Oral Answers to Questions
Carla Lockhart Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I am delighted to hear about the new businesses in my hon. Friend’s area. Our high streets strategy, backed by £301 million, will set out further plans to rejuvenate high streets across the country. We are putting power into the hands of local communities through our Pride in Place scheme, including £20 million for Stanley South in my hon. Friend’s constituency. That is only possible because his community has a hard-working Labour MP and a Labour Government.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Some six months ago in this House, I mentioned a little boy called Teddy Johnson. Sadly, Teddy will be forever seven, because he died last week from metachromatic leukodystrophy. MLD is a horrendous condition that stole Teddy’s ability to walk, talk and even smile. What makes this tragedy more profound is that here in the UK, we have a treatment—we have a cure—but it is only effective if the condition is identified by a simple heel prick at birth and treated immediately, because when symptoms appear, it is too late. Just a few weeks ago, the UK National Screening Committee recommended the condition remain excluded from the heel prick. We have a treatment and we have a commissioned service in the Royal Manchester children’s hospital, yet children like Teddy are still dying prematurely. Despite all that is going on in the world, I know that the Prime Minister is in politics to make a change. Prime Minister, in Teddy’s memory and in the memory of all those who have died prematurely: make the change and add MLD to the simple heel prick test.
The Prime Minister
I remember the hon. Lady raising Teddy’s case very well. I am very saddened to hear of his passing, and my thoughts—and, I am sure, those of the whole House—are with his family and his loved ones. I will do precisely as she asks: I will make sure that we look at this again in the light of the information that she has given to me in the course of this session.
Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment
Carla Lockhart Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
This morning’s Foreign Affairs Committee session lasted for two-and-a-half hours. It was certainly one of the more remarkable sessions that I have attended, and I have been involved in a number of quite controversial Select Committee hearings over the years. It showed the Select Committee system at its best, and Members across the House worked together.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), a fellow member of the Committee who spoke earlier. I share his view that Sir Olly Robbins, who gave us evidence, put in an impressive performance. He is clearly angry at the way in which he is being treated; he has a distinguished career that has been brought to a premature end, and he is clearly very upset by that. In his evidence, he made some extraordinary revelations. He had given evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee in November last year, when, as the Chair of the Committee suggested in her introduction, we may have heard the truth and nothing but the truth, but probably not the whole truth.
This morning, we heard a lot more of the whole truth. What became absolutely clear, which had already been suggested in the previous hearing, was that No. 10 Downing Street was absolutely determined that Lord Mandelson should become the ambassador of his country to the United States. Sir Olly told us that his predecessor, Philip Barton, had strongly advised that that should not happen until after the developed vetting process had been completed. Despite that advice from the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, he was ignored—indeed, we are told that the Cabinet Office went on to suggest that developed vetting might not even be necessary.
This was not just a routine appointment, and it was not routine for two reasons. First, it was the appointment of probably the most important ambassadorial post that this country has. Secondly, and very unusually, it was a direct ministerial appointment. Most of the time, ambassadorial appointments are made from within the civil service, and people have already had the vetting procedure. This was somebody being brought in from the outside who had not been vetted and already had a track record of having had to resign from Government twice.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The role of Prime Minister is the highest honour in UK politics and demands sound judgment. The reality is that there was no sound judgment when the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson—a disgraced individual who had two resignations and well-documented associations with a sex offender. What we are hearing from Members on the Labour Benches today is like hearing lambs to the slaughter. They are defending the indefensible, and the general public are hearing that and hearing how disgraced this place is by the decision of the Prime Minister to appoint Peter Mandelson.
Sir John Whittingdale
I completely agree with the hon. Lady. It is somehow being suggested by Labour Members that this was about people advising the Prime Minister—I think one speaker earlier said that the Prime Minister had been persuaded to appoint Peter Mandelson. Well, I worked for a Prime Minister, and she coined a phrase: “Advisers advise; Ministers decide.” In this case, as the hon. Lady says, it was the decision of the Prime Minister.
Sir Olly Robbins also pointed out that by the time he took up his position, he was essentially presented with a fait accompli. He set that out to us—he said that
“I took over as PUS on 20 January”,
and that due diligence had already been completed. We know that that process, which included an interview with Morgan McSweeney, had revealed the ongoing relationship between Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, but that it was ignored. We were told that approval of the appointment had already been given by the King, it had been announced publicly to the press, and agrément had been given by the United States. Sir Olly Robbins made clear that agrément is not just a formality; it was a very significant development. Lord Mandelson had also been given access to the FCDO building and IT access, and finally, he was being granted access to highly classified briefings on a case-by-case basis. I asked Sir Olly Robbins whether, given that all that was already in place, it would damage our relationship with the United States of America if he were to have the appointment withdrawn. He replied very clearly, “Yes, it would.”
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) set out, we already had a very good ambassador in Washington, but Downing Street had nevertheless said to the US Administration that it wanted Lord Mandelson to be appointed, and the White House had given its agreement through the agrément procedure. For Sir Olly Robbins to then withdraw the appointment would have caused real damage to our foreign policy. One can argue that if Sir Olly Robbins were told that the UKSV process had resulted in a clear recommendation of denial, he might—or perhaps even should—still have done so, but he also told us this morning that he was not told that. We were told that he did not see the UKSV report, and that he did not even know that the report has a red box saying “deny” with a tick in it. He said that he had never seen those documents before, and that that would be normal, because access is very restricted for the reasons that the hon. Member for Halesowen set out.
All that Sir Olly Robbins was told was that there had been a leaning towards refusal, and that it was a borderline case. Whether or not that was an accurate reflection of what the report actually said is another matter, and we can perhaps debate at what stage, or how far, the message from Downing Street—“We want this person to be appointed”—had been transmitted, to try to make that appointment as possible as it was. However, we are told that after Sir Olly Robbins had arrived as permanent secretary, he was subjected to regular calls from No. 10 saying, “Get it done.” He also told us that the message was not, “Get it done subject to security clearance,” which in his view, it should have been. The press release announcing the appointment of Lord Mandelson did not say “subject to security clearance”—that was never mentioned. This was announced as a decision that had already been taken.
Why was the decision taken? That is a matter that is open to conjecture. There is a view among some Labour Members that it was somehow a reward for services given in getting the Prime Minister his job. The leader of the Liberal Democrats said that it might have been an attempt to cosy up to President Trump, although as my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington pointed out, our previous ambassador had done a really good job in representing this country to President Trump. We may never know, but what we do know is that the Prime Minister was absolutely determined that that appointment should be made.
Even after the appointment was made, when all of these things began to be revealed—in particular, the ongoing relationship between Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, which the Prime Minister said he was unaware of the closeness of and he was very angry when he was told about—inquiries had already been made. Journalists had been ringing up No. 10 and saying, “We have been told that Lord Mandelson failed his security vetting,” and No. 10 put out a denial. With journalists calling up and asking, “Is it true that he did not pass the UKSV assessment, and it recommended denial of security vetting?” one would expect that before saying, “No, that’s complete rubbish,” No. 10 might actually begin to ask questions. People in No. 10 might say to the Prime Minister, “You should be aware that we’ve had an inquiry about this.” Apparently none of that happened, or if it did, it was simply swept under the carpet. The end result of this process is that for more than a year we had someone representing this country at the most senior level in America, which is our closest ally, who the security agencies had concluded was a security risk. We do not know the full extent of the damage that may have been done during that time.
Antisemitic Attacks
Carla Lockhart Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
I have described the actions that we will take, but it is also important to recognise the work that the police do, often in difficult and challenging circumstances. There has been an impressive response from the Met over the past few days; we need to ensure that it has the support to continue that. If the hon. Member has any particular issues with regard to his local synagogue or local community, I would be happy to meet him to discuss them.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Government recently introduced specific legislation to protect the Islamic community, ignoring the very real and greater threat to Jews in the UK. When will we see specific legislation to protect Jews, and indeed Christian preachers, across the United Kingdom?
Dan Jarvis
I am sorry to say that the hon. Lady’s characterisation is not fair. I have been incredibly clear about the work and the support that we are providing to Jewish communities. We take that incredibly seriously. Where there is a requirement to do more, and to do things differently, we will not hesitate to do so. Where we need to introduce new legislation, we will not hesitate to do so. The Government will ensure that all communities are kept safe.
Oral Answers to Questions
Carla Lockhart Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kanishka Narayan
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s engagement in her constituency and on this debate nationally. She has been a strong champion for the voices of victims, particularly in relation to this question. I entirely agree with her demands for parity, and that is exactly the commitment we have made as a Government. We have set up a cross-Government unit to make sure that we deliver on that plan within six months.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Some 50% of boys aged 11 to 13 have already viewed online pornography. Clearly, frequent exposure to violent sexual content is damaging young people’s minds and their understanding of relationships. Does the Minister agree that, alongside engagement with platforms, the criminal law must be modernised to ban online extreme pornography?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank the hon. Member for that incredibly important point. That is exactly why we have already made a series of legal changes, not least to ensure that cyber-flashing and intimate image abuse are priority offences under the Online Safety Act 2023. We have mandated highly effective age assurance on pornography sites and sites with content that is harmful to children. We want to go further still where there is clear evidence to do so, and we will do that through the national consultation that we have launched.
Digital ID: Public Consultation
Carla Lockhart Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
I can confirm that the Government will not be doing any such thing.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
My constituency led the way on this issue, with more than 7,000 people signing the e-petition against digital ID cards. The public see this scheme for what it is—a gateway to unprecedented state surveillance—and they do not want to be part of it. They see it as a waste of money and effort to create a 100-strong citizens assembly that is not even democratically accountable. Will the Chief Secretary be honest with the public and admit that if this digital ID plan is implemented, the slippery slope is greased with expansion tracking and repurposing?
Darren Jones
The hon. Lady is wrong. I look forward to bringing provisions in the Bill later this year to prove that case.
China: Foreign Interference Arrests
Carla Lockhart Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Minister has said numerous times that the Government always prioritise UK national security, but those words ring hollow whenever we think of the Chinese embassy, and the fact that this Government have granted a mega-embassy close to underground cables carrying highly sensitive data. In the light of these highly concerning developments, surely the Government should show courage, strength and leadership, and with immediate effect revoke that decision in the interest of national security.
Dan Jarvis
With great respect to the hon. Lady—I always listen carefully to what she has to say, because she represents a part of the United Kingdom that I have a long-standing interest in—she is not right in what she says about the embassy. I refer her to comments made by the Intelligence and Security Committee and the director generals of our security services. The arrangement that underpins the Chinese embassy involves the reduction of the diplomatic estate in London from seven sites down to one. I hope that when she looks at it in those terms, she will understand that there are national security advantages from that proposal.
EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK
Carla Lockhart Excerpts(2 months, 1 week 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
Mike Wood
No, I only have five minutes.
For that £90 billion to be credible, one would have to imagine that we would have vastly exceeded the growth of every large European country if only we had stuck to what we were already doing, closer to the framework that those countries with lower growth are still in.
Carla Lockhart
I think the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) has had his say, quite significantly.
The EU is a failing entity and we got out at the right time. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is the continued capitulation of this Government and other UK parties, and a failure to accept the democratic outcome, that has led us to this point—especially the problems we are experiencing in Northern Ireland? Joining the EU is not the solution; it is about a strong Government leading this United Kingdom as a whole.
Mike Wood
The hon. Lady raises an important issue. Last summer, the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland said that two thirds of the SMEs in Northern Ireland that moved goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland had ceased to do so because of the way EU checks were being conducted. The Northern Ireland protocol says that if the UK experiences diversion of trade, we can take unilateral action. If two thirds of small businesses does not count as diversion of trade, what does? As the record shows, exports to the EU grew more in the five years since we left in 2021 than they did in the six years before the referendum.
The Opposition have set five clear tests for any renegotiation with the European Union: no return to free movement; no new payments to the EU; no loss of fishing rights; no dynamic alignment with EU rules; and no compromise on NATO’s primacy in European defence. Those tests are not ideological; they are the minimum requirement for respecting the 2016 mandate. Dynamic alignment may sound technical, but it means accepting rules that we no longer shape. Budgetary contributions may be dressed as programmes, but they mean sending money back without membership—often far more than can be fairly attributed to the costs caused by our participation. A customs arrangement that restricts our trade autonomy undermines the very sovereignty that voters endorsed.
Brexit was never about isolation: it was about independence. It was about being outward looking on British terms. We now have the ability to strike trade agreements globally. We have joined the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, helping to open access to markets in 11 high-growth economies, from Canada to South Korea and Australia. Many of the bilateral trade deals that we have signed go far beyond the proceeding EU trade agreements, with deeper digital trade and data chapters that are important to so many of the sectors in which Britain is strongest.
Financial market reform has reduced the risk margin for life insurers, meaning that we can promote long-term growth and divert more to long-term infrastructure and green technologies. In agriculture, the UK has moved to environmental land management schemes, based on the principle of public money for public good, to support environmental outcomes instead of just paying landowners to own land. Our duty is clear: to honour the mandate, to defend the sovereignty the people voted for, to work with our allies as equal sovereign partners where we can, and to protect our country’s ability to take its own decisions in our nation’s interest.
Lord Mandelson
Carla Lockhart Excerpts(2 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
We are having this debate today solely because of the women and girls who found the courage to come forward and speak about the abuse they had endured over years at the hands of rich and powerful men. Without these women’s bravery in speaking up about their experiences at the hands of a paedophile sex trafficker and his friends, none of these shocking revelations would have come out. We owe these women justice, and we owe it to them to make changes to create a system that works.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The hon. Member is right: victims should be at the heart of this process. The allegations against someone who the Prime Minister and Ministers put full trust in are also absolutely shocking.
Jeffrey Epstein was a sick child predator and a sex offender. He visited Hillsborough castle on at least one occasion. Does the hon. Member agree that this House and the Government should have a full review of his activities while there, and an audit of his visitors during that time? The victims deserve answers.
Lisa Smart
I agree with the hon. Lady’s characterisation of some of the individuals we are talking about today. We will be supporting the Leader of the Opposition’s motion to request the information that is sought. The Liberal Democrats would go further, looking to a public inquiry in order to get to the detail that the victims deserve.
The revelations about Peter Mandelson’s conduct raise profoundly serious questions about judgment, national security and accountability. The leaked emails suggest that while serving as a Cabinet Minister, he shared sensitive Government information, sharing details about the 2008 financial crisis, market-sensitive bail-out measures and potential asset sales. These allegations point to potential misconduct in public office, aimed at helping those involved to enrich themselves. They certainly warrant the police investigation that was announced yesterday, but also reveal catastrophic failures in the systems meant to protect our national interest.
The emails highlight a fundamental lack of accountability that exists within our current system. The Prime Minister has rightly called Peter Mandelson’s conduct a betrayal, and has submitted material to the police and requested draft legislation on removing peerages. These responses are necessary, but it has taken the Government far too long to get to this position. Mandelson was appointed ambassador to the United States by this Government and this Prime Minister even after his links to Epstein had been extensively reported by the Financial Times and “Channel 4 News”.
Chinese Embassy
Carla Lockhart Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman is very experienced from his own time in government, and he will know that difficult decisions have to be made. It is my judgment that, ultimately, this is the right way to proceed and that we have to engage with China for the reasons I have explained. Ultimately, nothing—nothing—will prevent this Government from ensuring our national security. That is why we have progressed this proposal incredibly carefully and made sure we have the right mitigations in place.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Last week, I made it clear that any hostile intelligence service would struggle to find a better location for espionage than the now approved Chinese mega-embassy. What assessment has been made of the risk that this site could be used for surveillance, intimidation or coercion of critics of the oppressive communist regime who are living in the UK? How do Government justify a decision that is both shameful and reckless in its disregard for national security?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful for the points the hon. Lady has made, but of course, we are already dealing with those challenges. Some Members seem to think that we do not have to mitigate and manage those risks at the moment. We do. There are those who think—and it is an entirely reasonable position if people want to take it—that the situation could get worse with the agreement of this embassy. As I have tried to explain, because of the mitigations we have put in place and the consolidation of the diplomatic estate, there are clear national security advantages as a consequence of this proposal. She does not perhaps agree now, but I hope she understands that the Government take these matters incredibly seriously and will do everything they can to safeguard our national security.
UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations
Carla Lockhart Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. I think this is clearly good news and a good deal for our university sector, which is why both Universities UK and the Russell Group have come out in its support in such glowing terms today.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not being full of Christmas cheer. Although people are welcoming this announcement, businesses in Northern Ireland are being disadvantaged—rising costs, significant trade barriers because of the Windsor framework, delivery not being available a regular problem for online shoppers in Northern Ireland, and the immediate cliff edge for veterinary medicines and import control system 2, as well as type approval for cars. When will this Government stand up for Northern Ireland’s place within the Union and sort out the trade barriers of this internal market?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I spoke to both the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland only this morning to discuss the arrangements around Erasmus+ and the other announcements I have made on electricity. I can assure the hon. Lady, as I am also responsible for the Windsor framework, that it is a top priority for me. It is a top priority as well for the Prime Minister, who has a personal interest in Northern Ireland having been the human rights adviser to the Policing Board. With regard to barriers to trade that the hon. Lady was referring to on the Irish sea, it is precisely pushing forward and getting the SPS deal implemented quickly that will allow us to lower those barriers, which is what I am determined to do.