Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am pleased to open the debate on this short Bill that has a straightforward, singular aim. It seeks to amend the statutory limits on the number of ministerial salaries available, currently capped at 109, to 120. That reflects the average size of Government since 2010 and largely ends the practice of unpaid Ministers. It will ensure that the Prime Minister of the day has the flexibility needed to appoint enough paid Ministers to meet the demands of modern government.

It may be helpful to explain the context of the Bill before us. Under the constitution, the monarch appoints the Prime Minister as the person most able to command the confidence of the House of Commons. All ministerial appointments thereafter are made by the monarch on the sole advice of the Prime Minister. There is a statutory limit on how many ministerial salaries are available, as set out in the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975. The current limit of 109 salaries has not been changed since then. There is a separate statutory limit on the number of Ministers who can sit and vote in the House of Commons, whether paid or unpaid, under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. This limit is 95, and the Bill before us does not change that. There is no equivalent limit on the number of peers able to serve as Ministers.

The Ministerial and other Salaries Act also sets out the salaries that should be paid to eight other officeholders: the Speakers of both Houses, the Leaders of the Opposition in both Houses, the Chief Opposition Whips in both Houses and two assistant Opposition Whips in the House of Commons. The Bill does not seek to amend the number of salaries allocated to those roles. Within that limit of 109, 83 salaries can be allocated at Secretary of State, Minister of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretary ranks; a further four salaries are allocated to the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and the Advocate General for Scotland; and 22 salaries are allocated to Government Whips.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Given the economic situation, the public expect restraint at the moment. They also expect leadership—and that means ministerial leadership. Does the Paymaster General seriously believe that the public will welcome this? The explanatory notes tell us that it will involve a payroll hike of between 13% and 19% for that group of people, plus superannuation and severance payments, which is not an insignificant sum. Has he considered perhaps reducing, rather than increasing, the number of Ministers?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am genuinely surprised by that intervention, because when I was taking the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill through the House, the fact that Ministers in the Lords are unpaid was raised not only by Conservative Front Benchers in this House, but by the Conservative leader in the Lords. The right hon. Gentleman is very much out of step with his own Front Benchers. On the substance of his point, I give the reassurance that the freeze on ministerial salaries absolutely remains. This is not about the level of salary for individuals; it is about the number of salaries available for the Prime Minister to allocate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. The Conservative party gave nothing but false promises for a decade. We will deliver the biggest transformation of transport in the north for a generation, providing up to £45 billion of funding. We are taking forward all the recommendations from the NAO report; that does not change the planning or trajectory of the project.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Q6. As a result of grant cuts and over-optimistic Treasury assumptions on council tax base growth, eight fire stations and 96 retained firefighters across Wiltshire and Dorset face the axe. Will the Prime Minister please facilitate an urgent ministerial meeting for Wiltshire and Dorset MPs to discuss extending the precept flexibility permitted elsewhere—at no cost to the Treasury—to our fire and rescue service so that its fire stations and dedicated firefighters can continue to serve our community?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Member for raising that case. I do not know the particular details, but I will ensure that the relevant meeting is set up so that they can be explored.

China: Foreign Interference Arrests

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He has developed something of a knack for finding a good question that most people will have in their mind. I can give him the assurances that he seeks. It is important that we ensure that protections are in place, not only for our elected representatives—those who step forward to serve in this House and in other places—but for their staff, who work so hard and diligently to serve them. We still have a lot of work to do—that work will be led here by Mr Speaker and the Parliamentary Security Department —but the Government will work very closely alongside them, to ensure that they have the support that they need.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Minister spoke of “severe consequences”. Will he outline what those severe consequences might be? Does he understand that Beijing is unlikely to take that terribly seriously, given what has happened in the recent past? Will the severe consequences include putting on hold plans for the Chinese super-embassy and spy centre, pending the outcome of the Met’s investigation?

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman, who is a very experienced Member of this House, will know that, given that we are referring to events that took place just a couple of hours ago, it would be unwise of me to get into further detail. On our response to the threats that we have faced over the last months, I point him to a number of measures that I have referred to. He knows, I hope, how seriously we take these matters. He and I do not agree on the embassy, but I say to him, as I have said to other hon. Members, that there is a clear national security case for the embassy proposal. The directors general of two of the security services have been clear about the national security advantages, as have I. This Government will do everything we need to do to protect our country, our national security and this place. He knows that there is a lot that I cannot say about what we intend to do, but let me be crystal clear: where malign actors—whoever they may be—seek to undermine our democracy, there will be consequences.

Middle East

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for all that she does. I know she has a lot of military families in her constituency, and she is right to be concerned for them. I am sure that they will be feeling concerned. We will ensure that we liaise closely with them, wherever they are in the region, and do all that we can to protect them. We of course thank them for what they are doing. On the wider point she makes, it is important that the whole of Government is committed to the defence and security of the United Kingdom.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Prime Minister happily says that he has learned the lessons of Iraq, a misadventure that his party is responsible for. Does he agree that the lesson of Iraq is not to use lethal force unless there is good evidence to do so and, in particular, unless there is a threat to the interests of this country, which there was not? Will he compare and contrast that with the situation that applies to what has happened over the weekend, when our friends and allies took pre-emptive action against a feral state that had enriched uranium to 60% and that posed a clear and present danger to ourselves, our interests and our allies?

[The Prime Minister]

It is important that we all learn the lessons of Iraq, and they are that there needs to be a lawful basis for action if it is taken and that there needs to be a viable case.

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I agree with my hon. Friend. In relation to the criminal investigation being conducted by the Metropolitan police, the Government of course want to support the Metropolitan police and to collaborate with them to ensure that where justice can be found, it must be found. In respect of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which has an important function in the House to support the work of Parliament, we are currently working together to ensure that the processes and the capacity are in place to honour the commitments in the Humble Address, in a way that means that the House is served with these documents as quickly and as effectively as possible.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Regular updates are all well and good, and they are appreciated, but they are a classic Whitehall strategy for disguising managed delay. When we get the first tranche of documents, will the Minister ensure that it is substantial and deals with the two key issues: first, what the Prime Minister knew at the point when he appointed Mandelson, what the agencies knew and what the propriety and ethics team advised the Prime Minister in relation to Mandelson’s connection with the convicted paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, at the point of appointment; and secondly, the details of the dodgy, shady-looking Palantir deal involving Alex Karp, the Prime Minister and Peter Mandelson?

Standards in Public Life

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

As I have said to the hon. Lady’s Liberal Democrat colleagues, I am happy to receive further representations on reform of the law relating to whistleblowers. If we need to go further, we will be happy to consider doing that.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Minister has managed to throw out more chaff than a B-52. He mentioned security vetting. Does he mean developed vetting, of the sort applied to very senior officials, including military individuals, before they are appointed to extremely sensitive positions, or does he have something else in mind? Will that vetting be repeated periodically, as it is for officials? Will it be applied to both political appointees and ministerial appointments, where those positions are particularly sensitive?

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are different processes for the different types of role that we have in government, from due diligence through to developed national security vetting, which he mentions. The important thing is that the right process is applied to the right person at the right time, and that is what we are reviewing right now.

Lord Mandelson

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

There is no doubt that the Prime Minister’s judgment is being called sharply into question at this moment. It is becoming harder to see how any of us can rely on his judgment in future.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Alex Burghart]

I will give way one more time, and then I must make some progress.

[Dr Murrison]

The Prime Minister’s judgment is most certainly in the frame. What about his candour? Does my hon. Friend remember that on 16 September, the Prime Minister himself introduced the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which at its heart has a duty of candour? Did we see candour displayed at Prime Minister’s questions today?

[Alex Burghart]

As my right hon. Friend knows, the Government developed an appetite for candour and then lost their appetite. That Bill has disappeared into the ether. Too much candour would do this Government harm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I hope the House takes in good faith what I have sought to do in the course of my speech, let alone in the course of the debate. I think that scrutiny of the process is very important.

[Dr Murrison]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Let me make some progress, and I might come back to interventions.

The Government have tabled amendment (a), so that documents are published unless they prejudice national security or international relations—I know I was asked a specific question about international relations—because of course such documents might contain information about our relationship with our international allies and how we have approached them. It is obviously important for Governments to keep that information confidential, because it is in the national interest. I am also very conscious of another issue: I am definitely not seeking to hide behind the cloak of the Met police investigation, but of course we will also have to bear in mind the fact that documents might prejudice that investigation. That is something that we will continue to speak to the Met about.

We will of course do all we can to comply with the motion, as amended, and we will update the House accordingly. I also want to say to the House that, while the process of going through a significant number of documents might take a little time, it is important that the Government start the disclosure process—to the extent we can—today. That is what the Government will do in response to the debate and to the very reasonable questions that are being asked.

[Dr Murrison]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am someone who rewards effort, so as the right hon. Gentleman has put in such effort, I will give way.

[Dr Murrison]

May I return the compliment by telling the Minister how much I admire his ability and generosity in giving way? I think he is doing an exceptional job.

I understand where the Minister is coming from in relation to Government amendment (a). Perhaps I can describe an example of something that he may wish to see passed through the ISC that cannot be made publicly available—that is, which of our foreign allies had something to say about the appointment of Peter Mandelson to Washington. I appreciate that the Minister is never going to say precisely who that ally might be, but the nature of that correspondence is surely a matter of public interest, and therefore is of interest to this House, but it is not something that can be bruited abroad. The ISC provides the very obvious solution to discovering what representations were made, and what material was passed between our allies and the Cabinet Office, before this appointment was made. Can the Minister make that commitment?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I hope the House has seen, even over the course of this debate, the constructive approach I have tried to take on the role of the ISC in this process. That is precisely what I have done.

I want to turn now to another aspect of this matter, which is the peerage. Another action the Government are determined to take is to strip Peter Mandelson of his title, as the Prime Minister has set out. Frankly, I think people watching this debate will be bemused, because there is no other walk of life in which a person is unsackable unless a law is passed. We will therefore introduce primary legislation. The Government have written to the Chair of the Lords Conduct Committee to ask the Lords to consider what changes are required to modernise the process of the House in order to remove Lords quickly when they have brought either House into disrepute. The Government stand ready to support the House in whatever way is necessary to put any changes into effect.

Being in office is a privilege—every day is a privilege. That is why there is anger across this House about Peter Mandelson and his actions. The test for the Government in these circumstances is the action we take to respond. As I think has also come through in this debate, our utmost thoughts are with the victims: the women and girls who suffered at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein. Behind the emails, the photographs and the documents are many victims who were exposed to this network of abuse. They should be our priority in this matter, and I am sure they will be for the rest of this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

A series of Administrations have not been as open as they could be, and have made poor choices about the behaviour of some of their Members, which has ended up in scandal and disgrace. I completely agree, if the hon. Lady is making the point that public trust in our institutions and our Government is vital; we must all take that seriously. There is a sorry legacy of recent Governments who behaved less than impeccably in a number of ways. We strongly support using this whole sorry episode as a catalyst to bring about much-needed change.

[Dr Murrison]

The Prime Minister has said that it is all okay, because the Cabinet Secretary will command this review. Does the hon. Lady agree that while the Cabinet Secretary is a person of impeccable repute, he cannot be objective, because he has been involved in this matter? It is almost unfair to put this on him. What mechanism can the hon. Lady devise that will deal with that, other than giving the great bulk of this information, because international relations will cover the great bulk of it, to the ISC?

China and Japan

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

This issue is so important, in terms of the opportunities that we have. That is why we had representatives from motor manufacturing with us. They are only too well aware of the great benefits that taking full advantage of the opportunities will have for her constituents and others.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Prime Minister’s friend, Baroness Helena Kennedy, a sanctioned person, clearly believes that the juice was not worth the squeeze or, indeed, the price of the plane tickets, because she has described the returns the Prime Minister has secured as “meagre”. She is right, is she not?

[The Prime Minister]

I have known Helena for many years. We shared a room when we worked together in chambers. We agree on many things, but not everything.

US Department of Justice Release of Files

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Member knows that the Government have stated and believe that Peter Mandelson should not be a Member of the House of Lords and should not use his title, but he is right that the rules need to be updated to allow that action to be taken by the House of Lords. We have written to the House of Lords authorities today to say that this work must begin, and the Government stand ready to support them on that.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

To be fair to Peter Mandelson, I think the crustacean in John Prescott’s jam jar was a crab, not a scorpion.

In our system, it is very unusual to appoint ambassadors and high commissioners from outside the ranks of the civil service, and for pretty good reason. When they are appointed from outside the civil service, and particularly when the appointee is a politician with baggage, as here, the appointer has to own it, because he made that decision—in this case, against advice. What does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister think this fiasco says about the judgment of our Prime Minister?

[Darren Jones]

The Prime Minister’s judgment was made clear when, as soon as information that he had been misled by Peter Mandelson became available, he sacked him.

UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Yes, indeed. There are fees on businesses today—£200 per consignment on export health certificates, £1,400 if a business is selected for sampling, £61 for identity checks—all of which can be swept away when the SPS agreement is implemented. As I said to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), the objective is to implement that in the first half of 2027.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The intentions behind the Erasmus scheme are unobjectionable, but £570 million is an awful lot of money, so I am very pleased that there will be a review after 10 months. Will that review include an assessment of the scheme against what happened in the past, which was essentially to provide a benefit for predominantly middle-class humanities university students, and will he ensure that the opportunity costs to further education, which is tasked with upskilling our young people from a different demographic, are adequately taken into account?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

First, to give the right hon. Member some reassurance on further education—by the way, I agree with the point that this has to be open to people from all backgrounds, and I think the Erasmus+ scheme of today is very different from how it was even 10 years ago—the chief executive of the Association of Colleges, which represents our FE sector, has today called this “brilliant news” for staff and students of all ages in further education colleges. I hope that gives him the reassurance that this is not simply about universities, hugely important though our university sector is.

Secondly, on the right hon. Member’s point about the review, it will absolutely be data-led. We have had this debate before about participation versus contribution, and I have always said there has to be a fair balance—that is why I have negotiated the discount in the way I have—but the review will allow us to move forward on the basis of solid data about the numbers of participants. I am always in favour of data-led decision making.