Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I have come from the Foreign Affairs Committee sitting this morning, where we had the opportunity to speak to Sir Olly Robbins as our witness. I want to use my speech to pull out some of the pertinent points that we heard that I think are relevant.

Before I start, I absolutely agree with Members across the House who say that Lord Mandelson was a completely inappropriate and terrible choice for our ambassador, and that there has clearly been a failure in the process that ended up in his appointment and in the vetting. However, it is important that we look at what Sir Olly said in the witness statement today, because some of that contradicts what has been said in the House.

The first important thing that Sir Olly said is that no Minister—not the Prime Minister, not the Foreign Secretary, nor any other Minister—or any official in No. 10 was given sight of the fact that UKSV had declined Mandelson’s security vetting. They had no sight at all of any details of that vetting. He said that, justified that and defended that. No officials or Ministers should have sight of that vetting, because it is extremely personal and sensitive information. I went through that process myself when I worked at the Foreign Office, and we do not want to create any conditions that make people afraid to share sensitive information in the vetting process, thinking that at some point in the future it might be leaked, whether to politicians, to others in the line management chain or, as we have seen, to the press, because that undermines the integrity of the process as a whole. That reinforces what the Prime Minister said yesterday.

Secondly, Sir Olly disputed the characterisation that UKSV had failed Peter Mandelson’s vetting: that it was in some way a binary choice inside the Foreign Office. It is important that we explain—or that I try to justify—what Sir Olly was saying, because the FCDO has a slightly different process from that of other parts of Government. It is an overseas Department—a bit like the Ministry of Defence, for example—so people with seriously long careers and all sorts of different interests come into those roles. I am not suggesting that Peter Mandelson should have passed vetting, not at all, but it is not unusual for the FCDO rather than UKSV to make a decision on a borderline case. According to Sir Olly’s evidence, that is a normal process. It is important that we hold to that in future.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am really surprised that the hon. Gentleman is swallowing this guff about this being a borderline case. It was quite clear that security vetting put this case in the red box, which meant “fail”. Sir Olly is being lauded to the skies now because he is the victim of ruthless prime ministerial politics, but he also has an angle on this: he massaged, shall we say, his own judgment because he knew the pressure on him from the Government. There was nothing borderline about this; he is saying that it was borderline only because he needs an excuse for having overridden it when he should not have done.

[Alex Ballinger]

I can speak only to what the witness told us in the inquiry this morning. Many Members made the same case that the right hon. Gentleman is making now: that it was a red box case, as we have seen in the evidence submitted. However, Sir Olly was clear that this was a borderline case, and it is usual for the Foreign Office to conduct such cases. The right hon. Gentleman can make up his own mind about whether to believe Sir Olly or other people.

[David Davis]

I came in to watch the Committee. Sir Olly actually said that the advice he was given by his director of intelligence was “borderline”. One issue that was not clear was whether the pressure from No. 10 was simply on him or on all members of the channel, down to lower levels.

[Alex Ballinger]

I had a different interpretation. Sir Olly also said—we can look back at the transcript—that, yes, there was pressure from No. 10 to get the appointment done quickly. It could be interpreted that the Government wanted to get the appointment done before President Trump’s inauguration—there was an important timeline by which to do it—because there was a risk that any new ambassadorial appointments after that might be interfered with. Again, these are the words of Sir Olly; I am not bringing this up from nowhere.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Alex Ballinger]

Let me finish.

The other important point is that it was not just the UK Security Vetting system that put a borderline process through, which the FCDO then approved; it was also the intelligence agencies. It is equally concerning that Peter Mandelson was given STRAP clearance. I asked Sir Olly directly whether any concerns were raised by intelligence agencies on the process of obtaining STRAP clearance, which is a higher level of security that gives someone access to the country’s most classified secrets. No one from the intelligence agencies raised any concerns during that STRAP process. There are serious concerns about that.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I say gently to my hon. Friend, and to others who seek to make the same argument, that at the heart of this matter is a toxic and dismissive culture at No. 10—we cannot get away from that point. That dismissiveness has led us to this place. This is not a small administrative breach; it is a matter of national security. The British public is not buying it. Surely, there needs to be a full, transparent and independent inquiry on this whole situation that uncovers the truth and leads to consequences, including for the Prime Minister. That is what the British public want.

[Alex Ballinger]

That is not my experience of No. 10. I am pleased to see that there will be a review of the vetting system, because this process has uncovered serious problems within it.

I have a number of takeaways from this morning’s evidence. I agree that Peter Mandelson was a terrible pick for ambassador, even before the things that came out about him later, and it was the wrong decision to pick him. However, there have clearly been failures in developed vetting, in the process at the FCDO and in the STRAP vetting process. I am pleased that the Government have announced two reviews—one to be led by Sir Adrian Fulford and a separate Cabinet Office review—to consider those vetting processes and ensure that, in relation to Peter Mandelson’s vetting and to the UK vetting system more generally, such mistakes do not happen again.

I am slightly concerned that the Government have suspended the ability of overseas Departments to operate discretion in granting developed vetting. That is a sensible response in the short term, but I hope that as the reviews are carried out, the Minister will consider the reasons why those Departments have that discretion.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have listened carefully to his speech. Given what he heard at the Committee this morning and his background and experience, does he regret Olly Robbins’s sacking?

[Alex Ballinger]

I feel very sympathetic to Olly Robbins. Olly Robbins—

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Sir Olly Robbins.

[Alex Ballinger]

Sir Olly Robbins will have an opportunity to account for himself, but he gave a very good account of himself at the Committee this morning, and it is not for me to make that judgment.

I can think of several good reasons why the FCDO and the MOD might need to use that discretion in the future. I am also really concerned that details about Peter Mandelson’s vetting were leaked to the press in September. Even considering Peter Mandelson’s misconduct, the integrity of that process is really important, and Sir Olly also raised concerns about that issue.

I hope that the reviews announced by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister the other day will look at the leaks to the press, because it is unacceptable that such vital personal information about the vetting process has been released in that way. Most importantly, Sir Olly’s evidence rubbishes some of the accusations that Members made in the House and, indeed, in the media yesterday that questioned the Prime Minister’s honesty about the situation, because he categorically ruled out any suggestion that the Prime Minister knew anything about it, for good reason. The Members who made those accusations and were rightly thrown out of the House should correct the record and apologise.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Alex Ballinger]

I will take one more intervention, and then I will finish.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is important that the hon. Member winds up, because I said seven minutes, and he has now taken 10 minutes.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Does the hon. Member realise that to people outside, this argument—these fine details of process—morphs into a defence of ignorance and then into a defence of incompetency? That is actually doing the Prime Minister as much harm as all these arguments about his honesty.

[Alex Ballinger]

We have heard real concerns about the process, and I am glad that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has announced reviews into that process, because we really need to make sure we get it right in the future.

Middle East

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We do need to learn the lessons of history. That is why the rules-based system is important. It is also what allows us to make arrangements to get our citizens home and to deal with other matters in conjunction with other countries. On the basis of the decision that I took last night, the plan is to take the necessary measures to protect British nationals. We are clear that, in the end, there has to be de-escalation and a return to negotiation.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his restraint so far in this operation, and for not heeding the calls of the Leader of the Opposition to get us embroiled in the reckless US and Israeli strikes on Iran. I still remember interventions in the region: colleagues not returning from Afghanistan, friends who were shot down over Iraq and tortured, and the massive destruction to civilians. Will the Prime Minister commit to limiting UK personnel to defensive operations to protect our citizens and allies, and not get us further embroiled in this unwise and dangerous war?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I will. I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend and the House that there will always be a lawful basis for any action that we take, and there must be a viable plan for it.

China and Japan

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

May I give this assurance to the hon. Member’s constituents? We absolutely believe in the importance of steel being made in this country, and that is why we took the necessary measures, on a Saturday, as he knows, in relation to steel production in his constituency.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister will know that many excellent west midlands businesses export to China, including great car makers such as Jaguar Land Rover, the Morgan Motor Company and Aston Martin. Collectively, those car exports are worth more than those from any other region in the UK, I would say. Can the Prime Minister outline how the results of his trip to China, including the agreement on 30-day visa-free travel, will benefit those businesses and drive jobs and exports in our region?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that JLR was there with us on the delegation in China, and it is acutely aware of the difference that better trade and economic measures with China will make to its business, and to jobs in his constituency.

National Security Strategy

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that the document is distinguished by a broader view of national security, which is also reflected in the discussion at NATO today, where we are looking beyond our core defence expenditure on our armed forces to the other things we have discussed that contribute to our national security. I thank the Intelligence and Security Committee for its work in all its iterations over the years. I have a good dialogue with the Committee. I look forward to that continuing, and to the Committee playing its very important role.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s focus on building up our armed forces in this more uncertain world, but is it not also vital for our national security that we focus on preventing conflict? Bringing sides together to negotiate and mediate can stop conflict spilling over and allow our armed forces to focus on the serious threats he has identified in the national security strategy. It is for that reason that former military chiefs, heads of the Security Service and Select Committee Chairs last week wrote a letter to the PM calling for investment in peacebuilding and conflict prevention. Will the Minister commit to using all the tools in our kitbag, including peacebuilding and conflict prevention, to keep our citizens safe?

[Pat McFadden]

My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the deep expertise that exists in the diplomatic service, which advances our national interests in a whole range of ways every day, including in conflict resolution. I pay tribute to the work of those in our diplomatic posts and diplomatic service across the world.

EU-UK Summit

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Richard Tice]

That is absolutely right. In my constituency, young people want better and better-paid jobs. They do not want wages to be suppressed.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman has talked a lot about European young people wanting to come to the UK, but what about the many British young people who want to go to Europe—to Berlin, Paris or Milan? What does he say to people from Boston and Skegness who would like to study overseas?

[Richard Tice]

As I said earlier, the hon. Gentleman is most welcome to knock on a thousand doors with me in Boston and Skegness. I do not think any of those people would be rushing out to do that; that is not their primary aim. Their primary aim is to get a good job in that constituency, which they are very proud of.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice]

Yes, I did use that figure. Within my constituency, it is probably more than 10,000—a very sizeable number. It is probably one of the greatest recipients of any UK constituency, so I stand by that number.

The fifth surrender is on the EU emissions trading scheme, which will drive up prices. If we do not subscribe to net zero, however, we do not need any of these carbon tariffs, so that would drive down prices. What will happen now that we have linked and handcuffed ourselves to this EU carbon trading scheme is that the bureaucrats in Brussels will say, “In all these other areas to do with trading, they will have to comply with this, that and the other.” Every time there is something that they do not like, they will say, “No. Under the EU net zero trading scheme, you’re going to have to comply.” That is the thin end of the wedge that we are so concerned about.

[Alex Ballinger]

The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the many businesses and confederations of businesses that have welcomed the deal. He is talking about energy. One energy company, Octopus Energy, has said that it will bring down people’s energy bills, rather than increasing them. What would he say to consumers who would prefer their energy bills to be lower?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was a leave voter himself, as I know many traditional Labour voters around the country voted for Brexit. I certainly voted for Brexit and campaigned for it. I think the hon. Gentleman is making some presumptions as to why people voted. My central pitch when knocking on doors in that referendum was the point around control and sovereignty, and that it would be this Parliament that set our laws. Dynamic alignment blows a huge hole in that.

I will touch briefly on a couple of other factors that have come up in the debate. There is a point that is made that somehow Brexit has been economically damaging. In the Government’s own rationale—[Interruption.] It is always good to have an audience laughing, but I am going to quote from the Government’s own rationale. They talk about declining trade and so on from 2018. I hate to break it to them, but we had not left the European Union in 2018. The withdrawal Act did not come into effect for years after that. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that in 2018, for example, UK food exports were £10.6 billion. Guess what had happened by 2024? They had gone up to £11.34 billion. We need a little greater clarity in this debate where we get the dates right and compare apples with apples, rather than apples with pears.

[Alex Ballinger]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Greg Smith]

I have given way several times. I may well come back if time allows, but I am aware of the time limit that you have set, Ms McVey.

My constituency could pretty much not be further from the sea, but we do enjoy a lot of fish in Buckinghamshire. I am very much aware of just how angry fishermen around the country are, particularly Scottish fishermen. Yesterday, I debated with SNP Members on the BBC, who confirmed how angry fishermen in Scotland are at this deal. Once again, it is important that we look at some facts. The crude trade gap for fish is actually about 274,000 tonnes in the EU’s favour. The key point I make to those who argued that the deal is somehow good because it means we can export more fish to the European Union is that we cannot export that which we have not been allowed to catch in the first place. I would invite hon. Members that have made that point to reflect on it a little more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

The Library does not say that Brexit is the cause of those declines. [Interruption.] It does not say that, and there are all sorts of factors. For example, we are closing down the North sea and exporting far less fuel. We used to import a lot of uncut diamonds and then export them to the EU, but we do not do that any more. That was worth £1 billion a year.

[Alex Ballinger]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am not giving way again. The basis for recalculating our trade statistics has changed. There is also what was known as the Rotterdam effect. The point is that our underlying economic growth is broadly the same.

In Tuesday’s statement, the Prime Minister claimed:

“The deal means that British goods that have long been off the menu in Europe can regain their true place, including shellfish”.—[Official Report, 20 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 890.]

He went on to say, and he mentioned this several times:

“Under the Conservatives’ deal, shellfish was locked out, but it can now be sold back into the market”.—[Official Report, 20 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 897.]

So what are the statistics for shellfish exports to the EU? They declined very substantially between 2019 and 2021, from 32 million tonnes to 25 million tonnes, largely because of covid, I suspect. In 2022 they declined a little bit more to 22 million tonnes. That is not off the menu —22 million tonnes of shellfish exported to the EU. They went up in 2023 to 23 million tonnes and have continued broadly at that level. They were not locked out. That is just not true.

The fact is we have a different trading relationship. Yes, the EU puts up lots of stupid and time-wasting barriers to trade, but that is because it knows this Labour Government are suckers and have fallen into this trap. The Government think they are going to get rid of all these checks. Well, under this new arrangement, we are going to have EU vets inspecting British farms and British food producers without any authority from the British Government, except through some kind of agreement.

We also know that the agrifood SPS agreement has not yet been agreed. And why has it not been agreed? There is no start date given by the Government. We have not seen the small print. There will have to be legislation, and we do not know how much we will have to pay the EU for this so-called privileged access.

It begs the question, given that shellfish was not locked out, and given that our shellfish exports to the EU remain substantially the same, what else are the Government saying about this deal that is completely untrue? I suspect that, just as they exaggerated and continue to exaggerate the disadvantages of being outside the European Union, they are also grossly exaggerating the economic advantages of this deal.

I come back to the point: if the referendum decided one thing, it was that we should no longer have our laws made in the European Union and that we should no longer have to contribute to the EU budget. Both of those commitments, which the Government made in their manifesto, have been betrayed. We have rejoined the single market in food and agriproducts, and we are going to contribute money to the European Union once again.

This will have a sting in the tail for the Government. I am afraid that all those so-called red wall seats are now vulnerable to a sense of betrayal among the voters that this Government cannot be trusted on even the most fundamental thing. I remind the Chamber again that 17.4 million people voted leave, which is a good deal more than the 9.7 million who voted Labour, giving them such an extraordinary majority on such a paltry share of the vote—less than 34%. The idea that this is a superior mandate and that the Government now have the right to overrule a referendum result is very dangerous territory. It is playing into the hands of the Reform party, which is the very thing that Labour fears.

It is vital that we have the European Scrutiny Committee back. Now that European regulation will be created and applied once again in the United Kingdom, even though we do not have any say over it, we should be able to scrutinise it properly through a proper scrutiny Committee. I would be grateful if the Minister would address that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) for arranging this debate. Maybe it will be the start of cross-party working on the EU.

The people of Halesowen voted to leave at the Brexit referendum of 2016 because they believed the promises that were made by the Brexit campaign, but what they got from the last Conservative Government was a botched Brexit deal, half-baked and deeply damaging. I am proud to come to the debate as we welcome a landmark trade deal with the European Union, one that delivers real benefits for British businesses, workers and families. Labour promised to fix the damage left by the Tories’ failed Brexit deal, and this week that is exactly what we are doing.

For years, Britain was held back: 21% fewer exports, rising food prices and businesses drowning in red tape. But this week, that changed. The deal marks a new chapter, ensuring that Britain is stronger, fairer and more competitive on the world stage. It is a game changer for the west midlands, and for my constituents in Halesowen. Nowhere will the benefits be felt more than in the Black Country, an area built on industry. The deal cuts red tape on over 1,500 products, slashes costs, and secures greater certainty for local businesses.

Manufacturing makes up 14% of jobs in my area. It is a massive employer, but in the last 30 years the Black Country has lost over 30,000 jobs in the sector. We were once the engine room of the British economy, but while promises piled up, investments passed us by. This deal, on top of the deals Labour has secured with the US and India, will get our economy turbocharged once again. It is about supporting British steel, protecting jobs, and our future as a manufacturing powerhouse. Labour has cut £25 million a year from tariffs, which will help our steel industry to compete on the world stage and will save steelmaking jobs. It is about bringing down energy costs because we know how critical that is for households and businesses alike. This deal dodges a £7 billion carbon tax, and Octopus Energy tells us that it will bring down household bills and provide relief to normal consumers.

[Sir John Hayes]

I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) to talk about the imbalance in food exports and imports. The EU sells us far more than we sell it. Are we not moving to a less globalist age—a post-liberal age—in which countries will need to be more economically resilient, as I described earlier? We need to shorten supply lines and so on. On that basis, why would we want to make it easier for people from abroad to sell goods to compete with our farmers and growers?

[Alex Ballinger]

We have been talking in this debate about some of the advantages to British agriculture and the British fishing industry of access to the European market. Of course, it will be fantastic for the people who have been welcoming this deal, and the deal will also be very much welcomed by the many consumers in Halesowen who will see prices on their supermarket shop fall as a result of it.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

What about the extra costs of regulation?

[Alex Ballinger]

If the hon. Member wants to intervene, he may do so.

As a former military man myself, I should also talk about the benefits to defence, including access to £150 billion of defence contracts. Many defence contractors in Halesowen have been cut out from European contracts since Brexit. They are very keen to be involved in this deal.

We should also be talking about the benefits to families. The deal means lower food prices on supermarket shelves in Halesowen, which will put money back in people’s pockets. For young people who deserve more than a future limited by bad decisions of the past, the deal gives them back the right to work, study and live across 27 countries. For too long, we have closed the door for young people. This deal opens it up once again.

For those asking whether the deal undermines our independence, let me be clear: we remain in control. We are outside the single market and the customs union, and Britain makes its own laws. This is about making Brexit work—not revisiting old fights but delivering for today. While Labour delivers, the Tories and Reform continue to stand on the sidelines offering no answers and only more chaos and division. This deal does not bring us backwards; it pushes places like Halesowen forward. We are fixing what was broken by the last Government, and we are making Britain stronger, fairer and ready for the future.

UK-EU Summit

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

Given that the last Government reduced our Army to a size not seen since the Napoleonic era, we should take no lectures on defence from Opposition Members. The people who will benefit from this are the defence contractors in my constituency who have been struggling to sell their components to the EU since Brexit and have had to cancel contracts, which has been affecting jobs all over the west midlands.

[Alex Burghart]

When I first arrived in the House, the leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party was advocating leaving NATO and giving up Trident, so I will take no lectures from those on his side of the House. My party is committed to 3% defence spending, and I think that those defence contractors in his constituency would very much like to see a Conservative Government spend some of that money in his patch.

Trade Negotiations

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

The points-based immigration system is not affected. The UK has not given away visas or created new routes as part of this deal. It is existing business mobility routes that have been expanded for highly skilled and experienced professionals to cover additional sectors.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Minister on securing this vital trade deal. The automotive sector in the west midlands has been worried about increasing tariffs in the US, so a trade deal with India—a country where UK brands are highly respected—is extremely welcome. Can the Minister tell my constituents in Halesowen who work in the automotive sector how this deal will benefit them?

[Mr Alexander]

I hope I can give my hon. Friend exactly that assurance, and I am conscious that there was an additional point I should have made earlier in relation to steel. As part of this agreement, we have included a bilateral safeguard mechanism, which allows us to temporarily suspend or increase tariffs if an industry is suffering or there is a threat of serious injury as a result of reduced duties.

To my hon. Friend’s question, automotive companies will now benefit from selling to India with tariffs under a quota reduced from over 100% to 10%. We have agreed quotas to limit the volume of duty-free imports permitted to enter our markets. That will open opportunities for the sector, giving them a competitive edge in the Indian market and increased access to India’s rapidly growing middle class. As the sector transitions to electric vehicles, so will the market access we have secured as part of this deal. It will give British businesses the opportunity to scale up their exports as production ramps up. Both the UK and India have growing EV markets and production, so we want to protect these industries while ensure that consumers have choice.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

In many years on the Opposition Benches, I learned when asking questions at PMQs not just to read the headline on a Wednesday morning, but to look at some of the detail. What Tony Blair said is that we should have more carbon capture. We have invested in carbon capture—that is many jobs across different parts of the country. He said that AI should be used, and we agree with that: we have invested huge amounts in AI and the jobs of the future. He also said that we need domestic targets so that businesses have certainty. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the detail of what Tony Blair said, he will see that Tony Blair is absolutely aligned with what we are doing here. These are the jobs and the security of the future. I will also say that we should not weaponise the difficult position that people in Spain and other countries find themselves in at a very difficult time.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

Q15. I welcome the Government’s decision this month to secure British Steel. At a time when European security is critical, defence manufacturers in the Black Country, like Somers Forge in Halesowen and B.B. Price in Cradley Heath, will be using that steel to make the military equipment that our defence needs. Will the Prime Minister commit to make manufacturing investment in the Black Country a national priority so that we can live up to our industrial heritage and create the high-quality defence jobs that our region so desperately needs?

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to my hon. and gallant Friend for his service to his country. He understands that our national security and economic security go hand in hand. It is vital that defence investment creates more jobs, apprenticeships and opportunities in the Black Country and across the United Kingdom. That is why we have launched a new hub to give up to 12,000 small firms better access to defence contracts. We are raising defence spending, with the highest sustained increase since the cold war—something that the Conservatives failed to do in 14 years in office.

UK-EU Relations

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

We are not doing nothing. There are areas where this Government will be in a world-leading space. Let us look, for example, at what we are doing on employment rights and product safety. As I indicated earlier to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), the Government believe in a race to the top on standards, not a race to the bottom.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I welcome the increased number of British officers now working with Europol. Will the Minister tell me more about how we will work with our European partners to tackle transactional crimes such as people smuggling and drug trafficking?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I am pleased that we have already increased our National Crime Agency presence at Europol. The speed with which we can share data is hugely important. When crimes are committed, those early hours and days are so important for catching those responsible. We want to work with the EU and international partners so that criminals have no place to hide on our continent.

Plan for Change: Milestones for Mission-led Government

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Member has asked his question. On farms, as the Chancellor made clear, a couple would have an allowance of £3 million before any inheritance obligation kicked in, and then it would be at half the rate that other people have to pay, so significant protections are built into the policy. On pensioners, it is very important to remember that we have said we will protect the triple lock, which is reflected in the pension increase that has been announced for next year.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

After 14 years of repeated broken promises, it is hardly surprising that many people are distrustful of politicians and the ability of government to do anything positive. Does the Minister agree that in setting out a clear plan for change, the Government are offering the British people not just the hope of a better future, but clear, measurable metrics against which they can be held to account?

[Pat McFadden]

This question of distrust and loss of faith is really important, because after so much chaos in recent years, it is very easy for our constituents to turn off from politics—to think that no Government of any political colour can deliver for them. We were determined not to allow that scepticism to set in and become the norm, so we have set out targets. I acknowledge, not for the first time today, that those targets are challenging. They are not easy to meet, but progress towards them—with lower waiting times, more houses built, and the other things set out in the plan for change document—will show that the Government are trying to deliver for people and that politics can bring productive change. That is change worth having.