workers and those who use this route day in and day out, we still do not properly factor road surface noise into the basic fitness of the road itself.
The outcomes of repeated and prolonged exposure to loud noise include tinnitus—a continuous tonal ringing in the ears—ranges of hearing loss or increased sensitivity to noise known as hyperacusis. The damage is almost always irreversible and cumulative. The HSE recommends that employers seek to mitigate noise exposure where possible—and if it is not possible, to provide ear protection. Of course, that is not possible inside a vehicle when all senses are required to be fully functioning to drive safely. With no mitigations that individuals or employers can take, the solution lies in the appropriate surfacing of the road.
Clearly, the Government and National Highways recognise that these outdated concrete surfaces are not fit for purpose and have a range of other problems. Addressing the remaining concrete surface roads must not be allowed to slip down the priority list. Additionally, the experiences of hundreds of thousands of drivers using the A180 over the years should serve as a case study in all future road planning, to ensure that noise levels—not just for the surrounding area, but for the journey maker—are part of the assessment of suitability.
The basic principle behind my Bill is very simple: road surfaces should be judged not only on whether they remain structurally passable, but on whether they are fit for modern use, which means safer, smoother and, yes, quieter. The Bill would create a framework for setting a maximum acceptable noise level for road surfaces. It would prevent the continued use of surfacing materials that breach that standard, and it would require existing roads that exceed it to be resurfaced. In doing so, it would finally put road noise where it belongs: at the heart of how we define a road that is fit for purpose.
Communities that contribute so much to our economy through our ports, our energy sector and our industry should not have to put up with a road famous not for being a gateway for growth, but for the deafening racket it creates every time people drive on it. I say to all relevant stakeholders that I welcome the direction of travel and the investment already being made, but on the A180 and roads like it, there is still a long road ahead.
I hope that the Government will work with National Highways, me and the affected communities to address the issues that this Bill aims to resolve, and to ensure that the roads that people depend on are not only open, but safe, modern and quiet enough to meet the standards that motorists deserve. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Melanie Onn, Sarah Russell, Lee Pitcher, Martin Vickers and Jo Platt present the Bill.
Melanie Onn accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 May, and to be printed (Bill 426).
Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before we come to today’s emergency debate, I remind the House, as I did yesterday, of the rules relating to accusations against individual Members. While certain criticisms may be made about the Government collectively, paragraph 21.24 of “Erskine May” makes it clear that any accusations against individual Members about lying or misleading the House may be made only on a substantive motion drawn in the proper terms. Today’s debate is on a neutral motion: that the House has considered the specific matter. It is not a substantive motion. I encourage all Members to engage in respectful debate, as our constituents would expect. I call the Leader of the Opposition.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Government’s accountability to the House in connection to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States of America.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this important debate.
The Prime Minister personally decided to appoint a serious, known national security risk to our most sensitive diplomatic post. Peter Mandelson was not just a man who had already been sacked twice from Government for lying and not just a man who had a public relationship with a convicted paedophile, but a man with links to the Kremlin and China—links so close that they were raised as red flags with the Prime Minister before his appointment.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister did not deny that he knew about those links before he appointed Mandelson. He could not deny that because by his own admission he had seen the documents that proved the links. I cannot overstate how serious a matter this is. The Prime Minister sent a known security risk to Washington, to a position where he would see our most important ally’s top secret intelligence. What if he had seen something and leaked it to one of our enemies? How much would that have damaged our security partnership? We cannot even be sure that that did not happen.
What is most extraordinary is that the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson before vetting was complete. He did that despite a letter from the then Cabinet Secretary, Lord Case, clearly expressing to the Prime Minister that the process required security vetting to be done before the appointment. So how can he then have claimed on the Floor of the House that the process was followed, when he knew that it had not been? The Prime Minister mentioned the word “process” more than 100 times in Parliament yesterday, but he was the one who did not follow that process.
This morning, we have heard the bombshell testimony of the former permanent secretary of the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins. Sir Olly Robbins had a long and distinguished career serving Ministers. He is not the sort of person to give us a frank personal account of how things played out last January. So when he told us today that Downing Street put the Foreign Office under “constant pressure” to clear Peter Mandelson, that No. 10 showed a “dismissive approach” to Mandelson’s vetting process, that it would have been “very difficult indeed” to deny clearance and that doing so would have “damaged US-UK relationships”, we know he is giving us only the slightest indication of how bad things were. And that there was actually an overwhelming drive from the Prime Minister’s office to ensure Peter Mandelson was installed as ambassador.
Sir Olly Robbins has told us that No. 10 showed no interest in the vetting—no desire to wait and ensure that due process was followed. In fact, the Cabinet Office even questioned the need for Peter Mandelson to be vetted at all: the same Cabinet Office that had discovered Mandelson’s links to Epstein, China and Russia in its due diligence—the Cabinet Office that the Minister is in charge of right now. Instead, according to Robbins,
“The focus was on getting Mandelson out to Washington quickly”,
and before the vetting even started Peter Mandelson had already been granted access to
“highly classified briefing on a case-by-case basis”.
This is what the Prime Minister calls full due process.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Did my right hon. Friend not find it astonishing that in the testimony today the ex-leader of the Foreign Office said that he was made to understand that before they had completed their clearances, Mandelson already had STRAP clearance, which gave him access to the most secure and most dangerous information held by Government?
Mrs Badenoch
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right: it is extraordinary and it is shocking.
The Prime Minister might have refused to answer my question around his knowledge of Mandelson’s links to the Russian defence company Sistema yesterday, but that is only because he knows that we know the answer. It was there in the due diligence: his choice of ambassador retaining an interest in a Russian company linked to Vladimir Putin after the invasion of Crimea. And the Prime Minister’s response to seeing that information? According to Robbins, “constant pressure” on the Foreign Office to get the appointment done.
The Prime Minister, as my right hon. Friend has just mentioned, placed top secret intelligence in the hands of a man he knew to be a national security risk. He did so before the official security vetting not just knowingly but deliberately, and to an extent that left a senior civil servant with a distinguished career under the clear and obvious impression that the vetting must return only one possible outcome: that Peter Mandelson should be appointed. None of that was following full due process by the letter or the spirit of that phrase. This is no longer just about what the Prime Minister was or was not told; this is about what he did before the vetting process had even started.
And we now know that Mandelson was not a one-off. According to Sir Olly Robbins, No. 10 also asked for the disgraced Matthew Doyle, the Prime Minister’s then director of communications, to be made an ambassador. Astonishingly, the Prime Minister’s office even told Robbins to keep the request a secret from the Foreign Secretary. The idea that it is No. 10 who are the victims of others not following due process is, quite frankly, laughable.
The Prime Minister told Parliament yesterday that it was “staggering” that Olly Robbins had not shared the recommendations of UK Security Vetting with the then Cabinet Secretary, Chris Wormald. But today we learned from Robbins that he had never seen the original vetting file. If the Prime Minister is furious that Sir Olly Robbins did not share the vetting details with him or the former Cabinet Secretary, why is he not furious with the Cabinet Office for not sharing it? Put simply, why exactly did he sack Olly Robbins?
It is no surprise that the Prime Minister is not here today. These are difficult questions. He cannot claim not to have known about the risk that Mandelson posed, because, as he said yesterday, he saw the due diligence that disclosed it. I still find it inconceivable that, despite that failure of vetting being a front-page news story, no one in No. 10 was aware of it. He cannot deny that his decision put Britain at risk. The British public deserve to know how this failure happened and they deserve to hear it from the Prime Minister himself.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister had the chance to set the record straight, but Members on all sides—and no doubt the public—were left wholly unsatisfied with the answers he gave. I am sure they will share my deep disappointment that the Prime Minister has chosen not to be here today. There remain serious questions about the decisions that he took over the appointment of Peter Mandelson, but the Prime Minister does not want to answer any more questions today, so, in typical fashion, he has thrown someone else under the bus. I feel for the Minister sent out as a human shield for the Prime Minister. It is not this Minister who made the Mandelson appointment; that was above his pay grade. He cannot tell us what the Prime Minister was thinking when he made those decisions and he will not be able to provide this House with the answers that it deserves to hear.
This is simply what the Prime Minister does. Sue Gray, Matthew Doyle, Morgan McSweeney, Chris Wormald, Olly Robbins, Peter Mandelson—those appointments were the Prime Minister’s decision, people the Prime Minister chose to appoint and all people he then chose to sack. Are we meant to believe that all these people are the problem, rather than the Prime Minister’s judgment?
As usual, the Prime Minister’s explanations yesterday left us with even more questions than answers. He says that he was justified in appointing Mandelson before vetting because of advice he received from the then Cabinet Secretary, Chris Wormald. But how can that make sense, when that advice only came after the scandal had erupted? Post hoc advice is pointless. Soon after that, he then sacked Chris Wormald. Why is the Prime Minister now relying on the evidence of the very man he told us was doing so badly in the job that he sacked him?
Let us move on to the Prime Minister’s claim that no one in No. 10 was aware that Mandelson had failed his vetting. Enough people in Whitehall knew. Enough people knew for journalists from The Independent, the Mail and Sky News to find out. Journalists have released texts with the Prime Minister’s director of communications, where they made No. 10 aware of this fact. He did not deny that the story was true. Why not? Something simply does not add up. Despite this, the Prime Minister went on to assure the House and the public that Mandelson’s appointment was down to a failure of vetting. I cannot fathom how the Prime Minister can still claim not to have misled the House on this point.
It is telling that when given the opportunity yesterday to apologise for misleading the House, even inadvertently, by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), the Prime Minister chose not to. I suspect that he chose not to do so because he knows that if he did, he would be bound by his own words and by the standards to which he held previous Prime Ministers from this very Dispatch Box. In 2022, he said that if the Prime Minister misleads the House, he must resign—either the Prime Minister is a man of his word, or he thinks there is one rule for him and another for everyone else.
Unbelievably, half the permanent secretaries who were in post when Labour took office less than two years ago have now gone. The sacking of senior civil servants to carry the can for the Prime Minister’s failures has already cost taxpayers more than £1.5 million in payouts—that is before the sacking of Sir Olly Robbins. It is quite something for the former Cabinet Secretary Lord O’Donnell to warn that the Prime Minister has created
“one of the worst crises in relations between ministers and mandarins of modern times”,
adding that the sacking of Sir Olly Robbins
“risks having a serious and sustained chilling effect on serving and prospective civil servants”.
Another former Cabinet Secretary, Lord Butler, has said that the Prime Minister put Sir Olly in an “impossible” position. These are serious people who are calling out the Prime Minister’s behaviour. The former head of propriety and ethics and deputy Cabinet Secretary, Helen MacNamara, has called the decision to sack Robbins “unacceptable”. She said that if the Government had published the papers that Parliament demanded back in February, this argument would be so much easier for everyone because we would all be operating on the basis of the same facts, and she is right.
The delay in publishing the information required by the Humble Address is shocking. Where are the key annotations, decisions and meeting records—the box returns, as they are called in Downing Street? Why are crucial forms left blank? These missing documents add to the mystery. Why are the Government still trying to cover this up?
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will remember that I asked the Prime Minister yesterday about the box note of 11 November 2024, in which Simon Case recommended that vetting be gone through before the appointment was made. The Prime Minister’s decision note did not include the Prime Minister’s decision, which has been redacted from the conditions of the Humble Address. Does my right hon. Friend think that the redacted information would show what the Prime Minister was trying to achieve by appointing Peter Mandelson without the appropriate vetting?
Mrs Badenoch
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Why were the Prime Minister’s words redacted? These key pieces of information would help to solve this mystery—they would be much easier for us to understand than the words he gave at the Dispatch Box. I note that no Labour MPs have intervened on me, which is very unusual; when I am speaking in a debate, they are normally bobbing left, right and centre.
I am raising these concerns because of the seriousness of the situation the country is now in. With war in Europe, war in the middle east, a cost of living crisis and a global energy shock, we need a Prime Minister who has a grip on national security. Yet last week, the former Labour Defence Secretary and NATO Secretary-General, Lord Robertson, warned that the Prime Minister has shown “corrosive complacency” when it comes to defence. The same man who wrote the Prime Minister’s strategic defence review is now ringing the alarm bell to warn us of the grave consequences of the Government refusing to take the tough choices needed to increase defence spending.
This matters, because if we cannot trust our Prime Minister to tell the whole, full truth about this ambassadorial appointment—a key appointment in Britain’s national security architecture—it calls into question the assurances he gives us on everything else. It calls into question his promises to control taxes, which he has broken, his promises not to raise borrowing, which he has broken, and his promises to back business, protect our veterans, defend our farmers and prioritise growth, all of which he has broken. He has broken them because at his core, he is a man with no idea what he believes. Worse still, he appears to have no interest in doing the job of Prime Minister—just in being the Prime Minister. Curiosity is what drives serious leadership; without curiosity, problems are neither fully understood nor solved.
This whole affair just goes to show why this country is heading in such a woeful direction under the Prime Minister’s incurious regime. His defence yesterday summed it up: he said that no one told him and that he never thought to ask. This is, in his own words, incredible. However, even if we take the Prime Minister at his word—even if we believe the unbelievable—it is no better. He appointed Mandelson despite knowing that he was a threat to our national security; he said that due process was followed, having failed to follow that process himself; and he pressured the Foreign Office into signing off on this appointment. In 2022, the Prime Minister said:
“I believe that if you’re the leader, the buck stops with you. I will always stand up for my team, but I will also take responsibility for everything they do. That is what leadership is.”
How has he taken responsibility?
It is clear that the Prime Minister has no intention of facing up to his mistakes. It is clear now that he is not a leader and that he has no intention of doing the honourable thing.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on securing this debate, and indeed on eviscerating the Prime Minister in her speech. Does she not believe that the sorry souls on the Government Benches should have to put their money with their mouth is, and that there should be a vote of no confidence in this Prime Minister in due course?
Mrs Badenoch
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I think he is right, because I do not believe the Prime Minister has the intention of doing the honourable thing himself, even though that is the standard to which he held everyone else.
The decision as to whether the Prime Minister will ultimately take responsibility for his actions is now up to Labour MPs. We heard many powerful statements from the Government Members yesterday. Labour MPs know that the Prime Minister has let the country down, let Parliament down and let the Labour party down. It is clear to everyone except the Prime Minister himself that he has failed on his own terms. It is clear to the public that he is failing at the job, it is clear to civil servants that he is throwing them under the bus, and it is clear to Members across the House that he is not fit to lead. This cannot go on. This House deserves better. The country deserves better. The Prime Minister is not fit for office. The first duty of any Prime Minister is to keep this country safe. This Prime Minister has put the country’s national security at risk, and he must take responsibility. It is time for him to go.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
There are many ways of developing a culture for how to run the Government in No. 10. I was a witness to that in the years from the financial crash through to the defeat of the Labour Government—between 2008 and 2010—when I saw a Prime Minister who would never have said in Parliament or privately that there were facts of which he was unaware, because he was a man of detail. He was a man of large vision and a man who drove the state forward.
Members may disagree, as I do personally, with some of the decisions that that Prime Minister took. However, that was a different culture from those under two previous Prime Ministers—Truss, and our friend with his blond hair, who created a culture in No. 10 of the exotic. We went from the exotic to the toxic. The fact of the matter is that I did not hear Conservative Members, who are here today in great numbers, asking questions about the culture of those two Prime Ministers. They contributed to the mess that this country—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Turner, the man is speaking, and you’ve just walked right in front of him.
Jon Trickett
Those two Prime Ministers in particular—the chaotic and the exotic—left this country in a disastrous situation. I do think that a Prime Minister who comes to the House and implies that he relies on a culture simply of process is mistaken. The Gordon Brown model, flawed as it was, will turn out to be far better than the one we have heard from this Prime Minister. I am sorry to say that, because I want to support a Labour Government who are effective, but that is the case. I saw it with my own eyes back then—I saw the vetting, the decisions, the pressure, and the tumult. I saw a Prime Minister struggling with their party to deliver a different kind of society and economy.
Let me turn to the present events and what we learned from Sir Olly today. There are a few things that matter. First, the security department tended towards refusing the vetting of Mandelson when Sir Olly first arrived, while others thought that he did not need vetting of any kind. Then, while the vetting process was going on, the Government appeared to proceed with the appointment of Mandelson, and even the King and the United States Administration were told that he would be the ambassador.
The British state then conspired to deliver a positive vetting outcome, because that is what they believed the Government wanted. It was expressed in repeated phone calls from the private office in No. 10, which I was very familiar with in the years I served in government, to Sir Olly’s private office. The witness we saw this morning looked credible and made a very serious case that he was under pressure to proceed.
Jon Trickett
No, I will make progress; there are many Members on both sides wanting to speak. The hon. Member may well be pleased with some of the things I am going to say. I am developing an argument, and I want to proceed with it.
The question I have not heard answered is why a group of people in No. 10—possibly the Prime Minister as well—felt that that level of pressure should be placed on the Foreign Office in favour of appointing Mandelson. There are two possible answers, but I will focus on one. The political unit in No. 10, possibly the Prime Minister too, wanted Mandelson because he was their close political ally and because he was plugged into a vast international network of what we might call the billionaire class. The truth is that much of the nexus of wealth that Mandelson was plugged into—so was the US President, by the way—was centred around Epstein. Let me pause for a second to say that none of these facts would have emerged were it not for the courage, bravery and resistance of the women who were treated so appallingly on Epstein island.
Getting Mandelson into Washington as part of that network—a political network of billionaires—was of the highest priority. All this leaves a bad taste. The Government promised the people change, but the change that they sought was to further accelerate the integration of the British state and Government into the networks of the richest people. People in our country—certainly those in my constituency—did not vote for that. They wanted change in their ordinary lives: a better NHS, improvements to the cost of living and so on. We have a long way to go to deliver that. What we have delivered is a disaster with the appointment of Mandelson.
I have raised the question of unemployment four times in recent months. There is growing unemployment in our area. It is hard to see how the time that the Government spent ingratiating themselves to Washington helped the unemployed and poor.
Just think about Mandelson’s involvement with Russian and Chinese business. So obnoxious is China supposed to be that this place has banned all Chinese-based networks, as though they were the agencies of an enemy state. How can it be that Mandelson’s links were seen to be of such low risk? This House has spent literally hours discussing the appalling behaviour of Putin and Russia in relation to eastern Europe. All these things should have counted against Mandelson, but when they were weighed in the balance, they counted less than the opportunity that Mandelson offered of access to a network of people, which included the US President.
I will make one final point. Mandelson played a key role in a faction that sought to change the strategic direction of the Labour party and the Government. The truth is that they wanted to change the Labour party into something it never was.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The hon. Member is making an excellent and important speech. Is he aware that most of Labour Together’s supporters and, as I understand it, bankrollers had nothing whatsoever to do with the traditions of the Labour movement and that the organisation was merely using a name in order to try to change the nature of the Labour party away from its traditional socialist objectives?
Jon Trickett
I have spoken in a previous debate about Labour Together, so I will let the right hon. Member’s comments stand for themselves.
This was a faction that sought to change the Labour party into something that it never was. If we continue down the path that has been chosen, I fear that we will be in a downward spiral from which we will not escape.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I start by reflecting on something that I feel, along with many Members across the House and, certainly, our constituents? That is how utterly depressing it is that we are having to have this debate at all. Just a few years after we went through all this under Boris Johnson and the Conservatives, and less than two years after the British people voted them out of office for indulging in this sort of chaos and distraction, here we are again.
Vladimir Putin is waging war on our continent. Donald Trump is waging war with Iran. We desperately need to strengthen our own national defences. Families and businesses are struggling against a cost of living crisis. Petrol prices have soared, and people are really worried about what Trump’s war will mean for their holidays this summer and their energy and food bills this winter. Our NHS is still in crisis. We all have constituents who are waiting weeks to see a GP, people who are dying on corridors in our hospitals, and loved ones who are not getting the care they need. We should be talking about them today. Theirs are the problems that the Government should be focused on every single day.
That is what Labour promised, after all. In their manifesto, they said that the problems in our country are a
“direct result of a governing party that, time and again, puts its own interests and obsessions above the issues that affect families.”
They promised to change that, but here we are again. Instead of fixing the NHS and social care, instead of properly funding our defence, and instead of cutting prices at the pump, here we are, having to ask why the Prime Minister appointed the close friend of a notorious paedophile sex trafficker to one of the most important and sensitive jobs in his Government.
Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein had been well reported and highlighted to the Prime Minister. He had already been forced to resign in disgrace twice from the previous Labour Government, and we now know that he was deemed a national security risk by the Government’s vetting agency. So we do, sadly, have to ask: why did the Prime Minister appoint Mandelson? Why did he announce the appointment before the national security vetting had been done, despite the then Cabinet Secretary Simon Case having told him that that should happen first? And why was he so determined to get Mandelson in post that he created, as Olly Robbins described it this morning, “an atmosphere of pressure” and a certain dismissiveness about the developed vetting process—a vetting process that the Prime Minister has since blamed for his mistakes?
Even after all this, even after yesterday’s statement, the Prime Minister still has not told us why he appointed Mandelson. He admitted that appointing Mandelson was a mistake and has apologised for it. He has tried to make the rest about process and officials, but he still has not answered the fundamental question: why?
I think we know a big part of the answer, do we not? It is Donald Trump. This all comes back to the way that the Prime Minister decided to approach his relationship with the President when he returned to office last year. Our party urged the Prime Minister to stand up to Trump, to stand together with our allies, and to approach him from a position of strength, not weakness. But he chose the opposite course. He decided to try to appease Trump, to flatter him, to stroke his ego, and to hope that he will be nice to us in return. Clearly, he thought that Peter Mandelson was the man for that job. So that is it: the decision to try to curry favour with Trump instead of standing up to him is the original sin that has landed the Prime Minister and his Government in the mess they are in today. Has it worked? Absolutely not.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister about the security vetting condition that required Peter Mandelson to be accompanied when visiting previous clients. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to find out whether the lack of accompaniment when visiting Palantir in Washington with the Prime Minister was a one-off or simply Mandelson continuing business as usual?
Ed Davey
My hon. Friend was right to ask that question yesterday, and I thought the Prime Minister’s response, which was that those types of meetings had not been recorded, was totally inadequate.
Despite all the flattery, Trump has still caused enormous damage to our economy and to the livelihoods of the British people with his tariffs and his war with Iran. Trump still undermines NATO, makes threats against our country and our allies, and insults Britain’s armed forces. Just look at what Trump said last night: that Mandelson was a “really bad pick”. I will not dwell on the hypocrisy of those words from a man who was close friends with Epstein, who partied with him and has so far taken no responsibility for that—those words from a President who still has as his Commerce Secretary a neighbour of Epstein who visited Epstein’s island and who lied about his relationship with him. All that is for another debate.
But Trump’s post, hypocritical as it is, does show the futility of trying to appease him. It shows how pointless it is to make a decision like who to appoint as US ambassador based on what Trump would like most. It does not work—it has not worked. I hope that on top of everything else, the Prime Minister and the Labour party will reflect on that point. The approach to Trump has failed. It is time to change course, to stand up to him, and to stand with our European and Commonwealth allies in defence of our national interest.
This is a mess of the Government’s own making. It is a mess born out of a futile attempt to appease Donald Trump. It is a mess that just keeps getting worse with today’s revelation, uncovered by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), that the Prime Minister pushed for the appointment as ambassador of another Labour crony with ties to a sex offender. Those catastrophically bad judgments have created a mess that has distracted and consumed the Government and stopped them from focusing on what the British people actually need.
The people out there do not want more Westminster drama; they are thinking about the hospital appointment that keeps being pushed back, the mortgage payments that just seem to keep going up, the loved ones who need care but are stuck on a waiting list, and the threats to our national security from an ever more dangerous world. Those are the things that keep people up at night, and they deserve a Prime Minister and a Government who are focused on them.
Our party will never stop making that case. We will never stop holding the Government to account, not for the sake of political point scoring but on behalf of the British people, who deserve better than this. The last Conservative Government failed our country by getting stuck in a cycle of chaos and scandal and refusing to move on. The question for the Labour party is whether it will repeat that mistake or finally deliver the change that our country needs.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey). On the point he made latterly about the economic situation we find ourselves in, I would say that the Prime Minister is absolutely focused on that, and has been from day one. There are these distractions—it would be great to move on from them, but of course we are entitled to the debate—but I do believe that the Prime Minister wanted to bring order to our trade arrangements, and that was why he was persuaded into appointing Peter Mandelson. I am not a big fan of Peter Mandelson—I assure the House of that—but just a short year ago many people in the House and around the world were fêting him for the deal that he had managed to strike with the United States.
There are many questions about the deal struck by Peter Mandelson, but for the purpose of this debate I want to turn to some of the points made by the Leader of the Opposition. I did not intervene on her because I felt it was absolutely fine for her to continue, but yesterday she amply demonstrated that she was not capable of prosecuting an argument. She emphasised process, but if there is one thing I would say about this Prime Minister, it is that he is absolutely rock solid when it comes to process. [Laughter.] Conservative Members may laugh, but for those of them who backed Boris Johnson and accepted his lies in this place, or who accepted the word of Liz Truss and that catastrophic kamikaze budget, there is a question of judgment. On process, this Prime Minister is absolutely rock solid.
Secondly, the Prime Minister is a man of the utmost decency who would never, ever lie, because he knows that his credibility rests on that.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Matt Western
In a moment—I am just beginning to make my speech. There is the point about some sort of conspiracy or cover-up at No. 10 on which I can disabuse the Leader of the Opposition. The point is to differentiate between the team around the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister himself.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Will the hon. Member give way on that point?
Matt Western
I want to allow others in.
The Prime Minister clearly delegated responsibilities to his chief of staff. It may be that the Leader of Opposition missed the fact that the Prime Minister sacked that—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Bernard, please, you are permanently standing in my line of vision. The hon. Member will give way when he wants to, not because you are standing up.
Matt Western
I will bring in the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) shortly to ease your patience, Mr Speaker.
When the Prime Minister sacked Morgan McSweeney, it was because he realised that there were problems within his team at No. 10. The Leader of the Opposition may claim that somehow the No. 10 leadership was the worst in living memory. I am not sure how far back living memory goes for her, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) said, we do not have to go back very far. I would say 2022, with a certain Liz Truss and her No. 10 operation, or that of Boris Johnson and the three years of his pathological lying that we endured in this place.
The Leader of the Opposition said that the biggest decision a Prime Minister can make is about the security of this country. Just a few short weeks ago, she was talking about how the United Kingdom should be drawn into the war in Iran, and in that she was proven absolutely wrong. I will give way to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whom I know as a friend across the House, as we have worked together positively on many things.
I served on the Privileges Committee that studied the Boris case and reached a conclusion upon it. If the hon. Gentleman wants to help the Prime Minister, I would be rather wary, if I were him, about drawing parallels between Boris Johnson and the present Prime Minister.
Matt Western
I thank the hon. Gentleman, my friend. I was simply addressing the point made by the Leader of the Opposition, who suggested that the operation at No. 10 was the worst in living memory. It is quite obvious that that is absolutely not the case. We have had two very recent examples, in 2019-22 and then 2022-23, under Johnson and Truss.
I want to make it quite clear that the way I see it, the mistake that may have been made by No. 10 is the clear delegation to the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, who was at the heart of an inner circle in No. 10 that no longer exists of Peter Mandelson, Morgan McSweeney and Matthew Doyle. As has come to light just this morning, Matthew Doyle was also part of the problem.
Paul Holmes
There must be a reshuffle coming, because no one would seriously make a speech like this at such serious times. The hon. Gentleman says that the Prime Minister was a stickler for process and claims that the Prime Minister somehow delegated responsibility for the appointment. Why did the former Cabinet Secretary—the chief adviser to the Prime Minister and chief civil servant—give that advice in the box note? Will the hon. Gentleman defend the Prime Minister’s decision not to follow that advice from the person who was making the decisions?
Matt Western
I am not close to those operations. I have never been a Minister—that is the honest truth—and to answer the hon. Gentleman’s point, I do not wish to be one either. I am not close enough to that, so I cannot answer that honestly, but what I can say is that I heard from Sir Olly Robbins this morning about how he was leant on and also what documents he may have had access to, including the vetting report.
What we have heard today is that the chief of staff leant on the Foreign Office, whether it was about Matthew Doyle or the appointment of Peter Mandelson. That is the issue. The Prime Minister, in my experience of having known him since 2017, is absolutely as straight as a die. He may have accepted the advice and maybe that advice has now proven to be wrong, but he has been let down by those around him. He made a mistake. He understands and has accepted that.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
In the immortal words of the famous film “A Few Good Men”:
“‘I want the truth.’
‘You can’t handle the truth!’”
The court goes quiet. That is the moment of realisation that things have moved from process to accountability and responsibility. If hon. Members have not seen the film, it is about two marines who are on trial for killing another. The real story that unravels, however, is whether command can deny any responsibility for the actions that it has set in motion. Here lies the parallel. When subordinates act on the understood direction of authority, where does responsibility ultimately sit? They acted because of someone; it belongs to that person.
Let us recount the facts that are not disputed in this House. Lord Mandelson was announced by the Prime Minister as the UK ambassador to the US in December 2024; UK Security Vetting recommended against developed vetting clearance in January 2025; the FCDO overruled that recommendation, enabling the appointment; the Prime Minister stated publicly that due process had been followed; and Sir Olly Robbins, the then permanent secretary, was later dismissed. However, what Robbins told us in the Committee in November 2025 is telling.
“By the time we are describing, it was clear the Prime Minister wanted to make his appointment himself. Therefore, I understand the FCDO was informed of his decision and acted on it, and, via the Foreign Secretary, sought and obtained the King’s approval for the appointment. In this case, as Chris explained, the Prime Minister took advice and formed a view himself, and we then acted on that view.”
The FCDO is clear: that was not drift; it was acting under direction. The Prime Minister formed that view and the FCDO acted on it—acting on instruction, acting on direction, acting on what the Prime Minister wanted. Yet since then, the Prime Minister has been trying to separate the decision and the consequence. There is the decision, there are the consequences, but we and the public know that we cannot separate the two. If an official acts in the shadow of a settled view, responsibility returns to the source, where the shadow was first cast.
Let us draw some more comparisons with the film, because it is quite telling. Colonel Jessep does not issue the written order; the Prime Minister does not personally do the vetting. Subordinates act on a clear command and intent; the FCDO acted on the political intent. The defence by the colonel was that he did not order that; the defence by the Prime Minister was he was not told. The court finds that authority cannot be passive; we in this House say, “Neither can the Prime Minister.” The blame lands on the subordinates, and the same has happened here. In both cases, the controversy does not turn on the mechanics but on where the moral and constitutional responsibility resides. Officials were acting on a settled prime ministerial preference.
The Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot have decisive authority on the way in and plausible deniability on the way out. That is not process; that is power without accountability. If the decision was his, is not the responsibility his? If not, why not, and whose is it then?
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
This is probably a useful speech to intervene on, due to my striking resemblance to Tom Cruise. [Laughter.] The key point in that scenario was about responsibility. Labour Members are probably lucky that Sadiq Khan has cancelled all the tubes today, otherwise they might be under another transport mechanism. Does this not show more widely that the Prime Minister is failing in his key role, which is to take responsibility for the decisions he is charged to take?
Dr Evans
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is the bottom line: the Prime Minister shaped the system by having a settled political decision—one with horrific consequences—despite all the warnings that we have talked about in this House, about Mandelson being fired twice and so on, and now tries to point to the process as the failing. The country is not buying it. The film teaches us this simple lesson: power cannot hide behind those who obey it.
Before I finish, I have a message for Labour MPs and will address them directly. To paraphrase Colonel Jessep’s famous speech, the PM neither has the time nor the inclination to explain himself to Back Benchers who rise and sleep under the blanket of the very majority that he provides and then question the manner in which the PM provides it. The PM would rather they say just “thank you” and went on their way. Otherwise, he suggests they pick up a weapon and stand at post. Either way, he does not give a damn about what they are entitled to.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Following the revelations at the Foreign Affairs Committee today by Oliver Robbins, who said how the Prime Minister had pushed for Peter Mandelson to be appointed and had pushed for his former director of communications, Matthew Doyle, to be appointed as well, though unqualified for the post, does my hon. Friend agree that those are the actions of a Prime Minister concerned not about the national interest but rather his personal interest? Nor are they the actions of a Prime Minister concerned about national security; they are merely the actions of someone concerned about his job security—and particularly in pushing for Peter Mandelson, who is a known national security risk.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
Surely there can be no situation where the hon. Gentleman thinks officials should not flag concerns with Ministers or Prime Ministers, who are fundamentally accountable to this House and to the British public. What we are talking about here is accountability.
Dr Evans
Accountability starts from the top. We have heard from the FCDO today that the message from No. 10 was to “Get this f***ing done”. That was the political directive and everything else followed suit. That is exactly what Olly Robbins has said.
We on the Conservative Benches know the truth. The public want the truth. The only question that remains is whether Labour Back Benchers can handle the truth. Surely if they cannot, they must do something about it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Just to help the House, given how many people we have to speak, I suggest an informal time limit of seven minutes, and Carolyn Harris will set a good example of that.
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
I will be very brief, as I am not attempting to audition for a BAFTA, unlike some colleagues. Neither am I trying to attempt any factional point scoring, as some colleagues have done today. The Prime Minister himself said yesterday that Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed as our ambassador to the US, so let me ask simply this: can the Chief Secretary tell the House how the Prime Minister has changed the way due diligence and security vetting will be conducted before appointments are announced in the future?
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
Our ambassador in Washington stands at the nexus of the Five Eyes, with more classified intelligence crossing his desk than crosses the desks of most Cabinet Ministers. It is obviously one of the most important appointments the Prime Minister makes, but it is also one of the most sensitive. A security failure in that post could seriously jeopardise the Five Eyes relationship—the Americans are notoriously twitchy about security—so the appointee’s conduct before the appointment must be beyond reproach and their trustworthiness must be impeccable.
One of our best ambassadors, Karen Pierce, was already in place. She was highly regarded by the State Department and the White House; indeed—contrary to what the Lib Dem leader said—so much so that President Trump called the Prime Minister to urge him to keep Pierce while expressing concern about Mandelson in one of three calls from the White House on her behalf and against him. She was a high-class, high-performance, zero-risk choice. Against that, we had the London establishment’s view that Mandelson’s amoral dark arts would somehow make him a good ambassador—a view typically espoused by people with no idea of what makes a good ambassador.
Among the questions before us in assessing the Prime Minister’s judgment is whether Mandelson was a better appointment than Karen Pierce and, if so, whether the benefit of that appointment was sufficient to outweigh the clear risks. Of course, the answer to both those questions is an emphatic no. It was abundantly clear to anyone taking that decision that he was a significant security risk. He was a man who had twice been forced to resign from Government and who had known links to a paedophile.
Mandelson was also closely associated with the Russian oligarch Deripaska, a man who had been responsible for the deaths of 100 people and was personally responsible for murders and extortion. Mr Mandelson—Lord Mandelson, as he was then—spent weekends with Deripaska in his dacha and in Moscow. He did this at weekends, of course, because the EU does not record where its commissioners are at the weekend. That is the sort of background we are talking about.
As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), the leader of my party, Mandelson was also a non-executive director of Sistema, a Russian arms dealing company led by a Putin ally. When he stood down from his role at Sistema, he took a large shareholding, which he kept for some time. All of this is in the public domain. It was in the public domain before Mandelson was appointed. There were links to China, too. I can list them over and over again: TikTok, which is owned by the Chinese state; and Shein, which is based on Uyghur forced labour. Of course, he also called time and again for closer Anglo-Chinese relationships.
When appointments such as these are made, it is not a judgment beyond reasonable doubt. It is not even a judgment based on the balance of probabilities. It is a judgment on significant risk. Are we going to take a significant risk with the Five Eyes relationship? Of course we are not. It should be clear, on public data alone, that this man is, or was, a significant risk. Indeed, the propriety and ethics team in the Cabinet Office flagged to No. 10 most of the issues I have just described before this process started.
Mr Speaker, forgive me for being so direct, but we should remember that Peter Mandelson is a man who has proven that he is greedy for money, greedy for glamour, greedy for status and greedy for power, and that he is willing to break the rules to get them. That is the key point: he is willing to break the rules to get them. Such a man is a classic security risk in the face of Russian or Chinese kompromat, not to mention the risk posed by his known involvement with Epstein.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I am not in the Peter Mandelson fan club—I am old enough to remember his first life in government—but this morning we heard that UKVS had judged him to be a borderline risk and that officials thought that that risk could be managed. That is quite different from what the right hon. Gentleman is outlining.
David Davis
That is the public information. If the hon. Gentleman wants to get into the argument between UKVS, which we are now told was saying the risk was marginal, and No. 10, who are saying that the strike-off is a red, he can do that. I am talking about public data, and about what we should know before we start the process—
David Davis
No, no, the hon. Gentleman has had his go. Sit down.
No. 10 has chosen to ignore these things, and that is critical. We have heard about the pressure that was being put on the Foreign Office over and over again. Forgive me again, Mr Speaker, for this direct quote, because it is obscene. The Select Committee Chairman recounted today how Morgan McSweeney called Sir Olly’s predecessor and told him to, “Just fucking approve it.” Speaking in the Committee, Sir Olly made it clear that he was under “constant pressure” in an “atmosphere of constant chasing”. Why? We already know that it was not because Mandelson was a materially better candidate than Karen Pierce, the brilliant, well-established, highly regarded incumbent with excellent connections to the White House. It was because Mandelson was a leading member of the new Labour aristocracy, full stop. It was not talent, but connection. It was not even in the national interest. Plainly it was not even in the Labour interest. It was in the interest of a Labour clique.
Mandelson’s appointment was a decision made with complete disregard for the known risks, which explains the Prime Minister’s lack of curiosity about the vetting. It was not a lack of curiosity; he did not ask because he did not want to know. The former Cabinet Secretary warned the Prime Minister that he should secure Mandelson’s security clearance before any appointment. He was warned on 11 December 2024 by the Cabinet Office about Mandelson’s public past. On 11 September last year, No. 10 was asked by a journalist whether Mandelson had failed developed vetting. No. 10 knew. It is as plain as a pikestaff.
So where do we go from here? We have a Prime Minister and a Government in power who are making decisions in the interests of their own clique within their party, and in doing so they are putting the United Kingdom at explicit risk. The Prime Minister should resign.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
Peter Mandelson once spoke of the Labour left being sealed in a tomb. Today, it is the toxic politics he came to represent that should be buried—politics that repels millions and that is far from the values on which our party was founded. If we are serious about renewal and about learning the lessons of this troubling episode, we must confront the culture that enabled it. That means looking at figures such as the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, a protégé of Mandelson, and at the network of influence around him.
Mandelson’s appointment did not happen in isolation, as we have learned today. It reflects a wider direction under the Prime Minister, where those behind the Labour Together project wielded significant influence in developing the toxic culture that has been allowed to take hold of No. 10 and the governing of our country. It points to a political culture that lacks candour, that exists to promote wealth and power, and that ignores all else in pursuit of them. It is a culture where proximity to power outweighs principle, where access counts far more than accountability, and where the suffering of victims is overshadowed by connections. When decisions are driven by patronage and power is concentrated in an inner circle, it is not only our internal party democracy that suffers, but the integrity of our public institutions and our country. Too often, it is our civil servants—those who serve with professionalism and integrity—who are left to carry the consequences.
I commend Sir Olly Robbins for giving evidence today. His professionalism and dedication, after a week in which he has been publicly hounded by some in government, were commendable, and it was good to see his trade union backing him steadfastly at the Committee today. Robbins will be a loss to the FCDO and the country, and it was all brought about by a series of catastrophic political decisions by No. 10. That is not right, not fair and not what the public expect of elected officials. Because of that, the public will rightly demand accountability and cultural change. That must begin with a thorough review of the political operation which brought the Prime Minister to power and which clearly continues to carry undue influence over this Government.
As I have done on multiple occasions in both letters to the Prime Minister and speeches in this place, I once again call for a full, transparent and independent investigation into the activities and practices of Labour Together, both prior to and after the election of this Government. Only then will we fully understand how this exclusive political network has been able to undermine our democracy and institutions right at the heart of Government.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Like many, I spent the weekend door-knocking in my constituency. People in Bicester and Woodstock are frustrated by delays to medical appointments, fed up with rising prices and fearful about the war in the middle east. Yet a number of them raised the Prime Minister’s handling of the Peter Mandelson saga. Their overwhelming emotions were disappointment that a Prime Minister who promised change has delivered so little, and anger that a Prime Minister who said he would be better than the Tories has failed so badly.
The Prime Minister set out yesterday to defend himself. He set out the case like a barrister. He took the narrow view that the charge was misleading the House and tried to claim that Sir Olly Robbins had repeatedly misled him, and so it was only natural that he should have misled us. He failed first by misjudging the seriousness of his failure. It was as though he was charged with petty larceny when the actual offence was gross misconduct decapitation.
Yet the crucial weakness in the Prime Minister’s argument was one of chronology. He cited statements and reports between September 2025 and April 2026, but the crime he sought to defend was committed between December 2024 and January 2025. He had no answer to why he ignored the advice of the Cabinet Secretary to seek security clearance before appointing Mandelson. He could not explain why he announced Mandelson’s appointment without conditions, nor why the offer letter to Mandelson dated before Sir Olly started work said that Mandelson had cleared security clearance.
The damning evidence given today by Sir Olly Robbins confirms what the Prime Minister failed to dispel yesterday: there was a complacent culture in Downing Street—indeed, there may still be—which had a dismissive approach to the vetting of Lord Mandelson. The Prime Minister wants us now to believe that he would have sacked Mandelson if he had failed vetting, yet all of the evidence then showed that he and his team did not care about vetting and even believed it had already been granted.
We further learned this morning that officials in No. 10 asked the FCDO to find an ambassadorial role for Matthew Doyle—another man who was friends with a convicted sex offender. What is worse, they told FCDO officials not to tell the Foreign Secretary. The unavoidable conclusion is that under the Prime Minister and Morgan McSweeney, No. 10 believed that it could fix plum jobs for the boys—and they were all boys—with casual disregard for process, propriety and national security.
We come to the consequences of this sorry episode. First, a distinguished civil servant has lost his position as the fall guy for the Prime Minister. I was proud to work with Sir Olly, and I know the regard in which he is held by Ministers and civil servants, so I am frankly furious—to use the word of the day—to learn that a No. 10 spokesman has just said that Sir Olly was a
“man of integrity and professionalism”
who made an “error of judgment”. It is extraordinary that when political appointees like Peter Mandelson or the former Deputy Prime Minister are accused of errors of judgment, or worse, the Prime Minister has come to that Dispatch Box and defended them for days, yet when the Prime Minister’s error of judgment was highlighted again, he took a few short hours to dismiss Sir Olly.
In the last five days, the Prime Minister has gone further and directed the full power of the state against one man. The Government Legal Service reinterpreted the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 on Sunday. The Government Communication Service briefed hard against Robbins, and Cabinet Office officials sought to prime the Foreign Affairs Committee before it heard from Sir Olly today. This state-led assault on one man is unprecedented, and it is unacceptable. If the consequence of committing an error of judgment is to resign, why is the Prime Minister still in post?
Secondly, this whole episode has done grave damage to relations between Ministers and civil servants. The Prime Minister once said that when staff
“made mistakes, I carried the can. I never turn on my staff”.
No one believes that now. His cowardly reaction has shown civil servants that they should be fearful of future treatment by the Prime Minister, No. 10 and Ministers. I believed that the Prime Minister, as a former permanent secretary, understood and valued the relationship of trust, candour and loyalty that governs the best relationship in Ministries. Today those relationships are shattered, and our country will be the poorer for it.
Thirdly, my constituents and people up and down the country who are worried about waiting lists, rising prices and threats to security can have no confidence that this Prime Minister can change our country for the better. When something went wrong in Government, the Prime Minister did not take responsibility; he took the easy way out. When called on to defend himself, he failed abjectly. This sorry tale points to a corrupted culture at the heart of No. 10, and there is now only one man left to carry the can. He must complete the clear-out and resign.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I have come from the Foreign Affairs Committee sitting this morning, where we had the opportunity to speak to Sir Olly Robbins as our witness. I want to use my speech to pull out some of the pertinent points that we heard that I think are relevant.
Before I start, I absolutely agree with Members across the House who say that Lord Mandelson was a completely inappropriate and terrible choice for our ambassador, and that there has clearly been a failure in the process that ended up in his appointment and in the vetting. However, it is important that we look at what Sir Olly said in the witness statement today, because some of that contradicts what has been said in the House.
The first important thing that Sir Olly said is that no Minister—not the Prime Minister, not the Foreign Secretary, nor any other Minister—or any official in No. 10 was given sight of the fact that UKSV had declined Mandelson’s security vetting. They had no sight at all of any details of that vetting. He said that, justified that and defended that. No officials or Ministers should have sight of that vetting, because it is extremely personal and sensitive information. I went through that process myself when I worked at the Foreign Office, and we do not want to create any conditions that make people afraid to share sensitive information in the vetting process, thinking that at some point in the future it might be leaked, whether to politicians, to others in the line management chain or, as we have seen, to the press, because that undermines the integrity of the process as a whole. That reinforces what the Prime Minister said yesterday.
Secondly, Sir Olly disputed the characterisation that UKSV had failed Peter Mandelson’s vetting: that it was in some way a binary choice inside the Foreign Office. It is important that we explain—or that I try to justify—what Sir Olly was saying, because the FCDO has a slightly different process from that of other parts of Government. It is an overseas Department—a bit like the Ministry of Defence, for example—so people with seriously long careers and all sorts of different interests come into those roles. I am not suggesting that Peter Mandelson should have passed vetting, not at all, but it is not unusual for the FCDO rather than UKSV to make a decision on a borderline case. According to Sir Olly’s evidence, that is a normal process. It is important that we hold to that in future.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am really surprised that the hon. Gentleman is swallowing this guff about this being a borderline case. It was quite clear that security vetting put this case in the red box, which meant “fail”. Sir Olly is being lauded to the skies now because he is the victim of ruthless prime ministerial politics, but he also has an angle on this: he massaged, shall we say, his own judgment because he knew the pressure on him from the Government. There was nothing borderline about this; he is saying that it was borderline only because he needs an excuse for having overridden it when he should not have done.
Alex Ballinger
I can speak only to what the witness told us in the inquiry this morning. Many Members made the same case that the right hon. Gentleman is making now: that it was a red box case, as we have seen in the evidence submitted. However, Sir Olly was clear that this was a borderline case, and it is usual for the Foreign Office to conduct such cases. The right hon. Gentleman can make up his own mind about whether to believe Sir Olly or other people.
David Davis
I came in to watch the Committee. Sir Olly actually said that the advice he was given by his director of intelligence was “borderline”. One issue that was not clear was whether the pressure from No. 10 was simply on him or on all members of the channel, down to lower levels.
Alex Ballinger
I had a different interpretation. Sir Olly also said—we can look back at the transcript—that, yes, there was pressure from No. 10 to get the appointment done quickly. It could be interpreted that the Government wanted to get the appointment done before President Trump’s inauguration—there was an important timeline by which to do it—because there was a risk that any new ambassadorial appointments after that might be interfered with. Again, these are the words of Sir Olly; I am not bringing this up from nowhere.
Several hon. Members rose—
Alex Ballinger
Let me finish.
The other important point is that it was not just the UK Security Vetting system that put a borderline process through, which the FCDO then approved; it was also the intelligence agencies. It is equally concerning that Peter Mandelson was given STRAP clearance. I asked Sir Olly directly whether any concerns were raised by intelligence agencies on the process of obtaining STRAP clearance, which is a higher level of security that gives someone access to the country’s most classified secrets. No one from the intelligence agencies raised any concerns during that STRAP process. There are serious concerns about that.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I say gently to my hon. Friend, and to others who seek to make the same argument, that at the heart of this matter is a toxic and dismissive culture at No. 10—we cannot get away from that point. That dismissiveness has led us to this place. This is not a small administrative breach; it is a matter of national security. The British public is not buying it. Surely, there needs to be a full, transparent and independent inquiry on this whole situation that uncovers the truth and leads to consequences, including for the Prime Minister. That is what the British public want.
Alex Ballinger
That is not my experience of No. 10. I am pleased to see that there will be a review of the vetting system, because this process has uncovered serious problems within it.
I have a number of takeaways from this morning’s evidence. I agree that Peter Mandelson was a terrible pick for ambassador, even before the things that came out about him later, and it was the wrong decision to pick him. However, there have clearly been failures in developed vetting, in the process at the FCDO and in the STRAP vetting process. I am pleased that the Government have announced two reviews—one to be led by Sir Adrian Fulford and a separate Cabinet Office review—to consider those vetting processes and ensure that, in relation to Peter Mandelson’s vetting and to the UK vetting system more generally, such mistakes do not happen again.
I am slightly concerned that the Government have suspended the ability of overseas Departments to operate discretion in granting developed vetting. That is a sensible response in the short term, but I hope that as the reviews are carried out, the Minister will consider the reasons why those Departments have that discretion.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have listened carefully to his speech. Given what he heard at the Committee this morning and his background and experience, does he regret Olly Robbins’s sacking?
Alex Ballinger
Sir Olly Robbins will have an opportunity to account for himself, but he gave a very good account of himself at the Committee this morning, and it is not for me to make that judgment.
I can think of several good reasons why the FCDO and the MOD might need to use that discretion in the future. I am also really concerned that details about Peter Mandelson’s vetting were leaked to the press in September. Even considering Peter Mandelson’s misconduct, the integrity of that process is really important, and Sir Olly also raised concerns about that issue.
I hope that the reviews announced by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister the other day will look at the leaks to the press, because it is unacceptable that such vital personal information about the vetting process has been released in that way. Most importantly, Sir Olly’s evidence rubbishes some of the accusations that Members made in the House and, indeed, in the media yesterday that questioned the Prime Minister’s honesty about the situation, because he categorically ruled out any suggestion that the Prime Minister knew anything about it, for good reason. The Members who made those accusations and were rightly thrown out of the House should correct the record and apologise.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Mr Speaker
Order. It is important that the hon. Member winds up, because I said seven minutes, and he has now taken 10 minutes.
Liz Saville Roberts
Does the hon. Member realise that to people outside, this argument—these fine details of process—morphs into a defence of ignorance and then into a defence of incompetency? That is actually doing the Prime Minister as much harm as all these arguments about his honesty.
Alex Ballinger
We have heard real concerns about the process, and I am glad that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has announced reviews into that process, because we really need to make sure we get it right in the future.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
This is a particularly sorry saga. It is corrosive for not just this Government and the Labour party, but the entire political class and politicians as a collective body and it is certainly corrosive for the country. That is because a theme has emerged from this episode and others under this Government around competency—or what the public would probably see as a general theme of incompetency.
It is frankly ludicrous and laughable that we have got to this point. For the best part of two decades, Peter Mandelson’s name has been a byword for sleaze and incompetence, and that is before we knew about the risks that he could continue to pose to our national security if he were given a position. The corrosiveness of this Government and their incompetency is borne out in all the decisions they have U-turned over—I think we are up to 18 U-turns in two years. We have seen the corrosive effects of Government policy across the board, whether it is on the economy or on the price that businesses are paying, as a result of questions that the Government have not asked. That begs the question about the Prime Minister’s general incuriosity about seemingly everything—least of all this, the most serious of issues.
Peter Mandelson was known to be a paedophile-adjacent character at the time that the Prime Minister took the decision, seemingly at any cost, to appoint him as ambassador to the United States. As many Members have said, it seems that that happened because he was seen as a particularly slick operator at the top of the Labour party, and he was seemingly untouchable to so many. It is a great shame that it has got to this point, with this ongoing debacle and scandal, and the Prime Minister’s evasion, to cause the downfall of Peter Mandelson.
Unanswered questions remain, including a really simple one that has been asked many times, although we have not had an answer. I would love to know, as would my constituents and many in this House, what seemingly virtuous qualities of Peter Mandelson warranted the on-balance very serious risk that the Government took in pursuing his appointment.
The pressure placed on the Foreign Office when clearing and appointing Mandelson has become apparent over the past few weeks, particularly this morning following the testimony of Olly Robbins, and it is frankly reprehensible. We heard that Olly Robbins was told to get that done at any cost: effectively to ride roughshod over good moral conduct to deliver the will of the Prime Minister. We are starting to hear glimmers that certain people at the top of Government—perhaps in the Cabinet—advised the Prime Minister or the Cabinet Office that they were not comfortable with that, but the Prime Minister was completely ignorant of it throughout the whole process.
We now know that Peter Mandelson was effectively appointed and given access to sensitive security information before his security clearance was granted. I have a direct question for the Minister: is he aware of whether Peter Mandelson had access to sensitive information prior to the security clearance recommendation coming through? If the Minister is not aware of that, what review is being put in place to ascertain the level of that information, and what risk management will be put in place to mitigate the effects of the exposure of any sensitive information that Peter Mandelson may have obtained before the security clearance came through?
There is another question of accountability. Many of us in the House, and people in the country at large, would love to know why the bar of personal accountability is so low for everyone else, yet impossibly high for the Prime Minister. If I had had the chance yesterday—lots of Members wanted to speak and I understand why I did not get an opportunity—I would have loved to have asked the Prime Minister whether he had considered resigning at any point, and if not, why not.
How many more people have to be blamed or scapegoated before this becomes a situation where the Prime Minister does the decent thing and resigns? How many more twists and turns does this saga have to follow before the Prime Minister does the right thing? I can tell the Minister—he is looking somewhat uncomfortable; I commend him for coming to the Front Bench today—that my constituents are sick and tired of the evasiveness of this Prime Minister. They want him to do the decent thing and to resign.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
I want to address three aspects in my remarks: first, the appointment of Peter Mandelson in the first instance; secondly, the approach taken by the Prime Minister as details have emerged over the last few months; and finally, the vetting process overall.
The debate so far has been characterised by collective amnesia on the Opposition Benches. We have seen some amateur dramatic theatrics, and the leader of the Liberal Democrats has demonstrated why he is such a risk to trade and industry with one of our largest trading partners. We have seen the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who sits on the Opposition Benches, choosing to lecture Labour Members about traditions in the Labour party. We have even seen some of my hon. Friends, whose experience of No.10, I suspect, has been purely about attacking No.10 or in a disciplinary capacity, claiming to have real insight into the culture there.
At the core of the current debate is the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the USA. Clearly, Peter Mandelson’s background of resigning twice from a ministerial office has been a matter of public record, but while there are other allegations about his conduct, not all of them were in the public domain at the time. Many recent revelations have led to his dismissal from the post of ambassador, action in relation to his peerage, and referral to the police, which is an ongoing process.
It is clear to all that Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed to the role. While that is the case, the apology offered by the Prime Minister on repeated occasions in this House and outside has been full, wholesome and without equivocation.
Most importantly, the Prime Minister has repeatedly and rightly apologised to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein for making the appointment in the first instance.
Gurinder Singh Josan
No, I will not.
While the initial appointment has been, and I suspect will continue to be, a matter of debate, the Prime Minister’s apology cannot be faulted.
Imran Hussain
On that point, will my hon. Friend give way for a friendly intervention?
Gurinder Singh Josan
In a bit.
I want to address the wider approach taken by the Prime Minister in this case and other allegations against senior figures in this Administration, which I think is relevant.
Gurinder Singh Josan
I will come back to the hon. Gentleman in a second.
This Prime Minister promised a change in the approach to dealing with such matters. An approach that embraces transparency and is robust and timely is essential in maintaining public trust and confidence in the Government, in politicians and in this House.
Imran Hussain
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He knows full well that this is not any personal vendetta against No. 10. He, of all people, knows the culture that exists in No. 10 and the toxicity of that culture. The question that I want to ask him—and I ask it in all sincerity—is whether he really expects the British public to buy what he is saying.
Gurinder Singh Josan
I have a better understanding of the culture in No. 10 than my hon. Friend does. I absolutely expect that the British public understand that the apology put forward by the Prime Minister has been full and unequivocal and that he has not messed about on that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Gurinder Singh Josan
I will take more interventions in a few minutes.
On every occasion when an allegation has been levelled, whether in relation to Peter Mandelson or the previous Deputy Prime Minister, the approach of this Prime Minister and this Government has been in marked contrast to the approach taken by successive Tory Prime Ministers. We saw then a real refusal to accept that allegations were valid. We saw a refusal to address allegations in a timely fashion by referring them for investigation. Investigations were dragged out and there was a refusal to accept their findings.
In the case of Peter Mandelson, as information about the allegations has have been forthcoming, the Prime Minister has come to the Dispatch Box again and again. He sacked Peter Mandelson, and he has taken action again and again. That action has been robust and speedy, and the ongoing commitment to the Humble Address will ensure full transparency. That is in marked contrast to how the previous Government handled such matters.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is talking about full transparency, and the ministerial code says that Ministers must be “open and transparent”. When the Prime Minister came to the House in February and said that the reason he sacked Mandelson was because he had lied to him about his relationship with Epstein, was that a full and transparent account of the reasons why Mandelson should not have had the job?
Gurinder Singh Josan
The Prime Minister presented the House with the information that he had at that time. Further questions about that should be directed to the Prime Minister. Fundamentally, the Government will not take any lessons from the Conservatives, who, over a number of years, presided over the trampling of trust and confidence in politicians and in this House into the ground again and again.
While I suspect that this House has not seen the last of the Peter Mandelson issue, I am hopeful that the change in approach towards allegations taken by this Prime Minister and this Government, moving towards transparency, timeliness and robust action, is one that will continue in the future. There is a lesson there for all of us.
Finally, I want to address the vetting process. I believe strongly that the vetting process followed by Government and Departments should be robust and should have the confidence of those subject to vetting, as well as the Departments employing them, their colleagues and the wider public. Clearly, to maintain that confidence requires a high degree of anonymity and confidence in that process.
It is also the case that any information thrown up as part of that vetting process is acted on appropriately by Government or by Departments in a timely fashion, but there is a fundamental dilemma in expecting the Government, or the Prime Minister in this case, to act on information that was never made available to Government or Ministers. That is the fundamental issue here. We need to ensure that the vetting system is fit for purpose, and a balance between confidentiality and response at the appropriate level is essential. The current balance is clearly not correct, and I welcome the steps being taken by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister in that regard.
Let me end by saying that this whole episode has exposed issues of judgment and process, and I suspect that the debate will long continue in relation to both. There is much to commend in the judgment taken by the Administration as information became available. Whatever the merits of the case, and whatever people feel about what is being discussed, I hope that some of those approaches in relation to transparency, timeliness and robust action will continue.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
This morning’s Foreign Affairs Committee session lasted for two-and-a-half hours. It was certainly one of the more remarkable sessions that I have attended, and I have been involved in a number of quite controversial Select Committee hearings over the years. It showed the Select Committee system at its best, and Members across the House worked together.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), a fellow member of the Committee who spoke earlier. I share his view that Sir Olly Robbins, who gave us evidence, put in an impressive performance. He is clearly angry at the way in which he is being treated; he has a distinguished career that has been brought to a premature end, and he is clearly very upset by that. In his evidence, he made some extraordinary revelations. He had given evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee in November last year, when, as the Chair of the Committee suggested in her introduction, we may have heard the truth and nothing but the truth, but probably not the whole truth.
This morning, we heard a lot more of the whole truth. What became absolutely clear, which had already been suggested in the previous hearing, was that No. 10 Downing Street was absolutely determined that Lord Mandelson should become the ambassador of his country to the United States. Sir Olly told us that his predecessor, Philip Barton, had strongly advised that that should not happen until after the developed vetting process had been completed. Despite that advice from the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, he was ignored—indeed, we are told that the Cabinet Office went on to suggest that developed vetting might not even be necessary.
This was not just a routine appointment, and it was not routine for two reasons. First, it was the appointment of probably the most important ambassadorial post that this country has. Secondly, and very unusually, it was a direct ministerial appointment. Most of the time, ambassadorial appointments are made from within the civil service, and people have already had the vetting procedure. This was somebody being brought in from the outside who had not been vetted and already had a track record of having had to resign from Government twice.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The role of Prime Minister is the highest honour in UK politics and demands sound judgment. The reality is that there was no sound judgment when the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson—a disgraced individual who had two resignations and well-documented associations with a sex offender. What we are hearing from Members on the Labour Benches today is like hearing lambs to the slaughter. They are defending the indefensible, and the general public are hearing that and hearing how disgraced this place is by the decision of the Prime Minister to appoint Peter Mandelson.
Sir John Whittingdale
I completely agree with the hon. Lady. It is somehow being suggested by Labour Members that this was about people advising the Prime Minister—I think one speaker earlier said that the Prime Minister had been persuaded to appoint Peter Mandelson. Well, I worked for a Prime Minister, and she coined a phrase: “Advisers advise; Ministers decide.” In this case, as the hon. Lady says, it was the decision of the Prime Minister.
Sir Olly Robbins also pointed out that by the time he took up his position, he was essentially presented with a fait accompli. He set that out to us—he said that
“I took over as PUS on 20 January”,
and that due diligence had already been completed. We know that that process, which included an interview with Morgan McSweeney, had revealed the ongoing relationship between Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, but that it was ignored. We were told that approval of the appointment had already been given by the King, it had been announced publicly to the press, and agrément had been given by the United States. Sir Olly Robbins made clear that agrément is not just a formality; it was a very significant development. Lord Mandelson had also been given access to the FCDO building and IT access, and finally, he was being granted access to highly classified briefings on a case-by-case basis. I asked Sir Olly Robbins whether, given that all that was already in place, it would damage our relationship with the United States of America if he were to have the appointment withdrawn. He replied very clearly, “Yes, it would.”
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) set out, we already had a very good ambassador in Washington, but Downing Street had nevertheless said to the US Administration that it wanted Lord Mandelson to be appointed, and the White House had given its agreement through the agrément procedure. For Sir Olly Robbins to then withdraw the appointment would have caused real damage to our foreign policy. One can argue that if Sir Olly Robbins were told that the UKSV process had resulted in a clear recommendation of denial, he might—or perhaps even should—still have done so, but he also told us this morning that he was not told that. We were told that he did not see the UKSV report, and that he did not even know that the report has a red box saying “deny” with a tick in it. He said that he had never seen those documents before, and that that would be normal, because access is very restricted for the reasons that the hon. Member for Halesowen set out.
All that Sir Olly Robbins was told was that there had been a leaning towards refusal, and that it was a borderline case. Whether or not that was an accurate reflection of what the report actually said is another matter, and we can perhaps debate at what stage, or how far, the message from Downing Street—“We want this person to be appointed”—had been transmitted, to try to make that appointment as possible as it was. However, we are told that after Sir Olly Robbins had arrived as permanent secretary, he was subjected to regular calls from No. 10 saying, “Get it done.” He also told us that the message was not, “Get it done subject to security clearance,” which in his view, it should have been. The press release announcing the appointment of Lord Mandelson did not say “subject to security clearance”—that was never mentioned. This was announced as a decision that had already been taken.
Why was the decision taken? That is a matter that is open to conjecture. There is a view among some Labour Members that it was somehow a reward for services given in getting the Prime Minister his job. The leader of the Liberal Democrats said that it might have been an attempt to cosy up to President Trump, although as my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington pointed out, our previous ambassador had done a really good job in representing this country to President Trump. We may never know, but what we do know is that the Prime Minister was absolutely determined that that appointment should be made.
Even after the appointment was made, when all of these things began to be revealed—in particular, the ongoing relationship between Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, which the Prime Minister said he was unaware of the closeness of and he was very angry when he was told about—inquiries had already been made. Journalists had been ringing up No. 10 and saying, “We have been told that Lord Mandelson failed his security vetting,” and No. 10 put out a denial. With journalists calling up and asking, “Is it true that he did not pass the UKSV assessment, and it recommended denial of security vetting?” one would expect that before saying, “No, that’s complete rubbish,” No. 10 might actually begin to ask questions. People in No. 10 might say to the Prime Minister, “You should be aware that we’ve had an inquiry about this.” Apparently none of that happened, or if it did, it was simply swept under the carpet. The end result of this process is that for more than a year we had someone representing this country at the most senior level in America, which is our closest ally, who the security agencies had concluded was a security risk. We do not know the full extent of the damage that may have been done during that time.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir John Whittingdale
I am afraid that Madam Deputy Speaker is coughing at me, so I will not give way.
I fear that there is still more to come. I hope that I can say on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee that we will continue to pursue this matter.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I will reiterate the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) made: I wish I had never heard the name Peter Mandelson. He should not have been appointed. It is right that he was sacked. I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s experience and expertise on the issue, which I admit I do not have.
Yesterday, in my question to the Prime Minister in his statement, I focused on Jeffrey Epstein’s victims, but I briefly mentioned the issue of other parties seeking to gain political capital. Much to the chagrin of the reasonable, quiet people of this country, those parties asked for the Prime Minister’s resignation, yet again causing chaos, to which the Opposition are so addicted, for the governance of this country. [Interruption.] The Opposition grumbled at that, as they are doing now, so I will take this opportunity to clarify.
If we ignore the social media trolls and bots and ignore the self-interest of the billionaire-owned right-wing press, we see that the quiet, reasonable majority of people do not want a change of Prime Minister. As one lifelong Tory said to me yesterday, “I see the Prime Minister is still here. That is a good thing.” They are grateful that this Prime Minister—[Interruption.] I was a teacher; I can out-talk anyone. Those people are grateful that this Prime Minister has not drawn our country into a mad, dangerous conflict that the Opposition would have immediately joined.
People value a stable Government who focus on the matters that they really care about. They want a stabilised economy. They want reform to special education needs and disabilities and support for schools. They want our NHS rebuilt and waiting lists to drop. They want our roads fixed. They want their wages to increase. They want affordable homes. They want their communities to be safe and welcoming, and they want violence against women and girls tackled. People are fed up of politics and of this navel-gazing over process. They are fed up of more politicians politicking and point scoring. They are tired of it, and why?
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Dr Gardner
I promise I will come to the hon. Member in a minute. I am in the flow. People are tired after 14 years of the previous Government chopping and changing Prime Ministers and Secretaries of State. We had the blonde bumbler and the loopy lettuce. This country was on its knees, its people exhausted. The people do not want more of the same. Despite the Opposition’s constant efforts, we will not let them manufacture more chaos.
Dr Chowns
In reference to the point that the hon. Member has just made, is she familiar with the YouGov poll that regularly asks the UK population how well they think Keir Starmer is doing as Prime Minister? Is she aware that the latest data shows that 70% of the UK population think that he is doing badly?
Dr Gardner
Polls can generate different answers depending on how the questions are formed. In other polls the Prime Minister is still a lot more popular than certain other Members present in this House.
In reference to the Opposition’s chaos, I will speak up for the civil service and express empathy for Sir Olly Robbins. In the whirl of Prime Ministers and Ministers under the previous Government, among the covid partying and profiteering—for which the Conservatives have never apologised, and for which I will never forgive them—the civil service clearly did its best to stop this country sinking into the mire. In such chaotic conditions, it is no wonder that a culture developed that decisions would be made without fully informing Ministers or Prime Ministers. That was partially because under the Conservatives, civil servants could not be sure who would be the Prime Minister or Minister that month.
Dr Johnson
I think the remaining people who want Starmer to remain the Prime Minister are those who are worried about who the Labour party might pick instead. The hon. Lady seems to be sharing all sorts of whataboutery information, but has she considered that the outrage is not manufactured? It is a huge national security concern that our ambassador, who had access to security information at the highest level, was a security risk to this country.
Dr Gardner
I apologise, because I struggle with my hearing. I did not pick up everything that the hon. Lady said, but I will come to the vetting and security policy in a second. I hope that might deliver an answer for her.
Conservative Members are quibbling about the process, but I remind them that the policy of the FCDO being able to grant vetting, contrary to the advice of UKSV, has been running for many years under successive Governments. This Prime Minister and this Government are now reviewing the process, and I will reiterate the key points. Mandelson should never have been appointed as our ambassador. The Prime Minister has repeatedly acknowledged that and repeatedly apologised.
Dr Gardner
I am conscious of the time. We have a seven-minute guideline, so I will carry on.
It is clear that Foreign Office officials granted developed vetting security clearance to Mandelson and never told Ministers that they had done so, against the recommendations of the vetting agency. That is shocking, and any reasonable person would have assumed that the information would have been proffered without asking. The policy is wrong. It should change, and as a result of the review, hopefully it will change. This Government—still less than two years old—will not let such a policy continue. I am pleased that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has immediately suspended the ability of the Foreign Office to grant security clearances. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen is not in his place, but I understand that he asked for that to be a short-term response for other security reasons, and I acknowledge his point.
Thanks to the previous Government, the cryptocurrency-fuelled damage of Reform and, of course, the economic suicide of Brexit, which both the Conservatives and Reform are responsible for, people are fed up and trust in politics is at an all-time low. Indeed, the Prime Minister recognises this and understands that recent revelations have further damaged that trust, and I acknowledge that. However, I stress that politics focused on people, not political process, and on the decent, hard-working people of our country, who are thankfully still at peace due to the strength of this Prime Minister, can be a force for good.
The Conservatives are still addicted to chaos and game playing, and seek scraps of political capital where they can get them. I suggest that they have flogged this issue as much as they can. They need to focus on rebuilding their dying party and apologise to the people. This Prime Minister and this Government are focused on rebuilding this country—the country the Conservatives broke, which they still will not apologise for.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
The Prime Minister came to this House only yesterday saying,
“I will now set out the full timeline”,—[Official Report, 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 23.]
and later insisting that he had come to
“give the full account to the House”.—[Official Report, 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 28.]
That followed Downing Street’s acceptance earlier in the day that his previous account had, at the very least, inadvertently misled Members. Yesterday was meant to be the great clean-up—the day of the full facts, full candour and full accountability.
Today, Sir Olly Robbins gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee and published a letter that blows a hole straight through the Prime Minister’s version of events. Many hon. Members have already exposed that. Obviously, the lack of curiosity on behalf of the Prime Minister was inexplicable and reprehensible. We have seen evasion, obfuscation and blame shifting, as well as blatant contradictions, and I want to point out one that has not yet surfaced this afternoon. The Prime Minister said that he was “astonished”, and that it was “incredible”, that information could have been withheld from him, but it is significant that Sir Olly Robbins’s letter says that the position conveyed to the Foreign Affairs Committee in September 2025—that
“Ministers…are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome”—
was “agreed with” the Cabinet Office and No. 10. In other words, the Prime Minister is now trying to dump the entire scandal on one official for acting on a position that Downing Street itself had signed off. That is not accountability; that is a stich-up.
Worse still, we learned today that, before Sir Olly even took over, due diligence on Mandelson’s appointment had been completed, approval had been given by His Majesty, the appointment had been announced, agrément had been secured from the United States, Mandelson had building and IT access, and he was already receiving highly classified briefings on a case-by-case basis. We have even learned that the Cabinet Office itself raised whether developed vetting was necessary, and the FCDO had to insist on it. So let us drop the pretence that this was some neutral, pristine process derailed by one mandarin misconducting himself. The appointment was politically driven from the top and forced through in an atmosphere of pressure.
Of course the Prime Minister’s position is untenable, as many Members have said, but it is possible that the Prime Minister’s honesty or position is not the most important thing about this saga. What matters even more is our system of government, for which the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is partly responsible. If the Prime Minister has been surprised to find that the civil service acts within processes that screen Ministers from information and from the power to make decisions, no one else is surprised about that. I think the Prime Minister has spent so long as a civil servant and then as a politician behaving like a civil servant that, when he finds that the system does not work, he has a sort of professional breakdown and starts spluttering about process and reviews, and reviews of the processes. Yes, we need process, but the fact is that appointments, like everything else the Government do, are political decisions.
Politics is simply the management of the common life of the community, and the management of trade-offs between different ideas and interests. We in this country have developed over many years a model of doing things—of doing politics—that is or was the best in the world: civil servants accountable to Ministers accountable to Parliament accountable to the public. Break those links of accountability, and instead of a hierarchy with the public at the top, ultimately in charge through the ballot box, and civil servants at the bottom—genuinely the servants of the democratically elected masters—we have unaccountable civil servants at the top, Ministers floundering around as this lot are, Parliament is pointless and the public are outraged.
What has to change is the great restoration of the principle that the civil service serves the public, and it does that by respecting the ultimate responsibility of Ministers as decision makers. It is absurd to have rules that shield the decision makers from the information they need to make a decision, and no other organisation would do that. This is why we need to restore the Armstrong principle set out by Robert Armstrong in 1985:
“The civil service…has no constitutional personality or responsibility separate from the duly elected Government of the day.”—[Official Report, 26 February 1985; Vol. 74, c. 129W.]
Yes, I want to see the back of this Prime Minister, but most of all I want to dismantle the cabal of permanent secretaries who run this country and to restore the proper authority of Parliament.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am going to try to get more Members in to speak, so I am reducing the informal time limit to four minutes.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I want to start with a point of inquiry which I hope the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will be able to answer in his response later, so he has time to look into it if he does not know the answer already. Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister whether his former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney
“passed all his security vetting and whether he ever handled documents for which he had anything other than the appropriate level of clearance?”—[Official Report, 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 43.]
I am not sure that the House thinks we got a clear answer from the Prime Minister, but even if at some point Morgan McSweeney did get clearance, I am sure the House would be horrified if that happened long after he started working in Downing Street and after he was involved in the Mandelson appointment. It would be good to get a date for when Morgan McSweeney got his security clearance and to confirm whether he handled any materials prior to that for which he did not have appropriate clearance. If the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister cannot find an answer to that question by the time he responds, perhaps he could answer in writing by the end of the week, given the urgency of this matter.
The situation we are in of course raises questions about process, and process is important, but let us not make the mistake of thinking that this is not fundamentally political. Politics drove this: what was unusual about the appointment of Mandelson was that it was a political appointment. It is not standard for the ambassador to the United States to be a political appointment. Whatever Peter Mandelson is and was—I have my own opinions on that—he was not a career civil servant. He had been up to other things, so the security vetting was clearly very important indeed. The fact that this was a fundamentally political decision by the Prime Minister, driven as well by Morgan McSweeney, is evidenced by the fact that everyone here knows that the Prime Minister would not have signed off someone with Peter Mandelson’s record to stand as a Labour candidate for a town council. Yet he was eased into the incredibly important position of ambassador to the United States of America.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
The hon. Gentleman is getting to the nub of the issue. This is about fairness in society. We tell everybody else outside of here, who we make the rules for, to play by the rules, but when you are in here yourself and you are the chief man, you can do what you want. That is what flies in the face of what the vast majority of the public think. Does he agree?
Richard Burgon
I totally agree with the hon. Member; she makes a powerful point. That is why the public are so outraged.
It was a political appointment. The reason the Prime Minister was so grateful to Mandelson was the role that he and Morgan McSweeney had played, through the organisation Labour Together, in getting him to be the leader of the Labour party. What was it that made them think Peter Mandelson was such a wise political appointment? It was because of what Peter Mandelson represented. Peter Mandelson epitomised the idea that the role of the Labour party is not what it was set up to do—to be a voice for working-class people and the trade union movement, speaking truth to power and changing society in the interests of the many not the few—but to be, as an organisation, closer and closer to the super-rich and powerful. It was because of Mandelson’s proximity to the super-rich and powerful that he was appointed to the role.
That is what has led to decisions that have made the Prime Minister and the Government unpopular. That is what has led to decisions such as the cut to the winter fuel payment and the cuts to disability benefits. The vision Mandelson put forward is polluting our party. That is why we need a full and independent investigation into Labour Together, the organisation favoured by Mandelson and McSweeney, which has dragged this party through the gutter. We see certain nefarious practices, tested in our party in opposition, now brought into Government. That needs to change, because otherwise we will end up with despair, leading to the election of a Trump-style Government in this country led by Reform—something that no decent person in this House should want to happen.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I first crossed paths with the Prime Minister when he and I were both working to improve the way our country deals with cases of child sexual exploitation. One of the principles that was enshrined in law across our society as a result of that was accountability—the golden thread between the leaders, managerial and political, and those who follow their instructions. It was very clear that if you led an organisation where mistakes were made and if you ignored the warnings, you were accountable. If you created a culture in which those warnings were not properly shared, you were accountable. It is not at all clear why the Prime Minister, given all he learned and all he did in those days, has decided to abandon that position.
It was said of the Prime Minister:
“Pretty much the first time I’ve seen him angry was when he commissioned the…report. He was angry because he did not know. He wondered why the escalation process did not permit the case to be referred up to his office.”
Those words do not refer to anything to do with Peter Mandelson. They date to the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service not to proceed against Jimmy Savile. However, those words in The Guardian could refer exactly to the matter we are debating today. I gently say to Government Members that while past performance is not a guide to the future, this is a Prime Minister who has form in deploying exactly this defence when caught out.
I cannot let this debate pass without raising an issue that is of great concern to my many constituents who work at HMS Warrior, the Northwood Headquarters base on the edge of my constituency. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has set out, as a result of the Prime Minister’s dismissive attitude to vetting and the pressure he placed on officials, an individual was given access to intelligence on which my constituents rely to keep them safe when they undertake operations at a very high level of personal risk for the benefit and long-term interests of this country. Yet the Prime Minister refuses to accept any accountability for the risk at which his decision may have placed my constituents and their loved ones, as well as so many other people who serve our country.
I hope the Minister will be able to give the House an unambiguous assurance on behalf of the Prime Minister that whatever was shared with the Prime Minister and with Ministers, the necessary minimum risk mitigations were put in place, so that we can at least be confident that this Government thought to try to keep my constituents and those who serve our country safe.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Yesterday the Prime Minister apologised to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, but where was that sense of responsibility when he made the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson? Where was that sense of responsibility when he actively chose to ignore information that was already in the public domain?
This morning, the Energy Secretary said,
“Prime Ministers make errors. Prime Ministers are fallible. Prime Ministers are human”,
but I am struggling to understand how the gravity of the misjudgment in this political appointment can be explained away by simple human error. This was not a split-second judgment or a decision made of urgent necessity under pressure in the heat of the moment; instead, it was a deliberate, considered political appointment made in full knowledge of the political priorities involved. Morgan McSweeney even swore it through.
What is more, Government Members were given lines to take yesterday, prompting them to quote a victim of Epstein in defence of the Prime Minister. The suffering of Epstein’s victims was of no consequence to the Government when Mandelson was appointed; they weighed it in the scales and found which side they wanted to come down on.
In truth, it is thanks to the bravery of victims such as Virginia Giuffre that Epstein’s crimes are even in the public domain. Her sister-in-law, Amanda Roberts, said this of Mandelson’s sacking last year:
“Our governments have allowed these people to hold their status and their title without shame…It’s unfair we continuously pull these skeletons out, that survivors have to continuously point the finger for us to do the right thing.”
These were women and children who were trafficked and abused by a network of men who acted with the confidence that they were untouchable—too powerful to be challenged and too protected ever to be brought down. It truly raises the uncomfortable question of whether Peter Mandelson’s familiarity with that world was treated as a skillset rather than a red flag. Was he chosen precisely because he was comfortable rubbing shoulders with the sort of men who shared private jets with Epstein, rather than in spite of it? How can the Prime Minister now express sympathy for the victims of crimes committed by a man whose closest associate he chose to elevate? How can he claim to share their pain when he made the very decision that caused them such distress?
Just this morning, Sir Olly Robbins told the Foreign Affairs Committee that Downing Street asked the Foreign Office to find a senior diplomatic role for the Prime Minister’s then communications chief, Matt Doyle, even though Doyle had campaigned for a friend charged with possessing indecent images of children. This is the Government who promised to turn the page on Tory sleaze and restore trust and integrity to British politics; instead, the Prime Minister pressured the civil service not once but twice to appoint friends of known sex offenders to senior diplomatic roles.
In closing, the facts were known, the associations were known and the public record was clear. This was a public decision. It was a wrong decision of such magnitude that the only conclusion will be to end the Starmer Administration, and that will happen when the Labour party decides to do so, because it is the Labour party’s responsibility.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I both asked the Prime Minister whether he knew about Peter Mandelson’s role as a director at Sistema when he appointed him to be the ambassador to the United States. Given that the Prime Minister did not answer our question then, I will repeat the facts of the case and ask the Minister for clarification.
From 2013 until at least 2017, Peter Mandelson served as a director for Sistema, a Russian conglomerate that invests heavily in Russia’s military industrial complex. This means that Mandelson remained a director at Sistema after Russia’s annexation of Crimea. It also means that he would have maintained close contacts with figures linked to the Russian Government, including Sistema’s former chairman Vladimir Yevtushenkov, who is currently subject to sanctions as a result of his links to Vladimir Putin.
Any sensible Prime Minister would want to consider the facts carefully before appointing somebody to a sensitive diplomatic post and would give proper consideration to whether those relationships would leave that person exposed to Russian influence. This is particularly true in the case of Peter Mandelson, who has a long history of improper financial conduct.
In November 2024, the Cabinet Secretary advised the Prime Minister to conduct security vetting on prospective candidates before appointing anybody to the ambassador’s post in Washington. In December 2024, the Prime Minister ignored that guidance and appointed Peter Mandelson anyway. In January 2025, the Prime Minister repeatedly insisted before the press and the public that Peter Mandelson had passed security vetting, despite the fact that that was not the case. When asked yesterday, he twice refused to confirm that he knew about Peter Mandelson’s links to Sistema, despite the fact that the advice that he received in December 2024 explicitly pointed it out. The advice included the following quote:
“Mandelson served as a non-executive director of the Russian conglomerate Sistema, which is itself the majority shareholder of RTI, a defence technology company…Mandelson remained on the board until June 2017, long after Putin’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.”
Either the Prime Minister is still reluctant to share with us all the information that we deserve, or he did not read the advice he was given—despite insisting repeatedly that his decision to appoint Mandelson was based on that advice. In light of this, can the Minister tell us definitively this afternoon whether the Prime Minister considered these facts about Peter Mandelson’s role at Sistema when appointing him—yes or no? If he did not, why did he not read his brief? If he did, why did he not consider it sufficiently concerning to abandon, or at the very least pause to reconsider, the appointment of Peter Mandelson to arguably our most important and security-sensitive ambassadorial role?
The Prime Minister has spoken extensively about what he did not know, but we and the British public are incredulous that he did not ask. We know that the Prime Minister knew about the Russian links, so what questions did he ask about those facts? What questions did he ask officials? What questions did he ask Mandelson, or did he simply not want to know?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Everybody has said pretty much everything, but I am going to say some of it again, as is my wont in this Chamber.
First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who laid out a powerful case against the Government, particularly against the Prime Minister and his excuses in all this. I think that something very intriguing took place today. The person who has just been sacked was brought to the Foreign Affairs Committee to give testimony about what this was all about. What we learned was that the Government wanted so much for Peter Mandelson to take over the role of ambassador that they drove everything aside in pursuit of it—bullying civil servants, essentially sacking one of them because he did not give the answers it appears that they wanted, and excusing themselves on the basis that everybody else was wrong and they were right. Well they were not, and that has now come home to roost.
The essential fact is that many of us knew about Mandelson’s activities. I have a whole dossier with me here about his links to China, with hundreds of names of people he had met and given details of all sorts of things to. We know now that he lobbied the Government, including over electric vehicles and the tariff. It is outrageous, really; he continued to put pressure on them, even when he was given the job. That is the nature of a man still repaying his links to China. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) about his links with Sistema in Russia.
Even on that alone, there was copious evidence in the public domain about why Peter Mandelson should never have been allowed in any Government post whatsoever—that is before there was any attempt at inspection.
There is no way on earth that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) can get up and talk about faults in the system and about not getting clarity—nonsense! Everybody who wanted to know, knew. In the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, we knew about it. We had all the details and they were published. There is no excuse for the Government to say, “We waited for the Foreign Office to deliver this great thing, and it did not tell us.” They knew.
Secondly, the way the Government manipulated this is absolutely shocking. The outgoing Cabinet Secretary saw what was in the Cabinet Office’s review of the due diligence—by the way, that was to have a look and give recommendations to Government, which was not the same as what the Foreign Office was doing—and it showed just how tainted this corrupt and corrupting man was and what he had been up to. Having seen that, the outgoing Cabinet Secretary advised the Government—that was his job—that they should not go ahead to appoint Peter Mandelson but wait for the full review to take place, and, one way or the other, for him to be cleared or not cleared. But the Government did not do that.
That is the other question: why, despite that sensible, reasonable advice did the Government go ahead and press on—and at such speed? They put His Majesty the King in the firing line. When they approved the appointment, it went to the King—because they had declared it—even though they had not had clearance, and the agrément was given by our US partners. What in heaven’s name could have happened later on? None of the stuff to do with Epstein had yet come into the middle of the argument. The Government wanted this man, who is utterly corrupt, as our ambassador.
The other bit from today that I find astonishing is the admission by the ex-permanent secretary Olly Robbins that, despite the fact that Peter Mandelson had not been cleared, he was given STRAP clearance to see documents of such importance that they could have brought the Government and the country down.
I will end on this, Madam Deputy Speaker—you have been most tolerant. I simply say this: the Prime Minister is in the firing line on this one, and for very good reasons. He is in charge, and he knew what was going on. The people he sacked are still in the firing line. They cannot weasel out of this. They committed an offence in the books of anybody in the Chamber. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will be in the firing line, because he has been put here literally to try to tell some story about how none of this is the Prime Minister’s fault. The Prime Minister has been economical with the actualité and terminologically inexact. All I can say is, no more terminological inexactitudes, please, when the right hon. Gentleman gets to the Dispatch Box.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Before I begin my remarks on the appointment of Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to the US, I want to stress my profound respect for the victims and survivors of the disgusting child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. I very much hope that they are in the minds of all of us in the Chamber as we have the debate. We should remain mindful that the chain of events that has brought us to this point stems from their bravery in standing up and speaking out to expose Epstein’s crimes.
What is at stake here is the future of the Prime Minister; there are certainly questions about the Prime Minister’s judgment. The Prime Minister’s sole defence appears to be that he just was not told, but it is clear that he did not understand the security vetting process, and actually he did not want to understand it. He did not want to do the security vetting process in the first place. He created a culture of political pressure that overrode that process. Finally, he has thrown a civil servant under the bus for failures that should be placed clearly at his own door.
The Prime Minister did not clearly understand the process. There was a process of UKSV doing the developed vetting and then of the Foreign Office considering that. We have had Sir Olly Robbins giving evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee today, saying that there was a degree of grey area and that the case was borderline. He said that he only had a verbal briefing—he did not even see the piece of paper that made it clear that UKSV felt that Mandelson should not pass developed vetting—and that he decided that mitigations could be put in place in that system. It is clearly a process that the Prime Minister did not understand, despite the fact that at least one hon. Member has said today that this was very clearly notified to him in advance.
The Prime Minister did not even want to do the process. Again, it is clear from Olly Robbins’s testimony that, even before he took up his position, there was a tussle between No. 10 and the Foreign Office about whether to undertake the vetting at all, with No. 10 just wanting to rush through the appointment and the previous permanent secretary having to dig his heels in to insist that the vetting was done. The FCDO was subsequently hassled by No. 10 to get the appointment done before Trump’s inauguration, without any curiosity or caveats about whether the vetting was passed. The Prime Minister asked no questions. He displayed terminal professional incuriosity and wilful ignorance. That is totally unacceptable.
It is clear that no value was placed on the vetting process by No. 10, despite the PM now claiming that he is completely staggered that he was not told about it. Indeed, Olly Robbins today said that No. 10 had a “dismissive attitude” towards the vetting, putting in place a culture that established
“a very, very strong expectation”
that vetting would be passed. There was no culture of paying attention to due process; there was simply a culture of getting a political appointee in post as quickly as possible with minimal scrutiny.
That did not apply just to Mandelson, either. Again, as we heard today from Olly Robbins, it applied to Matthew Doyle, with a request coming from No. 10 to put him into a position without even informing the Foreign Secretary. Now, the PM has a temper tantrum and sacks the civil servant because he is furious about that. The country is furious with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has previously said that he takes responsibility for mistakes made in his team, but there is no accountability on show today. There is no responsibility taken by the Prime Minister. This is just one of numerous errors of judgment by the Prime Minister. He should resign.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
As others have already said, we can almost feel like everything has been said at this point. However, one thing that strikes me in all this is that this place is called the House of Commons. Our job is to come here and represent the common person, yet this entire debate is so far removed from the common person.
As I said last night, if one of my constituents in Lagan Valley is accidentally overpaid on a benefit, that is clawed back. No matter the human cost to that person, it is clawed back right away—no questions asked, no special circumstances. We see that writ large across our public life, and the reason is that we said that we valued a rules-based, ordered system. We wanted a society that was fair; we valued integrity and we valued trust. More importantly, we wanted to understand that the people who came to this House were going to act in a way that was beyond reproach—in a way that they expected everyone else across the UK to behave.
I am dealing with the case of a guy who is disabled. He accidentally parked in a parking space but did not have his blue badge displayed, and he is getting hammered. Maybe he will get off—who knows? But we are dealing with a situation where the Prime Minister of the day is now saying that he regrets the appointment of Mandelson. I am not going to get into the whys and wherefores of DV, STRAP, CTC and everything else, because my people in Lagan Valley do not know what that means. A lot of people are banking on the ordinary man and woman on the street not knowing what that means, and on them stopping being curious and suspending their expectations because this is all highfalutin, serious stuff and we do not really know what that is. Maybe they did do right. Maybe they did not do right. People are bamboozled, but I am going to break it down for them.
I would say this to the Prime Minister: what was it about the twice-disgraced paedophile-adjacent, self-styled prince of darkness that you found so attractive that you put him into this plum job—not just of Government but of the United Kingdom on the world stage? What was it, Prime Minister, that appealed to you about Peter Mandelson? We still do not have the answer. All I know is that my constituents are disgusted with all of this. And this is not the first time; it is not the second time and it is not the third time. It has been going round on the merry-go-round, no matter who it is.
I am really glad that the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) is in the Chamber, because he has worked tirelessly to make sure that the issues at the nub of this are heard—the duty of candour and the obligation to be honest with the public, let alone with our colleagues and the entire Administration—yet we are telling families that they cannot access documents for another 100 years due to a technicality. How am I to make that make sense to them?
I am indignant, and I am outraged. A lot of people in this building are expecting us to no longer be outraged. We will be outraged, because if we cannot prove that this works, we know who is going to step into the shadows. We know who is going to be out there setting the algorithms. We know who is going to be preying on the carcase of what was once a great democracy. We are seeing other democracies fail. Let’s not fool ourselves that the UK is immune from this.
The No. 1 thing we can do, within our gift, is to show that we still value integrity. For those reasons, there is not a single excuse that this Government can come up with that I can sell to my constituents or myself that I will believe. For those reasons, I believe that the Prime Minister needs to go—not just for his own party but, more importantly, for the sake of the country.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Yesterday, I sat through over two and a half hours of questions and responses to the Prime Minister. His responses were pretty much focused on process, when really what is fundamental to the issue at hand are judgment and national security.
We do not need some sort of fancy UK vetting dossier to know that Mandelson is a risk to national security. What is more, above and beyond the impact on the victims of Epstein, it is a fact, surely, that the FCDO and the machineries of Government knew that the American Administration very likely had compromising information on Epstein. Despite Mandelson’s close association with Epstein, we appointed him as ambassador to a foreign power—admittedly an ally, but nevertheless a foreign power—to conduct difficult negotiations that would be critical to our national interest, knowing that it was highly likely that that country had compromising information on that individual. That, for me, is the most egregious, fundamental failure to protect our national security. We have learned that this was a political decision. It was the Prime Minister’s decision but, what is more, it reflects on all Ministers, given their collective responsibility.
I strongly believe in forgiveness. The Prime Minister has come here and made an apology, of sorts. It was a very caveated apology: “I didn’t know. People didn’t tell me. People lied and lied to my team.” We know that our apologies have value only if we truly believe that we did something wrong. The Prime Minister needs to finally show some leadership and take responsibility for his actions, for all of us.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Yesterday the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box for nearly 2.5 hours and said on at least 12 occasions that appointing Mandelson was an “error of judgment”—his judgment. He apologised and said that he took responsibility for it, but at no point—not once in that 2.5 hours—did he tell the House what his error of judgment was or exactly where he went wrong in his reasoning. That distinction matters. Saying, “I should not have appointed him,” is a description of an outcome; it is not an account of a judgment. It is like saying, “I should not have crashed the car,” without accounting for the actions that led to the crash, because whether the driver was speeding, distracted or asleep at the wheel, the answer matters. It matters for understanding what went wrong, for preventing it from happening again and for judging whether the driver should still be behind the wheel.
The difference is not a technicality; it is the difference between meaningful accountability and accountability that is merely performative, between a Prime Minister who owns his decisions and one who merely acknowledges them. Accountability to this House is not a constitutional nicety; it is the condition on which this House and the people we all represent grant the Government the authority to act at all.
We all know what was in the due diligence report that the Prime Minister received in December 2024: the twice-resigned Minister, the China and Russia connections, and the Epstein association that continued after conviction. The Prime Minister received that report. He has confirmed that he knew its contents, but he proceeded anyway. That was his judgment, and it is that judgment—not the vetting process, not the Foreign Office chain of command, not Sir Olly Robbins—that this House has not been given an account of. Instead, yesterday we received a detailed, exhaustive account of what officials failed to tell him. Yet the more exhaustive the catalogue of official failures becomes, the more completely the Prime Minister’s own reasoning disappears from view. He cannot simultaneously claim an error of judgment and outsource its explanation to official failure. He has offered us an alibi instead of an explanation, an account that places him away from the scene of the crash. Yesterday’s statement was a masterclass in process—process that the Prime Minister was apparently unaware of. It was not an account of a judgment.
This morning, Sir Olly Robbins told the Foreign Affairs Committee that No. 10 showed no interest in whether Mandelson would receive clearance, only when, that there was, in his words, a “generally dismissive attitude” to Mandelson’s vetting, with focus only on getting him to Washington “quickly”. This is not a picture of a Prime Minister kept in the dark by officials. The alibi, it turns out, has witnesses, and they are not saying what the Prime Minister told us yesterday.
The Prime Minister has wide Executive latitude. He is entitled to make difficult appointments and to weigh competing considerations and reach conclusions that others would not reach. That is what governing requires. But the latitude is not unconditional. It comes with a democratic obligation to account for his reasoning to this House and to the people we represent—not to describe outcomes or to catalogue process, but to explain his judgment. What did the Prime Minister weigh up, what did he conclude and where in his reasoning did he think he went wrong?
Yesterday the Prime Minister told us 12 times that he made an error of judgment, but he has not told us once what that error actually was. We still do not know how he crashed that car, and this House demands an answer.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Yesterday’s statement from the Prime Minister should have brought clarity. Instead, it has left this House with more questions than answers. This is not a narrow procedural issue; it goes to the judgment of the Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that he is not here today to answer questions—perhaps the usual excuse that he was not told holds clear.
Let me begin with the exchange that I had with the Prime Minister yesterday, which crystallises the problem. On 4 February, the Prime Minister told my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the vetting process had disclosed information relating to Epstein. Yesterday, he attempted row back on that by saying that he had conflated vetting and due diligence, before then insisting that he understood the distinction. Those positions cannot comfortably sit together. If he understood the distinction, why did he give an answer that conflated the two? If he did not, why claim certainty at the Dispatch Box? His defence—that due diligence forms part of the wider process—did not answer the question that he was asked at the time. If that is not misleading the House, it is difficult to see what is. That lack of clarity runs through the entire account.
The Prime Minister confirmed that, in November 2024, he chose not to follow the clear and obvious advice of his then Cabinet Secretary, Lord Case, to carry out vetting before he appointed Mandelson. Now, the Prime Minister relies instead on a subsequent review by Chris Wormald, which states merely that the approach may be usual—not that it is right. The question remains: why was the advice rejected when it mattered?
The Prime Minister’s account of what he knew is equally difficult to reconcile. He says he had confidence that the vetting process had addressed the most serious concerns, yet he also says he had not seen the vetting report. If he had not seen the report, on what basis did his confidence rest? If he was relying on the Cabinet Office due diligence paper, why was that not made clear at the time when he was asked specifically about security vetting? Why was a direct question met with an answer that did not address it at all?
The contents of the due diligence paper raise further questions. It highlighted connections to Russian and Chinese interests. It referred to involvement with Sistema, a company embedded in Russia’s industrial and military structures with well-known links to Kremlin-aligned figures. That information was not hidden; it was in the public domain and placed directly before the Prime Minister in December 2024. Why did none of that trigger greater caution and, more importantly, greater action?
Most seriously of all, Sir Olly Robbins’s evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee today was consistent with the fact that Mandelson could act in his role and have access to sensitive material before the process had concluded. We also discovered that the Prime Minister’s team tried to put Matthew Doyle, another friend of a known paedophile, into an ambassadorial position.
We still have no clear account of who knew what and when, what decisions were taken, where responsibly responsibility lay, or how this situation was allowed to develop. However, I think we understand why: this is about judgment. Time and again, the Prime Minister has shown a willingness to appoint people despite serious concerns about their records: a Transport Secretary with a fraud conviction, an anti-corruption Minister under investigation, a homelessness Minister with a record that raises profound questions, and a Deputy Prime Minister who failed to meet her own tax obligations.
In this case, despite personal associations that should have raised the most serious red flags, connections to hostile states, and a long and controversial history in public life, the Prime Minister judged Peter Mandelson to be a suitable candidate for one of the most sensitive ambassadorial roles because of his influence over the Labour party and the Prime Minister himself. This is not a failure of process; it is a failure of judgment. With judgment like that, the Prime Minister is not fit to lead this country for a moment longer.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
This morning, Sir Olly Robbins appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee. What I saw was a dedicated public servant who, over 25 years, has held some of the most senior roles in the civil service. The Prime Minister would like us to believe that he was let down by officials such as Sir Olly, but in truth it was the officials who were let down by the Prime Minister. They were let down by a Prime Minister who decided to appoint to the highest diplomatic post in the Foreign Office a person who had a known association with a convicted paedophile, and who had been forced out of Government on previous occasions for personal failings.
Having made that decision, No. 10 was determined to ram it through. We have heard of the repeated calls to Olly Robbins’s private office to demand that they get it done quickly. No. 10 even went so far as to argue that the vetting process was not necessary at all. It was FCDO officials who insisted that the proper process be applied, and it was thanks to that decision that there were risk mitigations in place at all. Other Members have raised concerns about security, but if it was not for officials insisting on security vetting and the imposition of mitigations, how much worse would the national security risk have been to the UK? This is not the Prime Minister being let down by officials; it is officials clearing up the Prime Minister’s mess.
The Prime Minister wants us to believe that the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US was a singular error of judgment. However, we now know as a result of Sir Olly Robbins’s evidence that No. 10 also sought an ambassadorial appointment for the Prime Minister’s director of communications, Matthew Doyle. Appointing one friend of a paedophile as an ambassador might be an error of judgment. Attempting to appoint two looks like no judgment at all.
In his statement to the House yesterday, the Prime Minister said:
“It beggars belief that…officials in the Foreign Office saw fit to withhold this information from the most senior Ministers”.—[Official Report, 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 26.]
However, we have now learned that No. 10, having sought an ambassadorial position for Matthew Doyle, ordered Sir Olly not to tell the Foreign Secretary about it at all. On the one hand, the Prime Minister thinks officials should not withhold information. On the other hand, No. 10 is ordering officials to withhold information. Who is letting down who?
Today I saw a diligent, committed, proud and passionate civil servant who worked unbelievably hard for this country and for this Prime Minister. The Prime Minister may have found someone to fire, but the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson was his. The decision to ram that appointment through was his. The decision to announce the appointment before security vetting had been completed was his. The Prime Minister is running out of people to fire. It is time he answered for them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. The Minister will be called at 5 pm precisely, so with the remaining time, I call Jim Allister.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Yesterday, the focus of many Members was to ask the Prime Minister why he never thought to ask whether Mandelson had security clearance. There was great reticence about asking that question, but today we discovered that there was no such reticence in No. 10 when it came to trying to meddle in this process. We heard from Sir Olly Robbins this morning that the message was very clear from No. 10: the Prime Minister wants this done “at pace”. The Prime Minister did not tell us that yesterday. He said it was nothing to do with him; this was an independent process. Never once did he tell us that his officials told the Foreign Office, “This must be done at pace.”
We heard from Sir Olly this morning that there was an “atmosphere of pressure” from No. 10 and that throughout January there was “constant pressure” to get it done, some of it laced with expletives. Sir Olly told us that it would have been “very difficult” not to approve Mandelson. That is in the context of the meddling, the pressure and the insistence that it should be done and done at pace, and in a context where even the Cabinet Office, he reported, said there should be no need to vet Lord Mandelson. Think of it! This is a man who was twice dismissed and had a litany of black marks against him as a public official, and the Cabinet Office—at the heart of this Government—protested that there was no need to vet Mandelson.
The appointment of Mandelson was an unbridled, unabashed display of cronyism of the highest and most disgusting order, and that is corroborated by what was happening in respect of Matthew Doyle at the very same time. In the early months of 2025, the Prime Minister, who wanted to rush through Mandelson’s approval, was also secretly, behind the backs of not just this Parliament but his Foreign Secretary, saying, “Could Matthew Doyle be found an ambassadorial post? But don’t tell the Foreign Secretary.” That is the circumstance that prevailed in the Prime Minister’s No.10, yet he comes to this House and tells us, “Nothing to do with me, guv. People didn’t tell me. I’m innocent because I didn’t know.” As a lawyer he should know that ignorance is no defence; as a lawyer, his training and instinct should be to interrogate, not to cover up. Sadly, what we have had in this case is a monumental failure not just of process, but of character, of judgment, and of leadership—and he should go.
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)
Today’s motion asks this House to consider the Government’s accountability to this place for Peter Mandelson’s appointment. The Government have been, and remain, fully committed to keeping the House informed of all relevant information related to Peter Mandelson’s appointment and subsequent dismissal as ambassador to the United States. Ministers have addressed the House on a number of occasions on this matter.
The Prime Minister has set out to the House that, while much of the debate on this issue has focused on process, at the heart of it all is the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson in the first place. The Prime Minister has been up front about that and takes responsibility for it. He knows that he should not have made the appointment. He regrets the decision, and he apologises for it, in particular to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Those women and girls have been subjected to intolerable cruelty and disgusting abuse, and are to date without justice. Their experiences should be taken seriously and they should be listened to.
I do not come to the House today to defend that decision—it was the wrong one. I am here to account for the Government’s accountability to this House on the process that followed. I take the Government’s responsibility to this House seriously, so I will not take the opportunity this evening to try to score party political points, or to defend a decision that the Prime Minister has said is wrong and for which he apologises. I do, however, commit to returning to this House as often as required.
Darren Jones
The Prime Minister followed the process that was in place, and I will turn to some of the details of that in the remainder of my speech.
On 11 March, I addressed the House in response to the Humble Address, as we released the first tranche of documents relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment and subsequent dismissal. I committed to keep the House updated as we worked to publish documents relevant to that Humble Address, and I recommit to doing so today. I reassure the House that we are proceeding at pace to process the outstanding documents, a number of which are currently being reviewed by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, with the aim of publishing the next tranche of documents as a matter of urgency.
In the debate, I was asked specifically about redactions in documents published in relation to the Humble Address. I will be clear: redactions are visible on the documents by the black marking out of information. If there is no marking out, it is not a redaction. All redactions are agreed via the Intelligence and Security Committee before they come to the House.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
We have heard a lot from Labour Members today about process, but will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister please tell my constituents, the House and the country why on earth the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson to be ambassador to the United States?
Darren Jones
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Prime Minister’s words, and I reiterate his apology for having made that wrong decision in the first place.
I will now move to the specific matter of security vetting. As the House heard from the Prime Minister yesterday, on the evening of 14 April he was told for the first time that last year, before Peter Mandelson took up his position as ambassador, the Foreign Office had granted Peter Mandelson developed vetting clearance against the recommendation of the United Kingdom Security Vetting authority, UKSV. In today’s debate there have been accusations that the Cabinet Office had suggested that developed vetted status or the process to seek that was not necessary. Those accusations are inaccurate. I can confirm to the House, based on advice that I have received, that a question was asked by the Foreign Office of the Cabinet Office team whether, on the basis that Peter Mandelson was already a Member of the House of Lords and a Privy Counsellor, further developed vetting status was required. That then subsequently took place, as Members of the House know.
The Foreign Office officials who made the decision to overrule the recommendation of UKSV then failed to notify the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or her predecessor, the Deputy Prime Minister, or any other Minister, including myself, or the former Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald. That has been confirmed today in evidence given by Sir Olly Robbins to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Several hon. Members rose—
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
I have been listening to the description of this entire saga and it is confusing even to someone who is a Westminster insider, in the Westminster bubble. May I ask a question about process? My right hon. Friend mentioned 14 April, when the Prime Minister was notified that there had been a breach in the security vetting and that it had failed on one aspect. Will he explain to me the process at that point and what the Prime Minister would have had to do to gather all the information before coming to the House? Who would he have to speak to, what legal advice would he have to take, who would he have to consult and what permissions would he have to have? [Interruption.] This is important. What information did he need to have before he came back to the House? I want to know and my constituents want to know.
Darren Jones
As the Prime Minister has made clear to the House and via the publication of a minute of the meeting in which he was informed of this information, the Prime Minister made it immediately clear to his officials that he intended to come to this House to inform Members of Parliament of the situation about which he had just been told, but that he urgently needed a set of information about who had made what decision and when, in order to be able to provide the full facts to Parliament.
On Tuesday 14 April, the Prime Minister instructed officials to establish the facts urgently. I agree with the Prime Minister that he should have been informed of this a long time ago, as should this House. There were multiple opportunities for this issue to have been raised, not just when the decision to grant Peter Mandelson developed vetting status was initially made, but subsequently when the Prime Minister asked the former Cabinet Secretary to assure him that all due process had been followed—and he had been assured of that—and then subsequently again when the Foreign Secretary and the then permanent secretary to the Foreign Office provided a signed statement to the Foreign Affairs Committee confirming:
“Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was conducted to the usual standard set for developed vetting in line with established Cabinet Office policy.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Esther McVey
The Prime Minister has clearly said that he was right to sack the senior civil servant Oliver Robbins, so can the Minister guarantee that the Government will contest any employment claim from Sir Oliver Robbins for unfair or constructive dismissal all the way to the employment tribunal, and will not use taxpayer money to pay off this gentleman to avoid that outcome?
Darren Jones
The right hon. Lady will know that I am not at liberty to comment in respect of any potential claim to the employment tribunal.
Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was carried out by UKSV between 23 December 2024 and 28 January 2025. That included collecting relevant information and interviewing the applicant, in this case on two occasions. One issue has been raised in the debate about that time period; there is a suggestion that No. 10 applied pressure on officials at the Foreign Office in relation to the security vetting process. It was confirmed in testimony today before the Foreign Affairs Committee that no such pressure was applied beyond asking for the process to be completed as quickly as possible, and confirmed by Sir Olly Robbins that there was no personal contact by telephone or message. That is testimony from the official himself in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
On 28 January 2025, UKSV recommended to the Foreign Office that developed vetting clearance should not be granted to Peter Mandelson. The following day, on 29 January 2025, Foreign Office officials made the decision to grant developed vetting clearance for Peter Mandelson none the less. This was an established process for the Foreign Office, which had the authority to be able to make those decisions. It is worth reiterating for the sake of clarity, as the Prime Minister did yesterday, that UKSV makes decisions for many Government Departments, but not for the Foreign Office. The final decision on developed vetting clearance is made by Foreign Office officials, not by UKSV.
When I became aware of the details of Peter Mandelson’s case following the publication of reporting in The Guardian last Thursday, I was briefed on the matter that evening at the Cabinet Office by officials in respect of both the case of Peter Mandelson and the existing policy on UKSV recommendations and the Foreign Office’s decisions. I immediately suspended the right for the Foreign Office to overrule UKSV recommendations pending further investigation. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), I can confirm that the review that Adrian Fulford will conduct for the Government should be completed in around four weeks, so that we can take a quick decision on the proper functioning of the process.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
In Olly Robbins’ letter to the Foreign Affairs Committee today, he countermands what the right hon. Gentleman has said from the Dispatch Box. He says:
“I believe the Cabinet Office (CO) raised whether Developed Vetting (DV) was actually necessary. I understand the FCDO insisted that DV was a requirement before Mandelson took up his post in Washington.”
After due diligence, the Cabinet Office was insisting that it was not necessary. Surely the right hon. Gentleman needs to retract his remarks.
Darren Jones
I repeat my words and refer back to them.
Much has been said about the ability of officials to disclose sensitive vetting information. As the Prime Minister has set out, I accept that the sensitive personal information provided by an individual being vetted must be protected from disclosure. If that were not the case, the integrity of the whole process would be compromised. However, neither the Prime Minister nor I accept that the appointing Minister cannot be told of the recommendation made by UKSV. Nor do the Government accept that Foreign Office officials could not have informed the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or the Cabinet Secretary of UKSV’s recommendation while maintaining the necessary confidentiality that vetting requires.
The civil service code on this issue is clear, not just in normal practice but especially in relation to when Ministers are giving evidence to Parliament, as was the case via correspondence from the current Foreign Secretary to the Foreign Affairs Committee. There is no law that stops civil servants sensibly flagging UKSV recommendations while protecting detailed, sensitive vetting information in order to allow Ministers to make judgments on appointments or to explain matters to Parliament.
The Government have also changed the direct ministerial appointments process so that due diligence is now required as standard. The Prime Minister has also changed the process so that public announcements about direct ministerial appointments can now not be made until security vetting has been completed.
What clearly came to light about Peter Mandelson following the release of files by the United States Department of Justice was clearly deeply disturbing. In February this year, the Prime Minister instructed officials to carry out a review of the national security vetting process to ensure that it is fit for purpose. I can confirm that the terms of reference for that review have been updated to include the means by which all decisions are made in relation to national security vetting. The Government have appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead that review and, for completeness, have separately asked the Government Security Group in the Cabinet Office to look at any security concerns raised during Peter Mandelson’s tenure as ambassador to the United States, in answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas). We will publish terms of reference, and the Government commit to return to the House on their findings and recommendations.
On two other questions that were raised during the debate, accusations have been made of the Prime Minister both in this House of misleading and outside this House of lying. Those have been shown today by evidence in the Foreign Affairs Committee not to be true in any way. I am sure the House will be as concerned as I am that while officials felt unable to provide this information to Ministers, it was made available to The Guardian. As a consequence, I can confirm that a leak inquiry is now under way.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to today’s debate. This is my sixth address to this House on the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America. I recognise that the House will want to know about the next steps in respect of the publication of the remainder of the information relevant to the Humble Address that was not included in the first tranche. I commit to the House that we will release that further material shortly, subject to the processes ongoing with the Metropolitan police and the Intelligence and Security Committee, and we will continue to keep Members updated as we make progress. I commend this statement to the House.
Mrs Badenoch
I start by thanking Members from across the House for speaking in today’s debate. We heard many powerful speeches, and I am particularly grateful to the many speakers from the Conservative Benches, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and my hon. Friends the Members for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) and for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam). I found myself nodding along to the speech made by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon)—I think that is the first time that has ever happened. We heard very good speeches from the hon. Members for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) and for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). Members from all parts of the House have made powerful statements—Members of all parties who know that this story does not add up. We have also heard some statements supporting the Prime Minister, which can only be described as brave.
As I said when I opened the debate, I do feel for the Minister sent here today on the Prime Minister’s behalf. He is the latest person to have to carry the can for the Prime Minister’s mistakes. He could never have given this House the answers it deserved to hear about what is, at its core, a failure of the Prime Minister’s judgment, a failure of the Prime Minister to follow process, and a shocking failure of the Prime Minister to take responsibility for his own mistakes—not just apologise, but take responsibility.
The Minister could not answer the question of why the Prime Minister decided to appoint Peter Mandelson to our most important diplomatic role in full knowledge, based on the due diligence, that Mandelson was a security risk, despite many Members asking it. He could not answer the question of why the Prime Minister chose to ignore the Cabinet Secretary and appoint Peter Mandelson before he received vetting. That was clearly not the process at the time, despite what the Minister has said from the Dispatch Box. He has said that the Government are changing the process, but the advice in November 2024 was to carry out the security vetting, so what process are they changing? Is it one that the Minister is just making up?
The Minister could not answer the question of why the Prime Minister put the Foreign Office under “constant pressure” to approve the appointment. He could not answer the question of why No. 10 was “dismissive” of the entire vetting process. He could not answer the question of why No. 10 also asked for the disgraced Matthew Doyle to be made an ambassador and hid this from the Foreign Secretary, and he could not answer the question of why the Prime Minister sacked Olly Robbins if he was following a process that, as he claims, was in place already—it does not make any sense. He could not answer, because only one man can, and that man is not here today. I do not know whether the Prime Minister thinks he is above answering these questions—we will try again tomorrow. I do not know whether he still somehow thinks that he did nothing wrong, but I will tell the House what I do know. The Prime Minister has put the country’s national security at risk. He is not fit for office, and he must take responsibility. It is time for him to go.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Government’s accountability to the House in connection to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States of America.
Richard Burgon
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, I apologise for not having been able to give you advance notice of this point of order. I asked whether the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister could answer a question that I have been trying repeatedly to get an answer to, and I would like your advice on how I can get that answer. The question is whether Morgan McSweeney had security clearance at the time that he was involved in the Mandelson appointment. Could we have an answer to that question, either now or in writing? I would be grateful if you could advise me.
Mr Speaker
What I will say is that we are not going to carry on the debate. I know that the Member has been here long enough that he will pursue this matter. I am sure that Members on the Treasury Bench will have heard that he does not feel he has had an answer, but I know that this will not be the end of the matter.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Programme) (No. 3)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 2 September 2025 (English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Programme), as varied by the Order of 24 November 2025 (English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Programme (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00pm at today’s sitting.
(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 2, 4, 13, 26, 36 and 37, 41, 85 to 87, 89 to 91, 94, 97 to 116, 120 and 121, 123, 155, 1, 3, 5 to 12, 14 to 25, 27 to 35, 38 to 40, 42 to 84, 88, 92 and 93, 95 and 96, 117 to 119, 122, 124 to 154 and 156 to 170.
Subsequent stages
(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) Proceedings on the first of any further Messages from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.
(5) Proceedings on any subsequent Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Question agreed to.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 293 / Noes: 155 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 298 / Noes: 152 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:24 - The House divided: - Ayes: 297 / Noes: 147 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:36 - The House divided: - Ayes: 287 / Noes: 149 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:47 - The House divided: - Ayes: 288 / Noes: 147 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 291 / Noes: 144 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:10 - The House divided: - Ayes: 284 / Noes: 149 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:22 - The House divided: - Ayes: 287 / Noes: 150 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I can inform the House that Lords amendment 39 engages Commons financial privilege. If the Lords amendment is agreed to, I will ensure that the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege is entered into the Journal.
Clause 2
Areas of competence
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendments 4, 13 and 26, and Government motions to disagree.
Lords amendments 36 and 37, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 37.
Lords amendments 41, 85 to 87, 89 to 91, 94, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123, and Government motions to disagree.
Lords amendment 155, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (f) to the words so restored to the Bill.
Lords amendments 1, 3, 5 to 12, 14 to 25, 27 to 35 and 38 to 40.
Lords amendment 42, motion to disagree, and amendment (a) to Lords amendment 42.
Lords amendments 43 to 55.
Lords amendment 56, and amendment (a) to Lords amendment 56.
Lords amendments 57 to 84, 88, 92, 93, 95, 96, 117 to 119, 122, 124 to 154 and 156 to 170.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
This Government were elected with a clear mandate to deliver change, but to deliver change that people can see and feel, we must empower our communities. We are therefore determined to build a different type of state where local leaders and communities with skin in the game are given power and control to shape the things that matter in their place and in their lives. Our English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill is a critical, bold step in delivering that. It will drive the biggest transfer of power out of Whitehall to our regions and our communities in a generation. It sets a floor for devolution, and we intend to build on the foundation set out in the Bill to give communities the power and control they are demanding to drive the change they want to see in their place.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that the election campaigns for the Surrey West and Surrey East unitaries are ongoing as a consequence of this legislation, but we still have not had an announcement on whether we will get a mayor for Surrey. That will be critical for protecting our green belt if the Conservatives do not retain power after the elections. Can she update the House on the importance of protecting our green belt and getting a mayor for Surrey who can do so?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The question of unitarisation is being dealt with. Applications have been made and the Government are going through the process and looking at the objective criteria. No doubt the hon. Member has had many conversations with the Minister for Housing and Planning on these matters. I will, however, try to focus the hon. Member’s mind and attention on the key premise of this Bill, which is community empowerment and devolution, and on the Lords amendments we are discussing.
Before speaking to the Lords amendments, I thank my noble Friend Baroness Taylor for so ably guiding the Bill through the other place. I put on record my appreciation to all peers who contributed to its scrutiny. I will begin with the Government amendments that were made in the other place. Following the insightful contribution of peers, Lords amendment 1 adds culture as a distinct area of competence within clause 2 of the Bill. By doing so, the Government are sending a clear signal on the role that strategic authorities can and should continue to play in supporting cultural initiatives, as well as recognising the important role that culture in its many forms plays in enriching quality of life and supporting local economic growth.
We are also improving the operational flexibility of the commissioner model introduced by the Bill. Lords amendments 3 and 5 increase the potential number of commissioners to 10, and Lords amendments 125, 127, 129, 131, 133 and 135 allow more than one commissioner to operate in a single area of competence.
The next group of important changes that the Government made in the other place concerns local accountability and scrutiny. The Government committed to exploring a local Public Accounts Committee model in the English devolution White Paper. We recognised that greater powers of local scrutiny are needed to reflect the increased scale of responsibility that will be devolved to mayoral strategic authorities through the Bill. To that end, Lords amendments 7, 137 and 138 introduce local scrutiny committees, which replace overview and scrutiny committees in mayoral combined and combined county authorities. Local scrutiny committees will provide an enhanced scrutiny regime with stronger oversight, a broader remit to reflect the scale of mayoral responsibilities and greater teeth to hold mayors to account.
On Report, the Government introduced amendments to the Licensing Act 2003 and created a new strategic licensing role for the Mayor of London. That included an amendment to create a new duty on the Mayor of London to determine and publish a new strategic licensing policy.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for being so responsive to the concerns about strategic licensing that I and colleagues in London have shared with her. May I confirm that it is not the Government’s intention for an application to be treated as being of potential strategic importance solely by reason of its location within a London plan designation or a London mayoral policy area, and that instead, in deciding whether a licensing application is of potential strategic importance, the Government intend for regard to be given to the residential character of the immediately affected area and to the evidence of the local licensing authority?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank my hon. Friend for asking an important question, and for his ongoing engagement in this area. Let me take his question in the context of what we are trying to do through the Bill. The Government are really clear, and Baroness Taylor made it very clear in the other place, that we recognise that licensing authorities are often best placed to make licensing decisions, based on their local knowledge. In that context, the evidence provided by licensing authorities will have a significant role in both the design of the policy and the determination of potential strategic importance.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
One area that has been talked about is the ability of scrutiny bodies to take decisions, and the challenge in London is that there has to be a two-thirds majority to make a decision. The suggestion was made that this could be changed and be brought in line with other authorities, so that we have simple majority voting. Does the Minister agree that we have missed an opportunity to do that?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will come back to that point, because it relates to an amendment that I would like to speak to, but I want to fully address the point that has been made about call-in powers with regard to licensing.
My hon. Friends the Members for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman), for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake), for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) have provided clear, insightful feedback and constructive engagement, and they have done a fantastic job of representing the concerns of their constituents. Let me reassure them on all the key points that they have raised. It is important to put on the record that the amendment will be embedded in the Licensing Act 2003. The licensing objectives that seek to protect and safeguard local communities will apply, and the mayor will be required to have regard to them when exercising the powers conferred through the amendment.
The Government are incredibly clear that there must be the right balance between encouraging the growth of hospitality and the night-time economy, which we want to do, and protecting the needs of local communities and their places. The safeguarding and reassurance that are required are locked into the way that we have designed this policy. As I have said, local licensing authorities will continue to be the default decision makers, so the mayor must have regard to the evidence that they provide to determine the decisions that they make. Finally and crucially, where cumulative impact zones have been designated by boroughs, this will remain the case, and the mayor must have regard to the cumulative impact assessment.
We hope that we have designed this policy in a way that provides a balance between growth, residential amenities and safeguarding the protection of local communities. As we design the detail of potential strategic importance, we are committed to working with Members from across the House, as well as our licensing authorities, to ensure that we get this right.
On pavement parking, which affects communities across the country and disproportionately harms people with mobility or sight impairment, as well as those with prams or pushchairs, who rely on safe, accessible pavements to move around independently, this Government are committed to creating safer, more inclusive streets. Lords amendments 41 and 158 will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations under which English local transport authorities are able to prohibit the parking of motor vehicles on pavements in their area. The regulations will include details on how local transport authorities will exercise the power to prohibit pavement parking, on which vehicles would be excluded and on permissive exemptions.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Given that the new powers are being handed to local transport authorities, will there be funding to enforce the new measures and the obligations that councils are getting?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We have a policy that wherever there are new powers—whether they are conferred to local authorities or combined authorities—the new burdens principle is in place. In designing this policy, we will work really closely with local authorities to ensure that we are doing enforcement in a way that bites for our communities in the way that they want to see.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Any progress on banning pavement parking is progress, so I absolutely welcome that. Will guidance be given to local authorities on how that could work? We have a ban in Edinburgh, which has been transformative, so hopefully we can look there for examples of how it could work. The Minister mentioned exemptions. Will the Government mandate any exemptions centrally, or is it entirely up to local authorities to make that decision?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We will be learning insights from Edinburgh and the other places that have applied the provision, and we will be providing further details and guidance on how it could work. In doing that, we will try to strike a balance between setting out an overall framework that enables places to put this in place and allowing places to use their discretion and local knowledge to make sure it works in their interests.
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
I think the Minister has slightly brushed over Lords amendment 41 on the agent of change principle. This is an excellent Bill, but I do think it is disappointing that the Government are rejecting Lords amendment 41. If we want to properly protect our beloved music venues, pubs and cultural institutions, we need measures with teeth. The agent of change principle works in Scotland, where it is in statute, but such measures do not really work in England at the moment.
I had hoped that the Government would table an amendment in lieu on this issue, and I guess there is still time, but if not—and I know the Minister will say that the Government are looking at the national planning policy framework—could I encourage the strongest possible protections in that for the venues I have mentioned?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
As my hon. Friend says, Lord amendment 41, with Lords amendment 95, would place the agent of change principle on a statutory footing in the planning and licensing and statutory nuisance regimes. While I and the Government respect the concerns raised in the other place and those he has raised about how in some cases new homes are adversely affecting existing businesses and cultural venues in their vicinity, we are not persuaded that the amendment is necessary, given the changes to the planning system already in progress.
The agent of change principle is already firmly embedded in national planning policy, and both the licensing and the statutory nuisance frameworks give local decision makers the flexibility to factor it in, where relevant to the circumstances of particular cases. Furthermore, we are already considering changes to strengthen this duty, because we recognise the arguments that my hon. Friend has made.
As the House will be aware, we recently consulted on a new national planning policy framework that would strengthen this policy and ensure that the principle is effectively applied to protect businesses while building the houses the country desperately needs. Today, I can commit to publishing updated planning policy guidance on the agent of change principle, following the publication of the final national planning policy framework. This guidance will ensure consistent application of the principle and a fair approach across local planning authorities. I hope that will be enough to satisfy my hon. Friend, and I urge the House to disagree with Lords amendment 41.
Lords amendment 42, moved by Lord Banner, fixes a current gap in the law where land held on statutory trusts was previously appropriated or disposed of without complying with the statutory advertisement requirements under the Local Government Act 1972. The law currently provides no legal mechanism to resolve this situation, resulting in difficult and protracted legal wranglings. While this will apply in only a very small number of cases, the Government do not believe that historic procedural errors should be left unresolved, especially when that risk is preventing the delivery of environmental improvements, or improvements to community facilities.
The amendment creates a mechanism for the Secretary of State to intervene in these rare cases to determine whether the land should remain in a statutory trust or be disposed of. Crucially, the amendment does not—it does not—weaken protections for public recreational land. It introduces a rigorous evidenced-based process overseen by the Secretary of State, with strict qualifying conditions and robust publicity requirements. It has a broad public interest test at its heart, which includes environmental and heritage considerations. By providing a clear route to fix the gap in the law, the amendment ensures decisions about land previously held for public enjoyment are taken in the interests of the public. For those reasons, the Government support the amendment.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
With respect, may I correct the Minister? There is a process by which the gap can be corrected. The land could be re-conveyed to the local authority and then the correct process carried out. Does she agree that the weakness of Lord Banner’s amendment is that the local authority has no role to play? In the process that should have been used, the local authority has a role to play. This is moving from localism back to centralised Government making decisions. Is that not wrong?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, because the issue is still the responsibility of the local authority. The amendment is trying to get to those specific cases where the local authority has not applied the proper process to dispose of land and then we are in limbo; it creates a mechanism by which to resolve that. There is a process in place for local authorities to choose to dispose of land, or maintain it in statutory trusts. That is not affected by this amendment. This is trying to get to those situations where it has not been discharged properly. There is currently a gap in the legislation, which we hope this amendment responds to.
Mr Kohler
Then there are two remedies: to re-convey the land to the local authority to do it correctly, or to bring an amendment that gives the local authority a role to play. The local authority has no role to play in this amendment; that is why it is moving from localism to ministerial fiat. That is what is wrong with the amendment.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Whether it is in the planning system or in other systems, in instances where we have a contentious situation and disagreement because a local authority has not discharged its responsibilities in disposing of statutory trusts, at the moment we are in limbo. The amendment creates a mechanism by which that can be resolved. We are very clear that strict criteria and safeguards are put in place. Ultimately, the Secretary of State will opine and come to a decision based on what is in the public interest. The ability of the community to make representations is very clear and very firmly built into the way we are designing the policy.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will try to make progress. I move on to amendments made by peers in the other place. We welcome the scrutiny and challenge provided, and are willing to make sensible concessions in some areas, but most of the amendments in question serve to undermine the core principles of the Bill. For that reason, we cannot accept them. Let me be clear about precisely why, starting with Lords amendment 2.
Lords amendment 2 seeks to include rural affairs as a stand-alone area of competence for strategic authorities. Peers in the other place highlighted the distinct challenges facing our rural communities, from public transport through to employment opportunities and affordable housing. The Government recognise those challenges and agree with many of the points made in the other place. However, we cannot accept the amendment because we consider it unnecessary.
The areas of competence have been deliberately framed in broad terms, allowing a wide range of activities to fall within scope, including matters relating to rural affairs. From transport through to local infrastructure and housing, the existing areas of competence already allow for strategic authorities to address rural needs where relevant. Crucially, this is now being borne out; York and North Yorkshire combined authority, for instance, is already piloting affordable rural housing. There is no disagreement on policy; the Government recognise the role that strategic authorities can play in supporting our rural communities. Given that, I am happy to commit to bringing forward non-statutory guidance to support strategic authorities in delivering for rural communities using the powers and functions that they have been given.
Lords amendment 4 seeks to ensure that appointments of commissioners by mayors are made through a fair and open selection process. On this, we agree. That is why the Government have published statutory guidance that sets out the selection, appointment and remuneration process. We hope that doing so satisfies the points raised in the other House.
Lords amendments 13 and 87 seek to reduce the threshold needed for the London Assembly to amend the Mayor of London’s final draft budget from a two-thirds majority to a simple majority, which was the point the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) was making. It is the Government’s intention to simplify and ensure consistency in voting arrangements across all our strategic authorities, including the Greater London Authority. For most decisions, the default will become a simple majority, but that does not apply for mayoral budgets, which will continue to require a two-thirds majority to amend.
Given that mayors and combined authorities may have their budgets amended only by a two-thirds majority, the Government believe that these amendments would bring scrutiny of London’s mayoral budget out of line with other strategic authorities. We therefore do not support the amendments and urge the House to reject them.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will make progress, if I may.
Lords amendments 26 and 89 seek to specify that mayors, combined authorities and combined county authorities may designate greenfield land for development only when they are satisfied that no suitable brownfield land exists. The Government are strongly committed to a brownfield-first approach, and we have been clear that brownfield land should be the first port of call. To further support this ambition, the national planning policy framework was revised in December 2024 to set out that proposals for brownfield development should normally be approved.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will make a little more progress first.
We also expanded the definition of previously developed land in the framework to include large areas of hardstanding, better reflecting land that is already developed. We are looking to go further still in our support for brownfield development as part of our most recent consultation on changes to the national planning policy framework, which closed in March.
The Government strongly promote this policy, so there is no disagreement on policy here. However, brownfield sites vary greatly and need to be both available and in the right place to support sustainable development and meet the needs of the community. These amendments seek to impose this sort of requirement in legislation rather than in policy, which is what we do across all aspects of the planning system; this would be unduly rigid, likely to delay land coming forward for development and support unsustainable development in some cases.
Wendy Morton
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as I am conscious that we do not have a huge amount of time this evening. If this Labour Government were really serious about a brownfield-first approach, they would accept these amendments from the House of Lords, because they are exactly about ensuring that developers develop on that sort of land first. These amendments would protect communities and the environment in places like mine, which are coming under attack from her Government, who want to impose 20,000 homes on Walsall.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am not going to resile from the fact that we want to build more homes, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have a housing crisis, and we absolutely need to build more homes across the country. However, we are agreed on the principle of brownfield first. Our argument is simply that that should be done through policy, as we do across all aspects of the planning system from local authorities—it is far too rigid to be put on the face of the Bill. We have strengthened the national policy framework to deliver that policy intent, which we hope will reassure and satisfy Members of both this House and the other place.
Briefly, Lords amendments 36, 155 and 90 seek to remove provisions from the Bill relating to local authority governance and executives. The Government continue to hold a strong preference for executive models of governance, and in particular the leader and cabinet model, which is already operated successfully by 80% of councils.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will make progress.
For that reason, we cannot accept the amendment from the other place. The Government’s provisions are intended to bring greater clarity and consistency to local authority governance across England. We have heard and responded to the genuine concerns of Members in this Chamber and noble Lords in the other place about certain aspects of this policy. Members will recall that on Report in the Commons the Government brought forward their own amendment to allow councils that have recently adopted the committee system following a council resolution or referendum to continue with those arrangements until the end of the moratorium period. We believe that this strikes the right balance, so we do not think that the amendments are necessary.
Lords amendments 37 and 91 require the Secretary of State to develop and implement a strategy for parish governance in England. Let me put on record that we absolutely see the important role that parish and town councils play, and we are clear that they will have a role within the neighbourhood governance system that we will roll out through clause 60. We do not think that the amendments are necessary. We are committed to ensuring that, through an amendment in lieu, neighbourhood governance structures can include town and parish councils. We are also pleased to commit to updating the existing community governance review guidance to reflect examples of good practice for local authorities.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will have to make progress in case I incur the wrath of Madam Deputy Speaker.
Finally, Lords amendments 85, 86, 97 to 116, 120 and 121 and 123 collectively seek to remove the Secretary of State’s power to direct the establishment or expansion of a combined authority or combined county authority or to provide for a mayor in certain circumstances. The Government have been clear that devolution has the potential to drive growth. We have also been clear that we will always seek to make sure that partnerships are locally driven. I hope that the new combined authorities we established in recent weeks and our invitation to all areas to form foundational strategic authorities serve as evidence that we are taking a local-first and locally driven approach.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will make progress.
I am happy to give the House a commitment that the Government will not commence these ministerial powers of direction for two years following Royal Assent, nor will we use the powers to provide for a mayor without local consent for a period of four years following Royal Assent. I hope that that will reassure Members.
To conclude, there are many amendments for us to work through together in this debate. I hope that the House has seen that we are willing to engage with amendments that we think enhance the Bill, but we cannot and will not accept amendments that undermine the core principles of the Bill, which is, fundamentally, to make sure that we give local authorities, leaders and communities the powers that they deserve. I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s position.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I will begin by recognising the work that has taken place in both Houses to try to improve this legislation, which is in many ways such a curate’s egg. It has faults and flaws that their lordships in the other place have worked towards improving, and I thank them for that work.
The Conservatives have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that this is a centralising Bill. It takes decisions away from local communities and places them into the hands of Ministers, often without consent. We have already seen the consequences of this centralising of power and “Government know best” attitude. We have seen elections cancelled and then reinstated. We have seen the restructuring of local government imposed from the centre, driven by political considerations rather than the voice of the independent boundary commissions.
Local leaders are being presented with plans and told to comply. It is called a devolution Bill, but it is not devolution. We welcome the improvements to this Bill put forward by the Lords. The question before the House, however, remains simple: does this Bill empower local areas, or does it continue a pattern of centralised control? I will go through the Lords amendments in turn.
Lords amendment 36, which we support, would be an important and practical improvement to the Bill. It establishes the clear principle that brownfield land should be used first. That is just common sense. We want to get more houses built—of course we do—but we should start with land that has already been used rather than virgin land. The amendment protects communities while still enabling homes to be built with local approval and local consent.
Wendy Morton
My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. In the west midlands under the leadership of Andy Street, it was proven that we can regenerate brownfield sites—we have done it in the Walsall borough. The Government must be prepared, as we were when we were in government, to put in some funding to unlock those sites. It can be a win-win as we develop brownfield sites, regenerate our towns and cities, create the housing wanted by young people and old people, and protect the green belt and our green spaces for as long as we possibly can, allowing communities such as those I represent—600 people came out last weekend to protest against the Government’s measures—to enjoy the amenities of life that they currently do.
Sir James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: this fundamentally betrays a lack of ambition from the Government. The Minister for Housing and Planning will know Kidbrooke in south-east London, which is a fantastic example of redeveloping previously developed land. Poor-quality post-second world war tower blocks have been redeveloped, with increased beauty and increased density, which is good for the local economy and good for the local society. The Bill does nothing to encourage more developments like that; it encourages developers to build cheap and awful in green fields around urban areas, which is the opposite of what should happen.
Sir James Cleverly
No. Let us talk about local consent. Lords amendment 98 addresses one of the central concerns with the Bill and would ensure that changes to local governance cannot simply be imposed from the centre. That matters, because devolution must be with the consent of local people and not imposed from Whitehall.
The Lords rightly scrutinises the role of mayoral commissioners, and Lords amendment 4 would strengthen transparency in their appointment. We have consistently argued that power must come with proper accountability. Following engagement with colleagues in the other place, the Government have published draft guidance on appointments and remuneration. That is welcome, but guidance is not the same as proper accountability, and there remains a real risk of expanding layers of expensive and unelected roles without sufficient scrutiny. We will continue to press for further and stronger safeguards.
On governance in London, Lords amendment 13 would make a targeted change to how decisions are taken on council tax requirement. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), who is sadly no longer in his place, it would lower the threshold for the London Assembly to amend those decisions, strengthening its ability to hold the mayor to account. That would be a step towards greater democratic accountability in London, and we support it.
While we support those improvements, concerns do remain. On Lords Amendment 42 and land disposal, we have been clear about the need for proper safeguards. We argued that any change in this area must be preceded by a full review. The Government promised a wider review of protections for public open spaces and that they would engage widely before recommending any changes. Yet those commitments have been watered down and suddenly, we discover that a proper consultation has become an internal review. That is why we have again tabled an amendment to require a proper review of open space availability before the powers are exercised.
Sir James Cleverly
I will, because I have a thing to say about the hon. Gentleman’s party.
Mr Kohler
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Tories’ amendment (a) would do nothing and that it is actually just a tick-box exercise that would allow Lords amendment 42 to pass with the Minister just having to have regard to a report? Why did the Tory party not vote against the amendment? There are many that did not pass. Why did they not vote against this amendment from Lord Banner?
Sir James Cleverly
I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s assessment. Had his party in the other place voted to keep the protections in, we would not be having this discussion at this Dispatch Box now. His party failed to do its work in the other place. I will not stand here and be lectured by his party, which failed to do its job.
The pattern is familiar. The Government centralise powers first and then consider accountability later. Some amendments before us represent sensible improvements and we will support them where they do. However, the underlying concern with the Bill remains. Devolution must trust local people in local areas. In so many ways, the Bill does not. Devolution only works when there is proper transparency in decision making and proper safeguards when powers are expanded. In many ways, this Bill does not have that. That is what we will continue to press for and that is why we will continue to hold this Labour Government to account. The Bill has serious consequences, it is still deficient, and we will support the Lords amendments that improve it.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The implications of this legislation will be significant for communities across the country. It is therefore crucial that we get it right.
I pay tribute to Eamonn Boylan, who sadly passed away earlier this month—a pivotal figure for Greater Manchester’s devolution journey. During his time as chief executive of the combined authority, he understood that the more power we obtain, both regionally and locally, the more we can deliver. Eamonn certainly helped Greater Manchester to deliver, following the progress made by the likes of Sir Howard Bernstein and Sir Richard Leese.
We in Greater Manchester have been at the forefront of progress in this area and we have been focused on one thing: making tangible improvements to the lives of those who elect us. This Labour Government must be radical in their approach to devolution, bringing power closer to people and not hoarding it in this place, and we must future-proof this Government’s achievements from those who would seek to undermine and unravel our progress.
We need to ensure that the transfer of power to our communities is permanent. From adding culture as a devolved competence to strengthening restrictions on gambling premises, there is much to welcome in the amendments. Today I will cover the amendments related to private hire vehicles, both in terms of national standards and Lords amendments 55 to 62 on enforcement powers for drivers operating in other areas. I previously tabled an amendment on this matter, which I believe would have empowered mayoral strategic authorities to require private hire vehicle drivers to licence within their region. That would have brought licensing, enforcement and monitoring closer to home and forged stronger ties between drivers and the communities they serve.
I acknowledge the efforts of Baroness Pidgeon, who sought, as I did, to phase out out-of-area operations. I welcome the steps that the Government, in the form of Lords amendments, have taken towards enabling licensing authorities to take enforcement action against a PHV licensed out of area and to temporarily suspend licences.
I especially welcome the steps that these amendments take to improve information sharing between licensing authorities on the conduct of individual drivers. Although I support this step and the Government’s work on national standards, we must acknowledge that the system at large will still be characterised by out-of- area operations. I commend what the Government are seeking to do, but if we are to bring about better enforcement processes, we need to incentivise or perhaps mandate drivers to license locally and therefore disincentivise drivers from taking shortcuts to obtaining a licence hundreds of miles away from where they wish to operate.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I would like to start by thanking colleagues across the House in the other place who have worked tirelessly to improve this Bill, in particular the Liberal Democrat peers Baroness Pidgeon, Lord Foster of Bath, Baroness Bakewell and Lord Shipley. As we on these Liberal Democrat Benches have said throughout the passage of the Bill, it has potential but it does not amount to true devolution, and I sincerely hope that after the next King’s Speech we will see more real devolution and more on neighbourhood governance.
What this Bill offers is power handed down with strings attached—shaped and constrained by central Government rather than genuinely entrusted to local communities. The Government’s response to the Lords amendments before us only reinforces that fact. The Government say that the Bill rebalances power away from Whitehall, but their response to the amendments tells a different story, resisting even the most modest steps that would give local areas more clarity, flexibility and control. I believe that those are the real hallmarks of devolution.
Let me start with where I feel power is being withheld. Our Lords amendment 2 would ensure that rural affairs were properly recognised within the competencies of strategic authorities. The Government say that that is unnecessary and that non-statutory guidance will suffice. I appreciate that the Minister has moved forward on this issue, but I take the view that without a clear legal requirement, rural areas risk being overlooked, as they too often are at the moment. There must be a duty, either in the Bill or through statutory guidance, to ensure that rural communities are properly considered. Non-statutory guidance can, sadly, be ignored because it creates no obligation. This really matters. Rural areas are already under pressure, facing higher delivery costs and feeling the strain of the recent funding review. Without a clear duty, they risk once again becoming an afterthought.
We see the same pattern when we look at how power is exercised. Lords amendment 4 would ensure transparency in the appointment of mayoral commissioners. The Government again say that the guidance is enough, but these are unelected positions with real influence. Transparency should never be optional in any layer of government. The guidance speaks of visibility and accountability, yet says nothing about merit-based selection. Concerns about patronage are quietly acknowledged but not addressed structurally. If the Government believe that appointments should be fair and open—that is what I firmly believe, and we can clearly see that that is what the public expect—they should have no hesitation in putting that principle into law.
Lords amendment 13 moved by my colleague in the Lords, Baroness Pidgeon, would strengthen democratic oversight of the Mayor of London’s budget. Put simply, a two-thirds threshold is not a safeguard; it is a barrier to effective scrutiny. A simple majority is not radical; it is democratic. Londoners deserve an Assembly that can genuinely hold the mayor to account.
We also see the Government’s lack of true devolution in how planning decisions are shaped on the ground. Lords amendment 26 would embed a genuine brownfield-first approach. The Government say that the policy already achieves that, but the reality is different. Developers are often incentivised to build on greenfield or grey belt land because it is quicker and cheaper. The reality in my own constituency is that the majority of large planning applications are coming forward on green belt and grey belt. That is undermining public trust in development altogether. People recognise that we need more homes and they want more homes, but the way they see it happening undermines their trust in the process. Brownfield sites may be more complex, but they come with infrastructure, connectivity and the opportunity for real regeneration. Once again, if the Government are serious about that priority, it should be reflected in law, not left to policy alone.
Wendy Morton
The hon. Lady makes an important point, with which she knows I have a lot of sympathy. In my area, it is estimated that 5,000 homes could be unlocked if we had a proper brownfield-first approach to planning. Does she agree that the whole issue around housing is about not a lack of land but a lack of funding to regenerate some of the sites, a lack of political will from this Government and a lack of ambition? The Government should look at the brownfield sites and the empty buildings, and then look again at the housing targets that have been arbitrarily put on areas which will do nothing to protect us from urban sprawl.
Zöe Franklin
When it comes to brownfield-first development in my constituency, there is an area in the town centre where we could deliver homes, but that is prevented by the fact that we do not have the money to progress at pace with the necessary flood alleviation scheme. We will be voting to support Lords amendment 26 —we need to keep the provision in the Bill.
Local government structures are perhaps the clearest example of how democracy itself is not being devolved by the Government. Our Lords amendment 36 would allow local authorities to determine their own governance structures. Instead, the Government insist on imposing a single model from the centre.
Carla Denyer
Green-led Bristol city council received glowing peer review from the Local Government Association this month, specifically noting how moving to a committee system has strengthened democratic engagement and transparency. It also, by the way, enables cross-party co-operation, and an honourable mention goes to the local Lib Dems in Bristol. Does the hon. Lady agree that if independent, non-political reviewers can see the benefits of a committee system, the Government should not be imposing the more tribal, less co-operative leader and cabinet model on councils?
Zöe Franklin
The hon. Member is absolutely right. We saw how the previous Labour Government imposed the cabinet structure on councils up and down the country. True devolution puts the power of choice of local governance methods in the hands of local people and, therefore, an approach that does not allow local councils to change to that committee system is the wrong approach and is not devolution. The Government cannot simply claim to devolve power while denying local areas the ability to keep the system they have chosen or wish to choose. I ask the Minister to clarify whether councils will be able to stay as a committee system and whether she will consider allowing other councils to change to the committee system should the local council team and local people wish to do so.
Lords amendment 37 would introduce a national strategy to support and expand parish and town councils. The Government say that that should be left entirely to local decision making, but this is not about removing local choice; it is about whether communities are even given the opportunity to understand what a parish council could mean. Without a national strategy, there is no direction, support or momentum to expand parish governance.
I have seen the power of parish councils in my community and constituency. Parish councils give residents a direct voice. They ensure that development works with communities, not against them. At a time when councils are becoming larger and more distant, parish councils keep power close to the people. One of the most compelling things about parish councils is that, where they have a local neighbourhood plan, 25% of the community infrastructure levy goes directly to the local community. Outside parish councils, that figure drops to 15%, which is held centrally.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I congratulate the Conservative Lords on insisting on amendment 37. However, I wonder whether the shadow Secretary of State might have a word with the Surrey Heath Conservative Association, which has campaigned vigorously against parish councils in my area. It has described parish councils as gravy trains that allow most councillors to do very little—if anything at all—and collect a financial allowance.
However, setting that inconsistency to one side, in the context of local government reorganisation in Surrey, where we will have a new West Surrey of 650,000 people that will be bankrupt on day one, parish councils actually represent an incredible receptacle through which to move key local assets so that they can be secured for the future. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Zöe Franklin
I could not agree more. Across the country, we can see that giving parish councils power and community assets allows them to look after those assets for the community. I am a massive advocate for that approach and for town and parish councils generally.
One final area of Government reluctance on devolving power is around Lords amendment 41 on the agent of change principle. I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on music. I have seen in my own community the wonderful power that live music venues have to bring people together. The amendment is so crucial to protect community assets and live music venues. Can the Minister advise on whether the guidance that she mentioned will be statutory or non-statutory? We Liberal Democrats will vote to support our Lords colleagues.
I want to end, in a spirit of positivity, on what we can do when we work collaboratively. Lords amendment 80, which my colleague Lord Foster of Bath co-sponsored with the Government, genuinely shows what we can do when we work across Benches to improve legislation. Good ideas do not belong to one side, and the amendment reflects that.
I will end on my central point: the Bill asks us to believe that it delivers devolution, but devolution cannot simply mean the limited powers that Ministers are willing to relinquish, while so much remains controlled by Whitehall. If we do not trust local communities and their elected leaders with real authority, real decision making and real agency, we have not really devolved power at all. That is why these Lords amendments matter, and it is why we will oppose the Government’s attempts to defeat them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am imposing a five-minute time limit.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
My area of Sussex is on the fast-track devolution programme. Although that brings challenges and inevitably means that we are still building parts of the plane while learning to fly, for my constituents and all Sussex residents, the devolution of power and resources has the potential to transform our area in health, education, housing, transport and sustainable economic development.
Given the short time available to me, I will concentrate my remarks on Lords amendment 80, which would strengthen the ability of licensing authorities in England, Scotland and Wales to issue cumulative impact assessments or gambling impact assessments. The amendment would give councils a clear, evidence-based tool to assess the cumulative impact of adult gaming centres and to identify areas in which further gambling premises would undermine local licensing objectives, including vulnerability and clustering.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Crewe in my constituency currently faces proposals for yet another adult gaming centre, which I have personally objected to. Does my hon. Friend agree that the strengthening of gambling impact assessments, as well as the wider proposals in the Pride in Place strategy, will allow areas like Crewe to actively shape our high streets and that it is incumbent on local authorities to proactively take up those powers?
Dr Cooper
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), I am an officer of the APPG on gambling reform, and we have been doing significant work to gather evidence on this issue over the past 18 months. The sad truth is that the highest numbers of adult gaming centres are predominantly found in our poorest areas. Areas of deprivation need investment, employment and development, not a drain on resources and an open door to the black hole of addiction.
However, Lords amendment 80 is only the start of what we need to do in this area to create environments where our populations can thrive. The “aim to permit” rule remains, and there will be a tension with gambling impact assessments, as it means that councils must still start from a presumption of granting licences, which limits their ability to respond to community opposition, high street saturation and local priorities, even in areas where there are clear concerns about overconcentration of gambling venues. The licensing committee of Worthing borough council recently turned down yet another request for a gambling premises on our high street, but that has now gone to appeal, and the presumption of “aim to permit” means that the balance of evidence is more difficult to hold, even with sound public health and local economic development arguments.
We must therefore continue to develop our legislative approach in this area. Once the impact of gambling impact assessments has been evaluated, we should make a decision on bringing forward legislation to remove “aim to permit” to give councils the right powers to protect and develop our local areas. Alongside that, as the impact assessments and “aim to permit” refer only to the opening of new centres, we must ensure that current licences are not being abused and that licensing codes are upheld.
Lords amendment 80 speaks to the desire of national and local government to enact legislation that lets people thrive in the places where we live. Creating a healthy democracy that has clear objectives and is properly resourced, alongside legislation that allows local government to protect populations from harm and to create healthy environments, is an integral part of this devolution Bill, and I very much welcome it for my area of Sussex and our country.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
In the interests of time, I will keep my remarks brief. First, I would like to speak in favour of Lords amendment 26, which would ensure a brownfield-first approach. If this were well and truly a brownfield-first Labour Government, they would support this amendment. Broxbourne has had its fair share of development, but targets are going up and up. This Labour Government have increased Broxbourne’s housing targets by 22%, while decreasing them in London by 11%. That is not fair, and it is creating loads of urban sprawl on the green belt in the village of Goffs Oak, which is under attack. This Government should be trying to protect those green spaces.
Wendy Morton
Urban sprawl is exactly why the green belt was put in place. Its purpose was to protect areas such as mine, my hon. Friend’s and many others that are on the periphery of some of the biggest conurbations and urban areas from urban sprawl. Does he agree that this Labour Government do not care about our communities? All they care about is an arbitrary housing target.
Lewis Cocking
My right hon. Friend makes a fantastic point, and she is an excellent campaigner for protecting the green belt in her constituency. The green belt around London was set up after the second world war to protect the periphery from urban sprawl. Just as her constituency is next to a big city, mine is next to London.
The Government are now proposing a new town right in the heart of this green space that was meant to be protected, with 21,000 new homes at Crews Hill, effectively joining my constituency to the urban sprawl of London. My constituency is completely different from London, and that green belt needs to be protected. It is a crucial buffer zone between the urban sprawl coming out of London and the ruralness of Hertfordshire.
Mr Forster
I thank my fellow member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for giving way, and I agree with his criticism of the Labour Government. Does he agree that the Conservatives also have an appalling record on defending our green belt and environment? In my Woking constituency, the Conservative Government’s planning policy forced the release of green belt in West Hall in West Byfleet so that there was the urban sprawl that the hon. Member is now speaking so strongly against.
Lewis Cocking
I gently say to my fellow Committee member that there are some horrific example of Liberal Democrat-controlled councils building all over the green belt, so this is not something on which he can preach from the sidelines, even though I do have respect for him.
It is important that we put this measure in the Bill, because we must protect the green belt at all costs. Development should be brownfield first because, as has been pointed out, brownfield sites are more often than not connected by transport links and have local facilities, whereas green fields and the green belt do not.
As I have said, my constituency is under attack from ever increasing housing targets, which are up by 22% while those in London are down by 11%. We are even under attack from a new town of 21,000 new homes. We are told that it is such a good location for a new town and to build on the green belt because it is near good transport links. I have driven on the A10 and the M25 at rush hour—I would welcome the Minister doing that—and it is chock-a-block. It is absolutely rammed. I do not know how those 21,000 people will drive their cars using the local infrastructure, because it simply will not cope. The village of Goffs Oak in my constituency is completely under attack from development on the green belt, which is why the Lords amendment is so important.
As I said in the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, there are thousands of unbuilt planning applications on brownfield sites up and down the country. Rather than concreting over the green belt, the Labour Government should be focusing on making developers build on brownfield sites for which they already have planning permission.
I welcome the Government accepting some of the Lords amendments, because I am incredibly frustrated with pavement parking across my constituency. Just last week, I saw reckless pavement parking in Cheshunt, where all four wheels of the car were on the pavement and people could not get by with a buggy or a wheelchair. We must hold people who park recklessly to account.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the Government’s actions to give local authorities powers to ban pavement parking. Does he agree that, particularly for those with disabilities or who are blind, this issue is a real problem?
Lewis Cocking
I suspect it is an issue faced by Members across the Chamber, and I completely agree with the hon. Lady.
Where the amendments go wrong is that the Government plan to give the regulations to local transport authorities, rather than district councils. At the moment in my area, district councils do parking enforcement. We will have one authority with powers to enforce measures on pavement parking, and one authority with the parking and enforcement teams, which does not seem like a joined-up approach. We should not have to wait for local transport authorities, combined authorities and metro mayors to be in place. The Government could have brought forward simple legislation to give councils that are outside London the same powers that London councils have, so that they are able to issue penalty charge notices—yellow tickets—and control pavement parking throughout the country.
Finally, I will address consent for local government reorganisation. I am sure that lots of hon. Members have been out and about speaking to their constituents in the local election campaign, but not one resident across my constituency has spoken to me about consent for local government reorganisation. Not one of them wants to be put into a combined authority, to have a mayor or to move into a unitary local government system. I was on the Bill Committee, and we saw no evidence that the changes to local government structures will bring about more money for local councils or better services for residents. It is just the Government using their powers to force local government reorganisation in this country. That is why local councils have replied to letters from the Minister—they have been forced to do so.
These measures are an important part of the Bill, and we should allow local people to have a say over what structures they have in their local communities. I do not think any of us will go out in the local election campaign, speak to residents on the doorstep and hear them say, “What I really want in Broxbourne, Lewis, is for you to change the local council structures. I want a devolved mayor and a combined authority.” People actually want more effective local government that is connected to the people. [Interruption.] I can hear chuntering from Labour Members, but there is no evidence that any of that will save any money.
In fact, Conservative-run Broxbourne council has the lowest unparished council tax in the country, but through the measures proposed in the Bill by this Government, my constituents will be forced to pay more and higher council tax. I am not in favour of more taxation. The best people to spend their money in Broxbourne are the residents rather than the council, so I urge the Government to accept those Lords amendments and listen to local people.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), my former colleague on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. This Bill is packed full of exciting measures, but in the interests of time I will speak about just one measure: my support for Government amendment 80 to introduce gambling impact assessments.
Many hon. Members will be familiar with what has become almost a gambling takeover of high streets across the country. What used to be a rarity is now all too common: slot machine casinos, often open 24/7, strategically located in some of the poorest neighbourhoods in the country, crowding out other local businesses, despite often vociferous local opposition. When residents and councils try to resist, it is often futile. The companies have become experts at manipulating the planning process. They submit applications, withdraw them and then reapply, and they oppose even the smallest restrictions to their operations. That grinds down local opposition and forces councils to spend money on legal battles that they could lose, so we can see why the incentives have been to give up and grant permission.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
In Crystal Palace in my constituency, I am campaigning against a 24-hour gambling casino. The community do not want it and the company that applied for the casino was fined £1 million in January for failing to safeguard vulnerable people. Does my hon. Friend agree that ending the “aim to permit” rule and placing a presumption to reject in specific areas would force my Conservative-run council and others to listen to residents and to make themselves clear?
Joe Powell
I, too, have been frustrated by my Conservative-run council for not taking a more proactive approach to resisting applications. I am sure that the Minister will come back to my hon. Friend on “aim to permit” as a next step, but for today, I think the gambling impact assessments will be a useful tool.
To admit defeat and to accept the continued and inevitable decline of our high streets, whether through dodgy shops not paying their tax, the involvement with serious organised crime that we know exists or the adult gaming centres that I have mentioned, is defeatism. The Bill starts to reject that defeatism. I know that lots of my constituents in Kensington and Bayswater are passionate about this issue.
Anna Dixon
As my hon. Friend describes, there are many vape shops across my constituency. Does he believe that in the future, powers similar to those on gambling impact assessments could be brought in to create healthier high streets through licensing powers not only for gambling but for vape shops?
Joe Powell
My hon. Friend is right that pride in place has to mean pride in our high streets. That means tackling all sorts of different illegality and supporting the independent businesses that might take on those premises, as it is obviously no good to just have empty premises and the high street being devoid of anything, so there has to be a strategy. The Government have a high street strategy that the Minister is working on for later this year.
I want to briefly talk about one case study. Residents in Earl’s Court have provided a textbook example of community organising to resist adult gaming centres. Two already operate—Admiral and Silvertime—alongside two traditional betting shops, which themselves now make approximately half of their revenue from machine gaming. However, those companies are not satisfied with their current footprint—they want more. Admiral is trying to move to a 24/7 operation, but was refused permission to do that last year after the Earl’s Court Society and other residents’ groups joined local councillors and me to push back, but we still expect an appeal. Silvertime has purchased a former bank site opposite the tube station, which would significantly expand the footprint and give it a prime site with triple the frontage. Just last week, after a major local campaign, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea officers recommended refusal, which was endorsed by the planning committee. That is a rare win, but an appeal is again likely.
For context, the neighbourhood of Earl’s Court has five specialist hostels for people with complex needs and three methadone dispensing chemists. It has long been a hotspot for antisocial behaviour and crime. It is also an area dense with schools, with thousands of children passing through the area on their way in every day. A young man I met recently, who wanted to remain anonymous, said that on every lunch break, his friends remove their uniform and head to these gaming centres. He also said that the peer pressure to participate is exceptionally high. It is no accident that Admiral and Silvertime are attempting to expand in this area, but my message to them is clear: we do not want their adult gaming centres, full stop.
Ben Coleman
As my hon. Friend will know, my constituency neighbours his. In my constituency, the North End Road area of Fulham is a designated gambling vulnerability zone and has been identified as such by the council. It borders the Clem Attlee and West Kensington estates, which are both in the bottom deciles nationally for deprivation and income. That is no coincidence. The council is doing what it can in the current legal framework, but does he agree that councils remain constrained by the law and that this Bill will help?
Joe Powell
I completely agree. I was with councillors from Brent and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) earlier today, and they have similarly tried to use creative methods to restrict these places opening, but they have really struggled, so they really welcome these impact assessments.
In the interests of time, let me say that it is my sincere hope that these gambling impact assessments will start to tilt the balance back to communities and away from these companies. These formal assessments must help communities like Earl’s Court, where too many gambling venues already exist and the harms are already clear to see. We need these preventive powers, not just reactive regulations and law enforcement to clean up the problem after the fact, so I strongly support Government amendment 80 and look forward to the day when it comes into force.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We now have a three-minute speaking limit.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I am pleased that the Government support the principle of banning pavement parking and giving local authorities new powers, assuming that they come with new burdens funding. However, Lords amendment 40, which will give powers without a national framework, risks confusion, with inconsistent enforcement, frustrated residents and unfair pressure on frontline staff.
We need a ban across the country, with embedded changes to the highway code and a public information campaign. Shifting the responsibility to councils that decide to go ahead of the curve means that drivers could be caught out, particularly in areas of high tourism like mine in Dorset, where many drivers come from elsewhere. We need the law to be clear about exemptions for postal workers, emergency vehicles and where roads are too narrow for parking. Where such issues exist, we need the time to put down yellow lines and parking restrictions to prevent one problem from being replaced by another.
I recognise that as Lords amendment 40 is a Government amendment, there will be no vote on it, but I urge the Government to consider the potential pitfalls of the amendment and whether it answers the question that people have been asking for so many years. I think the answer is that it does not, and I urge the Government to bring forward a proper road safety Bill in the King’s Speech to properly ban pavement parking.
Let me turn to community asset transfer. I recently worked with Corfe Mullen town council to prepare an application for a transfer but it was no longer needed, thanks to the community raising nearly £600,000. I am now working with Holt football club to help it to protect its club from sale; the club was started 60 years ago by Terry Bradford with a lawnmower and a hosepipe for a shower, I am told. Since then, local residents and businesses from Gaunt’s Common and Holt have invested for all those decades to build a fabulous clubhouse and develop talent that has represented their country.
However, these projects fail because communities cannot compete with private buyers looking to make a profit and sellers knowing that they can squeeze every penny from local people by setting a price beyond their ability to fundraise. I welcome the Government’s commitment in the Bill to extend both the time that communities have to delay a sale and the independent valuation, but I seek clarity on whether the change will take effect on Royal Assent and be retrospective for applications already in train. I also strongly support the Lords amendments to extend the time on the register so that Holt football club, which has previously been threatened with eviction, can protect itself into the next generation.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I will speak to Lords amendment 41, regarding putting the agent of change principle on a statutory basis, particularly ensuring that new developments have a noise impact assessment when they are near grassroots music venues. I support the Government’s plans to increase house building, and I recognise that genuine care has to be taken to not increase red tape to the detriment of that goal. However, at the moment, the agent of change regime is preventing elements of house building and residential use in my constituency, as I will come on to. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Withington (Jeff Smith), I am slightly disappointed that that a Government amendment in lieu to Lords amendment 41 has not been tabled.
Sunderland is a music city, and venues such as Pop Recs, Independent and The Bunker are core to our identity. If we are about empowering our community, we need to empower it to protect those venues culturally important to us, which of course are also crucially economically important. As has been said, many grassroots music venues have closed over recent years, with the number declining from 1,150 venues nationally to 800 today. Those closures are due to not just economic factors, but planning issues.
The Minister referenced that there will be guidance around the agent of change principle, but the reality is that there have been forms of guidance since 2014 or 2015, and the Music Venue Trust reports that there has been no let-up in inappropriate planning applications near music venues. For those reasons, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport’s 2024 report recommended that
“the agent of change principles are put on a statutory footing at the earliest opportunity.”
This Bill is an opportunity to do so—if not through Lords amendment 41, then potentially through alternative means, which I hope the Minister will say something about. I repeat the question asked by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), about whether the guidance will be statutory or general.
In my constituency, the Music Venue Trust had to intervene in a planning application to convert a unit of flats near Independent on Holmeside because the plans did not contain sufficient noise protection. That process took too long, incurred cost and risk to the venue, and ultimately meant that the flats were not built, so we actually have housing that is not being built due to a lack of clarity on the agent of change principle. That shows why that principle needs to be strengthened; currently, given that the guidance is not statutory, developers are incentivised to try to get away with proposals.
Will the Minister meet me, other members of the APPG on music, and the Music Venue Trust to discuss strengthening the guidance? Will she also make sure that the statutory guidance in the NPPF that she refers to specifically refers to noise abatement in relation to grassroots music venues?
Mr Kohler
I wish to speak to Lords amendment 42. Where a local authority provides land for public recreation, it can be held on the basis of a statutory trust that protects it. Parliament has set out a process that must be followed if that trust is to be ended. It is not a brilliant process by any means, but at least it gives a central role to local authorities.
In Day v. Shropshire, the Supreme Court recently held that where those requirements are not followed, the trust—quite reasonably—remains in place. However, amendment 42, first tabled in the other place by the Conservative peer Lord Banner, cuts across that principle. It would allow the Secretary of State to set aside those protections where the proper process has not been followed, even where the current local authority might not now support terminating the trust. It replaces localism with centralism.
Lord Banner sought to justify his amendment on a number of questionable grounds, including the assertion that the Supreme Court decision is
“causing considerable uncertainty in relation to land purchased in good faith from local authorities”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 March 2026; Vol. 863, c. GC527.]
The only example I am aware of is a controversial issue in my constituency of Wimbledon. In that case, the All England Lawn Tennis Club bought the freehold to a portion of Wimbledon Park in 1993 at an appropriately reduced price, having expressly agreed both to never build on the land and to restore full rights of public recreation after the expiry of a pre-existing leasehold interest. There seems little doubt that the primary motivation behind the tabling of Lord Banner’s amendment relates to the Wimbledon Park controversy.
Unfortunately, despite previous assurances that they would leave the law unchanged until a proper consultation could take place, the Government rowed in behind the Banner amendment. That amendment would, however, still have been defeated had the Tories joined my Lib Dem colleagues in the No Lobby. Sadly, despite many assurances to the people of Wimbledon, every Tory peer either abstained or voted for the amendment tabled by their Conservative colleague, Lord Banner.
As we have heard, the Tories tabled an amendment—now re-tabled by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds)—that would require the Secretary of State to write a report, lay it before Parliament and consider it. That is simply a tick-box exercise that would do nothing to stop Lord Banner’s amendment from coming into force. It is a parliamentary sleight of hand to pretend to the people of Wimbledon that the Tories have not abandoned them—and the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), has the cheek to ask me why the Lib Dems refuse to join the Tories in this deception.
My constituents in Wimbledon expect the legal protections of land to be upheld in practice, not set aside for ministerial discretion and Tory cons. I tabled a motion to disagree with the Banner amendment but under the arcane procedures of this place, I understand that my motion will not be voted on, while the Banner amendment will remain. That marks a sad day for Wimbledon specifically, public trust land generally and the credibility of the Conservative party across Merton, where the overreach of the AELTC is an important local election issue.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak tonight in support of two specific areas of the Bill that will directly affect my constituents in Portsmouth North.
First, I welcome the strengthening of gambling impact assessments. That links directly to the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and I have already been doing on our “Back Our High Streets—Stop Dodgy Shops” campaign, which has been calling for stronger powers for councils and trading standards to protect our local high streets from rogue, harmful businesses. As I have said throughout the campaign, it is not just about tax-dodging businesses, dodgy vape shops and cowboy barbers; it is also about making sure that our high streets are not overwhelmed by the uses that damage community wellbeing and push out legitimate local traders. That absolutely includes gambling premises.
In North End, one small part of my constituency, five betting shops and arcades are concentrated within a very small area. North End has a proud local high street, but it faces challenges, because the community is already dealing with significant economic and social pressures, alongside a high street that has been neglected for years. This concentration of gambling premises in one community is not an accident, and it is not acceptable.
This kind of clustering can deepen financial hardship, contribute to addiction and poor mental health and undermine the health of the high street. That is why Lords amendment 80 matters. It gives local authorities stronger powers to assess whether additional gambling premises are genuinely consistent with the needs of the area and licensing objectives. That is exactly the kind of tool I have been pushing for and that local councils need if we are serious about backing our high streets and restoring confidence. That is what the Pride in Place strategy should look like in practice—not just warm words on a page, but real powers to shape better high streets.
Secondly, I will highlight the amendments on taxi and private vehicle licensing. I wholeheartedly welcome Lords amendments 43 to 79. The gap in enforcement powers that exists when a vehicle is licensed in one authority but operates in another is real and a long-standing concern for my residents. Like colleagues from all parts of the House, I have concerns about the number of vehicles operating that are licensed outside Portsmouth. Mainly, they are licensed in Wolverhampton.
To be clear, I realise that Wolverhampton carries out robust checks and I understand why many drivers choose to license there—in particular because of the cost of living and because it is significantly quicker—but authorities have too often found themselves powerless to act swiftly when a driver poses a risk to public safety, simply because the licence has been issued elsewhere. These amendments close that gap.
Residents have also highlighted concerns where local standards differ. For example, in Portsmouth, licensed taxis are expected to meet local safety requirements, such as having dash cams and vehicle CCTV, while those licensed elsewhere do not. Can the Minister comment on the options for having a national framework for the licensing of vehicles? That common-sense reform would put the safety of all passengers and drivers first. These are practical, common-sense initiatives, but we need to make sure that our councils deliver on them.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I will briefly speak to Lords amendment 98. When it comes to regions such as Cornwall and my constituency of North Cornwall, this Bill neither respects nor gives due consideration to our unique national minority status. In a letter sent to the leader of Cornwall council in November last year, the Secretary of State said that he recognised Cornwall’s “distinct local identity” and said that the Government were
“minded, on an exceptional basis, to work”
with the leader to explore a bespoke deal for Cornwall.
Five months later, the Bill has progressed through both Houses and still we have nothing in writing about that bespoke Cornwall-only deal, or even provisions to allow for one. Instead, we see efforts by this Government to undermine Lords amendment 98. The Secretary of State plans to force his MPs to vote against that vital amendment, which would prevent the Bill from giving overreaching powers to Ministers, through which they could essentially force local authorities to combine, against the will of local people.
On 24 March, on Report in the other place, the Government Whip responded that discussions are “positive and ongoing” and urged my Lib Dem colleague in the other place, Lord Teverson, to withdraw his amendments that were specifically designed to provide appropriate legal protections for Cornwall. The Minister in the other place said:
“While the United Kingdom is a proud signatory to the charter and the framework convention, accepting these amendments risks creating uncertainty over the status and interpretation of those treaties in domestic law.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 March 2026; Vol. 854, c. 1413.]
Instead, the Government seem to have chosen to completely ignore the European framework convention and charter for languages, which opens up the Bill to potential legal challenges.
Our national minority status in Cornwall has been completely ignored, and now risks being ignored by future Governments as well. This essentially means that the current or any future Secretary of State could force Cornwall to combine with other authorities, and disregard its national minority status. Let me be clear: Cornwall does not want that, and my constituents regularly urge me to make this point. We do not want to be dragged kicking and screaming into a combined authority with Plymouth or any other wider south-west authority.
Without Lords amendment 98, we risk having a diktat from the Westminster Government that tells us what to do. That is not devolution. I urge Members from across the House to vote against the Government’s attempt to disregard this vital amendment, and I respectfully ask the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and set out what protections for Cornwall’s national minority status the Government will bring forward, and when.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That is the end of the Back-Bench contributions. I invite the Minister to respond.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
With the leave of the House, I will close what has been a considered and insightful debate. Many hard-working communities in this country have been neglected for far too long. They have seen good jobs disappear, their high streets decline, and the dream of a decent, affordable home fade. This Bill will do the job of empowering forgotten communities and restore local pride by making devolution the default setting. It will give our strategic authority mayors new powers over transport, planning, housing and regeneration, and help rebuild local government so that it can once again deliver strong local services that we all rely on. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their important contributions, and I will respond to some of them in the time left.
Again and again, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) has accused the Government of this being a centralising Bill. Candidly, that is just not true. The Conservatives, who had an ad hoc and all-over-the-place approach to devolution over the last decade and a half, had the opportunity to fundamentally reset the relationship between national Government and local government, and they chose not to do so. We are acting where they did not act. We are doing the biggest transfer of power that we have seen in a generation—
Miatta Fahnbulleh
No, to our mayors, our local leaders and our communities. Not acknowledging that is quite simply churlish.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the key issue of scrutiny of commissioners and all the key decision makers at strategic authority level. We recognise and agree with that, which is why we have included amendments to introduce stronger local scrutiny committees with greater teeth, so that with greater responsibility comes an accountability framework to make sure that we hold decision makers to account on behalf of local people.
On the question of reviewing the protection of public spaces, I am the Minister responsible for green and public spaces, and I am absolutely committed to making sure that such assets are available to all our communities. We are committed to doing a review, and we are very clear that the powers that have been introduced with regard to statutory trusts will not be used until we have concluded that review.
The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) spoke to Lords amendment 2. Again, there is no agreement on policy. We are very clear that mayors have a responsibility to ensure that their rural communities are looked after and protected, and the reality of what we are seeing in places like North Yorkshire is that that is exactly what our mayors are doing. We do not believe that we need to put that on the face of the Bill, because it sits within each of the competencies that mayors will have to take on board. The guidance that sits alongside that, which points to good practice and the work that mayors have done, will be far more powerful in ensuring that this policy bites in the communities where we want it to bite.
Several Members spoke about the brownfield-first approach, and we agree with that policy. That is very clear in the national planning policy framework, which we have strengthened to ensure that it is the case. [Interruption.] No, I am not just saying it, because that is the policy, and the policy determines what happens in the planning framework. However, we are clear that is there is variability—[Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State says we are centralising, but we say we should leave it to mayors and local authorities to deal with diversity in their particular circumstances, so that they are not caught in legal wrangling, but can make such choices. The policy is very clear: it is about putting brownfield first. Critically, unlike the last Government, we are investing to enable our councils and our mayors to remediate and regenerate such land, so that the policy can bite in the way it is supposed to.
On the question of the cabinet and leader model, I go back to the fact that we are doing this because we fundamentally care about creating strong local authorities that can deliver for their people. Some 80% of local authorities already have this model, and it is effective. We have already made the concession that, where alternatives such as the committee model or the mayoral model exist in particular places, they can see out their terms. However, we think it is right to move in the long term to a model that will serve local people.
The hon. Member for Guildford also talked about devolution being imposed. On the approach we have taken to strategic authorities—I ask the House to judge us by the way we are acting, not just by the words I say—we are incredibly clear that it is ultimately for local partnerships to come together, and Government will enable and pass devolution down to them. We are not imposing, and we are committed to not imposing.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will make progress because there is very little time left.
I do have to take issue with the point about neighbourhood governance. We are told that we are centralising and trying to impose models on communities, yet on the question of neighbourhood governance, the hon. Member for Guildford and her party want to impose a particular model on communities. We say that is wrong, and we take a very different approach. Ultimately, it should be for communities to determine the right neighbourhood governance structure for their place. Town and parish councils—I agree that they exist in 80% of the geography—will have a role in this, and where that is the will of communities, that should be what those communities do. However, other communities will want to take different approaches, and we think it is right that communities should build on what they have, and that it should ultimately be for communities to determine what they do.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will not give away, but I will pick up the hon. Member’s point about local government reorganisation. In his defence, he has been consistent on this throughout all these debates. Candidly, if we think about the near decade and a half that the last Government had to deal with local government issues, while we recognise that the status quo is not fit for purpose, the Conservatives denuded local government with years of austerity and cuts. They could see that the model was creaking, and they did absolutely nothing to deal with it. We are acting where they chose not to act. The hon. Member can continue bleating about this but, fundamentally, we want local government structures that work and deliver services for communities. The Conservatives did not do that, but we are determined to do it.
My hon. Friends the Members for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) and for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) made important points about our high streets and gambling, and I thank them for their tireless campaigning and advocacy on this fundamental point. We are committed to giving local authorities the powers to shape their high streets, which is absolutely critical. The gambling cumulative impact assessment is a first step in this process, as an additional tool for local authorities that will allow them to begin to shape their high streets, but we are clear that we must and will go further. Our high streets strategy will set out the further powers we will give local authorities to empower them to shape their high streets in the way their communities want.
Let me turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), who has been a vocal and passionate advocate for reforms to the taxi and private hire system, which we absolutely recognise are necessary. We completely agree with her that the system is not fit for purpose, and I thank her for all the work she and many of my hon. Friends have put into driving forward the changes we have put into the Bill. We are clear that these are important first steps. Having national standards means we can ensure consistency of approach across the country and, critically, we are strengthening enforcement powers. However, we know that additional reforms must be put in place, and we are committed to bringing them forward.
Various hon. Friends have also mentioned the agent of change, so let me reassure them again that we absolutely recognise both their arguments and those made in the other place. We are committed to publishing guidance that will sit alongside the national planning policy framework and bite on planning decisions. It will be a powerful material consideration in decisions that are made. I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) the reassurance that the Minister for Housing will meet him and other Members to think about how we can continue to strengthen and build on that important policy.
Returning to brownfield first, which has been raised time and time again, there is no disagreement on the policy. We are clear that we will take a brownfield-first policy, and we are clear that that exists within the NPPF. We are putting in the funding required to ensure that that happens. I reiterate that we do not think we should lock rigidity into the system and in legislation. We think that national planning policy is the space and the place in which this should bite.
If I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, in my final minutes I would like to take a step back. We have shown that we are willing to work with Members across the House and to make sensible changes to the Bill in response to genuine concerns. There is no disagreement across the House about wanting a strong Bill that does the job of transferring powers and control to our communities and our local leaders. What we cannot and will not accept are amendments that undermine that core principle—some of the amendments from the very party that accuses us of centralising do exactly that—but nor will we accept amendments that fundamentally go against the principle that we must strengthen the institutions and structures of local government so that they can deliver for our communities.
I place on the record my thanks to Members across both Houses for the constructive way in which they have engaged in debate on the Bill. I look forward to continuing those constructive conversations, with a view to securing agreement across both Houses. I believe there is a genuine consensus on the need for devolution. It is a big step change in the way that government has operated for decades, when the centre thought it knew best and imposed its will. The Conservatives had 15 years and failed to act. [Interruption.] Almost 15 years—it felt like 15! There must a consensus on changing the way that government works. The Bill is an important first step forward. I urge Members, both in this place and in the other place, to ensure the Bill achieves Royal Assent, so we can move forward.
I again put it on the record that the Government are very clear that this is the first step. This is not the ceiling of devolution; this is the floor. The job for us as the Government, and for Members across the House, is to ensure that we continue to work together to build power and control locally, because that is how we will drive change in our places for our communities. I commend the Government position on the Bill, and I ask Members across the House to support that position. We want to be constructive, but equally we cannot miss the opportunity to achieve Royal Assent. I urge my colleagues to resist and reject the amendments that we do not support. We do that not for the fun of it, but because we think they will weaken the Bill.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With the leave of the House, we will consider the motions to disagree with Lords amendments 99 to 116 collectively.
Lords amendments 99 to 116 disagreed to.
Lords amendment 120 and 121 disagreed to.
Lords amendment 123 disagreed to.
Lords amendment 155 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) to (f) to the words so restored to the Bill.
Lords amendments 1, 3, 5 to 12, 14 to 25, 27 to 35, 38 to 40, 42 to 84, 88, 92 and 93, 95 and 96, 117 to 119, 122, 124 to 154, and 156 to 170 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendment 39.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with certain of their amendments.
That Miatta Fahnbulleh, Deirdre Costigan, Laura Kyrke-Smith, Sam Carling, Andrew Cooper, Sir James Cleverly and Zöe Franklin be members of the Committee;
That Miatta Fahnbulleh be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Christian Wakeford.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.
Business without Debate
Petitions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I present a petition of residents of the constituency of Sutton and Cheam.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Sutton and Cheam,
Declares that an assisted dying law should be enacted without further delay, following the House of Commons voting in favour of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in June 2025; and further declares that there is overwhelming public support for law change.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take such actions as are within its power to facilitate the progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003187]
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I present this petition on access to household waste recycling centres following significant local concern from residents in Milborne Port, Henstridge, Charlton Horethorne, Corton Denham, Templecombe and the surrounding areas over the decision to charge Somerset residents £8.50 to use facilities in Dorset. The petition declares that Somerset residents should be able to use their closest household waste recycling centre. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and to encourage Dorset Council and Somerset Council to take immediate action to ensure that Somerset residents are able to use their closest household waste recycling centre without charge, including in Sherborne.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton,
Declares that Somerset residents should be able to use their closest household waste recycling centre; further declares that the decision to charge Somerset residents £8.50 to use a Dorset Council household waste recycling centre in Sherborne is wrong; further notes the recent separate petition highlighting the strength of community feeling on this issue; further declares that this move will force residents in Milborne Port, Henstridge, Charlton Horethorne, Corton Denham, Templecombe and the surrounding areas to travel up to a 28 mile round trip to access a free household waste recycling centre; further notes the possible environmental impact of this decision and the possible increased CO2 emissions and fuel costs for rural residents; further declares that easy access encourages residents to separate waste properly rather than disposing of recyclables, hazardous items, or bulky furniture in standard household bins; further notes with concern that this charge has been implemented after the latest annual statistics show there was an 9% increase in fly tipping incidents in 2024/25; and further notes that 62% of fly-tips involved household waste.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and to encourage Dorset Council and Somerset Council to take immediate action to ensure that Somerset residents are able to use their closest household waste recycling centre without charge, including in Sherborne.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003188]
SS Richard Montgomery: Masts
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am really grateful to you and the House for this opportunity to discuss something that is of immense importance to residents in Sittingbourne, and especially on the Isle of Sheppey. It should also be of real concern to Members of this House, since the wreck that I am about to talk about, which lies at the mouth of the Thames estuary, also presents a danger to the physical wellbeing of the Houses of Parliament themselves.
For those who do not know, the Richard Montgomery, which lies just beneath the water at the mouth of the Thames, contains potentially the largest amount of explosives that could explode in peacetime anywhere in the world that has not been a nuclear test. This amount of explosives could, if they all went off at the same time, throw a plume of water 3,000 metres into the sky, setting off a tsunami that would obliterate vast swathes of the Kent and Essex coastline and shoot all the way up to London to flood all our colleagues who might be drinking on the Terrace of the House of Commons. This is obviously a real concern. I have to say that that was based on calculations done in the 1970s. More recent assessments of the wreck are not quite as dramatic. Nevertheless, there is a significant amount of munitions on the floor of the sea, just at the mouth of the most important river in our country, the River Thames.
The Richard Montgomery came over during the 1940s. It was full of munitions that were being given to Britain to fight the Nazis in the second world war. Tragically, it lost its anchorage and drifted on to a sandbank. When the tide fell, it broke the back of the ship, leaving it marooned in the mouth of the Thames. Since then, it has been a major landmark that is used by ships to navigate their way up and down the River Thames and a warning to people not to get too close to the explosives. It can be seen from Sheerness, where it is only about a mile and a half out to sea. People who have grown up on Sheppey know this story. It does not just connect them to the second world war and the support we got from our American allies at that time; it also has a powerful story, because of the threat of the explosives, as people grow up around it and feel that they might be in danger of a catastrophic explosion occurring.
In recent years, the wreck, which is a steel vessel, has been gradually deteriorating and corroding. Concerns have been raised about what would happen if the vessel should disintegrate completely and scatter the explosives across the sea or, even worse, if any of them were to be triggered. I have spoken to explosives experts and bomb disposal experts in the Royal Navy and the general feeling is that, when vessels such as this were set to sea, all the explosives and munitions on board were made safe. The detonators would have been kept separate from the high explosive charges and the risk is comparatively low, but we cannot say that there is zero risk.
One of the concerns that has been raised in recent years is that, as the three masts that stand proud of the water erode and rust away, they could fall on the wreck and destroy what is left of the Richard Montgomery, either triggering an explosion or scattering the explosives. Over several years, the Government and the previous Government looked at what could be done to make it as safe as possible, and the decision was made to remove the masts. The Government have finally now signed a contract with the removal company that will dismantle the masts. This landmark will be lost forever to people from Sheerness, and the emotion and those stories are at risk of being lost locally.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. He has illustrated the issue and the concerns over the explosives, although the second and up-to-date assessment seemed to indicate that maybe the threat is not the same. I want to ask him about marine and maritime history and the three masts. Does he agree that the ultimate goal is to protect local maritime history by creating a lasting public display for locals and tourists alike? Does he not further agree that our maritime history—my constituency of Strangford has incredible maritime history—should be promoted in schools across the United Kingdom and that schools should be encouraged to visit these masts, as we do in Northern Ireland with the Titanic museum in Belfast, to gain a better understanding of our strong history? He should be congratulated on bringing this issue forward. None of us—not me—would have known about it but for his knowledge.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I congratulate the hon. Member for creating a link back to the topic.
Kevin McKenna
Yes, for any community that has strong links to the sea, the stories of the sea run deep in everyone’s veins. As I was about to come on to, there is an amazing mural in the middle of Sheerness of a fairly mean-looking mermaid who has her hands gripped around the plungers of a TNT detonator, threatening Sheerness. People have a sense of pride about that mural and the stories, and it matters to all the communities that surround the area where the Montgomery is laid to rest.
It is important that we ensure that the masts are preserved for the future and, building on what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, people locally are keen that if these masts are removed, they come to land. The Government, as I say, are removing the masts. We do not know what condition the masts will be in when they come off the ship, but certainly people in Sheppey would love to have one of the masts, at least, returned to the mainland.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this debate forward. The SS Richard Montgomery is equally as visible from Southend, and my residents in Southend and Leigh on the other side of the estuary share all the same stories as his residents. They have an affinity to these masts and the stories of the ship that they hear—as well as a little bit of fear. While he calls for a mast to be preserved and placed in the Isle of Sheppey or somewhere in his constituency, I too would like to see a second mast saved and placed somewhere within Southend or Leigh across the estuary opposite his constituency.
Kevin McKenna
Absolutely. As I have talked to people on Sheppey, some people have gone, “The masts are all ours! We have to have them all.” There are three masts—we can share. I know that it matters to people in Southend; I have had communications from some of my hon. Friend’s constituents, and also from people more generally.
There is one extra snag in this project. Currently, the masts are the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government. There was an Act of Parliament in 1973, largely pulled together for the Richard Montgomery so that we could take on what has been described as the most dangerous wreck in Britain. Although for decades the United Kingdom Government have been responsible for ensuring that the masts are safe and that shipping transits around them safely, as soon as anything comes off the wreck, it reverts to its original owners, which are the United States Government. Although I know that people locally would like the masts, and I am sure that the United Kingdom Government would be happy for them to come to Sheppey and to Southend, we will have to ask the United States Government for one of the masts. There are three masts; Southend could have one, Sheppey could have one, and maybe one could go into the ballroom that Donald Trump is building at the moment—they would look great covered in gold leaf. Beyond that, this means that we must engage in a bit of diplomatic discussion with our American allies. It would be a massive testament to our partnership with our American friends during the second world war, and since then through NATO. It is a way of bringing that story to life for people. We could use this to bring us together, as it would bring people in Southend and Sheppey together. It could reignite—not literally; that would be terrible—the bonds with our American allies.
I have a few questions for the Minister, some of which have been raised by my constituents. A no-fly zone has recently been extended around the wreck of the Montgomery, including bans on drones. Several constituents would like to know why and what has changed. Are the changes reflective of any additional concern about the explosive nature of the Montgomery’s cargo? People would also like to know what this would involve, and what we need to do to ask the Americans if we can have the masts. Do the Government still believe that the masts should be kept in the United Kingdom? I would also like some general evaluation of the Government’s ideas about a timeline for the removal of the masts and what it would involve.
This is quite a romantic story in its way. Shipwrecks always have a degree of romance to them, and the Montgomery has the added frisson of an incredible amount of explosives, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) said, adds a little bit of fear. The wreck speaks to me about how such stories get embedded in communities, even over a few decades. The people of Sheppey really care. I have a petition running at the moment, and I hope that there is a petition in Southend, too. I encourage anyone to sign my petition so that we can show the strength of feeling and the real desire to finally bring the masts of the Richard Montgomery home to the United Kingdom, home to Sheppey and home to Southend.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The most dangerous wreck in Britain—respond to that, Minister!
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am responding on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather), who is responsible for maritime matters and has led this work within the Department but is not available this evening. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) for securing this Adjournment debate and for the constructive way in which he has continued to engage with the Department on this long-standing and sensitive matter.
Frankly, it was fascinating to read the briefing for today and to see the photograph of the masts sticking up from the surface of the Thames. My hon. Friend has consistently articulated, on behalf of his constituents, the importance of safety and the strong local attachment to the SS Richard Montgomery as part of the area’s history. Those views are obviously shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) and his constituents.
It is entirely right that these matters should be discussed in this House, and I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government’s approach. As we have already heard, the wreck has been the source of intrigue, speculation and concern for a number of years, both regionally and nationally. I understand that it is even the subject of a Bollywood drama. I reassure hon. Members that my Department monitors the SS Richard Montgomery 24 hours a day, every day of the year; carries out annual surveys; and publishes reports detailing its condition. I am sure that hon. Members will be pleased to hear that those reports show no significant worsening of the wreck, and there is no reason to suspect that there will be any increase in risk.
None the less, the SS Richard Montgomery has spent more than 80 years lying on the bed of the Thames estuary, and will corrode over time. That is why the expert advisory group recommended in 2018 that the three masts should be removed to reduce stress on the overall structure and avoid the risk of heavy material collapsing on to the cargo of munitions.
Following that recommendation, a project was initiated to carry out mast removal, with contracts put in place to carry out the works. However, detailed investigations during the planning phase found that the site was more complex than originally thought, due to legacy munitions from both world wars present below the seabed. The project paused in 2023, to allow my Department to consider the best way to manage that risk.
Since 2024, the Government have invested time and resource in understanding as much as possible about the SS Richard Montgomery. That has included the most comprehensive survey programme ever undertaken on this wreck site, a thorough review of all available information, and revised modelling of a worst-case scenario.
The revised modelling, using the latest advanced techniques for simulating an explosion in water, has been peer-reviewed by experts at the Ministry of Defence. That might well be welcome news for any of my colleagues currently enjoying a drink on the House of Commons Terrace, because I reassure my hon. Friends that this latest modelling shows that even in the absolute worst-case scenario—considered highly unlikely—damage onshore is likely to be limited to potential minor breakages to single-glazed windows, with no debris expected to reach Sheerness or any other town, and waves unlikely to breach flood defences.
However, based on that modelling, the Government decided in May last year to introduce a restriction on flying above the wreck site. Rather than there being a concern about the dangers of aircraft flying over the site with any intent, that decision was made on the advice of the Civil Aviation Authority to protect any aircraft in the vicinity in an absolute worst-case scenario.
I stress that the risk of an incident related to the SS Richard Montgomery remains low, but the Government are committed to reducing that risk as far as possible. The SS Richard Montgomery programme has progressed a procurement at pace since mid-2025 to deliver mast reduction. As my hon. Friend the Member for Selby, the Minister responsible for maritime matters, set out in correspondence to local Members of Parliament and councillors in November 2025, the Department was clear about its intention to procure a specialist salvage contractor to carry out these works in a safe and controlled manner. That correspondence explained that the decision to progress mast removal was based on expert advice, reflecting the age and condition of the wreck and the need for proactive intervention to manage risk. It also made clear that the Department intended to launch a procurement process to identify a contractor with the specialist capability required to operate at such a complex site, while continuing to monitor the condition of the wreck.
The procurement was designed to prioritise safety and risk reduction while ensuring appropriate oversight, value for money and resilience in delivery. It also reflected the Department’s commitment to transparency and to keeping locally elected representatives informed as decisions were taken and the programme progressed.
As my hon. Friend the Minister made clear at the time, this would be a cautious, evidence-led process shaped by expert advice and informed by the unique risks associated with the SS Richard Montgomery. Consequently, a leading global salvage company, Resolve Marine, was appointed recently and is currently preparing detailed plans to undertake the work. The solution put forward by Resolve Marine is considered to provide the best chance of achieving mast reduction safely by 2027. It may be completed earlier than that, but that depends on the conditions, the weather and so on as the work is carried out.
My hon. Friends the Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey and for Southend West and Leigh both raised important questions about what will happen to the masts once they are safely removed from the wreck. I recognise the strength of local feeling about preserving them as a cultural and historic feature. I want to be clear that at this stage, the Government’s focus must remain firmly on reducing risk and delivering the operation safely. Decisions about the treatment, storage or potential future display of the masts will depend on their condition once they are recovered, the way in which they are removed and what can be done safely and practically.
Furthermore, our salvage advisers have made clear that the masts will require specialised treatment and storage once removed to prevent decay. The conservation process required will not be clear until the masts can be studied after they have been removed, and it is therefore not possible at this stage to commit to displaying the masts in a particular location. However, my Department fully recognises the interest of the local authority, heritage bodies and the community, and I know how important this issue is locally. I have seen photographs of the mermaid mural, which is impressive, and I congratulate Sheerness town council and the Criterion theatre, which have both been involved in working with my hon. Friend to celebrate that local landmark which, as he said, is such a source of local pride.
As the project progresses, my officials will continue to engage with my hon. Friend and local stakeholders to explore what options might be feasible without compromising safety or prejudicing the primary objective of risk reduction. It would not be right to prejudge those outcomes now, but I assure him we understand that those conversations are important and will continue alongside delivery of the works. As my hon. Friend recognised in his speech, the wreck remains the property of the United States Government, and any decisions regarding the future of the masts and the wreck must be taken in consultation with the United States Maritime Administration. I assure my hon. Friends and the wider community that this programme is being taken forward with seriousness, transparency and a clear sense of responsibility.
The SS Richard Montgomery is not an issue that can be resolved quickly or simply, but the Government are addressing the situation in a careful, evidence-led way, informed by expert advice and supported by sustained engagement with those most affected, including my hon. Friend’s constituents and others with an interest. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for continuing to raise the interests of his constituents. My Department will continue to engage with him as the project moves forward.
I thank my hon. Friend once again for securing this debate and for his constructive contributions on behalf of the people of Sittingbourne and Sheppey. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh on his contribution today. I look forward to updating the House as this project makes further progress.
Question put and agreed to.