Defending Democracy Taskforce
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(5 days, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before the Minister makes his statement on the defending democracy taskforce, I would like to make a related statement. Hon. Members will recall that in October 2024 I established a Speaker’s Conference to examine the security of Members, candidates and elections. That cross-party group published two reports: the first in June and the second in October 2025. Together, those reports set out more than 60 recommendations to tackle the serious and wholly unacceptable levels of abuse and intimidation faced by politicians.
The scale of the challenge is clear, and no single body can address it alone. The conference therefore called for action across Government, law enforcement, political parties, traditional and social media, and several other relevant stakeholders. It also recognised Members’ collective responsibility to lead by example in how we treat each other. Responses to both reports have now been published. I notified all Members and Members’ staff of that earlier in the week, so they should have seen them.
I am encouraged by the clear sense of shared purpose and determination to tackle the issues shown by all partners. I thank them for their constructive engagement and positive response to the conference’s work.
Although the conference has concluded its formal work, I remain committed to monitoring progress closely and will continue to press for delivery of its recommendations where necessary. With that, I am pleased to call the Security Minister, who will update the House on the work of the defending democracy taskforce, which includes action that the Government are taking in support of the conference’s recommendations.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
Thank you for your statement, Mr Speaker. With permission, I will make a statement on the work the Government are leading to defend our democracy and those who serve within it, particularly as we approach the local and devolved elections taking place in May.
Twice in the last decade, devoted and beloved Members of this House have been lost to abhorrent acts of violence. Each time I enter the Chamber, my eyes are drawn to the shields dedicated to Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. They are not simply memorials; they are a daily reminder of the duty we owe to one another and to our democracy to ensure that no one is deterred from public service by fear, intimidation or violence. It is in that spirit that I come to the House to set out the challenges we face, what the Government are doing, and to make clear what we will not tolerate.
The work of elected representatives at every level matters. It shapes millions of lives and our country’s future. That is why those entrusted to serve must be able to do so without fear or favour. Free debate and honest disagreement are the lifeblood of democracy, but let me be clear that harassment, intimidation, abuse and violence are not political expression. Today, the volume, breadth and tempo of threats against elected representatives is unprecedented. Colleagues across the House will recognise the grim reality of assaults, vandalism, stalking, blockading and a blizzard of online abuse. This is not theoretical; it affects hon. Members, councillors and candidates, and it affects our families and our staff.
Women and ethnic minority representatives report the highest volumes of abuse, including overtly sexualised and racially charged threats, which have a chilling effect on who feels able to stand for public office. When fear warps debate, when candidates step back and when fewer people from diverse backgrounds feel able to stand, the damage is deep and lasting. That is why this Government treat harassment and intimidation not as an inevitable occupational hazard, but as a serious threat to our democracy itself.
I know that you share that stance, Mr Speaker, and I pay tribute to your leadership, especially through the work of the Speaker’s Conference. Our response is rooted in the defending democracy taskforce, which I chair, working across Government, law enforcement, Parliament, the Electoral Commission and the intelligence community. The mandate of the taskforce, renewed by this Prime Minister, is clear: to tackle the full spectrum of threats to our democracy. That means preventing and deterring harassment, ensuring real consequences when it occurs, and providing proportionate, effective security for everyone who participates in our democratic process.
This is a year-round task, but the upcoming local elections demand that we intensify our focus and, where necessary, go further. Yesterday, I chaired a meeting of the defending democracy taskforce with Ministers from the devolved nations. It was a constructive discussion on strengthening our collective security posture ahead of May. We reaffirmed our readiness to support colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The police are at the forefront of defending democracy efforts, and I thank officers and staff across the country for their dedication and diligence. Ahead of the May elections, we are working with the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to strengthen guidance for frontline officers responding to incidents involving elected representatives. It is essential that the consistency of police response is improved across all force areas, and I welcome the police’s decision to act on the recommendation of your conference, Mr Speaker.
I am pleased to inform the House that Deputy Chief Constable Chris Balmer, from Cambridgeshire police, has been appointed to the role of the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for defending democracy. I have written to the chair of the NPCC and to DCC Balmer to stress the importance of their work to democracy itself. I emphasised the importance of keeping pace with the evolving threat that abuse poses to democracy, and we will be meeting with both shortly.
Every police force now has a dedicated superintendent co-ordinator for Operation Bridger, which handles the protection of Members beyond the parliamentary estate. Through Operation Ford, force elected official advisers at working level exist to support both Members of Parliament and locally elected representatives. I have extended the Operation Ford offer to cover all elected representatives across England, Scotland and Wales, supported by a full-time network of 66 Home Office-funded force elected official advisers. I am also pleased to announce the creation of a new threat assessment centre. This will support Operation Ford by centralising and co-ordinating intelligence nationally for incidents that target locally elected representatives. This function will be live ahead of the local elections.
Where the law fails to provide adequate protection, we will strengthen it. We have seen protests deliberately targeted at private homes, timed to intimidate families and children, and designed to exert pressure through fear. That is why the Crime and Policing Bill introduces a new offence to restrict protests outside the homes of public office holders. Peaceful protest is a cherished right, but the doorstep of a private home is not an appropriate setting for it. In addition, the Representation of the People Bill will introduce a new aggravating factor, empowering courts to hand down longer sentences to reflect the seriousness of crimes committed against those who serve our democracy, whether elected representatives, candidates, their staff, campaigners or electoral officials.
Many Members across this House and beyond have faced sustained online abuse and intimidation. Some have questioned whether to stand again. That is simply unacceptable. Through the Online Safety Act 2023, the UK has established one of the strongest online safety frameworks in the world. Services now have clear legal duties to identify, remove and prevent illegal content, including threats, incitement and non-consensual intimate images, such as explicit deepfakes. As we approach the May elections, the Government will engage directly with major social media platforms to support and inform their election preparedness.
Countering threats to our democracy is a priority for this Government, but I have always believed that this should be a shared endeavour. Therefore, today I am directly appealing to every Member of this House, and to colleagues across local government and the devolved Governments, to play their part. Where we see harassment or intimidation, we must act. Where we experience it, we must report it. I know it can be time consuming but reporting really does matter. The Parliamentary Security Department works closely with the Home Office and the police to assess threats and put protections in place, but it can only do so with accurate information.
Every report, even if the incident is judged to be below the criminal threshold, helps the authorities build a clearer picture of the threat. I urge colleagues: if there is an immediate danger, of course call 999, reference Operation Bridger and use your SOS fob; for non-emergency incidents, report them via 101 or online, again referencing Op Bridger, and inform your Bridger single point of contact. Metro mayors, local councillors and police and crime commissioners should reference Operation Ford, and this will be picked up by the local force elected official adviser.
Let me be equally clear about our message to those who threaten, intimidate or harass those participating in our democracy—and this applies to individuals and groups alike: anonymity is not safety, no one is beyond reach, and whether the offence occurs online or offline, those responsible should expect to be investigated and prosecuted.
We must challenge at every turn the notion that abuse, threats and intimidation are now an inevitability for those working in politics and public life. Across our society we must never become desensitised to rhetoric about harming those who serve in public life. When we hear it or see in our communities, it should be challenged, not shrugged off as some new normal. All of us in this House must also lead by example. Those entrusted with public office set the tone for our national conversation. If we allow abuse to creep into our exchanges, whether in the House or on the campaign trail, we risk normalising behaviour that undermines democratic debate. By leading with civility, even in moments of sharp disagreement, we demonstrate to the country that principled argument can co-exist with mutual respect.
I can inform the House that an extensive programme of work is well under way to ensure the security of the local and devolved nation elections in May. This includes support for returning officers to keep polling stations and count centres secure, alongside expert guidance on personal security and cyber-security for candidates.
History shows us that our democracy is precious, so today, together we should draw a line, declaring with one voice that we will not be deterred from serving the public, and we will never tolerate abuse, threats and intimidation. Together we will confront unacceptable behaviour, hold perpetrators to account, and defend our democratic way of life. In doing so, we honour the words of Jo Cox, who taught us that we
“have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]
Mr Speaker
Can I thank the Minister for his statement and for taking on the recommendations of the Speaker’s Conference? I would like to put on record my thanks to those who served on that conference for all the effort that was put in. I think this is when the House is at its best.
I call the shadow Minister.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(6 days, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Member for that brilliant question. We have to do everything we can to support women entrepreneurs, and it is vital that we look at the challenges we see women facing in a range of sectors. That is why we have work continuing through the Women’s Business Council and why we have the investing in women code, which has been backed by our first female Chancellor. That is also why we want to see the progress of women both in entrepreneurship and in the workplace as a priority. I was proud to attend the 30% Club’s International Women’s Day breakfast this morning in the House.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is sad but true that International Women’s Day rings hollow for far too many women, particularly the three brave women I have just met. They are survivors of Epstein and, for them, important days like that come and go. What is the Minister doing to ensure that we do not just mark important days for women and girls, but give them the protection and justice that they deserve? What is she doing to hold perpetrators such as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to account for not just reports of sharing state secrets, but the trafficking and sexual abuse of women and girls?
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The focus must absolutely be on the victims of these appalling crimes and on putting in place support for women and girls who have faced horrendous violence. Multiple police forces are assessing allegations arising from the Epstein files. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has established a national co-ordination group and appointed a senior investigator to support forces in reviewing the extensive material and progressing the resulting investigations. The senior investigator will work with UK forces, the National Crime Agency, specialists on violence against women and girls, the Crown Prosecution Service and US authorities to ensure a consistent and evidence-led approach.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
It has been almost a year since the Supreme Court ruling, and I come here time after time to ask what progress has been made. I was going to ask today if the Government can confirm that every Department is fully compliant with the ruling, but honestly there is almost no point; we know that the answer is no. In the week of International Women’s Day, is it not the truth that the former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission had a point when she said that the Labour party seems to have “completely abandoned” women’s rights?
Jess Phillips
The hon. Gentleman highlights another incredibly sad case. Of course, I work with the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland—we work very closely with all the devolved Administrations to make sure we are working together to deal with this problem collectively.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Despite incomplete responses from police forces and nothing from Police Scotland, “Healthcare Today” reported back in 2025 that Women’s Rights Network found via freedom of information requests that one in seven sexual crimes committed in hospitals—that is 266—were committed on hospital wards, and that two in five female medical students reported sexual harassment or assault at university. With just 4% charged for these offences, perpetrators are getting away with it, and are surely committing more attacks. Against the backdrop of Labour’s shameful choices on jury trials yesterday—all appalling—when will the Minister and this Government act to protect women on wards?
Jess Phillips
If the hon. Lady were to read the violence against women and girls strategy, she would see that there is a specific section on healthcare workers and workers across the community, specifically targeting the issue of sexual harassment within the NHS. I would also point out to her that the charging rate for sexual crimes fell to a historic low under her Government, and I am very pleased to tell the House that it is now increasing.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
Last month, The Guardian revealed that suicides following domestic abuse may be vastly under-reported, with research in Kent suggesting that they could be 15 times more prevalent. There has been just one manslaughter conviction from such a death in the whole of UK legal history. Liberal Democrats in the other place recently tabled an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, supported by Women’s Aid and Advocacy After Fatal Domestic Abuse, which would require police to investigate suicides as potential homicides where there is a reasonable suspicion of a history of domestic abuse. Given the Government’s reluctance to support that measure, will the Minister commit to making the College of Policing’s published guidance on this matter statutory, so that these cases are properly investigated across all forces?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is right: women often spend years being dismissed, being misdiagnosed, or just not being listened to. That is unacceptable, and we are determined to tackle it. In order to improve early diagnosis of the condition, we continue to roll out community diagnostic centres, and our renewed women’s health strategy, which we will publish soon, will focus on speeding up diagnosis and treatment of both mental health and gynaecological conditions, including endometriosis.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
Within an hour of the Government’s publication of their Islamophobia definition this week, there were calls from within the Labour party for it to be weaponised to stifle free speech, but we know that there have been multiple cases of our public services being too scared of being called Islamophobic to speak freely to save women and girls from serious harm. Can the Minister explain why the Labour party thought it was worth trading the safety of women and girls for their own narrow political interests?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to arrange the meeting that my hon. Friend asks for. Our £1 billion investment in new helicopters is good news for steelmakers in her constituency, and secures thousands of jobs across the United Kingdom. We are making defence an engine for growth and jobs. We are building helicopters, new Typhoons in the north-west and new frigates, and creating a decade of shipbuilding on the Clyde—a Labour Government investing in our armed forces.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Why does the Prime Minister think now is the right time to increase the cost of petrol?
The Prime Minister
Fuel duty is frozen. It is going to remain frozen until September, and we will keep the situation under review in the light of what is happening in Iran. But the most important issue is de-escalating the situation.
I come back to the Leader of the Opposition’s position, because this is one of the most important decisions that a Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition ever has to take: whether to commit your country to war. The day after the initial US-Israeli strikes started, her shadow Foreign Secretary said that the US-Israeli initial attacks were absolutely right and that
“it’s a position my party supports.”
She asked why I have “not actually worked with” America
“to be much more proactive”.
Last Wednesday, the Leader of the Opposition said:
“we are in this war whether they like it or not. What is the Prime Minister waiting for?”—[Official Report, 4 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 803.]
Then yesterday she says, “I never said”—[Interruption.] I know the Conservatives don’t want to hear it. [Interruption.] I wouldn’t want to hear it if I were them. After all that, she says—
Mr Speaker
Order. Enough is enough. I cannot hear it. [Interruption.] Who wants to lead the first ones out? Right. We will have a little bit more silence.
The Prime Minister
After nine days of saying, “Join the war, join the war, join the war”, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition says:
“I never said we should join”,
and
“I haven’t said we should have gone in with the US”.
I will tell you what has happened, Mr Speaker: she and the Reform leader have been spooked, because they realise they have jumped into supporting a war without thinking through the consequences, and now she is furiously trying to back-pedal.
The Prime Minister
We are working across all Departments and with allies to deal with the impact of the conflict in Iran, as the House would expect. If I had asked the Leader of the Opposition last week, her position would have been, “We support the initial strikes and we want to join the war.” This week, she says, “We don’t want to join the war.” I am sorry, but that is a screeching U-turn. Mr Speaker, in this job, you do not get a second shot at making the right call on taking your country to war. If she were Prime Minister, we would be in the war, and she would be coming back to Parliament a week later to say, “Oh, sorry. I got that one wrong.”
Mr Speaker
Order. Order! I am sorry I am interrupting you, but unfortunately we have to stick to Prime Minister’s questions, not Leader of the Opposition’s questions.
Mrs Badenoch
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, “If she were Prime Minister”, but if I were Prime Minister, HMS Dragon would have left a week ago. The only time—[Hon. Members: “More!”] The only time, he has taken decisive action was stopping Andy Burnham standing in the by-election.
Let us talk about what the people out there are worried about. I heard from a builder who has 115 employees using 75 vans. With the jobs tax, sky-high energy bills and now a hike in petrol prices, that builder is having sleepless nights. How does the Prime Minister justify a rise in fuel duty to that small business owner and millions more like him up and down the country?
Mrs Badenoch
Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] Hang on. I think they should wait for it. I have never criticised our armed forces. I have criticised the Prime Minister. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Swallow, you’re going out. I’ve had enough—week in, week out. Either leave now or I will name you.
Mrs Badenoch
I have never criticised our armed forces; I am criticising the Prime Minister and his decisions. Let me remind the House of his record on the armed forces. This is the same man who worked with Phil Shiner, a traitor to this country who made up evidence to put our soldiers in prison for crimes they did not commit. That is his record, so I will not take any lectures from him. By the way, military families in this country are also worried about petrol prices, and he has nothing to say on that.
There is another group of people who have been hammered by this Government: farmers. I spent all last year telling the Prime Minister that his family farm tax was killing British farming. Now, those farmers are being punished with higher fuel prices. Does the Prime Minister think that is fair?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue and I know that it is not only his mum who will be watching, but his constituents whom he serves very, very well. Our supercharger will significantly reduce costs for thousands of major industries. Eligibility for the scheme is being reviewed this year. I can tell my hon. Friend that we are working with the ceramics industry on whether the scheme can be extended to more firms. Under the previous Government, industrial energy prices doubled and over 1,000 jobs were lost in the sector. We will not tolerate that.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for her powerful and courageous speech in the debate on jury trials yesterday—I really hope the Prime Minister was listening.
Thirty years ago this week, a man carried four handguns into Dunblane primary school and murdered a teacher and 16 children. I was deeply moved by the BBC documentary about it last night and by the courage of the parents who campaigned for a ban on handguns to keep other children safe, including Mick North, who lost his five-year-old daughter, Sophie, on that dark day. Mr North has rightly called on the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) to renounce his description of the handgun ban as “ludicrous”—something the hon. Member still refuses to do. Mr North has also called for a review of firearms legislation to close any loopholes. Does the Prime Minister agree?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this matter, because people will be really worried about the impact on them. To reassure households, the cap is in place until the end of June—until July—so that deals with the situation for households. We are working with the sector and others, and with allies, to do everything we can to ensure that energy bills do not rise. We are working around the clock on that. The most important and most effective thing we can do is to work with our allies to find a way to de-escalate the situation.
The right hon. Gentleman is right about the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of Reform. Last week, they were urging us to join—[Interruption.] This is serious. [Interruption.] If they had been leading the country, we would be in a war. They have now come to Parliament to say—
Mr Speaker
Order. Who said “lying” again? I want that withdrawn. Is that withdrawn? [Interruption.] I will deal with it, thank you. I do not want any more from those on the Front Bench. We take this very seriously; calling another Member a liar is not acceptable.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Is it about PMQs? The right hon. Lady did not ask a question, so is it relevant? Points of order come after statements and UQs—[Interruption.] I will make that decision. We now come to the urgent question.
Digital ID: Public Consultation
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her question; the Government look forward to working with her and her Select Committee as we develop these policies. She is absolutely right. We are focusing on building the app and the login system with digital ID, but the big prize in the years ahead is when we can get the old services off the old computers, into the app and working well. I do not underestimate the challenge of that process, but it presents an opportunity for investment and reform that will modernise those systems, deal with those legacy issues around security and the quality of data, and ultimately provide better services to the public. It will take a number of years to do, but I am confident that in the end, it is the only viable route to modern public services in our country.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am grateful to the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. Let us be clear about why we are here. Following collapsing public support, strong opposition from the Liberal Democrats, a petition signed by nearly 3 million people—including over 5,000 of my constituents—and significant unease expressed by Labour MPs, the Government had no choice but to step back from a mandatory scheme. But in the spirit of being a constructive Liberal Opposition, we have some suggestions for the Government if they want this scheme to have any level of public support whatsoever.
First, any digital ID scheme must never be mandatory. People should not be forced to turn over their data simply to go about their daily lives. We cannot and should not turn people into criminals just because someone is unable or unwilling to obtain one. Any scheme must genuinely assure privacy, with very clear legal limits and strong technical protections to prevent misuse or surveillance. Individuals must retain ownership and control of their own data. The data must not be reused, sold or accessed beyond its original purpose.
The Government should also give assurance on the decentralisation of any register. A single point of failure puts the personal details of millions at risk, which is unacceptable. Any scheme must also have a clearly defined purpose set out in law. We could not support a system that extends into different parts of our lives over time, without clear and unequivocal democratic approval.
Robust safeguards are vital. Yes, it is about what this Government want to do, but it is also about what a potential future Government may wish to do with the power such a scheme would present. Can the Chief Secretary confirm that a digital ID scheme will never be mandatory, either for employment or to secure a home in the UK?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I hope to move on at 1.30 pm, because many Members wish to speak in the next debate, so if we could speed up questions and answers, that would be excellent. Ian Lavery will give a good example of a speedy question.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The general public need to be on board with this or it will be a complete and utter failure. When it comes to the most deprived and those who lack the technological abilities to access these systems, what is my right hon. Friend going to do to make sure he can bring people onside, so that this scheme can be a success?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There is a clear and growing concern across the United Kingdom, including with myself and my constituents, regarding digital ID. The general public seek firm assurances about their personal autonomy. The Chief Secretary is a very honourable man and very much liked in this Chamber, but he will know—as you know, Mr Speaker—that Revelation in the Holy Bible refers to the mark of the beast and 666. Is it the mark of the beast that we are looking at, or is it George Orwell’s 1984? I ask that question because 1.5 million people in Northern Ireland—74% of its population—have said that they do not want digital ID. If we do not want it and the people of the United Kingdom do not want it, for goodness’ sake do away with it.
Mr Speaker
Mr Shannon, you kept saying “you”. Am I the devil, or is it the Chief Secretary? [Laughter.]
Darren Jones
May I suggest some of the gospels that might be a little more uplifting for the hon. Gentleman to read, as opposed to the section on Armageddon at the end? I reassure him that the gov.uk app and the digital ID login will be optional. Members of the public can choose to use it if they wish to; if they do not want to, that is entirely up to them. As I have said repeatedly to this House, I am very confident that we will build public services that are quick, easy and simple to use. That will be welcomed by people across the whole of the United Kingdom.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Satvir Kaur)
The issues and delays facing a number of civil servants and pension scheme members in accessing their pensions after a lifetime of service is completely unacceptable. The Government are overseeing a robust recovery plan for the service and are ensuring that support is available to help those impacted. My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has met the chief executive of Capita to set out what the Government expect, and we will do all we can to hold Capita to account to deliver the high standards that people deserve.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
At this year’s summit, the EU and the UK agreed commitments over a wide range of areas, from trade and youth opportunities to security and defence co-operation. We are making good progress on all those areas, but as my hon. Friend says, there is now a forward programme. This Government will not be restricted by ideology. We take a ruthlessly pragmatic approach across different sectors to what is in our national economic interest.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
After at least 15 major U-turns, it is helpful to check which promises the Government still intend to keep. On 22 July 2024, when I asked the Prime Minister whether he could promise that he would not accept the automatic application of EU rules unless they had been specifically approved by this Parliament, he answered simply, “Yes.” Can the Minister say that it is still the Government’s position that we will not be required to adopt new European Union legislation?
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
On his visit to Washington in February last year, the Prime Minister and Peter Mandelson had an undisclosed meeting with US data company Palantir. Palantir at the time was a client of Global Counsel, the company in which Peter Mandelson retained a commanding share. Later that year, Palantir received a direct award for £240 million from this Government. Given the apparent conflict of interests, will the Minister agree to publish full details of that meeting in February last year, and explain why it was not disclosed at the time?
Darren Jones
The Humble Address deals with the matters in question, but I remind the hon. Member that he is asking about the extension of a contract that was awarded under the previous Government. To suggest that it was a new contract that had been in any way related to the meeting is incorrect.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The creation of the Government post of special representative for trade and investment, and the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten- Windsor to that post, raises deeply alarming questions about how previous Governments treated powerful men who abuse their positions. Liberal Democrat Members are proud to have secured the release of all relevant files around that appointment. The Government have told us repeatedly that they support such transparency, so will the Minister set out what deadline has been set for the files to be assembled in accordance with the Humble Address, in order that they be released as soon as police investigations allow, and will he confirm the number of civil servants the Government have allocated to that task?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
My hon. Friend refers to the A127, and I could mention that the A259 in sunny Brighton has the same hold-ups, but we will not dwell on that. He is right that we need to do more to support SME growth and productivity, and to free up opportunity across the country. We have recently changed procurement rules to make sure that more money—and more power as well—is kept in local communities. We will publish further plans soon. I hope that Transport Ministers have heard his point about a new link road.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Yesterday, in the light of the new China spy case, I asked the Security Minister to place China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. He told us that FIRS is “a relatively new tool”, and that the Government
“are seeking to ensure that we can derive the maximum operational capability from it.”—[Official Report, 4 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 817.]
That is wonderful Whitehall language, but will he please tell us what it means?
Alex Burghart
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to return to this subject. It is very clear that the Government do not wish to have an investigation into what happened at the meeting between Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister and Palantir, and everything that occurred between that meeting and the direct award given to Palantir later in the year. This is clearly a possible conflict of interest. Given that the Government do not wish to investigate the matter, what options are at the disposal of the House to force such an investigation?
Mr Speaker
I think you already know. I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. As we all know, he is a very experienced Member of the House, and I know that he has already tabled a written parliamentary question on this matter. I expect Ministers to give a full and frank answer. If he requires further advice on the options available to him, I am happy to pursue this matter with the Clerks and the Table Office, and I am always happy to meet him to see how we can move things forward. I believe the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question will be honest and open. The only other thing I would expect is for it to be an early answer, and for it not to get lost in the system.
China: Foreign Interference Arrests
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sure we appreciate the fact that the Minister has come to the House at the earliest opportunity to provide an update on these serious issues. As there is now a live police investigation, Members should exercise caution in saying anything that risks prejudicing that investigation. I thought it important that the House got to this at the earliest possible time, and I must thank the Minister for that. I call the shadow Minister.
Dan Jarvis
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response. I am grateful to him for acknowledging the speed at which the Government have sought to make a statement. I know that he and right hon. and hon. Members will understand that there are strict limitations on what I can say about what is obviously now a live police investigation, but I hope that I speak for both sides of the House when I say that these are the most serious matters, which require us as a House to put the protection of our democracy above any political point scoring. That is how we should approach these proceedings.
The hon. Member, for reasons that I understand, sought to critique the Government’s position. I understand why he did that, but I am confident in the Government’s response to this incident and to our wider agenda on countering political interference. Of course, it is right that Members across the House have the opportunity to scrutinise Government policy and ask questions. That is precisely why we have moved at pace to provide an opportunity for them to do so.
I want to give the hon. Member and other right hon. and hon. Members a guarantee that, given the sensitivity of these issues and the obvious need to protect the operational activity of our police and the security services, we will look for other opportunities to provide appropriate briefings to relevant Members across the House by the relevant experts, to ensure that they can be updated in a way that simply cannot be done on the Floor of the House.
The hon. Member asked a number of questions. He will understand that there are strict limits on what I can say, but let me assure him about the seriousness with which we take these matters. I have always believed that the work that takes place across the House, led by Government, to defend our democracy should be a shared endeavour. The defending democracy taskforce was an initiative brought forward by the previous Government, and this Government have invested in it. It is the fulcrum at which we co-ordinate activity across Government and with law enforcement partners, working closely with Mr Speaker and the parliamentary security authorities here in the House, to ensure that our elected representatives are properly protected against the threats that we face. I assure him of the Government’s determination to stand with all Members to ensure that they are properly protected.
The hon. Member knows, because we have had such exchanges on numerous occasions, that matters relating to prosecutions are specifically matters for the Crown Prosecution Service. It is not for Ministers to opine and make judgments from the Dispatch Box, because the CPS is rightly independent of Government. But he does know—as do other hon. Members—how extremely disappointed the Government were that the trial last autumn did not proceed. Clearly, as he will understand, there is a crucial difference in that the charges in that case had been brought under the Official Secrets Act 1911. I am confident that the National Security Act 2023 provides the robust legislation we need to address the threats that we undoubtedly face.
The hon. Member mentioned FIRS, and I understand why he decided to do so. FIRS is an important capability that comes from the National Security Act. It is still a relatively new tool, and we are seeking to ensure that we can derive the maximum operational capability from it. We have not made any final decisions as to whether we will place other countries on the enhanced tier, but we keep that under very close review. As I have made clear, this Government will simply not tolerate attempts to interfere in our democracy. We have already taken tough action to strengthen our defences against foreign interference, and we will not hesitate to take further steps where they are necessary.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his immediate update to the House, given the recency of this breaking news. He will know that the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy did its report on the case of Cash and Berry, in which it made certain recommendations. The National Security Act 2023 is now fully in place. That is post the original Official Secrets Act 1911, which related to what was undertaken, allegedly, by Cash and Berry. Would the Minister agree that, given the essence of the grain of rice strategy pursued by China, we could see many more cases such as this, involving intelligence gathering by the Chinese as they seek to undermine our democracy and political system?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and his Committee for the important work that they do, and I am grateful for their report. He will have seen the comprehensive response from the Government. We want to ensure—and we are doing this—that the United Kingdom is the hardest possible target for those who would seek to interfere in our democracy. That is why we are investing in the processes of the defending democracy taskforce, why we commissioned the Rycroft review and why I announced the counter-political espionage action plan. There is a lot of work taking place across Government, working with law enforcement to ensure that we are protecting our institutions and our elected representatives. I hope that I can convey to my hon. Friend and the House the seriousness with which we take these matters, but I want this to be a shared endeavour, working with parliamentarians of all colours. This affects us all, and the Government are working at pace to stand against the threat.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of the statement, even if at this stage he is rather limited in what he can say. He is entirely right to say that we must continue to allow the police to do their job and to do it well. We remain grateful to all those who are working to keep our country safe, both here in the UK and abroad. It is essential we defend our country and our democracy, including through a robust response by counter-terrorist police.
The arrests this morning highlight the continued reach of foreign interference in the UK, whether it involves spying in its raw sense or the pervasive and persuasive influence of foreign money in our politics. The Government could be doing more to put an end to the clout of foreign money in our democracy, and there is an opportunity to limit the influence of foreign money through the Representation of the People Bill, but as Spotlight on Corruption has made clear, the provisions in the Bill as it stands—looking at company revenue rather than profit—can be easily exploited and far too easily gamed to allow foreign money in. This must stop.
The Security Minister mentioned the foreign influence registration scheme in his statement, but he was unable, not for the first time, to mention any plans to add China to the enhanced tier. How many times must we all come to this House to hear a report of further rounds of arrests under counter-terrorism legislation before this Government take this action? Do the Government plan to review their decision to allow the building of the Chinese mega-embassy, and will they go further to stop foreign money being funnelled into our democracy, including through an absolute donation cap and a ban on those who have worked for foreign regimes from making any donations at all?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend has raised important points with regard to our democracy on countless occasions, and I am grateful to him for doing so again today. I can assure him that the police have the resources they need to do a difficult and complicated job, and of course I would be happy to meet him at the earliest available opportunity.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Chinese only represent strength, and for them everything is transactional, so I think the country would rejoice if the Government were to summon the Chinese ambassador and say to him, “This sort of behaviour is intolerable. You cannot build this mega-embassy in just about the most sensitive site in London while you behave like this.” I am not asking about what MI5 and MI6 have said. This is transactional. We must say, “Treat British nationals like Jimmy Lai properly, and don’t spy on us; otherwise, we’re going to pause this embassy until you learn to behave.”
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
The conflict in Iran is deeply concerning, and I was glad to see that the Government’s flights are set to leave the middle east tonight. What more can my colleagues and I do to protect those stuck in the region from bad faith actors?
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Given the vulnerabilities of Members of Parliament, can I urge the Security Minister to work with the parliamentary authorities not just to pass information to Members but to work proactively with us to ensure that we are all aware of the risks that are posed to us and the steps we need to take to ensure that we are not exposed to interference from foreign states?
Dan Jarvis
I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not ask me about FIRS, because he has consistently done so and I always enjoy our exchanges. He will understand that I have come here at extremely short notice to provide an update to the House, and I cannot get into the operational details of matters that took place just a few hours ago.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Minister has said numerous times that the Government always prioritise UK national security, but those words ring hollow whenever we think of the Chinese embassy, and the fact that this Government have granted a mega-embassy close to underground cables carrying highly sensitive data. In the light of these highly concerning developments, surely the Government should show courage, strength and leadership, and with immediate effect revoke that decision in the interest of national security.
Middle East
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
With permission, I will update the House on the situation in Iran and the wider region, and our response. The United Kingdom was not involved in the initial strikes on Iran by the US and Israel. That decision was deliberate. We believe that the best way forward for the region and for the world is a negotiated settlement in which Iran agrees to give up any aspirations to develop a nuclear weapon and ceases its destabilising activity across the region. That has been the long-standing position of successive British Governments.
President Trump has expressed his disagreement with our decision not to get involved in the initial strikes, but it is my duty to judge what is in Britain’s national interest. That is what I have done, and I stand by it, but it is clear that Iran’s outrageous response has become a threat to our people, our interests and our allies, and it cannot be ignored. Iran has lashed out across the region. It has launched hundreds of missiles and thousands of drones at countries that did not attack it, including the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq, Bahrain and Oman. Overnight, Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy in Lebanon, launched attacks on Israel, seeking to escalate the war.
There are an estimated 300,000 British citizens in the region—residents, families on holiday, and those in transit. Iran has hit airports and hotels where British citizens are staying. It is deeply concerning for the whole House and the whole country. Our armed forces are also being put at risk by Iran’s actions. On Saturday, Iran hit a military base in Bahrain with missiles and drones. There were 300 British personnel on the base, some within a few hundred yards of the strike. Last night, a drone hit RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. There were no casualties in this strike. It is important for me to say that our bases in Cyprus are not being used by US bombers. The security of our friends and partners in Cyprus is of critical importance, and I want to be clear: the strike on RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus was not in response to any decision that we have taken. In our assessment, the drone was launched prior to our announcement. Iran’s aggression towards Britain and our interests is long-standing, and that is why we have always ensured that protections for British bases and personnel are at their highest level.
It is very clear that the death of the supreme leader will not stop Iran launching these strikes. In fact, its approach is becoming even more reckless, and more dangerous to civilians. It is working, ruthlessly and deliberately, through a plan to strike not only military targets, but economic targets in the region, with no regard for civilian casualties. That is the situation that we face today, and to which we must respond.
I have been speaking to our Gulf partners over the weekend. They are outraged by Iran’s acts, particularly as they played no part in any strikes, and they have asked us to do more to defend them. Moreover, it is my duty—the highest duty of my office—to protect British lives. That is why we put British jets in the air—Typhoons and F-35s—as part of co-ordinated defensive operations. They have already successfully intercepted Iranian strikes, including taking out one drone that was heading towards a coalition base in Iraq that is housing UK service personnel. I pay tribute to our brilliant servicemen and women for putting themselves in harm’s way to keep others safe, and I know the whole House will join me in expressing our gratitude and respect.
It is simply not possible to shoot down every Iranian missile and every drone after they have been launched. The only way to stop the threat is to destroy the missiles at source—in their storage depots, or at the launchers. The US requested permission to use British bases for that specific and limited defensive purpose, because it has the capabilities to do so. Yesterday evening, we took the decision to accept that new request in order to prevent Iran firing missiles across the region, killing innocent civilians, putting British lives at risk and hitting countries that have not been involved. To be clear, the use of British bases is limited to the agreed defensive purposes. We are not joining US and Israeli offensive strikes. The basis for our decision is the collective self-defence of long-standing friends and allies, and protecting British lives. It is in accordance with international law, and we have produced a summary of our legal advice, which clearly sets this out. We will keep the decision under review.
We are not joining the strikes, but we will continue our defensive actions in the region. France and Germany are also prepared to enable US action to destroy Iran’s capability to fire missiles and drones from source. I have been in close contact with President Macron and Chancellor Merz in recent days, as well as President Trump and leaders across the region, to that end.
Be in no doubt: the regime in Iran is utterly abhorrent. In January, it murdered thousands of its own people; the full horror of that is still hidden from the world. For decades, it has sought to destabilise the region and export terror around the world. Its proxies in Yemen have targeted British ships in the Red sea; it has facilitated Russia’s attacks in Ukraine; and the regime’s tentacles have even reached these shores, posing a direct threat to Iranian dissidents and to the Jewish community. Over the last year alone, Iran has backed more than 20 potentially lethal attacks on UK soil, each of which we have foiled. So it is clear that the Iranian regime must never be allowed to get its hands on nuclear weapons. That remains the primary aim of the United Kingdom and our allies, including the US, and ultimately, this will have to be achieved at the negotiating table.
In this dangerous moment, our first thoughts are with our citizens in the region—friends, family members and constituents. I recognise the deep concern that the situation is causing for those involved, and for communities across the country. We are asking all British citizens in the region to register their presence, so that we can provide the best possible support, and to monitor the Home Office travel advice, which is being regularly updated. Across much of the region, airspace remains closed, and local authorities are advising individuals to shelter in place.
The situation on the ground may remain challenging for some time, so we are sending rapid deployment teams to the region to support our British nationals on the ground. We are in close contact with the travel industry and Governments in the region, including with our friends in the UAE, given the concentration of British nationals in that country. We are looking at all options to support our people. We want to ensure that they can return home as swiftly and safely as possible. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office phone lines are open to provide consular support, and Ministers are available to meet MPs to discuss any individual cases. We are also reaching out to communities across the United Kingdom, including Muslim and Jewish community organisations, and we are making sure that sites across the country, including places of worship, have appropriate protective security in place.
The situation in the region is developing rapidly, so we will continue to update the House in the coming days. I have spoken recently about the toll that global events are taking here at home. They come crashing into our lives with ever greater frequency, hitting our economy, driving up prices on the supermarket shelves or at the pump, dividing communities, and bringing anxiety and fear. That is why how we operate on the world stage matters so much.
We all remember the mistakes of Iraq, and we have learned those lessons. Any UK actions must always have a lawful basis and a viable, thought-through plan. I say again: we were not involved in the initial strikes on Iran, and we will not join offensive action now, but in the face of Iran’s barrage of missiles and drones, we will protect our people in the region and support the collective self-defence of our allies, because that is our duty to the British people. It is the best way to eliminate the urgent threat, prevent the situation spiralling further, and support a return to diplomacy. It is the best way to protect British interests and British lives. That is what this Government are doing. I commend this statement to the House.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady asks about contingency plans for UK nationals. I can assure her and the House that we are working at speed with our partners in the region to take whatever measures we can to ensure that our people can return as safely and as swiftly as possible, and we will continue to do so. I am happy to update her and the House as we roll out those plans.
Let me be very clear: there were two distinct and separate decisions over the weekend. The first decision was whether the United Kingdom should join the US-Israel offensive against Iran. We took the decision that we should not. The second decision—a separate decision and, actually, a separate request from the US—was whether we should permit the use of bases for the distinct, specific defensive purpose of collective self-defence of our allies and to protect British lives that were put at risk by the actions of Iran on Saturday and Sunday. We took the decision that we should do so.
I am clear in my mind that any UK action must always have a lawful basis. It must also always have a viable and thought-through plan, and it must be in our national interests. The Leader of the Opposition is, I think, saying that she would have joined the initial strikes whether they were lawful or not. I notice that she did not say that the shadow Attorney General said that they would have been lawful, just that the law should be changed. I think she said that the Opposition would have joined the initial strikes without regard to whether they had a plan. She was very critical of us not joining sooner—it is impossible to have that position without arguing that we could and should have joined.
I fundamentally disagree, and I will tell the House why. Where our military personnel take action, putting their lives at risk, it is our duty—my duty—to ensure that the actions have a lawful basis. On Saturday, we deployed UK pilots into the sky in the region, and they have been working there ever since. They deserve to know that their actions are lawful and that there is a viable, thought-through plan. I will not countenance committing our military personnel to action that does not have a lawful basis. That is not a fair thing to do to our serving personnel. No UK Prime Minister has ever committed our personnel to action unless it has a proper, lawful basis.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Although the attack on Iran by the US and Israel was ill-advised, ill-judged and illegal, it is absolutely no excuse for the Iranians to recklessly bombard its Gulf neighbours. Is the Prime Minister in a position to give us more details on what we are doing with our Ukrainian friends to support the collective self-defence of Arab nations against the Iranian Shahed drones that are causing so much damage in Ukraine and now in the Gulf?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for that important question. Ukraine, sadly, has more expertise than anyone in dealing with drones. That is why we are putting Ukraine’s expertise and our expertise together and using it to help our allies in the region as they struggle with drones as we speak.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for my security briefing.
Once again, President Trump has launched a unilateral and unlawful act. Ayatollah Khamenei was a brutal dictator and a monstrous war criminal. He supported Hamas and the 7 October atrocities, and he massacred thousands of his own people for daring to protest against decades of repression. I shed no tears for him. Instead, I think of all the innocent Iranian civilians who have lost their lives. I think of the US service personnel killed in action, our allies and partners in the region who are being outrageously targeted by Iran, and our British bases which have already faced attack. They did not choose this war; Donald Trump did, and he will bear responsibility for it.
We have seen before what happens when an American President launches an illegal war with no idea how or when it is going to end, and we fear for what comes next. In discussions with the White House, has the Prime Minister demanded to find out Trump’s plan for what comes next? Does the Prime Minister understand that when he fails to stand up to Trump, especially when he breaks international law, it makes our country less safe? How will the Prime Minister be sure that defensive operations from UK bases will not become offensive? In rightly protecting our allies in the region, can we be assured by the Prime Minister that he will not follow Trump’s lead down a slippery slope into a protracted conflict?
Finally, we rightly expect our brave armed forces to protect British citizens around the world in crises like this, but that includes tax exiles like Isabel Oakeshott and washed-up old footballers who mock ordinary people who stay in the UK and pay our taxes here. As we protect them, does the Prime Minister agree that it is only right for tax exiles to start paying taxes to fund our armed forces, just like the rest of us do?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for his question. I agree that the response of Iran has been outrageous, particularly the hitting of countries that played no part in the strikes.
We have had extensive discussions with the United States at all levels, including the military-to-military level, continually over the course of the weekend. We deliberately took the decision not to join the offensive strikes that were carried out by the US and Israel. We did take the decision to take defensive action—first, by ourselves on Saturday with putting pilots in the sky, and, secondly, by allowing the bases to be used for purely defensive reasons. We clearly set out the legal basis upon which we took the second of those decisions. On the question about limits, it is limited to defence, and that is the basis upon which we have agreed the basing.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s last point, I want to be clear that it is my duty—our duty—to protect all UK nationals in the region. We will endeavour to do everything we can in order to do so.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Iranian regime, including its late leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are of course no friends of our country, but I thank the Prime Minister for clarifying that the UK had no involvement in the Israeli and US strikes on Iran. Indeed, I send my heartfelt condolences to all those who have sadly lost loved ones in the region. I am extremely concerned about the safety of the millions of people in the region, including the thousands of Brits who live there or are currently stranded there. Will the Prime Minister please confirm what steps are being taken to ensure their safety, especially from the one-way attack drones; what steps are being taken to evacuate Brits who are stranded and want to come back to the UK; and what steps are being taken with our allies to de-escalate the situation?
The Prime Minister
In relation to the protection of our citizens, we will obviously continue operating defensively in the air in the region, taking out the missiles, drones and strikes. We have permitted the US basing specifically for the purpose of taking out Iran’s ability to launch the strikes in the first place. The US has the capability to do that, in particular.
On the question of citizens and their understandable desire to return home as swiftly and safely as possible, we are doing all that we can. We are working very closely with our partners in the region. I ask all UK citizens in the region to register their presence so that we can give them the best advice, keep them safe and bring them home as soon as possible.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Although many of us believe that we should be guided by the law of national self-interest, rather than so-called international law, does the Prime Minister agree that we are right to be cautious in this matter? The British public will warmly support him in defending British people and bases, but they are very sceptical about being dragged into the cesspit of middle east politics. They remember Iraq, which some of us voted against, and all the arguments about weapons of mass destruction. What evidence is there that Iran was on the cusp of acquiring nuclear weapons? Since when has regime change from the skies ever changed a regime?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. This Government do not believe in regime change from the skies. The lessons of history have taught us that when we make decisions such as this, it is important that we establish that there is a lawful basis for what the United Kingdom is doing—that is one of the lessons from Iraq—and that there is a viable, thought-through plan with an objective that has a viable prospect of being achieved. Those are the principles that I applied to the decisions that I made over the weekend. They are the principles that I applied to the decision not to get involved in the offensive strikes by the US and Israel. They are the principles that I applied separately to the separate decision on a separate request from the US to be able to take defensive action to hit the launchers for the missiles that are currently going into allies’ countries in the region and threatening our citizens and service personnel. I stand by both decisions.
I repeat: I am not prepared to commit our military servicepeople to action unless I am sure that what they are doing is lawful and has a viable basis. We can discuss what the law is on another occasion, but the law is what it is, and they deserve to know that their Prime Minister cares and pays attention to whether what I am asking them to do is lawful. I will always do that.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Ind)
The Prime Minister will be aware that very many of our constituents remember the Iraq war, and they will have noted the similarities with this war: both in the middle east and both illegal. Of course, the current Iranian regime is horrible, violent, murderous and a threat to international order, but does he accept that our constituents are not prepared to see this country dragged into another war of the nature of the Iraq war?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue, because the ceasefire in Gaza remains fragile, and protecting Israeli and Palestinian civilians is critical to the next phase of the peace plan. I am proud of our commitment to a two-state solution, and we will be hosting the peacebuilding conference in March to build lasting peace and security for both Palestine and Israel. Hamas must decommission their weapons and destroy their terrorist infrastructure and can have no future role in running Gaza. While aid flows have increased, the level of need is still dire. The Israeli Government must stop blocking supplies and preventing the work of international non-governmental organisations. That is unconscionable, and it is costing Palestinian lives.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
May I associate the Conservative party with the Prime Minister’s comments about Ukraine and Team GB?
Before the Prime Minister and I became MPs, parties of every colour increased the cost of going to university. The system is now at breaking point for graduates. I believe that student loans have become a debt trap. It is time for all of us to do something about it. Will he cut interest rates on student loans?
Mrs Badenoch
I am amazed that while we are trying to talk about student loans, the Prime Minister has the cheek to talk about my party being smaller. His party is smaller too, including one MP who was arrested for child sex offences. Perhaps before he gets on his high horse, he should ask why his Back Benchers are saying that they are being called “the paedo defenders party”. [Interruption.] I did not say it—
Mr Speaker
Does the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) want to leave at this stage?
Mr Speaker
Just understand: it is very important that I hear the questions because I may have to make a judgment. I do not need any more shouting.
Mrs Badenoch
I know that Labour Members do not like it, but I have not said anything that is not true, have I? Perhaps they should get off their high horse and stop making stupid jokes.
Why don’t we talk about student loans? Policies that may have been fine for 2012, with low interest rates, are not fine for 2026. The fact is that graduates are paying more, not less. On Monday, the Schools Minister was asked on the BBC why Labour froze the repayment thresholds. She said that the Government have “huge pressures”. Those pressures have been created by the Prime Minister’s taxes and borrowing to pay for more welfare. Why is the Prime Minister taking from students to give to “Benefits Street”?
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister says that the Government are fixing the student loans system. How? He was not even talking about this until I raised it. The fact is that those policies—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. What I said earlier goes for the row of Benches over there as well. I expect a standard of a Chair of a Select Committee, not for them to shout somebody down.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister is only talking about student loans now because I raised them. He says that the Government are fixing the problem, but the fact is that he is not. Why is it that I am willing to ditch old Conservative policies that do not work, but he wants to keep them? He is not going to do anything about it at all. On Monday, the Government voted to increase benefits yet again. The fact is that the Prime Minister is taking money out of the pockets of graduates and giving it to people who are not working. It is not fair.
It is not just that the Prime Minister is saddling graduates with debt. Yesterday, the Bank of England, where the Chancellor used to work—in customer services—said that the Prime Minister’s policies are fuelling youth unemployment. That is not coming from us; that is from the Bank of England. For the first time ever, youth unemployment is now higher here than it is in the EU. While he blames everyone else, our young people cannot get jobs; they are losing hope and even leaving the country. Will the Prime Minister tell us how he plans to deal with that?
The Prime Minister
Yet again, the right hon. Member has shown why she is so utterly irrelevant—carping from the sidelines and trying to talk down the economy. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Hello? Please, I want to hear the questions, and so do your constituents.
The Prime Minister
All the right hon. Member does is carp from the sidelines, talk the economy down and talk the country down. In the meantime, because of our work, what is happening? Energy bills are down, as announced this morning. Inflation—down. Borrowing—down. What is up? Retail spending is up. Investment is up. Business confidence is up. That is the difference a Labour Government make.
The Prime Minister
I know how meaningful Pride in Place investment is to my hon. Friend’s constituents. We are backing communities with the funding and powers they need to invest in their priorities: unleashing jobs, growth and opportunity. In answer to his question, I can confirm that the next wave of Pride in Place will invest in an additional 169 neighbourhoods, focusing on smaller areas and looking closely at deprivation. We are reversing the austerity that ripped the heart out of our high streets and our communities, and giving local people a real say over how money is spent.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising this matter. I will look into it straightaway and give him a full answer. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Fenton-Glynn, you are getting carried away with some other colleagues behind you—Mr Davies and others—but please!
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Points of order come after urgent questions and statements. We are not going to change the policy of the House.
Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Darren Jones
To repeat myself, just for the record, I did not receive a pound from Labour Together. I would appreciate it if Members did not keep repeating that falsehood.
The answer to my hon. Friend’s question about the independent adviser is in the title: the independent adviser is independent of Government and is looking at this matter in the proper way, as my hon. Friend would expect. We will wait for that advice to come to the Prime Minister, which I expect to happen very shortly.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats are appalled by reports of smear tactics being used by the party that came into government with a promise to clean up politics following a decade of sleaze under the Conservatives. Investigative journalists have a vital role to play in holding Governments and commercial entities to account. A free and fair press is the cornerstone of a thriving democracy, and this revelation is an outrageous attack on our free press. Can the Government clarify what steps they are taking to uphold the independence of journalism in this country?
Successive Governments have eroded the public’s trust in politics, so will this Government now implement the Liberal Democrats’ suggestion of putting the ministerial code on a statutory footing? I have heard what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has said about keeping the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office in his job while the investigation takes place, but does he not agree that this is one more example of the Government insisting that process has to take precedence over political judgment? Can a way not be found for the Minister to step aside while a full investigation is undertaken?
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
To paraphrase Churchill, the cornerstone of a free society is a free press. Whatever the investigation may be looking into, I am afraid that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office has admitted that he set the investigation going because he did not like the report that had been issued about donations. That should not need an independent inquiry; the Prime Minister should sack this Minister now. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is here in effect to represent the Prime Minister, so I ask: will the Prime Minister U-turn before or after Prime Minister’s questions this week?
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
When the Prime Minister came to power, promising to clean up politics, he declared:
“Journalism is the lifeblood of democracy.”
We all know that Labour Together helped to mastermind the Prime Minister’s rise to the highest office in the land, and that it stands accused of running an orchestrated campaign to smear and discredit journalists. I think the Prime Minister should be here in this House answering questions, but my prediction is that that day will come. In the meantime, does the Minister agree with me and an ex-founder of Labour Together that this is some “dark shit”?
Brian Leishman
Please accept my apology, Mr Speaker. I withdraw the bad language.
Mr Speaker
Maybe the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister wants to answer that rather than me.
Darren Jones
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am happy to answer that point. As the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) pointed out, I have not received one pound in cash from Labour Together, which was the suggestion from some Members in the House. Instead, I received while in opposition some hours of seconded time from staff, who were provided policy research to my role when I was in the shadow Cabinet. That was normal at that time, whether in relation to Labour Together, trade unions or other organisations. I am happy to confirm that those were declared in the proper way. There has been no breach of the rules and I am happy to make those declarations to the House today.
Mr Speaker
If the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) believes there is something wrong, my advice would be to go to Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. That would be the way forward, rather than to debate this matter on the Floor of the House.
John McDonnell
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to delay matters, but it is now being reported in the media that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), has accidentally messaged details of his case to a mass WhatsApp group of the 2024 intake of Labour MPs, in which he said:
“Jonny rang, PM will ask Laurie to look in to it. Aim is to move fast. But PET did find I had not broken the code.”
I take it that Jonny is the Chief Whip and Laurie is the independent adviser. PET is the propriety and ethics team. However, the PET cannot determine whether or not a Minister has broken the code. A Government spokesperson has said:
“This was an accidental post and clearly meant for a more private conversation. It’s right that the independent adviser takes this away now.”
Could I have your assurance, Mr Speaker, that whatever has been provided to this Member from the propriety and ethics team will be published immediately, and that there will be openness and transparency on this matter?
Darren Jones
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that the Chief Whip spoke to the Minister in question this morning to inform him that the Prime Minister had decided to refer the matter to the independent adviser, but I can confirm that the propriety and ethics team will not have made a judgment one way or another about whether the Minister has been cleared or not in relation to the ministerial code. The propriety and ethics team advised the Prime Minister to refer it to the independent adviser, and it is for the independent adviser to come to a judgment on that and then to report to the Prime Minister.
Mr Speaker
I am going to leave it at that. I will just say that the PET will not be making the decision.
Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the statement updating the House on the Government’s response to the Humble Address motion, I would like to remind the House that Lord Peter Mandelson is the subject of an ongoing live police investigation. I understand that there is interest from the public on this matter and that there has been much coverage in the media. While the matter is not currently sub judice, I would gently say to Members that it would be helpful to exercise a degree of restraint in referencing specific matters under investigation. I know the House would not wish to do anything that risked prejudicing the investigation.
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement regarding the Government’s response to the Humble Address laid before the House on 4 February. I committed to keeping the House updated. This is now my third statement on this issue, and I will continue to update the House throughout the process.
I will first update the House on the work already being undertaken by the Government. I can confirm that work is ongoing across Departments to search for and identify the material relevant to the Humble Address, and Departments have been instructed to retain material that may be relevant to the motion. Given the breadth of the motion, this process will clearly take some time. However, I want to reassure colleagues that officials have been working throughout the recess, and expect to compile information relating to the House’s request very shortly.
As the motion envisages, we are carefully assessing the material for whether any of it may be prejudicial to national security or international relations. The House will appreciate that this remains a sensitive matter, and the Government are committed to referring this material to the Intelligence and Security Committee. The Cabinet Office is leading this work, in close co-operation with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, in a process agreed by the permanent secretary to the Cabinet Office. This was delegated by the new Cabinet Secretary, following her appointment by the Prime Minister last Thursday.
The Government intend to publish documents in tranches, instead of having one publication date at the end of the process, given that we are unable to confirm how long the process will take. The Government expect to be able to publish the first tranche of documents very shortly, in early March. I should, however, inform the House that it remains the case that a subset of this first tranche of documents is subject to an ongoing Metropolitan police investigation. That includes correspondence between No. 10 and Lord Peter Mandelson, in which a number of follow-up questions were asked. Because of the Metropolitan police’s interest in this document, we are unable to publish it in early March in the first tranche, but we will release it as soon as we are able to, upon consultation with the Metropolitan police.
There is also a small portion of the material that engages matters of national security or international relations, and thus the role that this House has envisaged for the Intelligence and Security Committee. We are working with the committee to establish processes for making this material available to it, and we are grateful to the committee in advance for its important contribution to reviewing these documents.
I recognise that the House will want to know about the next steps around the publication of the remainder of the information relevant to the motion—the information that is not included in the first tranche. I would like to make it clear that for anything we publish, we will take our normal approach to publishing material in the House, such as regarding the redaction of junior officials’ names and, where relevant, legal professional privilege.
Further work is needed to compile the information in scope, and to conduct the necessary assessments. However, I can commit to the House that we will release this further material, subject to the ongoing process with the Met police and the Intelligence and Security Committee, and we will continue to keep Members updated as we make progress. I welcome the House’s patience as the Government work swiftly to comply with the Humble Address.
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to mention a separate matter before I conclude. I understand that there has been a high level of public interest in the news of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest last Thursday, and in what may follow. The Government are clear that we are not ruling out action in respect of the line of succession at this stage, and we will consider whether any further steps are required in due course. It is vital, however, that we first allow the police to carry out their investigations. I know they will have the full support of the Government and, I am sure, this House as they do so.
I will return to the House with further updates, as I have committed to do, in due course—not just on this issue, but on wider reforms to standards, lobbying, transparency and the removal of peerages. I commend this statement to the House.
Darren Jones
I can confirm that those documents will be made available, subject, I am afraid, to the exclusion of one particular item, in which No. 10 asked Peter Mandelson a number of questions. The Met police have asked that to be held back, subject to their investigations, as I have said. That item will therefore have to be published at a later date, but the documents that are not subject to the Met police investigation will be published very shortly.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
The victims of Jeffrey Epstein have always been, and must remain, at the forefront of our minds. The decades of abuse and suffering that they endured can never be undone. Although nothing can erase that pain, we believe that recent decisions taken by the police and the Government represent a step in the right direction.
We welcome the Government’s work to begin releasing the files relating to the role of Peter Mandelson. Parliament asked for transparency, and the public deserves it. Earlier this month, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) called for a full statutory public inquiry into Jeffrey Epstein and his influence on the British political establishment. Only through an independent inquiry can we uncover the truth and deliver justice for the victims, so will the Government support that call? Once again, allegations of sleaze and scandal cast a shadow over our politics.
After a decade of misconduct and rule-breaking under successive Governments, it is clear that the current system is not fit for purpose, so will the Government finally commit to putting the ministerial code on a statutory footing, to ensure that breaches carry real consequences? Will the Minister commit to protecting those who speak out, by establishing a new office of the whistleblower, which strengthens legal protections and increases public awareness of whistleblowers’ rights? Transparency, accountability and integrity in public life are not optional; they are essential.
Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address Motion
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
Last week, the House made a Humble Address to His Majesty for the Government to disclose material surrounding the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America. On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister updated the House on further action that the Government are taking.
My right hon. Friend confirmed that the Government will bring forward legislation to ensure that peerages can be removed from disgraced peers, and that Peter Mandelson will be removed from the list of Privy Counsellors. He also explained how we have changed the process for relevant direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles. He also set out other areas where we recognise the need to go further, including tightening transparency and lobbying.
In that statement, my right hon. Friend also set out how the Government are responding to the Humble Address motion, and I am pleased to provide a further update to the House today. The Government will comply fully and publish documents as soon as possible. As I said in the House last week, we welcome both the principle and content of that motion, and we will deliver on it as soon as we can. As such, Departments have been instructed to retain any material that may be relevant, and work is under way to identify documents that fall within the scope of the motion. We will do so as soon as possible when the House returns from recess.
In line with the motion passed by this House, where the Government consider that documents may be prejudicial to UK national security or international relations, the Cabinet Office will refer that material to the independent Intelligence and Security Committee. The Prime Minister has written to the ISC, and senior officials have met the Committee to discuss what it requires in order to fulfil that role. As I said in the House last week, full resources will be made available to ensure that process happens, and we will work with the Committee to explain the Cabinet Office’s process for providing material relating to national security or international relations. The Government are very grateful to the ISC for its work, and we commit to full engagement with it to ensure timely and effective release.
The House will also be aware of the statement from the Metropolitan police regarding the ongoing police investigation. That statement made clear that the
“process to decide which documents should ultimately be published remains a matter for…parliament.”
That is absolutely right, and we agree, but as the House would expect, the Government rightly do not wish to release anything that may undermine an ongoing police investigation. As such, we are working with the police as they conduct their inquiries to manage this process. I think that is the right way forward, Mr Speaker, and I hope you and the House agree.
In conclusion, the Government continue to take this matter incredibly seriously, and given the nature of the issues at stake and the scope of material in play, we will comply fully and deliver this material as quickly and transparently as possible. The Government will keep the House updated as they do so, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will publish a written ministerial statement later today.
Mr Speaker
Now that you have brought me into it, I will just say that the Intelligence and Security Committee is private and independent, and therefore I would not like to see that it was blocked from information. It would not affect any police investigation, because that information would not go into the public arena. I just want the House to be aware of that.
I also thank the Minister for coming to the House. To me, on something as important as this a written ministerial statement is not good enough; I think it should have been brought to the House. All sides are interested in it, and it is right that this House should be informed, so I really am pleased. I am sorry that the Minister has got the short straw, but I thank him for being here.
I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Alex Burghart
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker— I could not have put it better myself.
Alex Burghart
Thank you for granting this urgent question, without which hon. Members would not have had a chance to question Ministers before recess. Obviously, the House will rise for recess having received very little in the way of information, so it is very important that we hear from the Minister today so that we can try to have some confidence in the process. Simply put, the purpose of our question today is to try to elicit from the Government a commitment to give the House a timetable, and to confirm—as I think the Minister may have done—that they intend to comply fully with the language in the Humble Address. I say that because press briefings from Government sources this week have suggested that the Government might try to reinterpret the address in some way. For the avoidance of doubt, were that to happen, the Government would have to return to this House for another vote.
Last week, the Prime Minister told us that the process would have integrity because it was being led by the Cabinet Secretary, and that any criticism or denigration of the Cabinet Secretary would not be right. This week, the political forces in No. 10 have been briefing that Sir Chris Wormald is to be replaced—what a turnaround! Will the Minister reassure the House that any change in the Cabinet Secretary will not delay disclosure or publication of the documents that the House has required?
I have several further questions that I will put quickly to the Minister. First, have the Government completed their scoping exercise, and if not, by when do they intend to do so?
Secondly, where the Government propose to release material to the Intelligence and Security Committee rather than directly to the House, will they provide public updates to the House that this has been done?
Thirdly, in respect of documents withheld at the request of the Metropolitan police, will the Government tell us the precise legal mechanism being relied on, and will they commit to publish those documents in full when the police no longer request them to be withheld?
Fourthly, will Ministers publish a Keeling schedule-style register of withheld or delayed documents, setting out the category, the reason for non-disclosure and the expected release date for each? There are strong precedents for this.
Fifthly, at the Dispatch Box last week, the Minister told me he would write to me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) about the Palantir contract. He has not yet done so. Please will he confirm that he will this week?
Lastly, and separately, will the Minister commit to publishing all documentation relating to the nomination of Matthew Doyle as a peer? That is now a matter of acute public interest. [Interruption.] I will sit down, Mr Speaker. The Minister will appreciate that confidence in this Government’s integrity is very low. I hope he will comply in full.
Chris Ward
Everyone in this House has been sickened and dismayed by the revelations from all the Epstein papers that have come through and in relation to what my hon. Friend just said. That is outside the scope of this Humble Address, and it is a matter for the Palace to respond to.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The events of recent weeks have substantially diminished people’s faith in politics, when it was already at an all- time low. It has confirmed the worst of people’s suspicions about how everything works and punctured the optimism of those who believed in better. At the centre of all this are the victims, and their bravery is twofold: first, by retelling their trauma, and secondly, by taking on the world’s most powerful men and all those who aided and legitimised them.
The Humble Address passed by this place stands as a test of transparency and a test of parliamentary authority. People demand answers, and they deserve them swiftly. They will not stand for endless consultation, reviews and deliberation. Can the Government therefore confirm when they will bring forward legislation so that Peter Mandelson’s peerage can be revoked? What is their deadline for releasing the necessary files? Who in the Government will be held responsible if that deadline is not met?
Chris Ward
To be honest, if I was the hon. Member, I would not be shouting that—not after the last 14 years.
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Obese-Jecty, I do not need to hear these side comments, which are now coming from you more often. You are now a Front Bencher, and more restraint is required. I expect so much better of you as an ex-military officer and a gallant Member.
Chris Ward
To conclude my answer, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister set out the specifics on Monday. We will come forward with further details, and we will tighten transparency regulations as well.
Chris Ward
I completely endorse the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes about the independence and integrity of the ISC. He identifies two very fair points. I say that not as a reason not to comply; it is just the reality of the complexity of what we are dealing with. The volume is larger than in other Humble Addresses—that is not a complaint, but a statement of fact. However, there is no attempt to narrow the scope and no attempt to narrow the motion. The process that the Cabinet Office is going through is to define the scope and harness what falls within it.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about the Metropolitan police is well made. The Met and the Government both recognise that, ultimately, Parliament retains the right to publish material, but obviously a responsible Government will wish to act in a way that does not prejudice an ongoing live case, which we would all like to see reach a conclusion. We are working through these matters; they are complicated, but he raises them in exactly the right fashion.
Royal Assent
Mr Speaker
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the King has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Licensing Hours Extensions Act 2026
Secure 16 to 19 Academies Act 2026
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Act 2026.