Industrial Strategy

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Wyre Forest]

That this House takes note of the case for a comprehensive Industrial Strategy for the United Kingdom.

[Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entries in the register, particularly for UK Music and Windward Global.

This Motion would not be debated in the legislative assemblies of the major economies: not in Germany or the USA, nor France, Japan, China, South Korea, nor any other developed nation on earth. Why? Because as the manufacturing trade group Make UK says, the United Kingdom is unique among advanced economies in not having an overarching, comprehensive industrial strategy.

I know that the Minister will point to the Government’s plan for growth, introduced under the previous-but-one Prime Minister in March 2021. I suspect he will want to advance the argument that the plan for growth, with its specific focus on five areas of economic activity, constitutes a strategy. I am sure he will be keen to mention the £500 million per year that the Government have earmarked for 20,000 R&D businesses, along with £650 million for life sciences. Let me say at the start that these are all commendable initiatives, and worthwhile in their own right, but they do not yet form part of an overarching strategy. I know that because, in June 2023, the then Minister in the Lords said:

“I think noble Lords will agree that this is a time for specialisation rather than a single, overarching, broad strategy”.—[Official Report, 20/6/23; col. 93.]


I disagree with that assertion.

I do not think we are doing enough to make a decisive difference to the UK’s economic prospects, given our sluggish growth, flatlining wages, regional disparities and chronic underinvestment. I invite the Minister to cogitate on why it is that the UK is unique in not having an industrial strategy, while reminding colleagues that a plan is definitely not a strategy. We have had a plethora of announcements, initiatives and institutions since 2010 and a constantly changing cast list: those 13 years have seen 11 growth strategies, nine Business Secretaries and seven Chancellors. This is partly, I am sure, why Make UK has said that:

“A lack of a proper, planned, industrial strategy is the UK’s Achilles heel”.


Meanwhile, the Centre for Economic Policy Research reports on the renewed interest within our competitor nations in

“effective tools and strategies to promote economic development and address new challenges, from supply chain risks to national security and climate change”.

It further says that industrial policy has featured significantly in the world’s largest economies. Again, I ask the Minister: why is the UK the odd one out?

What then is the case for an industrial strategy? An industrial strategy would

“help young people develop the skills they need to do the high-paid, high-skilled jobs of the future. It backs our country for the long term: creating the conditions where successful businesses can emerge and grow, and helping them to invest in the future … it identifies the industries that are of strategic value to our economy and works to create a partnership between government and industry to nurture them … it will … propel Britain to global leadership of the industries of the future—from artificial intelligence and big data to clean energy and self-driving vehicles”.

Those are not my words; they are the words of the then Prime Minister, the right honourable Member for Maidenhead, in her foreword to her Government’s Industrial Strategy document in 2017. It is hard to disagree with that, and even harder to understand why the Government cancelled it so soon afterwards. It is quite a head-scratcher.

Ministers also abolished the Industrial Strategy Council in 2021. It included Andy Haldane from the Bank of England, the Community union’s Roy Rickhuss, and ceramicist Emma Bridgewater—all of them were given their marching orders. If you do not have an industrial strategy, you do not need an Industrial Strategy Council to guide it. The respected Institute for Government states:

“Weak productivity performance and regional imbalances have worried politicians for a long time, as has a sense that the UK does not make enough of its abundant strengths in science. These alone are important justifications for an industrial strategy”.


The case is overwhelming. It is why the cry has gone up from trade union leaders, former Conservative and Labour Cabinet Ministers, civic leaders, entrepreneurs and investors. It is no wonder that 99% of British manufacturers back the need for an industrial strategy, and yet we do not have one.

Thankfully, we have a lot to build on. On manufacturing, the Economist recently reported a survey of the public that asked respondents to state where they thought the country ranked in global manufacturing league tables. The median answer was 43rd, which was wrong. The latest comparable data makes Britain the world’s eighth-biggest manufacturer. The Economist said:

“Many manufacturers believe that the successes of recent years have come about despite rather than because of government policy”.


What would a new industrial strategy look like? My starting point is that an effective industrial strategy is not about picking winners or propping up losers, or meddling in markets when they work, and it is not about Ministers interfering in the business of business. It is about working in partnership with firms to identify problems and fix them; to see opportunities and seize them; to ask not why but why not.

The moon landing in 1969 needed a strategy that included not only aeronautics but electronics, nutrition, product design, computer software and engineering. The UK right now needs to define its moonshot equivalent. It could be fixing the climate crisis, although we know that is a global challenge. It could be that we are the first country in the world to have a sovereign quantum computing facility. It may be that we choose to build homes for everyone before they are 30, and orient things around that. My point is that there should be a small number of clearly understood and defined national goals where there is currently a vacuum. I am greatly influenced by the work of the economist Mariana Mazzucato, who said:

“Industrial strategy thus holds a dual promise: helping to address climate change and revitalizing industry so that it can compete in the twenty-first century. We need not accept … a trade-off … The two can go hand in hand if green policies are deployed to fuel growth and innovation, and if sustainable practices are woven into the fabric of how we consume, move, invest, and build”.


A new industrial strategy would take full cognisance of the UK’s context. We have a growing and ageing population, and a huge wealth of talent and expertise in science, technology and manufacturing. We have world-class universities, and fantastic entrepreneurs and inventors. We are a global leader in creative industries—gaming, film and music—and native speakers of the English language. We are a great nation, straining at the leash to be allowed to get ahead. It would view climate change as both an existential threat as well as an opportunity for economic growth and technological advance, leading the way in carbon capture, renewable energy, and post-carbon manufacturing of everything from hydrogen to nuclear, and from electric vehicles to the next generation of batteries for our phones. It would negate the need for a Department for Levelling Up because it would promote economic activity and growth in every nation and region, not just the south-east and London.

It would provide a stable platform for long-term investment and sustained growth instead of political chopping and changing, which business always tells us is the drag anchor on its success. It would represent a true partnership with small and medium enterprises, growing companies, unicorns, long-established British businesses and government at every level of our devolved constitution. It would allow businesses to thrive, turn profits and create decent, well-paid jobs, and it would allow the state to invest these products of growth into our public realm and shared services. Without economic growth, we do not grow as a society. It would allow the next generation to grow tall.

In my peroration, I will highlight one area where the absurd absence of an industrial strategy is most keenly felt and where the price is most heavily paid: the steel industry. Unless we act soon, the UK will lose its ability to make primary, or virgin, steel forever—[Interruption.]

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. I remind noble Lords that speaking on mobile phones is not permitted in the Chamber.

[Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)]

We will be the only advanced nation unable to make steel, in a time of global turmoil and uncertainty. This would represent criminal negligence. I note the announcement that Tata will close the two blast furnaces at Port Talbot in a few months and install an electric arc furnace, which would cut productive capacity. This is mindless vandalism to our manufacturing base. The salt in the wounds is that the Government are throwing £500 million at Tata, to lose 3,000 jobs in steel manufacturing. British Steel in Scunthorpe is looking to close its blast furnaces. These twin actions will mean that we have to import primary steels, with huge costs to the environment.

The trade unions have a plan to transition to cleaner, greener steel production and safeguard local jobs. Community union and the GMB have a workable, serious plan. Is the Minister aware that Tata indicated that this plan is credible and viable but was rejected by the Government on the grounds of cost? Can he comment on the exact nature of the £500 million offered to Tata, and whether this is in any way related to Tata’s battery plant in Somerset? Does the Minister know that electric arc furnaces cannot produce the base steel that is needed for tin manufacture—yet 30% of Port Talbot’s output is for tin cans? It has the orders, but the means to fulfil them are being removed. Has he read the rescue plan?

I do not want to make the case just for saving jobs in this part of Wales, nor focus on the bitter human cost that will be paid by working people and their families in these proud communities. I do not want to point out just that 20,000 jobs in the supply chain rely on this plant. I am sure others will want to point out the similarities with the destruction of our manufacturing base in the 1980s, with the price paid by miners, steel-workers and skilled engineers and their families in that dark decade of deindustrialisation and demoralisation of whole towns and cities. I want to link what is going on with steel today with my central argument for the need for an industrial strategy.

An industrial strategy must seek answers to the central questions of our age: our negotiation with rapid technological change, our need to decarbonise, our desperate need for growth and the big shifts in our society. An industrial strategy can mitigate the risks, manage the transition and soften the hammer-blows that rapid change can bring. This is not top-down statism, but not free-market fundamentalism either; it is a true partnership with communities, companies, industries and government.

An industrial strategy must view the steel industry as part of a bigger landscape of manufacturing, and manufacturing as part of a bigger landscape of economic activity. It must view economic activity as the basis of our society, culture, well-being and national character. All the moving parts interact and interrelate, just as all humans do. What happens in Port Talbot, in Scunthorpe, in the long-ignored corners of our country and in the left-behind towns and estates happens to us all. This is an essential truth that the Government seem to have missed. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all contributors to today’s debate. I thought it was both interesting and thoughtful and set the terms of future discussions that we will be having in the years ahead in this House. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosenfield, for his considered contribution and welcome him to the House. Like him, I felt very nostalgic when he described working at No. 10. I have very fond memories of working there myself, and I know that his experience in the Treasury and in No. 10 will ensure that his contributions to this House really make a difference.

The nostalgia did not stop there. Is it really over 30 years since I shared a flat with my noble friend Lord McNicol and was so infuriated when I was reading the seminal work of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, Modern Conservatism, page by page? I am grateful and relieved, of course, that both of their thinking has moved on in the last 30 years, on the basis of their contributions today.

But the nostalgia does not stop even there. It is 40 years since I was appointed as the photocopy kid in the library at Labour Party headquarters, where the general secretary, my noble friend Lord Whitty, as he is now, used to tell me about how he worked for the Ministry of Technology under Harold Wilson—we all know that Harold knew how to back a winner and was very good at industrial strategies.

Then it reminded me that I am just getting on a bit. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Rooker reminded me in his contribution that he was the first MP I ever met, at the age of seven years old, which gives me the right to say to him that, this month, I believe, we will see his 50 years of unbroken service to the Houses of Parliament, both in the Commons and the Lords. It has been a genuine pleasure to see his contributions in both Houses during those years, and I am delighted and honoured that I can say that while wrapping up this debate.

An industrial strategy sets a longer-term higher order of direction for a country to take, perhaps even more than markets can predict, with goals like technological leadership or sustainable development. I was particularly entertained, amused and impressed by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Frost. I will just remind him by way of conclusion that the company of his fellow Hayekian anarchist, Elon Musk, the boss of Tesla, had a market capitalisation of $588 billion the last time I checked. He must be very grateful for the $465 million he got as a loan guarantee from the American Government because they had an industrial strategy. Would it not be great if we could have the same in this country?

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, please forgive me: I forgot to mention the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rosenfield. Coming from Manchester, he is most welcome to the House, and I look forward to working with him and finding out if he is a blue or a red.

Nuclear Test Veterans

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Watson of Wyre Forest]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support nuclear test veterans.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)]

The Government are dedicated to acknowledging and honouring the contribution of nuclear test veterans. The Government hosted an event at the National Memorial Arboretum in November 2022, at which a new commemorative medal to mark the contribution of nuclear test veterans was announced by the Prime Minister. We also introduced the £250,000 oral history project to help tell their life stories and a £200,000 community fund, enabling organisations to deliver bespoke programmes that build further understanding and support veterans and their families.

[Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the great progress being made, but I raise the issue of veterans who have been given conflicting statements on the availability of blood and urine sample records. In 2018 the MoD acknowledged its inability to locate that information, yet in 2022 the Atomic Weapons Establishment confirmed possession of a limited number of test results. However, in March a Minister contradicted that, saying that the AWE no longer has those records. Veterans’ families have lodged appeals with the Information Commissioner’s Office for more answers. What test data exists for the veterans and in what format and how many does it cover? Will the Government promptly resolve this issue and ensure that affected veterans have access to their rightful medical information, without the need for legal intervention?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The noble Lord was kind enough to mention to me that he had written to the Government on this matter. His letter has been passed to the Ministry of Defence, which will reply to the detailed points that he has raised. However, there is one certainty: the nuclear test veterans can apply to the Ministry of Defence for access to any personal information. That request can be for any relevant health records or blood data within their service record.

List of Ministers’ Interests and Ministerial Code

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Work is in progress and it will be published in due course.

[Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)]

The Tolley report into the former Deputy Prime Minister spends a lot of time listing the sources he used to define “bullying”, but concludes that his role

“is not to determine as a matter of law what ‘bullying’ means for the purpose of the Ministerial Code”.

Given that the former Deputy Prime Minister disputes that he was a bully, and that other Ministers have supported him, does the Minister think it would be wise for the Prime Minister to amend the Ministerial Code to put his definition of bullying into it, so there is no ambiguity going forward?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Since the noble Lord mentions the former Deputy Prime Minister, I remind the House that he made an important contribution to the country, not least by his work during the pandemic. On a personal note, he supported me and indeed the Bench opposite on justice for retail workers facing harassment. He felt obliged to resign following the Tolley report, and I respect his decision. The noble Lord may have seen the letter to the former Deputy Prime Minister from the Prime Minister. It said,

“it is clear that there have been shortcomings in the historic process that have negatively affected everyone involved. We should learn from this how to better handle such matters in future”.

Security of Government Devices

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, as a former executive of Tesco, obviously I was extremely interested to see this at the top of my in-tray, where other things it does often appear. On Chinese cameras, I have not seen the evidence to which the noble Lord refers, but I would be very interested to see it. But I assure him that discussions on the Procurement Bill continue in the other place, and my noble friend the Paymaster-General has been in discussions with Sir Iain Duncan Smith on this and other issues. Of course, the Procurement Bill will come back to this House in due course, and I look forward to engaging further with the noble Lord.

[Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand the Minister’s argument for proportionality with regard to this Statement. Does she have any advice for her non-ministerial colleagues in Parliament—those who sit on defence and intelligence committees—on how they should use their personal devices with TikTok?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I need to tread carefully here because, of course, security in Parliament is independent of government. So this is a matter for the parliamentary authorities. I understand the drift of the noble Lord’s question, and he can see what steps the Government have taken in relation to government devices. I am not sure I am allowed to put apps on my parliamentary device without the permission of the IT department. We stand ready to assist the parliamentary authorities if they would like us to share information on this important matter.

WhatsApp: Ministerial Communications

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My noble friend refers to a private arrangement between two parties, which I certainly would not want to comment on. Clearly, we in this country have some of the best data-protection law in the world, and data protection and the work of the Information Commissioner—I remember originally being responsible for this—is an important part of this whole policy area, although it is perhaps not directly relevant to the particular Question asked today.

[Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)]

Ministers expect civil servants to give impartial and candid advice, and, in return, there should be a reasonable expectation of privacy. This has clearly not happened in the Hancock case. What emergency measures is the Minister taking to protect the integrity of the Civil Service? Civil servants do not have a choice when a Minister asks them a question in a WhatsApp message, and they need protection.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

As I explained, we have rules about how this is managed. Civil servants and Ministers have government devices that they can use to ask questions on. The Civil Service Code underpins the way the Civil Service operates, and impartiality is of course one of its fundamental principles; it is often quoted by civil servants in their day-to-day work and they feel very proud of it.

Cross-government Cost-cutting

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Wednesday 21st December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, I have a vivid memory of preparing for a Lords Select Committee when I was, briefly, the Minister for Civil Contingencies at the Cabinet Office. The lead official handed me a one-foot-high pile of paper reading matter. Sensing my dismay, he said, without any sense of irony, “Yes, Minister, the Lords is a very different place from the Commons. I’m afraid they actually know what they are speaking about in that place”.

I have found other differences, too, in the last 48 hours. From the day of my introduction, I was made to feel very welcome. The doorkeepers, Garter and his team, Black Rod and her team, our clerks, the catering staff and our IT people all displayed kindness and professionalism, which is deeply appreciated. My kids had a wonderful day, the highlight of which was a selfie with “I’m a Celebrity” star Matt Hancock—which, perhaps more than anything, impressed upon me the difference between the Commons and the Lords.

I am extremely grateful to my friends and colleagues, my noble friend Lord Mandelson, of Foy and Hartlepool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, for introducing me. I have played a significant role in the life of my noble friend Lady Kennedy. First, I recruited her to the Labour Party. Nearly as important as that special moment, I also introduced her to her husband, my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, my Chief Whip, who assures me that this event affords me no special privileges or pleading with the Whips’ Office. In that one sense, the Lords is very similar to the Commons. I am also extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Mandelson, who did me the honour of introducing me. Nearly 40 years ago, I was his photocopy kid when he was the director of communications for the Labour Party, and, throughout that time, he has taught me much, and it is fair to say we both agree that we have been through a lot together.

As I think the noble Lord, Lord Bird, alluded to in his speech, the big changes, when you are looking for cross-departmental savings, are made when you ally them with cross-party unity, and I will highlight a couple of areas which require cross-party support. The first area where consensus is always better than disagreement is police reform. I apologise unreservedly to Lady Brittan for the role I played in the investigation of historic child sexual abuse. Her experiences led to several recommendations about how the police conduct themselves. I am sorry, and I owe it to her to work to achieve those aims in this House in the months and years ahead.

The second area is on the future of defence. The strategic nuclear deterrent has served to keep this nation safe from major state-on-state conflict throughout the Cold War and into the 21st century. Its utility remains the credible decision when the Government are faced with the ultimate choice. However, recent history tells us that it does not deter against new strategic threats: threats to our nation, its values and our allies and friends. From the illegal invasion of countries on our allies’ doorstep to the physical attacks and cyberattacks on our national infrastructure, we need new tools in our armoury to complement the nuclear deterrent, including digital and high-tech weapons such as offensive cyber and autonomous systems. They need to be procured and deployed with cross-party consensus and with the same level of ethical and moral supremacy as our conventional and nuclear weapons to ensure that, when aggression is threatened, we can deter, regardless of how our adversaries choose to threaten us.

So I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bird, on his amazing speech. I too have known him for many years—he is a legend in my life—and it is a deep honour to make my maiden speech in his debate.

National Security Council Leak

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Thursday 2nd May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister to make a statement on the findings of the inquiry into the National Security Council leak.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr David Lidington)]

The National Security Council takes critical decisions about keeping this country safe. It was established in 2010, in part following lessons learned from the Iraq war, to ensure proper co-ordinated decision making across the whole of the Government. It operates with the full breadth of expertise in the room, with Ministers from the relevant Departments and advisers and officials, including the Chief of the Defence Staff, the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, the heads of the intelligence services and others.

The decisions that it makes are critical to the safety of British citizens and to British interests both in this country and around the world. For example, it is inconceivable today that the Cabinet could take a decision to commit combat troops without a full and challenging prior discussion in the NSC, on the basis of full papers, including written legal advice, prepared and stress-tested by all relevant Departments, and with decisions formally minuted. I am sure that the whole House will recognise how important it is that those decisions are taken in an environment in which members of the council and those who advise them feel free to speak their mind, with absolute certainty that the advice that they provide and the conclusions that they reach will remain confidential.

The leak investigation into the disclosure of information about 5G was constituted to ensure that the integrity of the NSC in general was upheld and, vitally, that participants in NSC meetings could continue to hold full confidence in its operation and the confidentiality of its proceedings. The Prime Minister set out her response to evidence from the leak investigation last night, and has thanked all members of the National Security Council for their full co-operation and candour during the investigation.

The unauthorised disclosure of any information from the Government is serious, and especially so from the National Security Council. The Prime Minister has said that she now considers that this matter has been closed, and the Cabinet Secretary does not consider it necessary to refer it to the police, but we would of course co-operate fully should the police themselves consider that an investigation were necessary.

The House will recognise that it is the policy of successive Governments of different political parties not to comment on the detail of leak investigations, and I will not comment on specific circumstances or personnel decisions.

[Tom Watson]

The primary duty of any Government is to keep our country safe and secure. On that we all agree. This leak from the National Security Council is a fundamental breach of that duty. Let us be clear here: the Prime Minister believes that her former Defence Secretary leaked information from the National Security Council; he vehemently denies it. Only one of these accounts is accurate.

I do not think we have ever seen a leak from the National Security Council, and that is why this is so serious. The damning letter from the Prime Minister was a result of her understanding that to leak from that committee was an abdication of responsibility and public duty. It is indicative of the malaise and sickness at the heart of this ailing Government. It is indicative of the sorry state the Conservative party finds itself in. In response to receiving the most brutal sacking I can think of, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) has protested his innocence. Therefore, this matter cannot be, as the Prime Minister says, closed.

The essential point here is that the Prime Minister has sacked the Secretary of State for Defence because she believes there is compelling evidence that he has committed a crime, but despite that she does not believe that he should face a criminal investigation. Where is the justice in that? In what world is it acceptable that the Prime Minister should be the arbiter of whether a politician she believes is guilty of criminal conduct in office should face a criminal investigation? Can the Minister confirm that there were no leaks from the leak inquiry itself, given that details seem to have been passed on to a national newspaper on 30 April?

At the heart of this battle in the National Security Council was whether the Prime Minister’s judgment that Huawei should be allowed to be part of our critical infrastructure network was sound. Many believe it was not. Our Five Eyes partners are so concerned about the UK allowing this company to participate in our 5G network that they are considering whether they can safely continue to share intelligence with us. The Minister will know that for the Americans and the Australians to raise public concerns on this matter is unprecedented. The Five Eyes network is the intelligence apparatus that has helped keep this country safe for nearly half a century. I know that. I have been a Defence Minister, and I have seen the material that we share with each other in total confidence.

In his defiant challenge, the former Defence Secretary has put the Prime Minister’s integrity and judgment in the spotlight. Whether or not he is guilty should be a question for the criminal justice system. The question that the Minister has to answer today is whether he is confident that the Prime Minister’s decision to allow Huawei to participate in our 5G networks keeps this country safe and protects our intelligence relationships with our allies.

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman elided several different subjects in his questions. On the substance of the Government’s policy decisions, it has been said already from this Dispatch Box several times that the review of 5G networks by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is a matter of public record. The Government have committed to telling the House of their conclusions once those decisions have been taken and approved at all levels within the Government and once we are ready to bring the information to the House. That will be the time for the House to learn what the Government have decided and to hold Ministers to account for their decisions.

I can reiterate to the House that the Government’s priorities for the future of telecommunications remain stronger cyber-security practices, greater resilience throughout telecommunications networks and diversity in the marketplace. Again, as has been said before from this Dispatch Box, this is a policy challenge that goes beyond a single company or even a single country, and we continue to work very closely with all our Five Eyes allies and with other international partners.

The problem with this particular case was not so much the material disclosed as the forum from which the leak came. The Prime Minister set up the inquiry and took the decisions she took yesterday to maintain the integrity and secrecy that is essential for the proper conduct of the business of the Government of the United Kingdom, whichever party happens to be in office. As far as I am aware, the inquiry was conducted on the basis of confidentiality throughout its proceedings. It came to conclusions that were reported to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and she took the decisions she announced yesterday.

This boils down to what is set out in paragraph 1.6 of the “Ministerial Code”:

“Ministers only remain in office for so long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister. She is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

Huawei is officially owned by its employees and is a private Chinese company. It is true, as I believe I said at the Dispatch Box and I have certainly said on previous occasions, as have other Ministers, that there is an issue here, in that Chinese law requires all Chinese companies to co-operate with the Chinese state. But, as I said earlier in response to another question, the review of 5G goes beyond a single company or a single country, because we need to make sure, among other objectives, that we have a diverse marketplace, so that the Government have a genuine choice of suppliers available to them.

[Tom Watson]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I will take the points of order, on the assumption, which I would like to think is safe, that neither Member would seek to continue the debate we have just had. I feel sure that these are matters of order and that the Front-Bench Members will focus with a laser-like intensity on that.

[Tom Watson]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In his answer to me earlier, the Secretary of State said that the matter of investigating a criminal act is one for the police, not for Ministers. Can you assist me as to what remedy there is if I think he may have inadvertently misled the House on that? While we have been in the Chamber, the Metropolitan police have told “ITV News” that the matter to investigate is one for the Cabinet Office and if it shares the information with the police they will investigate, but they will not investigate unless the information is shared. Will the Deputy Prime Minister clear this matter up? Is there a way he can do that? Perhaps he could agree to share the information with the police from the Dispatch Box.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has, as I think he knows, found his own salvation: by means of the attempted point of order he has registered his point. He has placed on the record information that may have been known to some Members but, for example, was certainly not known to me, because I have not been consulting electronic devices but have been merely attending to my duties in the Chair. If the Minister wishes to respond, he is free to do so, but there is, at this point, no sign of him uncoiling. However, the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson) is a dogged terrier, and I feel sure he and others will pursue these matters if they feel so inclined in the days ahead.

[Tom Watson]

A former Rottweiler.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, I am not sure I see the appropriateness of the inclusion of the word “former”.

No Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

This has been a very passionately argued debate. At my count, 59 Members gave speeches, and they were not holding back. The scene was set by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who said that the Prime Minister must accept the verdict of the House last night. The necessity for that was underpinned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), who highlighted the fact that she is a Prime Minister with no majority and no authority. That is perhaps why the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) talked about the Prime Minister’s record lack of humility and the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable), in what I thought was a soulful speech, spoke of the Government’s arrogant approach to these negotiations. Why is that so important? Because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said, the UK is more divided and fearful for the future than ever before.

We have had some comic moments in this debate. I was particularly amused by the contribution of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman); his “Life of Brian” speech—an homage to one of the greatest satirical farces in British film history—was very appropriate for the times we are in. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) also talked about the Conservative party re-bonding in the Lobby tonight.

I cannot fail to note the passionate and sometimes breathless critiques of the last nine years of austerity economics by colleagues on the Opposition Benches, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), for Warrington North (Helen Jones) and for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy). And a special prize must go to the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood), who at very short notice gave a four-minute speech in three minutes by speaking 25% faster.

As the Prime Minister said in this debate, this is a

“crucial moment in our nation’s history”,

but it is an unenviable task to summarise this debate today and to ask Members of this House to pass judgment on her stewardship of our country. First, let me say very clearly that I am not one of those people who question her motives. I agree with the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), who said that she was motivated by public duty. I do not doubt that she has sincerely attempted to fulfil the task given to us by the voters in this referendum. I have no doubt, too, that she has tried her best and given it her all. But she has failed, and I am afraid the failure is hers and hers alone. I am certain that every Member of this House admires her resilience. To suffer the humiliations on a global stage that she has done would have finished off weaker people far sooner. Yet the reality is that, if the Prime Minister really sat down and thought carefully about the implications for our country of last night’s defeat, she would have resigned.

Throughout history, Prime Ministers have tried their best and failed. There is no disgrace in that—that’s politics. But this Prime Minister has chosen one last act of defiance, not just defying the laws of politics, but defying the laws of mathematics. It was Disraeli who said:

“A majority is always better than the best repartee.”

The Prime Minister is without a majority for a flagship policy, with no authority and no plan B. The result last night was 432 to 202. That is not a mere flesh wound. No one doubts her determination, which is generally an admirable quality, but misapplied it can be toxic. The cruellest truth of all is that she does not possess the necessary skills—the political skills, the empathy, the ability and, most crucially, the policy—to lead this country any longer.

I know that there are many good people in the Government, and they will be examining their consciences as the clock runs down on these Brexit negotiations. Because the Prime Minister has refused to resign, we now face a choice between a general election to sort out this mess or continued paralysis under her leadership. But now the ante has been raised. The Government have been defeated on a Brexit plan that has been their sole reason for existing for the past two and a half years. They have not just been defeated on the most crucial issue facing our country; they have suffered the worst defeat of any British Government in history. The clock is ticking. MPs have shown that they are ready to take back control over what has been, from start to finish, a failed Brexit process. The question facing the House tonight is whether it is worth giving this failed Prime Minister another chance to go back pleading to Brussels, another opportunity to humiliate the United Kingdom and another few weeks to waste precious time. Our answer tonight must be a resounding no.

Let me remind the House why. It was this Prime Minister who chose to lay down red lines that never commanded the support of Parliament. It was this Prime Minister who refused to guarantee the rights of EU nationals who have made their lives and their homes in this country. It was this Prime Minister who time and again tried to shut Parliament out, refusing to give us a meaningful vote and refusing to release the legal advice on the deal. She has treated this place and Members on both sides of it with utter disdain.

The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said:

“the road to tyranny is paved with Executives ignoring Parliament.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 1009.]

That is what the Prime Minister has done, and so Parliament is having to assert its rightful authority. At every turn, she has chosen division over unity. She has not tried to bring the 17 million people who voted leave and the 16 million people who voted remain together. She should have tried to assure those who voted remain. Instead, she chose to placate the most extreme of her colleagues on the leave side of the debate. That has left the nation more divided than it was in June 2016.

Out on the streets, in homes, schools and hospitals, people are struggling, and they take no hope and no strength from this ailing Government. What happened to those burning injustices that the Prime Minister said it was her mission to fight when she came into office? Racism, classism, homelessness and insecure jobs have all grown and burned brighter than ever before, and for so much of this, she is responsible. If the House declares tonight that it has no confidence in the Government, it will open the possibility of a general election and a decisive change in direction for our country on Brexit and for workers, young people and our vital services.

The Prime Minister will forever be known as the “nothing has changed” Prime Minister, but something must change. Our only choice left is to change her and her Government in a general election. We know that she has worked hard, but the truth is that she is too set in her ways and too aloof to lead. She lacks the imagination and agility to bring people with her, and she lacks the authority on the world stage to negotiate this deal. Ultimately, she has failed. It is not through lack of effort or dedication, and I think the country recognises that effort. In fact, the country feels genuinely sorry for the Prime Minister—I feel sorry for her—but she cannot confuse pity for political legitimacy or sympathy for sustainable support. The evidence is clear.

I know that Government Members will want to support the Prime Minister in the vote this evening out of loyalty to the party, but everyone in this Chamber, no matter which Lobby they go through, knows in their heart that this Prime Minister is not capable of getting a deal through. Government Members know it. They know that we know they know it, and the country knows it. That is why we must act. That is why we need something new. That is why we need a general election. I commend this motion to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we must take electoral fraud very seriously. The April 2015 election court judgment in Tower Hamlets exposed worrying electoral fraud and corruption. The Government are currently considering the recent review by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles), which provides a range of measures to tackle electoral fraud, and will give a full response in due course.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

I welcome you back, Mr Speaker, and give a very warm welcome to the new ministerial team. I congratulate them all on their appointments. We look forward to a positive working relationship with them, holding them to account and making a difference where we can.

I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, for my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), a new member of my team. She is on her honeymoon and cannot be with us today, but I am sure we wish her well in her marriage to Ben. My colleague may be on her honeymoon, but let me reassure the ministerial team that the honeymoon period for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is well and truly over. I have asked a series of questions about his responsibilities, but they have not been answered after 56 days in office. I therefore ask any member of the team: where is he today and what does he actually do?

[Ben Gummer]

The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions and I will ensure that I relay them to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, but I can say that he is responsible for the chancellery of the Duchy of Lancaster.

[Mr Watson]

What departmental responsibilities does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have, and how is he carrying them out?

[Ben Gummer]

The Chancellor the Duchy of Lancaster sits on a number of very important Cabinet Committees and has a number of responsibilities, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will find out in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

I am glad that my hon. Friend enjoyed the read. I point out to him that some 85% of the population say that they want to hear more about the issues from the Government. If that serves to drive up participation among either remainers or leavers, then I am sure that both he and I will be pleased.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

There is much concern about the Government’s new proposals for public appointments in that they might decrease social mobility. Sir David Normington has gone so far as to say:

“Grimstone’s proposals would enable ministers to set their own rules; override those rules whenever they want; appoint their own selection panels; get preferential treatment for favoured candidates; ignore the panel’s advice if they don’t like it; and appoint someone considered by the panel as not up to the job.”

Would the Minister like to answer that?

[Mr Speaker]

Before the Minister does so, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the appointment process in the context of the drive to increase democratic participation.

[Mr Watson]

Indeed, Mr Speaker—yes. Social mobility in public appointments is very important for democratic participation.

[John Penrose]

I am not sure how I link any kind of answer to democratic participation, but I none the less point out that we adhere consistently to the Nolan principles in everything that we do in this area.

[Mr Watson]

I appreciate the Minister’s answer to my creative question. I do not believe everything that I read in the papers, but this week it was revealed that the Culture Secretary had recommended five candidates for the position of trustee at the National Portrait Gallery. Three were Tory donors and one was a former Tory Minister. Is that a way of improving democratic participation for Tory cronies?

[John Penrose]

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is trying to raise a serious point, but this is an example of the principle of if you are in a hole, you should stop digging.