Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill

Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

First, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) for his powerful remarks. I hope he did not spend too many hours trawling through 16 years of emails, but it is yet another example of his hard work and diligence in this place. I sympathise with his points, but I hope he is comforted by the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) that a future Conservative Government will reduce the number of ministerial posts and reduce the size of Government.

As I am sure all Members would agree, it is only right that those who choose to serve the public as Ministers of the Crown should be able to receive a salary if they wish. Although the Government of the day must always be drawn from and ultimately accountable to the elected House of Commons, previous Governments of all stripes have benefited from the knowledge and wisdom provided by noble Lords who have served as Ministers or held one of the great offices of state. I am sure many Members will have had the privilege of working alongside them and know personally of their dedication and public service.

All those who serve as Ministers of the Crown, whether they be Members of this House or the other place, give up their time and energy and take on an extra burden of responsibilities in doing so, both relating to their departmental work and in representing the Government in the Chamber. It is only right, therefore, that Ministers should receive equal payment regardless of the House in which they sit. It should also be noted that the impetus for ensuring that all those who serve as Ministers of the Crown can receive a salary came from the other place, which debated this issue at length during the passage of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. Although it remains a great disappointment that the Government chose to proceed with that misguided piece of legislation, at least some comfort can be taken from the fact that this debate emerged from that Bill.

In particular, I pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord True, who so eloquently made the case for ensuring all Lords Ministers can receive a salary in the other place, and who laid amendments to the hereditary peers Bill to that end. While it remains disappointing that the Government did not support the Opposition’s amendments when they had the opportunity to do so, those Lords who have been calling for this change can take comfort in knowing that their efforts were not in vain. It is also further proof of the quality of debate in the other place, and the importance of its constitutional role in strengthening our laws through scrutiny, that we should be debating this Bill because of their efforts.

To conclude, peers with the experience and expertise to serve as Ministers should not be prevented from doing so due to a lack of private means. I therefore join my hon. Friends in not opposing this Bill.

Member Defections: Automatic By-elections

Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to take part in this debate on automatic by-elections following Member defections. I thank everybody across the country who has signed the petition. I have brought with me a list of every MP who has ever defected. Given the lack of a time constraint, we could go through it, but I would prefer to concentrate on the arguments.

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on introducing this important debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) made an excellent contribution with some very powerful arguments indeed, made all the more persuasive by the fact that he is a much-loved local Member of Parliament. He has as much personal support as party support, and has defied political gravity in recent times. I absolutely sympathise with and understand a lot of the arguments he makes. I will outline an alternative viewpoint that relates not necessarily to principle, but to practicality and the challenges that may arise if a change of law were brought in to deal with the ongoing issue of Members choosing to change from one party to another.

I fully sympathise with the frustration that many voters feel when their Member of Parliament chooses to defect to another party. At a time when our country faces many pressing challenges, it is easy to understand why many people feel as though their representatives, if they defect, are choosing party politics over real-life concerns. I would not deny the reality that many voters choose their candidate in an election with party labels in mind. We should not be arrogant enough to assume that everyone voted for us as individuals, regardless of our party alignment. Despite my hon. Friend’s popularity, it is absolutely party alignments, labels and manifestoes that persuade people at general elections. We can do our best to be great servants to those we seek to represent, but much of the time that decision is made on a wider, more national position.

Like most Members, I am proud to work alongside like-minded individuals who share my core beliefs about how we can change our country for the better. Political parties have been an established part of our system for more than three centuries, and they have an irreplicable role in ensuring that the business of government and opposition can work effectively.

John Grobham Howe is said to be the first MP to have defected when, in 1698, he switched allegiance from the Whigs to the Tories, so the discussion today is certainly not about a new phenomenon. It is ultimately only Members themselves who can know their motivations for choosing to leave their existing party. I know that many Members would consider it entirely dishonourable to do so without seeking a mandate from their constituents, and I fully understand why many think that allowing a by-election to take place after defecting is very much the right thing to do. However, making that an automatic requirement could have unintended consequences that would only undermine Members’ standing as elected representatives of the people.

We who serve in this House do so as representatives of our constituents above all else, regardless of which party we represent. We are elected to do what we think is in the best interests of our constituents, above all other considerations. If a Member chooses to defect, that should be because they have judged, rightly or wrongly, that doing so is in the best interests of their constituents. Their constituents are, of course, free to disagree with that judgment, and may well choose to elect a representative of a different party at a later election. However, if we wish to uphold the principles that have made our political system one of the most enduring in the world, Members must be deemed fit to serve as representatives on the basis of their record of serving their constituents’ interests, and not simply on the basis of their party label.

[Robbie Moore]

I hope that I am not going to lose the Whip by taking a slightly different view from what seems to be my party’s position. Why would an individual not stand as an independent, if he or she had the confidence of getting elected? Surely there is a huge advantage in standing under the brand of a political party, because that inevitably brings a good element of the voter base to that individual. Will my hon. Friend expand on the difference between standing as an independent and standing as a member of a political party?

[Charlie Dewhirst]

Absolutely. There is a real challenge here, and I agree with the point that my hon. Friend made earlier. Leaving one political party in the House of Commons and joining a distinct grouping is one thing, but independence is a challenge, as I saw on local level when I was a councillor: some councillors were in the independent group, but there were also independent independents. The independent group had, in many ways, a political agenda, and started to work around that. If we were to bring in legislation, defining true independence could become quite challenging. Members may start to work together around certain political issues, and form a political direction, which would actually make them no different from any other small party in the House of Commons.

I am sympathetic to the point, and the challenges around situations that may lead an individual from being party aligned to going independent are varied, but although I agree with the principle, we are concerned with the practicality. On issues such as this, the Conservative party has always been a broad church, so I am sure my hon. Friend and I can agree to disagree today. I do not think that there is any question of his being called into our Whips Office straight after the debate; it would certainly be very unfair if he were.

That the voters choose an individual to be their sole representative is one of the greatest strengths of our constitution, ensuring a direct link between Members and their constituents. I take issue with the views of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), on PR, which would break the link between local people and an individual. It would almost make this entire debate irrelevant. How would we have a by-election if someone defected? Would the entire country vote in the by-election, to make sure that it is truly proportionally representative? That would not work. I have always been a supporter of the first-past-the-post system, which I believe is the best way to get representation of the people in this country. We put this matter to the test in a referendum not that long ago, and people made their views very clear.

[Lisa Smart]

We have not discussed PR sufficiently this afternoon. Does the hon. Member accept that there are different voting systems of a proportionate nature, some of which retain the constituency link?

[Charlie Dewhirst]

I absolutely accept that there are many different voting systems that one could employ. Those with a mix between a party list and a constituency list create a two-tier system. What if one of the individuals on the party list were to defect? How would that be resolved? It would create a system even more challenging than the one we already have, which has a direct link between local people and their representative in the House of Commons.

One of my concerns is that making the continuation of that representation conditional on membership of a political party might start to weaken that link, which is a strength of the first-past-the-post system, but there is also the question of how it would be dealt with under the varied systems that we have across the range of PR options. Making representation conditional in that way would reduce Members to delegates of their party rather than individuals chosen to represent all their constituents, regardless of who they voted for—a point that is hugely important to us all. As we have discussed, the threat of a by-election could be used to silence Members who feel compelled by their conscience to go against their party.

As I just underlined, that is where the challenge about how to legally define an independent comes in. I am very sympathetic to the point that those who go independent should not face a by-election, but those who move from one established party to another should. The danger is that introducing mandatory by-elections would encourage Members to favour loyalty to the party over serving the interests of their constituents, particularly if they believed that those two things were in conflict.

Of course, defection is only one means by which a Member can change their party allegiance. While the petition speaks only of defection to another party, there are other methods: resignation, the withdrawal of the Whip, parties’ restructuring and so on are all means by which a Member may choose no longer to represent the party for which they were originally elected. I am sure that no Member believes that every Liberal Democrat should have been forced to stand in a by-election when the Liberals and the Social Democrats merged.

This is not the first time that the House has considered the issue of Members changing political allegiance. Previous Governments and Parliaments have wrestled with how to reconcile the independence of Members with the expectations of modern party politics, and in each instance they concluded that the independence of Parliament and its Members should not be constrained through major constitutional change.

[Graham Stringer]

I am rather surprised that nobody has mentioned that there is a constitutional precedent for by-elections when situations change. It used to be the case that when Members were appointed to the Cabinet, they had to face a by-election. In my city, Manchester, there was a famous by-election when Winston Churchill had to stand again, and he lost. I think that was just before the first world war. Then, a change of circumstances meant a by-election. It is a very serious change of circumstances if somebody changes political parties. I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s view on that constitutional precedent.

[Charlie Dewhirst]

Things have changed over time, and I dread to think how many by-elections we might have had in recent years had we needed one every time someone was appointed to the Cabinet. I suspect that would have cost the public purse something quite significant. In the period of which the hon. Member speaks, there was a slower churn of those in the Cabinet, and there was not quite the political turmoil that we have seen in recent years, which would make such a situation challenging. It is a fair point, though, because the change of circumstance in that situation is far less than the change of circumstance of moving from one party to another.

As I have said, it is not the principle of the issue that concerns me, but the practicality. If Parliament did introduce legislation, it would have to be absolutely spot on and watertight, to ensure that it did not degrade the link between individual Members of Parliament and their constituencies, and that the party system did not become more empowered through any such change. That is my principal concern.

Our constitution and political system have drawn their strength from the respect we have for tried and tested convention, and we must always be wary of the danger of rushed constitutional change and unintended consequences. We need only to look at the recent past to see how previous attempts to enforce rigidity within our system have failed. Most notably, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which was seen as an important tool during the coalition Government, ultimately was viewed to have failed and was rightly repealed during the last Parliament.

The independence of Parliament and of an individually elected representative to do what they believe is in the best interests of their constituents is one of the longest-standing conventions in our political system. While I sympathise with the frustrations of the petitioners and understand their desire to see the proposed change enacted, I believe we would be unwise to surrender that independence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The milestones that were set out for paying infected people were met by the end of 2025. The first payment to an affected person was also on time, and was made before the end of last year. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we are now moving into a new phase of paying affected people, which will clearly be a larger number. I will, of course, happily write to him with the precise figures on that.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

In the light of the arrest of three individuals yesterday for Chinese espionage, can the Minister confirm that security vetting for all special advisers is up to date?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Member will remember, from the statement I gave to the House, that we are reviewing this policy area, as well as other areas to do with transparency and lobbying returns, as well as the work of the Ethics and Integrity Commission. We will come forward with further updates in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The deal we have struck with the EU means lower prices at the check-out, more choice on the shelf, and more money in people’s pockets. It is good for British fishers and farmers, who face less red tape selling our world-class produce into a crucial market. It comes alongside the opportunity for young people to work and travel across Europe, the work that we are doing to cut energy bills, and closer work on defence. All of that is opposed by Reform and the Tories, who sold the myth, botched Brexit, and left families and businesses paying the price.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

Q4.   I will give the Prime Minister some brief respite from Peter Mandelson. However, he will also be familiar with the name Phil Shiner, the disgraced lawyer who was struck off and convicted for repeatedly inventing vexatious cases against British troops in Iraq. It is something of a surprise that the Prime Minister authored a chapter in Mr Shiner’s book about pursuing our veterans via the European Court of Human Rights. Can I ask him specifically: was he ever instructed by Mr Shiner’s law firm, Public Interest Lawyers, to act in any legal case?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me be absolutely clear about this: as soon as there were any allegations of wrongdoing by Phil Shiner, I had absolutely nothing to do with him.

China and Japan

Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

This is a really important issue, which that is why I had a phone call with Volodymyr Zelensky the day before I left, and I will have a further discussion with him now that I am back. I raised the issue in terms during the course of the visit.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

Further to that point, Russia has been able to triple its ballistic missile production because it has access to Chinese rocket fuel, Chinese machine tools and Chinese microprocessors. In return, China is receiving vast quantities of discounted oil, gas, aluminium and other natural resources. China is quite literally fuelling the war in Ukraine, so I ask the Prime Minister once again: what specific guarantees did he receive from the Chinese Government that they will work to de-escalate the conflict in Ukraine?

[The Prime Minister]

The reason I spoke to Volodymyr Zelensky was to have a discussion in advance on the precise terms in which we would approach this issue. I then followed through on that, and I will talk to President Zelensky about this again in the coming days. We are working hand in glove with the Ukrainians for the outcome that we all want: a just and lasting peace.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for the great work that she does in Parliament and within the Labour party as a leading voice for rural communities across our country. On Government action, I point her to the rural taskforce, a cross-departmental group looking at how policies taken across Government can have a positive impact in rural communities while recognising the unique risk that we want to mitigate.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

The Paymaster General has told the House this morning, on more than one occasion, just how wonderful his new EU deal will be for British food and drink manufacturers, so why is he refusing to appear in front of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to discuss the matter in more detail?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

To be frank, when we have the final negotiation and the legal text I will of course be willing to appear before the Select Committee at the appropriate moment. If the hon. Gentleman looks at how many Select Committees I have appeared before, in this place and in the Lords, he will find that it is a very high number.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have made our position clear. I have set out my principles, and I am not going to yield on those principles. As I said on Monday, of course we need to protect our national interest, and we will always protect our national interest, but simply hurtling into a trade war at the first opportunity would hurt working people and businesses across the country. That is why I am working hard to ensure that we do not get to that point, and I will continue to act in the national interest.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

The Prime Minister may be aware that my local authority in the East Riding of Yorkshire is the lowest-funded per pupil for children with special educational needs and disabilities, and his local authority in Camden is the highest—an inequality that he has repeatedly pledged to end. Well, the results are in: next year, children in my local area will receive just under £1,000, and children in his local area will receive over £3,800. The gap is getting wider. Will he explain to the House why he thinks that children in my constituency are worth so much less than children in his?

[The Prime Minister]

We are applying their formula—the one that you put in place in government—[Interruption.] We are changing it—[Interruption.] Special educational needs are probably raised with me more than any other issue that is raised in the House. We are proposing reforms. The problem that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted—

Foreign Interference

Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) on securing today’s very important and timely debate. We live in unprecedented times, in which those who wish to undermine this great nation are doing so daily, and on multiple fronts. The need to co-operate more closely with our global allies is as strong as it has been since the second world war, and the United Kingdom must be prepared to combat the ever-evolving threats of tomorrow.

In the aftermath of the cold war and following the end of the conflict in the Balkans, we perhaps took peace in Europe for granted. The prospect of tank battles on the plains of Germany and the ever-present threat of a nuclear holocaust suddenly seemed like a distant memory, as though they were from another era. That illusion was shattered in 2014 when Russian paramilitaries crossed the border into Ukraine and took control of towns in the Donbas. Since then, Europe has been at war with its enemies, not just on the battlefields of Ukraine but in cyber-space and trade, and we have seen continued efforts to degrade our national security.

We should not shy away from who the malign actors are. Let us be quite clear that China, Russia, Iran and North Korea represent a very real threat to the United Kingdom. While their methods may vary, their intention is the same: to weaken our security, disrupt our democratic institutions, and undermine British values. China’s actions present an evolving challenge to our national security. Its activities span espionage, cyber-attacks, political influence operations, and exerting pressure through its trade, supply chain and investment decisions. We saw that very clearly in the spying case involving British citizens Chris Cash and Christopher Berry; the Government’s failure to clearly label China a threat collapsed a prosecution that had been years in the making. The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy said that the handling of aspects of that case was best described as “shambolic”, and that the episode exposed “systematic failures”, and created

“a crisis of public confidence and fuelled allegations of conspiracy at the highest levels of government.”

The Committee exposed gaps in communication, process and backbone at the heart of our Government. The implications for our national security are profound.

We come to the frankly extraordinary saga of the Chinese super-embassy at the Royal Mint Court. Tower Hamlets council rejected the plans on entirely legitimate grounds, yet unlike the previous Conservative Government, this Government chose to call in the application and seem determined to approve it. That is despite warnings from MI5, which is concerned about the site’s proximity to major communications cables. When that is paired with the fact that the embassy blueprint submitted to the council has basement rooms blanked out for security reasons, it raises serious questions. At a moment when China is increasing its activities against Britain, the Government should not be supporting this; instead, they should be firmly defending our national security and critical infrastructure.

I come to Russia. Though this threat is sadly more familiar to us, it is no less serious. The Intelligence and Security Committee described Russian interference as “the new normal”, and that should be a constant consideration for British security. It uses a combination of cyber-attacks, disinformation, covert influence and grey-zone and sub-threshold operations to attempt to destabilise western democracies and test our resilience. We saw that recently, when the Yantar vessel intentionally positioned itself near undersea cables and energy infrastructure and aimed lasers at RAF planes. Such provocations are designed not only to intimidate us, but to test how we respond.

Beyond those actions—the actions we are supposed to see—the Intelligence and Security Committee also notes that the business interests and financial activities of Russian oligarchs in the UK continue to provide opportunities for influence that must be robustly guarded against. That is why my party brought in the National Security and Investment Act 2021 and strengthened sanctioning powers. That has certainly improved our resilience, but the Kremlin’s methods are adaptive, and we must remain vigilant.

The threat from Iran is also increasing, and stems from an ideological opposition. That requires a tailored approach—one that does not allow Iran to be overlooked —in the context of wider disruption outside the middle east. MI5 has confirmed that more than 20 potentially lethal Iran-backed plots were identified in the last two years alone, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, operating both at home and abroad, has demonstrated a willingness to target perceived opponents on British soil.

The Intelligence and Security Committee’s recent report on Iran highlights the extent of the challenges, which include, but are not limited to, a nuclear programme inching closer to capability, sophisticated espionage networks, credible kidnap and repatriation schemes, and a pattern of operations that disregards international standards. Despite the recent success of Israel in degrading the capabilities of Iranian proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah, we must continue to confront the reality that Iran is an acute threat with its own global networks and its own methods of exerting pressure on Britain.

North Korea is often overlooked in debates about our national security, yet it poses a significant and evolving threat. Its cyber-activities go beyond the attack on NHS systems in 2017 and extend to attempts to access contract specifications, design drawings and project details from defence, aerospace, nuclear and engineering entities, as well as from medical and energy companies. Pyongyang’s covert digital operations have been used to distort public perceptions abroad, and to influence narratives in ways that serve its own interest. The regime has sought to deepen military links with other authoritarian states, complicating the broader strategic landscape, and its involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine is well documented. North Korea operates largely outside international norms. It is driven by secrecy and control, and is willing to exploit vulnerabilities wherever they arise.

We have heard some excellent contributions from across the House. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for his excellent contribution and the concerns that he raised about the SNP Government in Edinburgh.

We should not underestimate the severity of the threats posed to this country by the likes of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. Will the Minister outline the work that the Cabinet Office is doing with other relevant Departments to protect and enhance our national security? Will he pledge to build on the work of the last Government, who introduced measures such as the Counter-terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, which provided powers to stop, question, search and detain people entering and exiting the UK to determine whether they had been engaged in hostile state activity?

As mentioned, the National Security and Investment Act introduced powers to investigate and intervene in company mergers, acquisitions and other deals that could threaten the UK’s national security. Other measures included the defending democracy taskforce, which aims

“to protect the democratic integrity of the UK from threats of foreign interference”;

the Elections Act 2022, which tightens rules to prevent foreign money from influencing UK elections; the National Security Act 2023, which introduced new offences relating to foreign interference and the foreign influence registration scheme; and finally the Procurement Act 2023, which introduced enhanced powers for public bodies to exclude suppliers from procurement on national security grounds.

I am grateful to have had the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Defence of the realm, and therefore national security, is the No. 1 priority of any Government. While we will continue to debate and scrutinise the detail, it is something that unites us all. His Majesty’s official Opposition will continue to work with the Government to ensure that we keep British people safe at home and abroad, and that we protect the United Kingdom from those who wish to harm us.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice receives the hon. Gentleman’s question, which he can maybe raise again in Justice questions when they come round.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

Tomorrow will mark a year to the day since the Government launched the plan for change, to great fanfare, with its milestones, its mission boards, and its dashboards that never materialised. We have now found out that the five mission boards have been deleted from the latest list of Cabinet Committees. Has there been any change at all from the plan for change?

[Darren Jones]

I welcome the introduction of the plan for change to the debate today, and the hon. Gentleman will be as excited as I am about the promise of change being delivered: five interest rate cuts; mortgage rates coming down; wages growing faster than the cost of living; NHS waiting lists down not by 2 million, 3 million or 4 million, but by 5 million appointments; a better start in life for young people across the country—

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

In our public services, almost everywhere we look, outdated digital and data systems trap us in the past. We are laser focused on reforming the state. Central to that is a free, universal digital ID that will bring the state to all citizens and improve access to public services. A national digital identity system is a public good that is long overdue and this Government will deliver it.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has just come to the Dispatch Box and said that we have done a new trade deal with the European Union, which I think is news to both the Prime Minister and Brussels. The only thing this Government have done so far in terms of EU relations is to sell out our fishing industry for the next 12 years. With that in mind, will the Minister actually stand up for British interests in future negotiations with Brussels?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I stand up for British interests in every negotiation with Brussels. I will tell the hon. Gentleman what is not standing up for British interests. We negotiated, within 10 months of coming into government, the new common understanding that will be good for jobs, bear down on bills and give us the tools to secure our borders. The leader of the Conservative party opposed it before even reading it.