Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment
Calum Miller Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Like many, I spent the weekend door-knocking in my constituency. People in Bicester and Woodstock are frustrated by delays to medical appointments, fed up with rising prices and fearful about the war in the middle east. Yet a number of them raised the Prime Minister’s handling of the Peter Mandelson saga. Their overwhelming emotions were disappointment that a Prime Minister who promised change has delivered so little, and anger that a Prime Minister who said he would be better than the Tories has failed so badly.
The Prime Minister set out yesterday to defend himself. He set out the case like a barrister. He took the narrow view that the charge was misleading the House and tried to claim that Sir Olly Robbins had repeatedly misled him, and so it was only natural that he should have misled us. He failed first by misjudging the seriousness of his failure. It was as though he was charged with petty larceny when the actual offence was gross misconduct decapitation.
Yet the crucial weakness in the Prime Minister’s argument was one of chronology. He cited statements and reports between September 2025 and April 2026, but the crime he sought to defend was committed between December 2024 and January 2025. He had no answer to why he ignored the advice of the Cabinet Secretary to seek security clearance before appointing Mandelson. He could not explain why he announced Mandelson’s appointment without conditions, nor why the offer letter to Mandelson dated before Sir Olly started work said that Mandelson had cleared security clearance.
The damning evidence given today by Sir Olly Robbins confirms what the Prime Minister failed to dispel yesterday: there was a complacent culture in Downing Street—indeed, there may still be—which had a dismissive approach to the vetting of Lord Mandelson. The Prime Minister wants us now to believe that he would have sacked Mandelson if he had failed vetting, yet all of the evidence then showed that he and his team did not care about vetting and even believed it had already been granted.
We further learned this morning that officials in No. 10 asked the FCDO to find an ambassadorial role for Matthew Doyle—another man who was friends with a convicted sex offender. What is worse, they told FCDO officials not to tell the Foreign Secretary. The unavoidable conclusion is that under the Prime Minister and Morgan McSweeney, No. 10 believed that it could fix plum jobs for the boys—and they were all boys—with casual disregard for process, propriety and national security.
We come to the consequences of this sorry episode. First, a distinguished civil servant has lost his position as the fall guy for the Prime Minister. I was proud to work with Sir Olly, and I know the regard in which he is held by Ministers and civil servants, so I am frankly furious—to use the word of the day—to learn that a No. 10 spokesman has just said that Sir Olly was a
“man of integrity and professionalism”
who made an “error of judgment”. It is extraordinary that when political appointees like Peter Mandelson or the former Deputy Prime Minister are accused of errors of judgment, or worse, the Prime Minister has come to that Dispatch Box and defended them for days, yet when the Prime Minister’s error of judgment was highlighted again, he took a few short hours to dismiss Sir Olly.
In the last five days, the Prime Minister has gone further and directed the full power of the state against one man. The Government Legal Service reinterpreted the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 on Sunday. The Government Communication Service briefed hard against Robbins, and Cabinet Office officials sought to prime the Foreign Affairs Committee before it heard from Sir Olly today. This state-led assault on one man is unprecedented, and it is unacceptable. If the consequence of committing an error of judgment is to resign, why is the Prime Minister still in post?
Secondly, this whole episode has done grave damage to relations between Ministers and civil servants. The Prime Minister once said that when staff
“made mistakes, I carried the can. I never turn on my staff”.
No one believes that now. His cowardly reaction has shown civil servants that they should be fearful of future treatment by the Prime Minister, No. 10 and Ministers. I believed that the Prime Minister, as a former permanent secretary, understood and valued the relationship of trust, candour and loyalty that governs the best relationship in Ministries. Today those relationships are shattered, and our country will be the poorer for it.
Thirdly, my constituents and people up and down the country who are worried about waiting lists, rising prices and threats to security can have no confidence that this Prime Minister can change our country for the better. When something went wrong in Government, the Prime Minister did not take responsibility; he took the easy way out. When called on to defend himself, he failed abjectly. This sorry tale points to a corrupted culture at the heart of No. 10, and there is now only one man left to carry the can. He must complete the clear-out and resign.
Security Vetting
Calum Miller Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
It was insufficient because all it told me was that the recommendation of UKSV was to deny the clearance. What it did not tell me was who then provided the clearance, why they did it and who knew about it. They were questions that the House would obviously want to raise with me, which is why I urgently asked for those facts to be established: so that I could come to the House and provide the full account that I have provided to the House.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Developed vetting should be carried out before someone has “frequent and uncontrolled access” to top-secret material or any access to top-secret or coded—otherwise known as STRAP—material. The Prime Minister has promised full transparency, so I ask him these three questions. Did Peter Mandelson have access to any top-secret or STRAP material before his DV clearance on 29 January? Did Peter Mandelson have any restrictions placed on his access to top-secret or STRAP material during his time in Washington? If so, has the Prime Minister assured himself that Mandelson did not leak any of this material, just as he leaked commercially confidential material to Jeffrey Epstein under Gordon Brown?
The Prime Minister
I do not understand that he had access to STRAP material before he took up his post as ambassador. He did have access after he took up his post, and that is why I have ordered a review of any security concerns that may arise.
Public Body Data Collection: Sikh and Jewish Ethnicity
Calum Miller Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Preet Kaur Gill
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point, and I will come on to why this is important in practice. We are both legislators in this House, and he is right: we both take our responsibilities very seriously and want to see all communities treated fairly under the law, so we must implement it. I really value his intervention and thank him for it.
As I said, my own written parliamentary questions have revealed that Government Departments do not collect ethnicity data on Sikhs and Jews. As the hon. Member has just said, the only information collected is religious data, but religious data is inconsistent and incomplete, and is rarely used in designing or delivering services. It also excludes people who are ethnically Sikh or Jewish but do not practise their faiths. User need has been clearly evidenced by the plethora of evidence available, and that simply cannot be ignored by the ONS.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. My constituent Dan has written to me to express his strong support for Sikhs and Jews being able to identify as an ethnic group. He is Jewish, but not religious, and says it is important for him to be able to register as belonging to a group not currently permitted under the census data. Does the hon. Member agree that Jews and Sikhs do face discrimination, whether they are religious or not, and that it is important for their identity and the delivery of public services to be able to identify their ethnicity?
Preet Kaur Gill
Absolutely; I think that is really important. I have a staffer who, equally, is Jewish and does not feel that he is religious, and he wants the option to tick his ethnicity because, as he says, “I am Jewish.” This is simply giving people the option; no one is forcing anyone to tick any other box—they can tick any box they think reflects their ethnicity. But given the Equality Act, and given race hate and the rise in antisemitism, we absolutely should be collecting ethnicity data. My staffer should not be invisible.
Oral Answers to Questions
Calum Miller Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that really important case. Let me tell him that I share his deep concern, and the deep concern of the community, over the incident at Manchester Central mosque—particularly as it took place during the holy month of Ramadan—and that we will not, and must not, relent in the fight against anti-Muslim hatred. We must not.
I remember visiting Peacehaven mosque in the wake of the awful attack there, and when I did, I committed £40 million to protecting mosques and community centres. It is a shame that we have to do that, but we do have to do it, and we are establishing a new fund to monitor anti-Muslim hatred and to support victims. I want to reassure my hon. Friend and the House that we will fight hatred and protect freedom of worship in this country.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I know that the hon. Gentleman shares our support for East West Rail, which is a vital project that will deliver better journeys and tens of thousands of jobs, and unlock up to 100,000 new homes. I agree that access to Bicester Village must be maintained—my children say that as well—and I think the company has put forward two options for replacing the crossing. I reassure him and his constituents that they will have the opportunity to express their views on what would work for them during the upcoming consultation.
Foreign Interference
Calum Miller Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) for securing the debate and all other hon. Members who have spoken so thoughtfully.
The first duty of the state is to protect the freedom of its citizens. Today’s debate has highlighted how foreign states with malign intent are seeking to undermine our security, press their own economic interests through political interference, and take direct steps to subvert our democracy. I will focus my remarks on the threat to our democracy.
We are rightly proud of the UK’s history of continuous parliamentary democracy, yet functioning democracy is not an end state, but a continuous task that we in this House all share. At its heart is the belief that each person’s vote should have equal standing, and that that equality is the best defence against tyranny and the best protector of liberty.
Too often, however, the votes of our citizens are not equal, when the powerful, including other states, seek to buy influence or suppress opposition. The UK is beset by external threats that seek to undermine our democracy. Just today, we heard how the Hong Kong authorities have ramped up their campaign of extraterritorial intimidation against UK residents. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) has highlighted that his constituent Carmen Lau has been subjected to the circulation of fake photographs to her neighbours. That follows similar letters that asked the same neighbours to take her to the Chinese embassy to receive a $100,000 bounty.
This Government need to demonstrate to the Chinese authorities that there are red lines when it comes to protecting our citizens. That should begin with the Government rejecting the application for the super-embassy, which would allow the Chinese authorities to spy more effectively on British residents. It should extend to clamping down on the Chinese use of cyber to attack our universities and steal intellectual property in this country; to giving real reassurance to students and others on our university campuses that they are free to express views and research the activities of China and the Hong Kong authorities without fear of intimidation; and—as we are acutely aware—to saying that spying on our Parliament is totally unacceptable.
China’s activities are eclipsed perhaps only by Russia’s. Vladimir Putin may be the President of Russia and perhaps the richest man in the world, based on hidden wealth, but above all, he remains the jilted KGB man from St Petersburg who has never accepted the break-up of the Soviet empire. In an eerie parallel with Adolf Hitler’s psychological response to the humiliation of Versailles, Putin has made it his life’s mission to restore Russia’s standing on the world stage. It is his doctrine to restore Russia’s borders to those of the Soviet Union and the Tsarist empire, as was evident from Russia’s invasion of Georgia in the first decade of this century, and from the invasion of Crimea and the Donbas in 2014, before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
More recently, in Hungary, Moldova and Romania, we have seen clear examples of Russian interference in democratic activity. Most recently, the sabotage of railways in Poland shows Russia’s willingness to engage directly in interference in the critical infrastructure of countries. We have seen similar threats in this country. All of this activity comes straight out of the KGB playbook; it is a means of escalating intimidation intended to destabilise other states. The same is true of its attempts to interfere in our democracy.
Russia is constantly looking for useful idiots. Sometimes those are petty criminals and thugs like Dylan Earl, who burned down a warehouse in east London containing goods for Ukraine; sometimes it is suited criminals whose interest in money or power is greater than their loyalty to their political party or country, like Nathan Gill. The relationship between senior Reform politicians and Russia is of particular concern. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I notified him that I would mention him this afternoon—initially denied any connection to Nathan Gill’s handlers, yet photographic evidence shows him consorting with the wife of Oleg Voloshyn.
Under the previous Conservative Government, there were commitments to tackle the flow of Russian money into London, but there was little action. I am sure that there is no connection, but at the same time, Russians in the UK were close to the Conservative party and provided it with funding during the previous Parliament. To their credit, a number of Conservative Members expressed concerns, yet those funds still supported Conservative elections, and the regulatory tightening did not take place. Perhaps these were wealthy Russians with strong Conservative values; if they were, then judging by the holiday companions of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), whom I have also notified, Russians like Lubov Chernukhin have switched allegiance, and are now entertaining the hon. Gentleman in their French Riviera châteaux instead of paying for tennis matches with the former leader of the Conservative party.
We must have more scrutiny of Russian money in British politics, but sadly, Russia is not the only declining superpower that wants to meddle in UK politics. Last Thursday, Trump’s national security strategy was published. There is much that we should worry about in that document, as many Members articulated earlier today during the urgent question, but the most arresting statement is the claim that the US Administration will cultivate
“resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations”.
The Trump White House declares itself to be isolationist, and interested in the affairs of other countries only in so far as they affect America, yet for the UK and the EU, it makes a special exception. Let us be clear: this means that the Trump White House intends to meddle in the domestic politics of European nations, including the UK. We should not stand for this, just as we would not stand for it from Russia or China.
Just because the President is unhinged, it does not mean that he and his entourage are not a threat. There is a toxic set of anti-democratic forces around the President today who have ambitions every bit as imperial as Vladimir Putin, and the vice-president is the cheerleader-in-chief. Vested interests around Trump intend to meddle in our politics, urging him to use US national influence to bully the UK into serving its commercial interests, even when that would harm children here. They want to export to the UK the same toxic, violent and divisive politics that are doing such damage to America, and we should stand against that.
We see Elon Musk funding the legal bills of a convicted criminal. We see Donald Trump sustaining lies about safety on the streets of our capital city, and making racist attacks on its mayor. We see James Orr, who has been described by J.D. Vance as a national conservative sherpa, joining Reform UK and providing a bridge for funding between the UK and the US. Other Reform UK advisers have complex corporate directorships that could mask donations from US entities that would corrupt British politics.
These external threats are compounded by the perhaps more insidious political forces in our country that are enabling them. The hon. Member for Clacton blames the small boats on what he may call foreign courts, even though it was his irresponsible devil-may-care approach to Brexit that tore up partnerships that helped UK immigration authorities to exchange data and work together to prevent people trafficking. Meanwhile, Zack Polanski wants to take the UK out of NATO at the most fragile moment in European security since the early 1980s. Nothing would make Vladimir Putin happier.
I ask the Minister to respond to a series of opportunities. To address China’s threat, will the Government state some red lines, and say that they will have no tolerance of extraterritorial intimidation of UK residents? Will they further sanction Chinese Communist party officials involved in bounty hunting, and will they finally place China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? To protect Russia from interfering in our politics, will they launch an investigation into Russian interference in the UK, following up on the ISC’s Russia report? Will they commit, given that the leader of Reform will not, to investigating Reform’s links to Russian money?
On wider reforms, will the Government commit, through the new elections Bill, to clamping down on excessive financial flows into British politics and tackle shell corporate structures, which are intended to shield those donations? Will they ensure scrutiny of access to Parliament through all-party parliamentary groups on dedicated countries, and other groups that allow people to come into Parliament under the guise of support for various issues? Will they regulate financial flows into the UK and its political parties from overseas and from Crown territories and dependencies?
Finally, in the light of the US’s recent outrageous statement, will the Government commit to an urgent review of the national security strategy and the strategic defence review to ensure that both can protect us from the stated goal of US interference in our politics?
G20 and Ukraine
Calum Miller Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I will certainly come back, but if I am able to update the House as we go along, I will endeavour to do so, so that others can ask questions about it.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to ensuring that decisions about Ukraine are not taken without Ukraine, and to upholding Ukraine’s sovereignty. Yet we know that Russia is trying to use this negotiation to undermine the future security not only of Ukraine but of Europe. In the light of the ongoing negotiations, will the Prime Minister confirm that any future deal will reject Russia’s references to
“ambiguities of the last 30 years”—
code for unravelling NATO back to 1997—and reject attempts to determine which nations may join NATO or where NATO may put its military assets?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that, because we must always remember that this is about Europe as well as Ukraine. Putin’s ambitions are not limited to Ukraine, as the bordering countries are intensely aware. It is therefore important that we see this for what it is, and act accordingly as European allies.
Speaker’s Statement
Calum Miller Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It is an honour to follow the tributes of so many across the House. Ming Campbell was an inspiration to me and to many others who admired his integrity, courtesy and tenacity. I am lucky to have known Ming all my life, and I know how much his death will be felt by his family and the many friends who loved him. I share their grief.
Ming’s athletic achievement showed a man determined to work hard and make sacrifices to push himself to the limits. His international success has already been mentioned, but I remember him—in his mid-40s at that point—saying with some feeling that the annual school sports day had become a major focus, since he was the one the other dads wanted to beat in the fathers’ race. Behind that gracious façade was a true competitor.
Ming was of that remarkable generation of Glasgow University debaters from all parties who strove for a better society. Across a lifetime in politics, he maintained close friendships with those of other parties, yet he was clear on his politics. Ming’s tenacity was shown in his dedication to Scottish liberalism, working hard to win the North East Fife seat at his fifth general election.
Ming served our party for many years as foreign affairs spokesperson. With his distinctive eloquent delivery and his disarming courtesy, Ming could easily be underestimated by some as an orator, not an actor, yet his principled approach to the Iraq war demonstrated his courage and steel. He did not shirk from doing the right thing. For Ming, international liberalism was not an abstract ideal but a set of practical moral obligations.
As we say goodbye to a much-loved parliamentarian, we also remember a private man. Ming’s marriage to Elspeth was the anchor of his life. The last time I saw Ming he spoke with love and feeling about Elspeth. He was continuing his life’s work in Parliament, but it was clear he felt acutely that he was continuing it without his life partner. Theirs was a truly devoted partnership.
Ming Campbell lived an incredible life as an athlete, advocate, political leader and loving husband. He was a lifelong liberal whose principles drove his choices. He is rightly remembered with admiration and affection today across the House. He will be sorely missed.
Middle East
Calum Miller Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Reconstruction is a really important task. It will be extremely difficult, given the levels of devastation. We are working with others on a plan—we are hosting a conference later this week in relation to that issue—and we will continue to do so, but we need to do so at pace, working with our allies. We have a huge task ahead of us.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The ceasefire, the release of the living hostages and the flooding of aid into Gaza is a moment of hope for us all. The Prime Minister has responded to a number of questions on accountability, and he will know the importance of this moment for starting to gather evidence about what has taken place in Gaza—both the atrocities committed by Hamas and the actions of the IDF and the mercenaries working for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation under direction of the Israeli Cabinet. Can the Prime Minister spell out in a little more detail what support the UK Government are giving to those agencies that will gather the evidence that will allow for full accountability in future?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for championing and raising these important issues. It is important that, as we move on from the agreement and rebuild, there is accountability. That is why it is important that the media and others are allowed access as soon as possible, and that those charged with holding others to account have what they need in order to do so.
Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case
Calum Miller Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I listened carefully to the Minister’s statement, but questions remain. The Minister says that China poses threats. Will the Government now publish in full the China audit, so that we can know the scale of those threats? The Minister says that the Government will act against transnational repression of Hongkongers here in the UK, so will the Government now implement targeted sanctions against the officials in Hong Kong and Beijing who are responsible for the bounties? The Minister says that the Government will legislate against foreign influence. Will he ensure that the new elections Bill tackles not only covert foreign political funding, but all foreign political funding, by shutting down the opportunity for foreign actors to influence our politics through corporate donations?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Member referenced the China audit; I am sure that he will acknowledge that the then Foreign Secretary came to the House to give a statement specifically on the China audit. The reason why the China audit has not been published is that it is at a higher classification than documents that would normally be published.
I hope that the hon. Member’s second point was at least a tacit welcome of the Government’s elections Bill. There will be a number of measures in there, which I hope that he and his colleagues will be able to support. It is important that we seek to work together to transform the political landscape to make it much, much harder for those who seek to interfere in our democracy to do so.
Oral Answers to Questions
Calum Miller Excerpts(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
The Government are absolutely committed to tackling the scourge of domestic abuse and halving violence against women and girls in a decade. We are implementing a domestic abuse identifier at sentencing to ensure consistent recognition of domestic abuse offenders across the whole justice system. That will strengthen victim protection and offender management, delivering on a recommendation made by the independent sentencing review.
Calum Miller
I am sickened by the frequency with which I hear from victims and survivors of domestic abuse about the ways in which the criminal justice system has aggravated their trauma. One constituent recently told me that she was living in fear after her abuser was released early and the Probation Service failed to enforce probation conditions. Another has seen the charges against her ex-partner scheduled for criminal trial in two years’ time, and in the meantime he continues to exert control through the family courts. Will the Minister meet me to review what has gone wrong in those two cases and what lessons can be learned about how to use identifiers of aggravation to give victims and survivors more protection?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question and for all his work to amplify the voices of victims and survivors. Like him, I am sickened by the treatment of the majority of women and girls who go through this in our criminal justice system. He will know that we inherited a criminal justice system in absolute crisis. That is why we conducted a once-in-a-generation review of our courts process—the Leveson review—which the Government will respond to shortly, and a once-in-a-generation sentencing review, to consider exactly the issues that he is talking about. I will happily meet him to discuss this further.