Lord Mandelson

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will take an intervention from the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), then I will take another intervention.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

At the point immediately prior to Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador, the UK had a respected ambassador to the United States already in Dame Karen Pierce. Given that fact, the known abhorrence of Jeffrey Epstein and the appalling previous judgment of Peter Mandelson, why did the Government still decide that, on balance, it was a risk worth taking to appoint paedophile-adjacent Peter Mandelson to the post of ambassador?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

May I pay tribute to Dame Karen Pierce? She represents the finest of our foreign service.

Governments do make political appointments to these posts; that has happened, and it is a long-standing practice for a small number of posts. The Prime Minister has already said that if he knew then what he knows now, Peter Mandelson would not have been anywhere near the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bradley Thomas]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the public are sick and tired of people who appear to fail upwards in public life, simply for the reason that they appear to move in the right circles?

[Wendy Morton]

Absolutely.

I will share something with the House today. I never set out to be a politician. I never in a million years expected to sit on these green Benches, but I did it to stand up for my local community, because I felt that they needed a voice. I might not get everything right—none of us do—but one thing I will do is strive to be a voice for those who put me in this place, and let us never forget that we were put here by others.

Turning back to vetting, I would like the Minister to explain to us whether Peter Mandelson went through the exact same vetting process that a normal diplomat would have gone through if they were to take up the post in Washington. The role of UK ambassador to the US is one of the most important roles in our Foreign Office.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

That is exactly the point. I do not think it is for me to answer those questions; it is for the Prime Minister to do so, but I will continue to question his judgment. How on earth did he come to appoint Peter Mandelson to this role? It is not just Conservative Members who are asking that; today, we have heard Labour Members asking questions. The Government Benches are quite full now, but the Conservatives led the charge on this topic. In Opposition day debates, I expect to see the Government Benches full, and I expect Labour Members to take points up, debate with us, and defend the position of their Government. How much have we seen of that today? Very little indeed.

[Bradley Thomas]

Aside from the evident, persistent and consistent failures in the Prime Minister’s integrity, does this issue not raise massive questions about the hold over the Government and those at the top of the Labour party by someone whose name has been a byword for sleaze for the last two or three decades?

[Wendy Morton]

It absolutely beggars belief. If we want to clean up politics, this sort of thing should not be allowed to happen. We know that politics are difficult, but this was down to the judgment of one person—or was it the judgment of others around that person? I urge Labour Members to do the right thing this evening and stand up for democracy, Parliament and decency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alicia Kearns]

It is very difficult, particularly when a party has such a high number of new MPs—we have been there and experienced it—to feel the mood music, hear the jungle drums, and understand whether something is a precipice or a turning point. For many of us who have been reflecting over the past few days, this has the hallmark of things that we feel we have seen before. We have been here; we have seen this sideshow. It is very difficult, because our integrity is the only thing we take with us when we leave this place. Too many colleagues from across the House have had to learn that over the past few years, because this is a cruel game, and we can find ourselves being thrown out when we do not expect it.

May I say how much I welcome the fact that the manuscript amendment has been put forward? It is a sign that the Government are listening, and I give them credit for doing so. However, this could all have been prevented if the Prime Minister had come before the House on Monday and given a firmer commitment to take action.

[Bradley Thomas]

Does my hon. Friend agree, particularly following her point about the writing being on the wall, that the Minister, when he wraps up on behalf of the Government, needs to quash any rumours that the Prime Minister is hunkered down in Downing Street and planning a reshuffle to stabilise a sinking ship?

[Alicia Kearns]

I can give but one comment to those new MPs who may think that a reshuffle is a good thing: it causes only more upset and heartache within the party, and it will not be a solution.

China and Japan

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to all those businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency, of which there are very many, as he rightly says. Enhancing our trade and economic ties with Japan is in the interests of both countries, and that is precisely what we are focused on.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has failed to stand up for Britain’s interests. From what we have seen, he could not even make it across Beijing’s red carpet without being guided along the way. What did the Prime Minister expect to receive in return for approving the Chinese super-embassy, and did the Chinese give it to him?

[The Prime Minister]

We have had a Chinese embassy in this country since 1877. It is currently over seven sites; it is now going to be on one. The security and intelligence services published a letter the day after the decision was made to say that it was better for security in this country, and I think that is the right approach.

Digital ID

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Edward. I am grateful to the Petitions Committee for granting this debate, which could not be more timely. People in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton have been talking to me about digital ID for months, and more than 5,300 have signed the petition. I want to put their concerns and mine plainly on the record today.

A mandatory digital ID tied to a smartphone is the wrong way to go. It answers none of the real problems that we face and risks creating a whole set of new ones. Let us be clear: Labour never mentioned this in its manifesto—not once.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Mandatory digital ID, abandoning trial by jury—neither is in the Labour manifesto. There is a whiff of authoritarianism about this Government, is there not?

[Alison Griffiths]

There is certainly no mandate for either. If a Government wish to change something as fundamental as how we prove who we are, they need to be up front about it; they need to win consent for it. Attacks on our privacy and personal freedom must be debated in depth, not sneaked in through the back door.

Over two thirds of the respondents to my local survey told me they opposed digital ID entirely. Many have little confidence that their personal data will be kept safe. They worry about who will hold their information, what else it could end up being used for and what will happen to those who do not have a smartphone at all.

There is also the basic fairness test. Ofcom believes that about 4.5 million people in the UK do not own a smartphone, and many more struggle with digital access or confidence. We should not be building barriers for people, especially not those who already find public services hard to navigate.

Ministers have said that digital ID will help tackle illegal working and benefit fraud, but we have never been told in clear terms what the new scheme would do that our existing tools cannot already manage. If there are gaps in the system, they should spell them out. I want illegal working to be dealt with, and I want public services that work smoothly, but not at the expense of civil liberties, not by weakening data security, and not by shutting out the very people who need support.

I cannot support a mandatory digital ID scheme. If it comes to a vote, which it should, I will vote against it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I understand why the hon. Gentleman raises this issue, and he is right to do so. The Government take the threats we face incredibly seriously. That is one of the reasons why the Prime Minister took the decision back in September to ensure that the Security Minister sits across both the Cabinet Office and the Home Office, so we are better placed as a Government to co-ordinate our national security response in the areas the hon. Gentleman outlined. I can give him and the House an absolute assurance on the seriousness we attach to these issues. We take them very seriously and we are working at pace to address them.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

15. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of digital ID on levels of digital exclusion.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Josh Simons)]

In this country, at present millions of people cannot access public services online, and millions lack the IDs that they need to go about their daily lives. That is the status quo, and we will not accept it. That is why we are introducing a new national digital credential, free for everyone over 16, that will be inclusive, secure and useful. This will involve a massive digital inclusion drive to ensure that the system works for everyone, including those who do not have smartphones, are elderly or are less digitally confident, so that everyone will benefit from simpler, safer and more secure access to public services.

[Bradley Thomas]

I thank the Minister for his scripted answer. Digital ID is a terrible idea. If the Government are going to pursue it, what assurances can he give me, in a tiny bit of detail, about what the Government will do to ensure that people are not, through a lack of technological skills or financial exclusion, disadvantaged in accessing Government services?

[Josh Simons]

Let me be clear about the status quo that the Conservative party left behind: millions of people right now are digitally excluded from accessing public services, and millions of people lack the identity credentials that they need to access them. We will not accept that. We will make sure that post offices, libraries and a whole range of physical places in the communities where people live can be used to access this new digital credential, getting people online who were left behind by the last Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister without Portfolio (Anna Turley)]

Our great civil service serves citizens from across the UK, so it should look like them, sound like them, and come from the same towns, cities, regions and nations as the communities it serves. Through our places for growth programme, we are moving more roles from London to locations across the UK, including York, where 2,600 civil servants are already working across numerous Departments, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

T6. The Information Commissioner’s Office revealed that Lord Alli’s pass to No. 10 was requested by a staff member of the Labour party. Was it the Prime Minister’s then chief of staff who made the request?

[Darren Jones]

I do not know.

China Spying Case

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

The real threat to our security is not necessarily what others do in the shadows; it is what one’s own Government hide from the light. That is the essence of what we are trying to get to in the motion before us—we are asking the Government to publish the papers.

Let me take a step back from this issue to look at the way in which the public will perceive it. This is the biggest spy story in this country’s history, at least in this century. We can get into the tit-for-tat about what the PM did or did not know, whether the National Security Adviser speaks to his deputy or not, who told the deputy National Security Adviser that he needs to toe the Government line, and how the Labour manifesto got into the witness statements, but I want to concentrate more on the bigger picture.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) rightly pointed out the behaviour of the Government. The Prime Minister could have sorted this out by coming to the House and speaking about this topic. He could have laid it all out and put it all forward. The only thing we have had has been a statement before Prime Minister’s questions. Of course, we Back Benchers cannot ask questions after such statements—there is no way for us to do so. If the Government are so angry, why is more action not being taken? Why are people not being fired, and why are we still having this debate several weeks on if all the information is so crystal clear that this House can move on?

I am worried that this is a pattern of behaviour with the Prime Minister, because we saw this with the ambassador. The Prime Minister was the decision maker on that issue, but he did not come to this House; he sent one of his Ministers. I expect that the retort from Labour Members will be, “It was always thus”, but the reason this saddens me so much is that the Prime Minister is being judged by the standard that he set. He said that he would do things differently, but he is not. He is not coming to the House to explain when he could do so. We know that the information and the decisions rest with him.

When I pushed the Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), about leadership last time, that was not directed at him—I have a great deal of respect for him. He is following the leadership of the Prime Minister, who has not come to this House to explain what is going on. If this issue is as clearcut as Labour Members have said, that would be an easy case to make and this House would believe the Prime Minister, but we are not there. That is why I worry, because it leads to a wider debate and wider concerns among the public about whether something is going on.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the most obvious point is that, despite the Government’s disappointment at the collapse of the trial—we have heard numerous Ministers, including the Prime Minister himself, stress that—it is shocking that they appear not to have done every single thing possible to bolster the case and put the CPS in the best possible position to secure a prosecution? The two just do not add up.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I begin by thanking the Opposition for bringing forward this Opposition day debate, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) for moving this motion, and the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks.

As I have repeatedly set out to the House, the Government are extremely disappointed that this case will not be heard in court. I also share Members’ concerns about the threats that we face from espionage.

[Bradley Thomas]

Will the Minister give way?

Oral Answers to Questions

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the work that he does in co-chairing the crypto and digital assets all-party parliamentary group. Financial services are integral to our mission for economic growth, and we are absolutely committed to creating the right conditions for a vibrant, competitive and innovative financial services sector. That is why the Government are proceeding with proposals to create a new financial services regulatory regime for cryptoassets.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

T6. In the absence of a plan, the Government appear to be centralising power and bureaucracy in the form of new quangos. More than 25 have been created since this Government came into office. What is the Minister doing to drive ministerial accountability and, crucially, to ensure that there are sunset clauses so that when quangos have met their objectives, they are wound up and come to an end?

[Darren Jones]

The Government agree with the principle of the hon. Member’s question. As I said to the House earlier, we want to reduce the layers of bureaucracy and to be able to deliver more action and fewer words. That is why we are taking action to close arm’s length bodies and other institutions. Most significantly, we have announced that we will close NHS England and bring decisions back into the Department for Health and Social Care for Ministers to make.

Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Earlier this week, the Security Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), came to this House and said that the National Security Adviser did not have any links to the 48 Group, a group that promotes economic links between the UK and China. Why did the Minister say that when the National Security Adviser was listed as a fellow of the 48 Group on its website until very recently?

[Chris Ward]

I cannot reply on specifics of the 48 Group; I do not know that. But the National Security Adviser was not involved in any part of this, as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday.

Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

“Extremely disappointed” was the way that I described our reaction, both on 15 September and again today. I gently say to the hon. Member that he should not believe everything that he reads in the papers. He asked me about FIRS. I hope he heard the response that I gave some moments ago; I said that we look very carefully at any question of whether to place a particular country on the enhanced tier of FIRS. FIRS is an important part of the National Security Act 2023. There were those, including on the hon. Gentleman’s side of the House, who said that we were not going to roll it out, but we rolled it out on 1 July. I said that we were going to roll it out on 1 July, and we did. We looked very carefully at how we can most effectively use that tool, and we will continue to look closely at that, but any decisions about the enhanced tier will be brought forward in the normal way.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

The Government say that they want to take a long-term and strategic approach to China, but that is exactly what China does, whether we are talking about it increasing control over supply chains to gain leverage over the west, the belt and road programme, or the debt-trap diplomacy with which it is associated abroad. This is nothing less than a concession to an authoritarian regime, and it plays into China’s hands, as it wants to continue gaining economic and military leverage over the west. The head of the CPS said that he requested evidence from the Government to allow the case to proceed, but the Government did not provide that evidence. Why not, and is it still the Government’s view that it is impossible to argue in court that China is a threat?

[Dan Jarvis]

On the hon. Gentleman’s final question, I have taken every opportunity to try to provide the Government’s response. I was not entirely clear about his critique of taking a long-term strategic approach and whether he thinks that is a good thing to do or not. I think it is a good thing that Governments think carefully and strategically about their role in the world and the nature of their relationships with countries like China. Yes, we have to be clear-eyed, and have to always defend our national security, but we also have to look for opportunities for economic growth as well.

G7 and NATO Summits

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I can. My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue and describe it as she did. We are a leader on this and continue to be. We want to get our aid budget back up, but in the meantime I want to work with other countries to find other ways of financing that support as a matter of some urgency.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I welcome the increase in defence spending, but how on earth is the Prime Minister going to pay for it when his party cannot agree on a small reduction in the welfare bill?

[The Prime Minister]

When we went to 2.5%, we set out in clear terms both the date and the way we would pay for it. That is the way we do business on the Government side of the House. For 14 years, the Conservative party lost control of the economy, left our armed forces hollowed out and left a £22 billion black hole. Frankly, they are in no position to lecture anyone about these issues—still less after the response of the Leader of the Opposition, which shows exactly why the party is sliding into irrelevance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the industrial strategy, which will be published shortly. It will set out our vision to deliver growth and economic security and resilience. Alongside that, the Government are working closely with industry to publish a new critical minerals strategy this year, to help secure our supply chain for the long term and drive forward the green industries of the future.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Economic resilience is a key part of our national resilience. One of the strongest ways in which the Government can have it is to support the delivery of goods and services via British companies in the first instance. Does the Minister agree? Can he update the House on what steps the Government are taking to bolster procurement policies so that they put British supply chains first?

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

This Government are committed to working with and supporting British industries. That has been at the heart of our plan for delivery, which is why we have worked across and engaged with industries. Our industrial strategy is key to ensuring that that happens.