Oral Answers to Questions
David Davis Excerpts(3 days, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Ward
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office updated the House on this yesterday, and he has answered a number of questions on that issue. I do agree that insourcing can play a key role in delivering better value for money and higher-quality public services, which is one reason why we are introducing the public interest test and ending the age of outsourcing.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I wish a happy Warwickshire day to my Warwickshire friends and a happy St George’s day to all my English friends. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
We are prioritising paying compensation to those impacted, and the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has reached the significant milestone of paying out over £2 billion, including the first payment to all eligible groups. I am sure that the right hon. Gentlemen will be aware that I recently announced substantive changes in all seven areas on which we have recently consulted.
David Davis
I thank the Minister and I welcome what he has just said, but the infected blood scandal left thousands of people with severe lifelong injuries. Many of them have waited decades—some nearly half a century—for justice, and with every week that passes the likelihood that any of them will die goes up. As I am sure he is aware, IBCA announced last week that it will contact 100 people a week to begin claims, but that is not quick enough for the 18,000 people involved. It has dealt with roughly 3,000, who have been paid already, but 15,000 of the 18,000 are still waiting. Victims and families deserve compensation, and quickly, so what can he do to speed up that process?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The right hon. Gentleman quite correctly raises not only the fact that people have waited decades for compensation, but the urgency with which we want to drive this forward. To be precise, 3,304 infected people had received an offer by 23 April, totalling over £2.6 billion. We have started paying the affected cohort, and the milestone of paying out in the first case by the end of last year was met. It is quite right that IBCA is operationally independent, but I nevertheless stand ready to do all I can to support it to speed up payments.
Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment
David Davis Excerpts(5 days, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
Security Vetting
David Davis Excerpts(6 days, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
That is why last week the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister suspended the power of the FCDO to make a recommendation or to take a decision contrary to the recommendation of UKSV.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Prime Minister rebuffed first the Leader of the Opposition and then the leader of the Liberal Democrats for saying that the then Cabinet Secretary’s advice to the Prime Minister was to get the clearance before the announcement. I will read one sentence from a document entitled “Options for HMA Washington”, from the Cabinet Secretary of the day to the Prime Minister personally. It states:
“If this is the route that you wish to take you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest or other issues of which you should be aware before confirming your choice.”
The House does not want to hear about what Mr Wormald said a year later. That was the advice then; why did the Prime Minister not follow it?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Member reads out the passage from Mr Case’s advice. The process that was followed was what I understood to be the usual process—in other words, the appointment was subject to security vetting. It is why, when Sir Chris Wormald looked at it in September, he addressed the question by reference back to Simon Case’s letter, because I wanted to know that the process that had been followed was the right process. That is what Sir Chris Wormald looked at. He looked at it expressly by reference to the Simon Case letter that has just been read out, and assured me that the right process was followed when he reviewed it.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Davis Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
That is a good example. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Thanks to our record investment in the NHS, we have the lowest waiting list numbers for three years, the shortest A&E waits for four years, and the fastest ambulance response times for five years. Stronger community health services, such as the local innovation centre that he mentions, are at the heart of our 10-year plan to go further. We would not have come this far already without the decisions made at the Budget, which were opposed by all Opposition parties.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Prime Minister
We are not abolishing jury trials, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I have worked with women and girls who have been victims of sexual violence and rape, and have waited a very, very long time for their cases to go to court. Many of them drop out because of the wait. They have described to me personally the mental anguish that they go through when their case cannot be heard for years, and when they are told of adjournments time and again. I am not prepared to look them in the eye any longer and not do something about it—we owe it to them.
This is about getting the balance right. We are not abolishing jury trials. About 3% of cases go to jury trial, as the right hon. Gentleman very well knows, while 97% do not. After these changes, it will be 2.25%. That is the difference between the policy that we are advancing and the policy as it now is. We are not abolishing jury trials, and I am not prepared to see victims of violence against women and girls repeatedly let down. That is what happened for 14 long years, and it is not good enough. I set my face against that and I am doing something about it.
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address
David Davis Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
I refer my hon. Friend to the part of my statement in relation to the work of the Ethics and Integrity Commission and the work that the Prime Minister has set it in reviewing the rules around transparency and lobbying, business accounting rules and other such related processes.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
Last week, the Government withheld the questions the Prime Minister put to Peter Mandelson and his responses, apparently at the request of the Metropolitan police. This is perhaps the most important documentation we could see and, as Madam Deputy Speaker confirmed, “Erskine May” confirms that:
“In criminal matters, proceedings are active when a charge has been brought”.
That is the balance between justice and democracy. Given that Mr Mandelson has not been charged, this matter does not fall under the sub judice rule, and he might not be charged for a year or more, if ever. There appears to be no other statutory bar to the Government releasing information: the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 does not apply; the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply; and the Contempt of Court Act 1981 does not apply because section 5 of that Act excludes public debate of matters of public interest. Given the lack of statutory bars preventing the Government from acting, will the right hon. Gentleman release that documentation?
Darren Jones
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and Members across the House would not want to do anything to prejudice a criminal investigation that might finally result in justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. As I have said to the House repeatedly, where the Metropolitan police has asked for documents to be held back, we have consented to that. However, recognising the points the right hon. Gentleman makes, we have agreed a process with the Chair of the relevant Select Committee—a Member on the right hon. Gentleman’s side of the House—so that the Chair is able to see those documents and so that any accusations of any cover-up by the Government can be shown to be inaccurate.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Davis Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Of course, he has raised this issue with me on a number of occasions already. He is a great champion for Cornwall. We will ensure that Cornwall’s national minority status is safeguarded in any future devolution arrangements. We have provided half a million pounds to support distinctive Cornish culture, including the Cornish language.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Prime Minister knows that, last week, nine four-star generals made it plain that yesterday’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is doing harm to the British Army already. The most acute damage is being felt by the Special Air Service. It is already affecting its recruitment, retention, morale and operational effectiveness. As a result, lawyers acting for the SAS Regimental Association have sent a letter before action to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I know of no precedent for this in the entire history of the British Army, and this reflects—because it is so important—how important it is, so may I make a plea to the Prime Minister? Will he involve himself personally to ensure that 60, 70 and 80-year-old soldiers, who have carried out actions that most of us would view as heroic, are not persecuted in the coming years, because now it is a matter not of national security, but of national honour?
The Prime Minister
May I thank the right hon. Member for his question and reassure him on the protections that he seeks for veterans? It is a very important issue, and he has continually and rightly raised it. There will be protection from repeat investigations, so the commission does not go over old ground without compelling reasons. There will be protection from cold calling, and protection in old age, so that elderly veterans are respected. Those who do contribute to the legacy process will have a right to anonymity, a right to stay at home to give evidence remotely and a right to be heard through the commission. That is the work that we are doing, and I am happy to discuss it further with him.
Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case
David Davis Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that these matters require a cross-Government approach, and that is precisely the way in which this Government seek to proceed with them. I think it is fair to say that the Government have referenced concerns about the issues he has raised on a number of occasions, but I would be very happy to discuss them further with him, should he wish to do so.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Minister used the Roussev case in his own defence. In that case, the Court of Appeal set the clear precedent that the appropriate definition of an enemy state is not based on what the Government say—it is a state that behaves like an enemy. The judge stated plainly that
“There is no reason in our view why the term ‘an enemy’ should not include a country which represents a current threat to the national security of the UK.”
Throughout the duration of this case, there has been ample evidence—including from the Intelligence and Security Committee and the current director of MI5—that China represents a threat to our national security, including at the time when Mr Berry and Mr Cash were acting as spies. The Prime Minister’s comments on this case were frankly nonsense, and it is time that we stop kowtowing and take a stand against China. If the Minister means what he said about future dealings, will he start by doing what a number of people have called for and refusing to approve the espionage centre masquerading as an embassy at the Royal Mint? Will he reject it and tell the Chinese, effectively, that enough is enough?
Dan Jarvis
I always listen to what the right hon. Gentleman has to say, but that does not mean that I always agree with it. I do not agree with it today, and I am not sure it is especially helpful to refer to China’s application for an embassy in the way he has done. I can give him the assurance that I have given the House previously about the importance we attach to national security in the context of that issue. I hope the right hon. Gentleman understands that the issue of the embassy is not a matter for me—there is a quasi-judicial process in place, and it is a matter for the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government—but the previous Home Secretary and the previous Foreign Secretary have been crystal clear about the national security implications that underpin that decision.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Davis Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Yes, let me wish my hon. Friend, his constituents and everyone in Cornwall a very happy St Piran’s day. We do recognise Cornish national minority status—not just the proud language, history and culture of Cornwall, but its bright future. I know that he and Cornish colleagues will continue to be powerful voices for Cornwall.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Prime Minister
On the coroner’s ruling, I have not seen the details, I am afraid, so I cannot comment. On the broader point, it is right that we should protect those who serve our country, wherever they serve our country—getting the balance right is critical. I did not think that the legislation put forward by the Conservative Government achieved that, but I believe none the less that, in the interests of everybody in Northern Ireland, of all those who served and all those who are victims, we need to renew our efforts to find a way forward on this important issue.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Davis Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Georgia Gould
Yesterday, the National Audit Office published a report on the almost £50 billion gap in building maintenance. That is the legacy that the last Government left us: crumbling buildings, 15 years of lost wage growth and stalled productivity. Compare that with this Government’s record in just the past six months: £63 billion investment at the UK investment summit and leading the way on artificial intelligence. The International Monetary Fund upgraded our growth to the fastest in Europe. The Opposition might want to run down this country, but we are determined to grow our economy.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
Since the last Cabinet Office questions we have set out the Government’s approach on public sector reform, published our response to module 1 of the covid-19 inquiry, updated the national risk register and launched our artificial intelligence opportunities plan. Just yesterday, alongside the Department for Work and Pensions, we introduced new legislation to deliver the biggest fraud crackdown in a generation, with greater powers for the Cabinet Office’s public sector fraud authority to retrieve some of the money that was lost during the last Administration.
David Davis
Quite properly, this week the Government have been talking about applying AI to improve efficiency and effectiveness across Whitehall. When a human civil servant—let us say at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or the DWP—makes a mistake and is challenged, they can explain their logic and how they came to the decision. We know that the courts always believe that computers are best and give the right answer, but AI makes mistakes—sometimes huge ones. Because of the way it is programmed, it cannot explain how it got to the decision. How will the Government ensure that the appeal process continues to work and we do not have a high-tech version of the Post Office scandal?
Pat McFadden
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. The public inquiry into the Horizon scandal shows that blind faith in a computer system used in a court of law can lead to injustices. I do believe in the possibilities of AI, but it is important to keep the human element at all times. It will enhance human productivity but not replace it. That is the way we should go.
Speaker’s Statement
David Davis Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I was deeply saddened to hear about the death of John Prescott. I send my condolences to Pauline, his sons and all those who were close to him. I considered him to be a good friend of mine and of Mansfield. He was a giant of a man and a champion of the coalfields, devolution, local government and climate action.
I first met John in the 1980s, as an activist in the Labour party, and enjoyed supporting him in his first campaign to be deputy leader in 1988, and in his campaign to be leader and deputy leader in 1994. His legacy includes setting up the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, which was established to help support former coalfield areas in communities such as Mansfield that had been impacted by the pit closure programmes of the 1980s and 1990s. That helped ensure that my area received millions of pounds of funding.
John had a particularly strong link to my constituency of Mansfield, especially through my Labour predecessor, Sir Alan Meale, who was his parliamentary private secretary for some years. Anecdotally, I can recall many endearing memories of John, including a time when we were playing table tennis in Sir Alan’s front yard in Mansfield. It was a lovely sunny day and we were enjoying our game in the garden, on a day when the Prime Minister was out of the country on business. An important call came through that John had to take, and we paused our game. To this day, I have no idea who it was or what was said, but the conversation clearly distracted John so much that when he arrived back, he hit the ball with such force that it bounced right off the table and hit the ministerial car. From that experience, I can assure the House that the left hook still packed a mighty punch.
In the years after John left office, I would often drive him back to the station at Newark or Doncaster after his many visits to Mansfield, so he could get the train to London or back home to Hull. The insights from his frank and honest recollections of history from the Blair and Brown years will stay with me for a very long time. May he rest in peace.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. When I first arrived in the House, it was common in the Conservative party—the Thatcherite Conservative party, I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)—to view John Prescott as public enemy No. 1. It was an act that he loved playing into, in public at least. That being said, outside the studio or the Chamber, he was friendly and helpful, certainly to me. Indeed, he was almost the best possible constituency neighbour one could want.
John Prescott was quintessentially a working-class hero—an identity that I suspect the current Deputy Prime Minister also adopts. Of course, he was a brilliant constituency ally and a forceful defender of the interests of the people of Hull, with the emphasis on force. However, he was also a necessary champion of the new Labour party. The Prime Minister referred implicitly to the fact that John Prescott delivered one man, one vote. We should remember that it was an act of huge courage for him to take on his own union allies, I think at about one hour’s notice, and persuade them to support the neophyte Tony Blair.
Frankly, despite the snobbery of the London establishment about John Prescott’s education, it was a very unwise person who underestimated his intellect. He was a formidable and brilliant innovator on—I am looking at the Environment Secretary—the environment, on Europe, on devolution and on a whole range of things. He was what we would all hope to be: not a creature of history, but a changer of history. For that, we should always admire him.
To put to one side all those grand things, he was also greatly, greatly loved by his family. On that basis, I offer my condolences to Pauline and the rest of the family.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to add my own few words to the tributes that have been made, and especially to welcome the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), which were so warm and personal.
John Prescott’s great many achievements—his commitment to climate change and other matters—have already been spoken of. He was a truly authentic working-class hero, and somebody who always attracted a crowd wherever he went. He persevered with his famous battle bus through good times and poorer ones. What may sometimes be missed is his commitment to devolution, and the great efforts he made in the north-east of England, where he committed to the campaign for a north-eastern assembly. We were not successful on that occasion—the referendum was not won—but, ultimately, John’s legacy prevails in the devolved institutions and authorities that we have seen ever since.
On a personal note, I want to put on record my thanks to John for his personal support to me. I found myself propelled on to the shadow Front Bench a little bit prematurely and unexpectedly, but he was of great support to me in discharging the transport brief. He retained such immense knowledge, and on every single occasion he offered encouragement, for which I will be eternally grateful. He was a true giant of the Labour movement. We will miss him enormously, but his legacy remains. I, too, pass on my sincere condolences to Pauline and to all his family.