Rewiring the State

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

My hon. Friend is right to champion that important development. I would be delighted to facilitate a meeting for him in No. 10 North.

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

Will the First Secretary of State’s exercise in delivering democracy and local accountability and empowering local people include a look at large organisations that cannot be described as governmental or as quangos but that nevertheless exist firmly within the public domain, are established by statute, serve the public and are big employers, and in which the public have a direct interest, such as the National Trust? That is ripe for review—it is meant to be reviewed periodically—and it would certainly fall within the scope of the work she has been talking about.

[Louise Haigh]

I will take that point away. We have already made significant progress in our review on closing or merging arm’s length bodies, including NHS England and the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. We know that we need to go further, and we will close or merge those where that is justified as part of our plans to rewire Whitehall. I will write to the right hon. Gentleman on the issue he raises.

Belfast: Violent Disorder

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I absolutely can provide those assurances, and my hon. Friend is right to make her points in the way that she does. It is at moments like this that we are collectively tested. The test is whether we are prepared to stand together against the kind of horrific violence we have seen—in both the initial attack and the response to it—and reject extremism. That is not about seeking in any way to minimise the horror of the scenes we have seen, but the job of the Government is to provide a grown-up, balanced response that seeks to bring communities together, not drive them apart. That will always be the response of this Government.

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

Happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker.

The Minister said to criminals—who are criminals, Minister, not thugs—“Do not do it.” With respect, that will not cut it. It suggests that the Government are simply a passive, pearl-clutching observer rather than an active participant. I accept that operational matters are for the PSNI, not the Minister, but will he say what the Government are doing to try to fix the fundamentals that underpin the dreadful situation in Belfast?

[Dan Jarvis]

I have a huge amount of respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but his characterisation of the words I used in my opening remarks is unfair, not least because I was seeking to provide a degree of clarity to those in Northern Ireland who might find themselves swept along by some of the violence we have seen in recent times. It is entirely reasonable that there is clarity about the message that I, as a Government Minister, send to those people, which is that they should not do it, and that if they decide they want to do it, they have to be prepared to face the full consequences of their criminality. With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think that is an unreasonable point to make.

The right hon. Gentleman’s second point was a wider, systemic one. He will understand that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is an extraordinarily seasoned political operator who dedicates his service in this House to serving the people of Northern Ireland as the Secretary of State, and Members right across the House will understand how seriously he takes these matters. But the right hon. Gentleman is also right to infer that this is a shared endeavour across Government, which is why we will look carefully at what has happened in Northern Ireland and ensure that our collective response is proportionate.

Security Vetting

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank her for making sure that the victims are central to this, as they should be.

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

The Prime Minister has now been on his feet for nearly two hours. May I put it to him that the most charitable explanation that could be put forward to explain this sorry saga, is that it has been a bad, probably terminal case of the three wise monkeys: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil?

[The Prime Minister]

I have set out the procedure in some detail. Information should have been provided to me. It was not provided to me. If it had been provided, I would not have allowed the appointment of Peter Mandelson to proceed in the way that it did.

Hatzola Ambulance Attack

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, which I know will be appreciated in the Jewish community. He is right to raise the considerable concern in every corner of the House about the online threat. I hope he sees that we take it incredibly seriously. A lot of work is under way, led by the defending democracy taskforce, and he will know that we have commissioned Philip Rycroft to conduct a review of this area. The Online Safety Act 2023 will provide some protections, but the Government have been crystal clear that if those protections are insufficient, we will have to do more.

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

Among the many reviews that he cited, the Minister mentioned Jonathan Hall’s review, which is getting a bit long in the tooth. Surely, given the events in north London and the middle east this month, its recommendations should now be expedited, as there appears to be cross-party support for the concept that the IRGC should be proscribed. Why can the Wagner Group—a state-linked entity—be proscribed, but the IRGC cannot, even without changing the Terrorism Act?

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Jonathan Hall, who has done a lot of good work in this area, made recommendations, which the Government have accepted. We are looking closely at the best way to provide the legislation that he recommended. I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about urgency. As a very experienced Member of this House, he will understand that I would be in a lot of trouble with the Leader of the House if I started speculating about future legislation. However, the Government have committed to bringing that forward, and we will do so as soon as we can.

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.