COP27

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our record on this is a 44% reduction in climate emissions and 76% GDP growth. That shows it is possible and that is what Britain is delivering.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

What exactly is the Prime Minister’s problem with onshore wind?

Home Secretary: Resignation and Reappointment

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

The former Prime Minister lost her Home Secretary because the Home Secretary recognised that she had made a mistake. She accepted that mistake, she offered to resign and that resignation was accepted. I do not think that means that a mistake should hang over someone for the rest of their career. There is an opportunity for redemption and the Prime Minister has decided that this would be an appropriate appointment. I know that he is working hard with the Home Secretary on the immense challenges we face.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

It is notable how much support the Home Secretary has on the Government Benches. She did immense damage, in her previous brief tenure in the job, to our relations with India through her comments about Indian visitors overstaying their visas. The consequence is that the British people are now the only people in Europe who do not have access to e-visas to visit India. That is doing great damage to our tourism sector and jeopardising the travel plans of thousands of British families. Will the hon. Gentleman please use his good offices in the Cabinet Office to bang heads together in the Government, get this sorted out and try to repair the damage that the Home Secretary did when she was in the job last time?

[Jeremy Quin]

Our relationship with India is clearly important. I know that the right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to go into detail about that. I note from the Annunciator ticker that we have an urgent question on India following this one, and I am sure he will use that opportunity to make his point.

Standards in Public Life

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head, as usual. As he points out, Labour Members have made frequent requests for business in this House to be about not what our constituents primarily care about, but personalities. They do not raise the issue of policies, because when they do, they lose. Instead, they focus on personalities, and that has been the drive of the past six months.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Given the character and record of this Prime Minister and of this No. 10, and given that numerous Ministers have, in recent days, been sent out to spout different versions of events—which the BBC political editor this morning described as all having become “drivel”—how can any of us, including the Minister, have confidence that the latest version of events that he has given the House is true?

[Michael Ellis]

Well, in the first place, what I have set out to the House is a principle of natural justice that is true in every case. It would be true in the case of an allegation against anyone, in any circumstances. It is fair to complainants and those subject to allegations alike, and it applies all the time, so it is not a question of the individual facts that the right hon. Gentleman is alluding to. It is an overarching principle of fairness in life, which is to act on evidence, rather than gossip, innuendo and rumour. It may be that that gossip, innuendo and rumour later turn out to be true, but when persons in authority have to make decisions, they should do so properly and for good reason.

Appointment of Lord Lebedev

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

Absolutely. I fully agree with the hon. Member’s contribution. During the pandemic, we saw such dedication by our key workers, with doctors and nurses putting their lives on the line to save the lives of others.

Instead, we see reports that the Prime Minister parachuted his close friend Lord Lebedev into the heart of the UK’s Parliament, a man with whom the Prime Minister has enjoyed a decade-long courtship, which included a stay at the oligarch’s castle in 2018, where he is reported to have attended a party over the course of a weekend, with all his flights and accommodation paid for by Lebedev. An investigation by The Guardian revealed that during his stay, the Prime Minister, who was then Foreign Secretary, is reported to have met Alexander Lebedev, the former KGB agent and father of Lord Lebedev. The party took place just days after the Prime Minister—then Foreign Secretary—attended a NATO meeting to discuss the response to the Salisbury poisoning, in which the nerve agent Novichok was used in an assassination attempt on the Skripals. Immediately following the meeting in which Putin’s deadly attack on British soil was discussed, the Prime Minister reportedly ditched his security protection to attend the Lebedev party, where a former KGB agent was in attendance. The Prime Minister seems more interested in attending parties with his Russian billionaire mates than listening to the concerns of the British security services.

Culture is set from the top. Appointments matter. Politicians come and go, but Lord Lebedev will be a permanent fixture of our Parliament in the other place for decades. There is a serious precedent to be set in this case about how Parliament chooses to appoint those who represent us. It also raises serious questions about the relaxed vetting process of Lords appointments, creating a security risk at the heart of our democracy. This must be taken seriously, and for that reason I ask the Minister this: will there be a review of the House of Lords appointment process?

We must ensure that a robust vetting system is in place that safeguards our democracy and ensures transparency for the public. Indeed, the Lord Speaker recently called for a more rigorous appointment process for peers. We have a Prime Minister who appears willing to jeopardise the security of the British public for the sake of a personal friendship. The culture is set from the top, and in this case it raises much wider concerns about public appointments. It is time for the Prime Minister to come clean today about whether and why he interfered with British intelligence to award a peerage to his close personal friend. The full Cabinet Office guidance about a peerage for Mr Lebedev, which was mysteriously airbrushed, must now be published in the national interest. The Prime Minister claims that that advice cannot be published because it will undermine confidence in the appointments process. Well, it is a bit late for that. This is about his actions. He has run roughshod over the integrity of the process, and put his own interests before those of Britain.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

I am sorry to intervene on my right hon. Friend and I hope speak later in the debate, but I thought she should be aware that since this debate started, Lord Lebedev has been tweeting furiously, implying the inappropriateness of this House to even have this debate. That from a Member of the other place is completely unacceptable and, if I may advise Lord Lebedev, extremely unwise.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

If what the right hon. Gentleman says is correct—I have no reason to doubt him although I have not seen the content of the tweets—let me say that if it was inappropriate for any debate to be occurring in this Chamber, it would not be occurring.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

I am puzzled by the Solicitor General’s speech, which sounded as if he had written it before the Government decided at lunchtime not to oppose the motion after a revolt by their Back-Bench Members. Perhaps he, or his fellow Minister, will be able to clarify that in their response to the debate. Madam Deputy Speaker, perhaps you or Mr Speaker will be able to clarify the consequences were the Government to refuse to comply with the demands of this motion, if it is passed.

It would have been an easy solution for the Government to get out of this mess with their own Back Benchers, and out of the mess on Russian interference altogether, if only they had published and implemented in full the recommendations of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report. They finally published the report after months of resistance by the Prime Minister and an attempt to fix the Committee by putting in a Chair who would not publish the report, but they still have not implemented its recommendations. Most importantly, the Government have not implemented the report’s central recommendation to hold a proper inquiry into Russian interference in Britain’s democracy. I do not understand why that still has not happened.

There is a pattern, because it was this Prime Minister, when I first asked him and his predecessor about this in 2016, who told the House that there was no evidence of “successful” Russian interference in our democracy and democratic processes. They have stuck very carefully to that description. Time and again I was treated as some kind of eccentric, batty person when I first starting raising this as a genuine concern. I was simply expressing the concerns I had picked up from our intelligence and security services, which we now know made those concerns very plain to the Prime Minister in relation to his intention to give a peerage to Lord Lebedev.

There is a pattern here. We saw it in the Prime Minister’s extraordinary trip, in the immediate aftermath of a NATO summit following the Skripal poisoning and chemical weapon attack in Salisbury, to the Lebedev castle in Tuscany for one of those parties—rather over-the-top parties, by the sound of it. The senior Lebedev was also present at that party, and of course it was President Putin who said, “Once a KGB officer, always a KGB officer.” And the Prime Minister sent his close-protection officers away in an absolutely extraordinary breach of normal protocol.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Alex Lebedev owns Lebedev Holdings, which owns 75% of the Evening Standard. He supported the invasion of Crimea, on which he held a number of events in 2014. We do not know whether he tried to influence the Prime Minister at that point on Ukraine’s territorial integrity; we now see that the invasion of the whole Ukraine was emboldened by that earlier invasion. The Government should release more information, because we just do not know what has happened.

[Mr Bradshaw]

Mr Lebedev’s public statements were mealy-mouthed after the invasion of Crimea and we know that Lebedev senior has ongoing business interests in illegally occupied Crimea. I would be interested to know whether the Paymaster General knows or has even bothered to try to find out whether Lebedev junior does as well or whether he benefits from those business interests. We have had years of denials and obfuscation from this Prime Minister. We know, thanks to what the intelligence services have put on the public record, that they did warn the Prime Minister against this peerage, he ignored the advice and the rest is history, which is why we are debating this motion today. So when the Paymaster General or his colleague responds to this debate, will they confirm that if the House passes this motion, they will comply with it and publish all the relevant documentation in full, including the WhatsApp messages of the Prime Minister? We have heard other reports elsewhere in recent days that WhatsApp messages have mysteriously and conveniently disappeared from the Prime Minister’s telephone. This is a completely unacceptable way of running a Government in a democracy, particularly one as precious and long standing as ours. That confirmation about all of those documents and the Government adhering to this motion will be very important.

Let us recall the credulity of the Minister at the Dispatch Box when he said, “Oh, Lebedev has been critical of Putin and of Crimea, and has done all these great charitable works.” An effective Kremlin asset in this country is not exactly going to make a reputation for themselves as being a massive supporter of the Kremlin, are they? The credulity of successive Ministers in this Conservative Government makes me feel as though something does not smell right here. They are still refusing to implement the recommendations of the Russia report and I do not see how that position is sustainable after the war in Ukraine—everything has changed. They could get away with this before that. They could get away with, as the Intelligence and Security Committee described it, the wilful ignoring of Russian interference—that is what it said happened under successive Conservative Prime Ministers and under this Government. They cannot get away with that any more. I advise the Paymaster General to go back to Downing Street and speak to the Cabinet and say, “Look, this is the way we are going to avoid this problem.” These problems are going to be repeated in the weeks and months to come, because more stories like this are going to come out about Russian interference and influence in our political system, many of which will touch the Conservative party. But this is not a party political thing, as there are Labour peers who are in equally invidious situations, but the Conservatives are in government and that makes this much more serious. This is friendly advice to the Paymaster General and his ministerial colleagues: come clean and put it all out in the open; implement the recommendations of the Russia report—stop running away from them and hiding from them; and have that inquiry into Russian interference and then everything can be out in the open and transparent. That is the only way, in the medium and long run, that we are going to be confident and satisfied in this country that our politics, democracy, political parties and individuals are not being subverted by the sort of behaviour we have seen from Putin, not just in this country, but in the United States and across the western and democratic world. I support the motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and I hope the House will vote for it today, but the Government are going to have to implement it, and quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

That has nothing to do with this matter, as I am sure the hon. Lady well knows. I reiterate that we must ensure the ability of the House of Lords Appointments Commission to conduct robust vetting, and to provide advice that is not compromised. That process should continue. I have heard hon. Members say that certain individuals do not mind if detail of the vetting process is disclosed as far as it concerns them. Well, I reiterate that this is not about any one individual. If someone wishes to show that they have nothing to hide, that is laudable and understandable, but we need to protect the process for all. This is not about one individual; it is about protecting the integrity of the system—a system that serves this nation very well. The process should continue to be conducted confidentially, and disclosure should be at the discretion of the Prime Minister.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, given that he referred a moment or two ago to my remarks on the Russia report, and claimed that the Government welcomed its publication. I have to remind him and the House that the Prime Minister tried his darnedest to prevent the report’s publication—so much so, that he tried to put a patsy in the Intelligence and Security Committee as Chair, but failed. It was only when that failed that the Committee published the report. The Prime Minister did everything in his power to prevent the publication of the report, and has failed to implement its recommendations.

[Michael Ellis]

I do not recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the Prime Minister’s position. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that no one can hold a candle to this Prime Minister in his integrity, honesty and opposition to the Putin regime. That has been proven time and again, throughout the international arena.

Ukraine

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, indeed. Those who abet sanctioned people, help them to evade anti-money laundering provisions or help them to conceal beneficial interests will of course be breaking the law themselves.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

The three oligarchs whom the Prime Minister has sanctioned today have been sanctioned by the United States for four years. We need to do better than that. Will the Prime Minister re-examine the operation of unexplained wealth orders, not a single one of which has been issued since he became Prime Minister? Will he publish a list of all the Russians who have obtained fast-track visas for residency, as he referred to earlier, by giving cash to the UK Exchequer?

[The Prime Minister]

The National Crime Agency is pursuing many investigations against people, on unexplained wealth orders. On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about visas, we are stopping tier 1 visas from Russia.

Living with Covid-19

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Monday 21st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, and it is a great shame that the Opposition cannot find it in themselves to support what I think is a balanced and proportionate approach that recognises that covid has not gone away and that we cannot throw caution to the winds.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Given everything else the Prime Minister has said this afternoon, why is he keeping the bureaucratic and irritating passenger locator form when the rest of Europe can already travel freely by showing a vaccine certificate?

[The Prime Minister]

That is a welcome call for liberty from the Opposition Benches. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we already have one of the most open travel systems in the world. I understand his grievance against the passenger locator form, and we will certainly review it by Easter.

Ukraine

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is completely right. I want to say a word or two in praise of Olaf Scholz, because it was clear from our conversation last night—as I have said to the House—how difficult this is for Germany. No one should be in any doubt about that. However, it was also clear that the new German Chancellor is determined to stand with the rest of the west to maintain a united front. Among other things, Germany has made it plain that Nord Stream 2 cannot go ahead—Germany cannot take part in it—if there is a Russian invasion of Ukraine.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister is right to say that western unity is key. Can he therefore explain why the UK began withdrawing some of our diplomats from Kyiv this week, unlike most of the rest of NATO?

[The Prime Minister]

We are actually in lockstep with the United States, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have kept at least 30 of our diplomats in Kyiv, including Melinda Simmons, our outstanding ambassador. The UK presence continues to be very strong there, but those are sensible precautionary steps.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. She is quite right that as forensic science develops—and it is developing very rapidly indeed—we are able to revisit some quite elderly cases in which evidence is still available and reveal the true perpetrators of some awful crimes. What we saw last week was a brilliant result by Kent police. A matter that I have to confess that I was involved with, where exactly what my hon. Friend describes took place, was the catching of the killers of Stephen Lawrence nearly 20 years after the killing: it was driven specifically by developments in the ability to assess microdots of blood in a way we had not been able to do before. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that all police forces, through the Forensic Capability Network, need to keep all so-called cold cases under review as science leads us towards greater and greater answers.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

2. What plans he has to further review road traffic offences and penalties.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)]

As part of the Department for Transport’s longer-term and wider work on road safety, road traffic offences are kept under review to ensure that irresponsible driving and the risk it poses to others are appropriately punished. In the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, we are increasing the maximum penalties for causing death by dangerous driving and by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, and we are introducing a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving.

[Mr Bradshaw]

Businessman Hassan Nasser al-Thani, who killed retired railway worker Charles Roberts while driving his Rolls-Royce at nearly twice the speed limit, was given a short driving ban and fined last month because prosecutors accepted that he was driving carelessly, not dangerously. That is just the latest example of a road criminal receiving a ridiculously light sentence while their victim’s loved ones are left grieving for the rest of their lives. It has been nearly eight years since the Conservative then Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), promised

“a full review of all driving offences and penalties”—[Official Report, 6 May 2014; Vol. 580, c. 17.]

Where is it?

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who I recognise has been very vocal on these issues for a long time. I obviously cannot comment on the specific case; sentencing and decisions of the courts are a matter for our independent judiciary, as he knows. However, we had a review in 2014 that looked at driving offences and penalties, which led to the consultation in 2016 and to the new measures that were debated in the House of Lords yesterday. Those measures significantly strengthen the penalties for the two offences that I mentioned, not least because the maximum penalty will increase from 14 years to life. I think that sends a strong signal about our overall position on these very serious matters.

Health and Social Care

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend has done great work on this subject and I am indebted to him for some of the advice that he has given to me personally about how to proceed in this. He is right in what he says. The issue is making sure that the funding goes where it is needed and that it is specifically ring-fenced. The investments in social care will be protected by the Government and by the Treasury.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

There are better ways of doing this than to take money from the less well off in work and the young to give to better off pensioners. Can I commend to the Prime Minister and my own Front Benchers the work of the Health and Social Care and Housing, Communities and Local Government Committees in their joint report of 2018, agreed unanimously by all Members of all parties in this House, which would deliver a system that is sustainable and equitable, address poor quality and low pay, and allow the proper integration of health and social care—none of which, from what I have heard today, his proposals would deliver?

[The Prime Minister]

Time and again, Labour Members have stood up and said that there is a better way to do this, without offering a single idea. A plan beats no plan.

Covid-19: Road Map

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is already a very fast unlocking programme by other international standards. As I have explained, the timetable is dictated by the intervals we need to evaluate the effect of each successive unlocking. I think that what people want to see—what businesses want—is as much certainty as possible, rather than uncertainty, and that is what we aim to provide.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) [V]]

Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I did not hear the Prime Minister’s reply just then because one of the Zoom operators was talking to another Member. The Prime Minister is absolutely right to say we should be driven by the data and not dates, and that his dates are therefore subject to review. Given the stunning success of the vaccination programme, with the evidence today of how it prevents serious illness and death, why is he not prepared to bring his dates forward, as well as back, if the data justifies that?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman did not hear my answer to the previous question, so I will repeat it, because his question is identical to several previous questions. The answer is that we need time to evaluate the success or otherwise of each unlocking; we need four weeks to see what has happened. We must bear in mind that we are dealing with a disease that is extremely contagious and large numbers of people who are still unvaccinated and still very vulnerable, so we have to proceed with caution. That is why there is the five-week interval that we have. The second reason is that we want a timetable that we can stick to. People would really much rather have a sense of certainty and security—the maximum possible certainty and security—rather than any sense that this is fluid again and the date they have in their heads could change. That is very, very important. Certainty in this particular road map is of great value.