EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

Chris Ward Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)]

I thank the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for securing the debate, and other Members for the many contributions today from all sides of the House and all parts of the UK—if not quite representing both sides of the debate in proportion to the referendum result.

I want to cover some of the questions raised regarding the Government’s approach, and reflect on the importance of the vote 10 years on. Whichever side we were on, the Brexit result was the most significant and defining political moment of a generation, not just in terms of our relationship with the EU but in reshaping our place in the world and challenging long-held assumptions about our economic and trading relationships, our security relationships and our diplomatic power and reach, as well as the very ties and bonds that hold together this great United Kingdom of ours—particularly in respect of Northern Ireland, where the referendum result has undoubtedly raised huge challenges, which were powerfully brought up earlier.

Of course, the referendum result also defined the political choices of the last decade, leading not just to the rise and fall of many Prime Ministers but to gridlock in Parliament and, in my view, to an overlooked consequence: the big domestic reforms that the country was crying out for—on special educational needs and disabilities, social care, planning and tackling inequality—were ignored because Parliament and successive Governments proved themselves incapable of doing Brexit and, frankly, anything else. [Interruption.] That—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Chris Ward]

I am afraid I will not give way. That is the silent tragedy of the Brexit decade. It is a mistake we will not repeat.

I have a quick confession: at the time of the referendum I was a youngish political adviser to the relatively new Member of Parliament for Holborn and St Pancras. I remember sitting in his garden the day after the referendum, discussing what on earth we would do next. Suffice to say, he was not best pleased with the result, but he understood its significance and, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) referred to earlier, the importance of respecting that result and finding a way through.

After a short period of introspection, the now Prime Minister sketched out a vision of what he thought Britain should do. In time, this became known as “making Brexit work”. It meant being outside the EU, but being close to it. It meant leaving in an orderly way, while minimising the economic, cultural and diplomatic dislocation that we all knew would follow. It meant co operating where we can, protecting British businesses, supply chains and employment standards and, as he mentioned many times in the House during the subsequent debates, ensuring no hard border in Northern Ireland.

Nearly a decade on, this Labour Government were elected with a mandate to do precisely that. Last year, the Prime Minister hosted the first UK EU summit, where we agreed the first stage: the common understanding and a new framework for UK EU relations.

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Ward]

I am afraid I will not; I am so sorry.

That first stage includes a new security and defence partnership because, as the Prime Minister said in Munich, there is no British security without Europe and no European security without Britain. As mentioned, it also includes an SPS agreement which will—my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) made this point powerfully—make a huge difference to farmers and food producers. We are also in the process of negotiating access to the EU’s internal electricity market, which will cut bills for businesses and consumers.

We are negotiating the youth experience scheme, which a number of Members mentioned and which I strongly support and called for. I am also delighted that we have negotiated—quite quickly, I think—to rejoin the Erasmus+ scheme, which will benefit more than 100,000 young people. We will legislate for that shortly. We aim for the agreements to be in play by the first half of 2027. The progress we have made in the last 18 months is the basis of the closer relationship that the Prime Minister had in his mind’s eye when we discussed this back in his garden some 10 years ago.

To be clear—I say this proudly and confidently—this is just the start of a new relationship with the EU under this Government. We are no longer, as the Prime Minister said in Munich, the Britain of the Brexit years. We want a closer relationship with the EU and we want deeper integration. We were elected with a mandate to do precisely that and we will deliver it. In line with our manifesto, that will be outside the single market and the customs union and without freedom of movement.

We will not try to relitigate the referendum result, but we will repair the unnecessary national self harm of the deals negotiated in the last decade, and we will align with the single market where it is in our national interest and our sovereign right to do so. We will deliver a partnership with the EU, based on common economic and cultural interests and in the national interest, and turn the page on the last decade of failure.

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address Motion

Chris Ward Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister to make a statement on the Government’s response to the Humble Address agreed by this House on 4 February 2026, including on progress made, timescales for compliance and the Government’s approach to any material it proposes to withhold or delay.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)]

Last week, the House made a Humble Address to His Majesty for the Government to disclose material surrounding the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America. On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister updated the House on further action that the Government are taking.

My right hon. Friend confirmed that the Government will bring forward legislation to ensure that peerages can be removed from disgraced peers, and that Peter Mandelson will be removed from the list of Privy Counsellors. He also explained how we have changed the process for relevant direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles. He also set out other areas where we recognise the need to go further, including tightening transparency and lobbying.

In that statement, my right hon. Friend also set out how the Government are responding to the Humble Address motion, and I am pleased to provide a further update to the House today. The Government will comply fully and publish documents as soon as possible. As I said in the House last week, we welcome both the principle and content of that motion, and we will deliver on it as soon as we can. As such, Departments have been instructed to retain any material that may be relevant, and work is under way to identify documents that fall within the scope of the motion. We will do so as soon as possible when the House returns from recess.

In line with the motion passed by this House, where the Government consider that documents may be prejudicial to UK national security or international relations, the Cabinet Office will refer that material to the independent Intelligence and Security Committee. The Prime Minister has written to the ISC, and senior officials have met the Committee to discuss what it requires in order to fulfil that role. As I said in the House last week, full resources will be made available to ensure that process happens, and we will work with the Committee to explain the Cabinet Office’s process for providing material relating to national security or international relations. The Government are very grateful to the ISC for its work, and we commit to full engagement with it to ensure timely and effective release.

The House will also be aware of the statement from the Metropolitan police regarding the ongoing police investigation. That statement made clear that the

“process to decide which documents should ultimately be published remains a matter for…parliament.”

That is absolutely right, and we agree, but as the House would expect, the Government rightly do not wish to release anything that may undermine an ongoing police investigation. As such, we are working with the police as they conduct their inquiries to manage this process. I think that is the right way forward, Mr Speaker, and I hope you and the House agree.

In conclusion, the Government continue to take this matter incredibly seriously, and given the nature of the issues at stake and the scope of material in play, we will comply fully and deliver this material as quickly and transparently as possible. The Government will keep the House updated as they do so, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will publish a written ministerial statement later today.

[Mr Speaker]

Now that you have brought me into it, I will just say that the Intelligence and Security Committee is private and independent, and therefore I would not like to see that it was blocked from information. It would not affect any police investigation, because that information would not go into the public arena. I just want the House to be aware of that.

I also thank the Minister for coming to the House. To me, on something as important as this a written ministerial statement is not good enough; I think it should have been brought to the House. All sides are interested in it, and it is right that this House should be informed, so I really am pleased. I am sorry that the Minister has got the short straw, but I thank him for being here.

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, without which hon. Members would not have had a chance to question Ministers before recess. Obviously, the House will rise for recess having received very little in the way of information, so it is very important that we hear from the Minister today so that we can try to have some confidence in the process. Simply put, the purpose of our question today is to try to elicit from the Government a commitment to give the House a timetable, and to confirm—as I think the Minister may have done—that they intend to comply fully with the language in the Humble Address. I say that because press briefings from Government sources this week have suggested that the Government might try to reinterpret the address in some way. For the avoidance of doubt, were that to happen, the Government would have to return to this House for another vote.

Last week, the Prime Minister told us that the process would have integrity because it was being led by the Cabinet Secretary, and that any criticism or denigration of the Cabinet Secretary would not be right. This week, the political forces in No. 10 have been briefing that Sir Chris Wormald is to be replaced—what a turnaround! Will the Minister reassure the House that any change in the Cabinet Secretary will not delay disclosure or publication of the documents that the House has required?

I have several further questions that I will put quickly to the Minister. First, have the Government completed their scoping exercise, and if not, by when do they intend to do so?

Secondly, where the Government propose to release material to the Intelligence and Security Committee rather than directly to the House, will they provide public updates to the House that this has been done?

Thirdly, in respect of documents withheld at the request of the Metropolitan police, will the Government tell us the precise legal mechanism being relied on, and will they commit to publish those documents in full when the police no longer request them to be withheld?

Fourthly, will Ministers publish a Keeling schedule-style register of withheld or delayed documents, setting out the category, the reason for non-disclosure and the expected release date for each? There are strong precedents for this.

Fifthly, at the Dispatch Box last week, the Minister told me he would write to me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) about the Palantir contract. He has not yet done so. Please will he confirm that he will this week?

Lastly, and separately, will the Minister commit to publishing all documentation relating to the nomination of Matthew Doyle as a peer? That is now a matter of acute public interest. [Interruption.] I will sit down, Mr Speaker. The Minister will appreciate that confidence in this Government’s integrity is very low. I hope he will comply in full.

[Chris Ward]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. Let me try to rattle through those questions. First, and most importantly, we will comply fully. I made that clear in the House. The Government accept the principle and the content of the motion, and we will comply fully with it. A large amount of material—this touches on the scoping question—is potentially in play here, and it goes much broader than other Humble Addresses. That is not a criticism; it is just a factual observation about how long it will take to get through the material. The scoping has begun, and the Cabinet Office is working through that. I will update the House as soon as I can with more. We hope to publish the first tranche when the House comes back from recess. As I say, the scoping is being worked through. The conversations with the Metropolitan police have, as Mr Speaker pointed out, the primacy of this place at heart, but we also, as the House would expect, do not want to prejudice an ongoing police investigation. We are just working our way through that.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Cabinet Secretary. Obviously, it would not be appropriate for a Cabinet Office Minister to talk about the Cabinet Secretary—

[Alex Burghart]

Special advisers in your Department are.

[Chris Ward]

Thankfully, I am no longer an adviser. I am a Cabinet Office Minister, and it would not be appropriate for a Cabinet Office Minister to talk about the Cabinet Secretary. Let me reassure the House that the Cabinet Office is working hard and diligently on this. That process is ongoing. Any speculation around the Cabinet Secretary does not affect the process.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Palantir, and I committed to write to him. I have spoken to officials about that, and I promise we will get that to him. There was an urgent question on this matter, which I think the Ministry of Defence responded to, and which provided an update, but I promise I will come back to him on that.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman touched on Lord Doyle. That is outside the scope of this Humble Address and outside the scope of the papers, so the urgent question does not touch on that.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

Parliament is rightly focusing its attention on Peter Mandelson, but along with accusations of other heinous crimes, Andrew Mountbatten- Windsor passed extremely sensitive material on to Epstein and his accomplices during his time as trade envoy to Singapore, Vietnam, China and Hong Kong in 2010. Is it not time that, as well as Peter Mandelson, we call on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to answer to both the police and to Parliament?

[Chris Ward]

Everyone in this House has been sickened and dismayed by the revelations from all the Epstein papers that have come through and in relation to what my hon. Friend just said. That is outside the scope of this Humble Address, and it is a matter for the Palace to respond to.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The events of recent weeks have substantially diminished people’s faith in politics, when it was already at an all- time low. It has confirmed the worst of people’s suspicions about how everything works and punctured the optimism of those who believed in better. At the centre of all this are the victims, and their bravery is twofold: first, by retelling their trauma, and secondly, by taking on the world’s most powerful men and all those who aided and legitimised them.

The Humble Address passed by this place stands as a test of transparency and a test of parliamentary authority. People demand answers, and they deserve them swiftly. They will not stand for endless consultation, reviews and deliberation. Can the Government therefore confirm when they will bring forward legislation so that Peter Mandelson’s peerage can be revoked? What is their deadline for releasing the necessary files? Who in the Government will be held responsible if that deadline is not met?

[Chris Ward]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that victims should remain at the heart of this. In answer to his question on the legislation to strip Lord Mandelson of his peerage and on broader reform of the House of Lords process for removal, that will come forward as soon as possible. It will be in Government time, as I committed to last week, and we will bring that forward after the recess. It is obviously a Cabinet Office matter, so the Cabinet Office is accountable, but obviously the Prime Minister is accountable for this as well. As I say, we will comply fully with the motion, and we will publish material as soon as we can.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

Just over a week or so ago, I expressed my horror at what had passed and was shocked that we could not remove a peerage from someone who had brought the other place into disrepute, so I am very pleased to see how swiftly the Government moved on bringing in legislation to do so. Does the Minister agree that full compliance with regard to providing transparency of records as soon as possible is vital to ensure that we rebuild trust in politics and politicians?

[Chris Ward]

Yes, I absolutely do. As I say, we will comply fully and as quickly as possible. I completely accept my hon. Friend’s point about the removal process for the other place, and it is inexplicable that that is still the case. The sooner we can update that, the better.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does the Minister share my concern about the revelations relating to the connection between Mandelson and the Chinese motor manufacturer BYD, which now says that the United Kingdom is the largest destination for its electric vehicles? Is he preventing the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero from disclosing the conversations that he had when he visited China last year and signed agreements that remain secret as far as this House is concerned?

[Chris Ward]

There is no part of the revelations about Lord Mandelson that I am not dismayed and appalled at. On the hon. Gentleman’s broader point, I am afraid I am not across the detail. That is one for the Secretary of State’s team to reply to.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

There continues to be significant public interest in the Government’s £240 million contract with Palantir Technologies. Could the Minister confirm whether any Government Ministers were present at the Palantir celebration party yesterday? If so, who? Can he commit to ensuring that all materials and records relating to this contract award decision are published?

[Chris Ward]

The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend’s question is that I have no idea. On the second part of her question, and as I have promised the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) twice, we will give a full written reply about the Palantir contract, which concerns the Cabinet Office, as soon as possible.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Public confidence in this process is absolutely vital. Although the Intelligence and Security Committee is fiercely independent, is it not a matter of fact that it is dominated by Labour peers and Labour MPs, and that the Chair is appointed by a Labour Prime Minister? On a point of detail on the Cabinet Office involvement, how will this inquiry avoid a conflict of interests between the Cabinet Office employees who staff the ISC and the Cabinet Office itself? On the legal advice from the Cabinet Office, would that not conflict with the Cabinet’s legal advisers to the ISC? Is it not the case that the Intelligence and Security Committee should have its own budget to recruit its own independent legal advisers, separate from the Cabinet Office?

[Chris Ward]

As I said in the House last week in response to a question from the former Attorney General, full resourcing will be given to the ISC to do that. I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about how we work that through between the two teams. That is being worked out with the ISC and the Cabinet Office at the moment, and I am confident that it can be resolved. He pointed to the political composition of the ISC. I think it is fair to say that no Members of this House would want to imply that the ISC is not impartial, responsible and entirely qualified to do this. It was important that the ISC was included in last week’s motion, and it is important to have that on the record.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the Prime Minister has recognised that he must do more to strengthen standards in public life, including by enhancing vetting for political appointments and providing a broader review of the lobbying system. Would the Minister care to explain a bit more about how the Government are planning to address the lobbying of MPs and public officials?

[Chris Ward]

The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister set that out to the House on Monday, and we will come forward with further detail soon. This is an important part of restoring trust, and it cannot just be about reacting to the specifics of the Mandelson revelations. There needs to be much broader consideration of lobbying and the transparency of our politics. This should not be a political point, because it is about all Governments and all parties at different times, but our politics is at a low point of public trust at the moment, and we need to rebuild it.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Whose fault is that?

[Chris Ward]

To be honest, if I was the hon. Member, I would not be shouting that—not after the last 14 years.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Obese-Jecty, I do not need to hear these side comments, which are now coming from you more often. You are now a Front Bencher, and more restraint is required. I expect so much better of you as an ex-military officer and a gallant Member.

[Chris Ward]

To conclude my answer, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister set out the specifics on Monday. We will come forward with further details, and we will tighten transparency regulations as well.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

First, I should say that, although I enormously respect the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), I disagree with him about the independence of the Intelligence and Security Committee. It is very much a Committee of Parliament, and it is independent as such.

The ISC is awaiting receipt of papers from the Government, and it has requested that those relating to the vetting and appointment of Lord Mandelson are prioritised for release to it. Can the Minister confirm that they will be prioritised, and can he give an early indication of the number of documents expected to be passed to the Committee, so it can determine its resource requirements for undertaking this task?

[Chris Ward]

As I say, scoping is under way. I cannot give a precise number at the moment, because there may be a large amount of information covering a long period of time. I am afraid that I cannot give a date, but the Cabinet Office is working closely with the ISC to deliver the information as quickly as possible, and to do so in the right order of priorities.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

The Minister mentioned strengthening the process for direct ministerial appointments. Could he say a little more about that and how quickly he believes those strengthened processes will be put in place?

[Chris Ward]

The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister set this out on Monday. We are looking at the enhanced security vetting that comes in when there is a direct appointment. The Prime Minister and his Chief Secretary have set out the plans to reform that, and—I may be corrected if I am wrong—if they have not already come in, they will be coming in very quickly. The reform will come in as soon as possible, so we can tighten this up.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Earlier this week, the Health Secretary released the WhatsApp messages and emails that he had exchanged with Lord Mandelson. Can the Minister update the House on what instruction has been given to Cabinet Ministers to follow—or not follow—the initiative by the Health Secretary?

[Chris Ward]

The Prime Minister has made it very clear that there needs to be a managed process that the Cabinet and Ministers agree with. Such information will be published in the right fashion, and it is important that there is a proper process. We need to agree across the Cabinet and Ministers how that will happen, and that is what is going to happen.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Too often when women in particular raise concerns or sound the alarm about concerning behaviour, their concerns are dismissed or go unheard. Can the Minister set out what further actions this Government will take to ensure that victims and survivors of sexual abuse are heard by those in power?

[Chris Ward]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a broader problem in our politics than the specific issue that Mandelson highlights. The Prime Minister made it clear on Monday and at the Dispatch Box yesterday that this needs to change and that he will drive through that cultural change. I would also point to the very wide-ranging and groundbreaking violence against women and girls strategy that this Government have published. Having worked with the Prime Minister as long as I have, I know he cares passionately about it and is determined to drive it through.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Can the Minister confirm that, in relation to the legislation for the removal of peers, Matthew Doyle will be on the first list to be removed, given that he should not have been appointed in the first place? Can he also confirm the position on disappearing or deleted WhatsApp messages, and whether they can technically be retrieved from the system to be given to the Intelligence and Security Committee?

[Chris Ward]

As I say, the Government are looking at legislation that addresses the broader question of how to remove people from the Lords; it will be broad legislation, rather than just for specific cases. The sooner it comes to the House and we can consider it, the better. The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point in his second question—I am afraid I really do not know the answer. I imagine it is a question that a lot of people are considering; I will come back to him on it.

[Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)]

There have been plenty of times when the standards of behaviour of holders of political office at all levels have fallen below what is acceptable. None of us has the moral high ground on this, as every party has had issues—some dealt with quietly and some in the court reports. While my question is to the Minister, I want us all to reflect on it. How do we work collectively to make this better to ensure that no woman and no victim is left unsupported? How do we collectively make a change?

[Chris Ward]

My hon. Friend makes the point incredibly powerfully. It is one that we have lost somewhat in the discussion about technicalities around the process, but it is the central point that we should be trying to address. As I say, the Prime Minister has committed to driving through change and ensuring that this Government reflect that. We are bringing forward the groundbreaking, long-overdue violence against women and girls strategy, but there needs to be much broader cultural change as well.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The Prime Minister said that the Cabinet Secretary’s integrity should not be questioned and then immediately briefed out that he was going to be sacked, having given him the responsibility of overseeing the handing over of documents that could be detrimental to a Prime Minister so desperate to save his political life that he has already thrown his closest advisers—communications and chief of staff—under a bus. How can we know that there is no link between the very integrity the Prime Minister highlighted and the desire to remove the Cabinet Secretary from a role in which he might be at risk of removing this Prime Minister?

[Chris Ward]

As I said, I am not going to comment on the Cabinet Secretary—it is not appropriate for a Cabinet Office Minister to do so. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the process is under way in the Cabinet Office and that it is unaffected by other matters.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question; I also thank the Minister for his responses, because this is an important issue that people in my constituency and across the country are obviously very interested in. Can he assure my constituents that this process will be fully transparent? I also wish to add my support to the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who spoke about the importance of people in power listening to the victims of these terrible crimes.

[Chris Ward]

Yes, absolutely; as I say, we will be fully transparent and comply fully with the motion, and we will do so as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend’s second point is the central point to which we need to return throughout this debate and going forward.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his assurances today that these reports and publications will come forward as soon as possible. As I am sure he can pick up from the tenor of the House, many of us are concerned about public confidence in this place—in us—being undermined. Every day that we do not have the reports, there is more speculation and more doubt is heaped on all of us and on the Government. The Government need to be stronger. Will the Minister commit to keeping us up to date regularly and to giving us a date, as soon as he can, for when the public can expect to see these papers published?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ward]

Yes, I agree. As I have said, we expect to be able to start publishing this material as soon as possible after the recess. We will do that as quickly as we can. The hon. Lady’s broader point about public confidence is essential. It is why I tried to emphasise in the debate last week—as heated as it occasionally got—that we want to comply, and to get to the bottom of this. There is no one on the Government Benches who does not want to get to the bottom of the lies that Mandelson told and the problems that led to. It is about broader public confidence and trust. We need to demonstrate that this House is not reflected by the acts of Mandelson et al., and that this House is instead about doing public good and public service. The publication of the material is an important part of getting to that.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

The motion passed by the House requires the Government to provide details of any payments made to Lord Mandelson. There are no national security or international relations issue in doing so. Will the Minister tell the House now how much money Mandelson got and what the Government are doing to get it back?

[Chris Ward]

I think the hon. Member is referring to severance pay. I think the Foreign Office is providing an update on that. I am afraid it is not a question that I can provide an answer to.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

In September last year, we had an emergency debate at the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) on the sacking of Peter Mandelson. I said at the time that the Government should be turning Lord Mandelson inside out, because someone had politically fatal compromising material on him during his whole time as ambassador. The Government simply said, “Well he’s been sacked.” Do the Government regret not carrying out that due diligence in September last year and instead waiting for more compromising information to drop?

[Chris Ward]

I think it is safe to say that there are a number of things that we regret around this issue. As I have said, the key point is that we will comply with the Humble Address fully, transparently and as quickly as possible.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

Public confidence is so important, and the ministerial code requires that Ministers, including the Prime Minister, uphold the highest possible standards of propriety. Given that the evidence clearly shows what the Prime Minister knew, the appointment of Mandelson did not meet those standards. Can the Minister confirm whether the Prime Minister will refer himself to the independent adviser on ministerial standards?

[Chris Ward]

The Prime Minister has strengthened the powers of the independent adviser—and rightly so. The independent adviser now has a more central role in compliance with standards. But I am afraid that the question does not quite relate to what is in the Humble Address.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

As a former journalist, I know that the fourth estate do not always get things right, but they are not in the habit of making things up. What, then, are we to make of reports from Dan Hodges in the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday that the Prime Minister is making a last-ditch attempt to limit the amount of documentation that is released under our Humble Address? There is no smoke without fire, Mr Speaker.

[Chris Ward]

I really wouldn’t believe everything you read in the press. Let me be very clear from the Dispatch Box: the Government are complying fully and transparently, and are working very hard to so do. Any reports to the contrary are just not right.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

The issues surrounding Lord Mandelson and Lord Doyle and their proximity to paedophiles are now intertwined. On 2 January 2026, I tabled a written question, asking the Cabinet Office to publish the findings of the internal investigation that took place prior to the granting of the peerage for Lord Doyle. That investigation was carried out by former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, but also by his deputy Jill Cuthbertson, who is now interim chief of staff. An investigation is currently under way, but there has already been an investigation. Given that this issue has already been investigated, will the Government commit to publishing the findings of that investigation?

[Chris Ward]

The Prime Minister gave his answer on that yesterday, and No. 10 has provided further information on it, but that question does not relate to the Humble Address.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

The Minister is well regarded on both sides of the House, so I am hoping that he will give us a clear and honest answer to this question—I am sure he will do. In his long years working for the Prime Minister—as adviser, staffer and latterly as a Minister—did he voice any concerns in private post the vetting process on the appointment of Lord Mandelson?

[Chris Ward]

I was not involved in that matter at all, so the answer simply is no.

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

Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) about the WhatsApps, the Minister seemed to suggest that it was not an orderly process. First, is there to be any reprimand for the Health Secretary? Secondly, will the WhatsApps between all Ministers and Peter Mandelson be released, because the Humble Address referred specifically to electronic communications?

[Chris Ward]

I would never want to imply that it was not an orderly process, so let me correct myself there. The point that I was making is that the Prime Minister, the Cabinet Secretary and the Cabinet Office—all of the above—have made it clear that Ministers need to abide by the process that we are carrying out. That will be done collectively. The scope is set out by the Humble Address, and the breadth is being identified—

[Dr Evans]

And the WhatsApps?

[Chris Ward]

Electronic communications are covered within the Humble Address, so that will be looked at by the Cabinet Office, in terms of the breadth and scope.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

The Minister said that he and the Government want to comply fully, transparently and as quickly as possible with the Humble Address. I think we can all agree that is exactly what they should be doing, but when things will be released is a vital question. The documents should be released as quickly as possible, as he says, but so far we have had no information except that it will happen when the time is right, effectively. Is that because the Minister does not know, or because he does not want to say? If he does not know, can he give us an example or an expectation of the timescale? If he does not want to say, can he tell us why not?

[Chris Ward]

It will be as soon as possible after the recess.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers to incredibly difficult questions. Procedure is very important in this place—indeed, it is why democracy still reigns. You, Mr Speaker, have epitomised the right way to do it; I think the House recognises the standards that you set for us and everyone in this House. The general public have a huge interest in the issue and have been led to expect that detail is forthcoming, so will the Minister ensure that the Government hold themselves to the highest standards and provide the detail to enable everyone, in and outside this House, to move forward while learning lessons and striving for true accountability at all levels?

[Chris Ward]

Yes, absolutely; that should be the guiding principle as we go through. The test at the end should be not only whether we have complied with the motion, which obviously we will, but whether it has helped to restore transparency and trust for the public.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr Speaker; I apologise for having missed the Minister’s opening remarks, but I did hear him endorse the integrity of the ISC. I entirely agree. It is important that I say from the Conservative Benches, just as my Committee colleague the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) said from the Liberal Democrat Benches, that we have full confidence in the integrity of the Labour members of the ISC to do the job that the House has commissioned us to do.

May I put to the Minister a point about the problems that the Government now have? It seems to me that the potential problems for them in complying with the Humble Address are: first, the volume of material that it may cover and, secondly, what the Metropolitan police wish us to hold for the purposes of their investigation. On the first point, does he agree that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) put it to him—if the Government seek to moderate the terms of the Humble Address in any way to take account of the volume, they must come back to the House for its consent? On the material that may concern the Metropolitan police, does he agree that as it will not be made public if it is submitted to the ISC, there is no reason to slow down the referral of documents to my Committee simply because of concerns the police may have that if material is made public it may prejudice a future trial?

[Chris Ward]

I completely endorse the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes about the independence and integrity of the ISC. He identifies two very fair points. I say that not as a reason not to comply; it is just the reality of the complexity of what we are dealing with. The volume is larger than in other Humble Addresses—that is not a complaint, but a statement of fact. However, there is no attempt to narrow the scope and no attempt to narrow the motion. The process that the Cabinet Office is going through is to define the scope and harness what falls within it.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about the Metropolitan police is well made. The Met and the Government both recognise that, ultimately, Parliament retains the right to publish material, but obviously a responsible Government will wish to act in a way that does not prejudice an ongoing live case, which we would all like to see reach a conclusion. We are working through these matters; they are complicated, but he raises them in exactly the right fashion.

Royal Assent

[Mr Speaker]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the King has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Licensing Hours Extensions Act 2026

Secure 16 to 19 Academies Act 2026

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Act 2026.

Lord Mandelson

Chris Ward Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)]

I beg to move a manuscript amendment, to add to the end of amendment (a):

“which shall instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.”

I start by thanking everyone who has contributed to the debate—the tone was overwhelmingly constructive, serious, and aimed at getting to the truth. I want to thank a few Members in particular, beginning with the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who got the tone exactly right, asked a number of serious questions that I will come to, and reminded us of the importance of the matter at hand. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop); while he disagrees with me, he did so agreeably, and put his case very well and with passion. I also thank the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith), who reminded us of the origins of the Humble Address—when I was a political adviser on the Brexit team in opposition, they looked a bit more clever than they do today. I thank him for his speech and the spirit in which he made it. In particular, I highlight the incredibly powerful and commanding speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), who rightly brought the voice of victims to this House. She did so brilliantly, and I thank her for that.

It is clear that Members in all parts of the House share the public’s anger at Mandelson’s treachery, lies and deceit. As the Prime Minister said earlier:

“Mandelson betrayed our country, our Parliament and my party.”

He betrayed our Government.

[Dr Mullan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Ward]

I will just make a little progress, then I will give way.

Mandelson lied to the Prime Minister. He lied during the vetting process, which I will return to, because a number of Members raised it, and I suspect he is still lying now. That is why, since new information came to light over the weekend, the Prime Minister has acted in a number of ways.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Chris Ward]

I will give way, just let me complete this point.

On Monday, the Prime Minister instructed the Cabinet Secretary to investigate all papers released by the US Department of Justice. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister also made a statement to this House. On Tuesday, the Cabinet Secretary decided to refer certain material to the police with the Prime Minister’s support, and subsequently the police have launched a full investigation, with which we will co-operate fully. That investigation must go everywhere the evidence takes it.

[Dr Mullan]

It is pretty underhand of the Minister to make himself the champion of public anger about the person Mandelson was, because I can tell the Minister that the House is angry—both sides of it—not just with Mandelson, but with the Prime Minister for appointing him in the first place.

[Chris Ward]

As the Prime Minister has said many times, if he had known what he knows now, he would not have had Mandelson within a million miles of Government, and that is absolutely right.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I will try to make the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), but in a less emotional way. Today, the Prime Minister was asked directly,

“did the official security vetting that he received mention Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein?”

He replied, “Yes, it did.” The Minister says that Mandelson lied to the Prime Minister, but the point is that the Prime Minister knew that the relationship was ongoing. Even if Mandelson lied about some other aspects of the relationship, can the Minister not see that the fact that there was any ongoing relationship at all with a man who had been imprisoned for paedophilia and prostitution was an impossible position to defend? No subsequent lies or revelations alter the fact that the Prime Minister appointed Mandelson when he knew that he had been in that ongoing relationship.

[Chris Ward]

As the Prime Minister has said, he was lied to repeatedly by Mandelson. I will come to the vetting process in a minute, but the due diligence is within scope of this Humble Address. It will be released. The House will be able to see the process for itself.

Alongside further steps that the Prime Minister has taken in the past week, he has recommended to the King that Mandelson be removed from the Privy Council. He has instructed that legislation be drawn up—this was a point that the hon. Member for North Dorset raised—to strip Mandelson of his title and to make wider reform of the House of Lords process. In answer to the question raised earlier, that legislation is imminent and it will be given Government time. It will be brought to this House as soon as possible. Frankly, I wish it was already here now, but it will come very soon.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Chris Ward]

I will give way first to the right hon. Member.

[Graham Stuart]

Before the appointment of Peter Mandelson as our ambassador, he was appointed as a strategic adviser, a consultant, an advocate and a planner for the 2024 Labour party general election campaign. May I suggest that he was appointed—Government Members know this to be true—because he was treacherous, deceitful, a liar and a master manipulator in the political dark arts? That is why the Prime Minister appointed him. There is no defence, is there?

[Chris Ward]

Just to be clear, he was not appointed to any role in the 2024 election campaign. I remember that campaign very well. Let me clear up two other points that were raised in the debate. As Members made very clear earlier, Mandelson had no role in candidate selection at all. That is done by the national executive committee, and through the rule book. He had absolutely no role in it. [Interruption.] Let me finish this point. He had absolutely no role or say in any reshuffle either. Members keep repeating this, but it is absolutely, fundamentally untrue.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Who is the Minister giving way to? Four Members are standing.

[Chris Ward]

I give way to the hon. Lady.

[Harriet Cross]

Let us suppose that the Minister was appointing a new member of staff and he knew that a candidate had twice lost his job in the past because of misdemeanours. If he also knew that that candidate had continued a relationship with a convicted paedophile, would the Minister give him a job?

[Chris Ward]

The hon. Lady tempts me into hypotheticals that I am not going to get into. [Interruption.]

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Chris Ward]

I am going to make some progress. I will give way later, but a number of questions have been raised about vetting, and I want to respond to them. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), outlined the process; I want to clarify that, but she was entirely right in what she said.

Before Mandelson’s appointment, there were two distinct and separate processes. The first took place in the Cabinet Office, where due diligence was followed in exactly the usual fashion for this type of appointment. The second, the national security vetting, was undertaken by UK Security Vetting. I want to be very clear with the House: none of that was skipped, and nothing was removed from the usual process. As the Paymaster General said earlier, we have strengthened the vetting process further.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

The Prime Minister said clearly today that when he appointed Peter Mandelson to the job as His Majesty’s ambassador, he knew that he had an ongoing relationship with the paedophile Epstein. Can the Minister tell us what sort of relationship he thinks would be acceptable when appointing such a person?

[Chris Ward]

As the Prime Minister made clear, he was lied to repeatedly by Peter Mandelson on this. Information about that is in the vetting report, which will be published for the House.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

The Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and said that he knew. The Minister says that documents such as the vetting report will be released, but all that is irrelevant. We are not interested in what the report says, because the Prime Minister said that he knew. The question for the Minister is this: why did the Prime Minister feel that it was appropriate to appoint Peter Mandelson to be one of the most senior ambassadors in the world? That has nothing to do with vetting; it goes to the heart of the Prime Minister’s judgment.

[Chris Ward]

Before Mandelson was appointed, there were obviously reports linking him with Epstein. That was looked into as part of the vetting process. Mandelson lied to the Prime Minister and hid information. When new information came out, the Prime Minister removed him. This information will come out.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Chris Ward]

I am going to make some progress, and deal with the motion.

[Natalie Fleet]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Ward]

I will give way to my hon. Friend. [Interruption.] She is the first Member behind me to whom I have given way.

[Natalie Fleet]

rose—

[Natalie Fleet]

Does the Minister agree that we are here today because of the brave women who have spoken out and led us here? Does he agree that we have a responsibility—a shared responsibility as a House—to make sure that no stone is unturned, and that as a Government we will make absolutely sure that the victims at the heart of the paedophile Epstein’s crimes get the justice that they deserve, we will continue to call out this behaviour wherever we see it, and we will do everything we can, now that we are in government, to halve violence against women and girls? It is too little too late, but it is needed now more than ever.

[Chris Ward]

I entirely agree. I could not have put it anywhere near as well as that—and, as I said earlier, my hon. Friend made an incredibly powerful speech earlier. She quoted Virginia Giuffre at length, which was an extraordinarily powerful way in which to make the point, and she made it better than anyone, because it is the victims whom we should have in mind.

[Alicia Kearns]

rose—

[Chris Ward]

I will give way once more, and then I will come to the motion.

[Alicia Kearns]

One of my concerns has been that when Mandelson was our ambassador in Washington DC, he was responsible for a very large embassy. There may have been members of the Foreign Office staff there who had survived rape or sexual assault, or there may well have been sexual assaults during his tenure as ambassador. Can the Minister confirm that Foreign Office Ministers have reviewed all human resources decisions that Mandelson made while he was there as ambassador, to make sure that any women who had concerns about treatment, the way that they were spoken to or the things that they reported, received the support that they deserved?

[Chris Ward]

Obviously anyone who made any allegation or report such as that would be treated seriously. I will take that up with Foreign Office Ministers and come back to the hon. Lady, because she raises an incredibly serious point.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Chris Ward]

I will give way one more time to the former Attorney General, and then I will move on.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way; I know he wants to move on to the motion, but just before he does so, I would be grateful for some reassurance from him on a point that was raised by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. The Minister has moved the manuscript amendment. If the House passes this motion with the manuscript amendment, a volume of material will reach the Intelligence and Security Committee. He knows that our administrative resources are limited, and we do not know what volume of material may be coming our way. The House will expect us to do a thorough job and we will seek to do one, but can he reassure me, and the House, that the Committee will have the additional administrative resources, if it needs them, to consider that material properly?

[Chris Ward]

I thank the right and learned Member for his speech earlier and for his point. Absolutely, yes; I completely recognise the point he is making. A lot of documents are covered by this motion—that is not a complaint; it is an observation. The ISC has the authority and respect of this House, and it would need resources to go with this task. If that is agreed, we will ensure that it gets those resources in the usual way.

[Sir Julian Smith]

Could the Minister confirm on the Floor of the House that the Government will also include details of how they managed conflicts of interest between Peter Mandelson’s shareholding in Global Counsel and his activities as ambassador? Specifically, could he look at the background and come back to the House about two contracts, one to Anduril technologies and one to Palantir? Those were direct-award contracts, and at least one of those companies was a client of Global Counsel.

[Chris Ward]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that and, as I mentioned at the beginning, for the way that he went about his speech. That will all be within the scope of the Humble Address. If there are specific further points regarding direct procurements which the Cabinet Office needs to look into, I will write to him and come back to him on them, because that is a fair point.

[Alex Burghart]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous with his time. The Humble Address is obviously about Lord Mandelson’s appointment. However, the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) was about two contracts, at least one of which, by direct award, went to a business that was a client of Global Counsel. The Prime Minister met that company while in Washington and it did not appear on his register of interests. Will the Minister assure the House that the Cabinet Secretary will look into the process that led to that direct award?

[Chris Ward]

As I said, everything in the Humble Address will be dealt with. On that specific point, I will follow up with the Cabinet Secretary and write to the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith).

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Chris Ward]

I will get on to the motion, and then I promise I will give way.

As I said, the Government accept the spirit, purpose and intent of the Opposition’s motion, and we want to provide transparency and drain the swamp of Mandelson’s lies. Our amendment has two important points to it: one on national security and one on foreign relations. I want to cover those quickly, and then I will take interventions.

National security, as the Prime Minister has said from this Dispatch Box—and has said to me more times over the years I have known him than I can remember—is his No. 1 priority, and he will never compromise on that. That is why we wanted it in the motion and why we put the amendment before the House. There is precedent for that in a Humble Address. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) mentioned earlier, our Humble Address regarding Lebedev included the words:

“in a form which may contain redactions, but such redactions shall be solely for the purposes of national security”.

Our intention was to abide with that spirit and to make a clear point about national security. I will come on to how that will be treated by the ISC and the Cabinet Secretary in a second.

On international relations, as the Prime Minister said, these documents, which are significant in number, could well touch on sensitive issues concerning intelligence, trade or relations with other countries. For example, we would not want to release inadvertently information about our red lines in trade agreements, about peace negotiations and our position on things such as Ukraine, the middle east or Sudan, or information about sensitive assessments of our allies and the diplomatic conversations on which our lives depend. The point of the amendment is that we are trying to address that and to make it clear to the House, and we are trying to balance transparency with national security. That is what is most significant.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I mean no disrespect to the Intelligence and Security Committee, but the Minister will have heard the points of order that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and I made earlier. We need to know that there is a timetable for this inquiry, that it will not rule out specifically commercial interests such as Palantir and fail to investigate them, and that it will investigate the whole web of influence that Peter Mandelson had over so much in Government, which has brought about this dreadful position in which we appointed somebody who is a friend of a paedophile to be the ambassador to Washington. Many people watching today’s debate will not be happy that Parliament is merely shoving this issue off to one of its Committees, because they think there should be a wider public interest inquiry into the whole affair.

[Chris Ward]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. The police investigation will go wherever it needs to go. It will cover any criminality or allegations thereof. That is the right way to do it, and nothing will be hidden.

[Dr Chowns]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Ward]

I am going to make some progress, because time is pushing on. I will give way in a second.

Let me come to the manuscript amendment. We will agree with the ISC how it is going to work with us and provide scrutiny, and I welcome the commitment made earlier. As the Paymaster General set out, the process for deciding what falls in scope will be led by the Cabinet Secretary and supported by Cabinet Office lawyers working with the ISC. The Cabinet Secretary will take independent advice on the decision he has taken, and it will take two forms—first, through independent KCs, and secondly, through scrutiny of the approach he is taking, working hand in hand with the ISC. The Cabinet Secretary will write to the ISC to set out that process. He will meet members of the Committee regularly to ensure that they are content with it. In line with the manuscript amendment, papers that are determined to be prejudicial to national security or international relations will be referred to the ISC, which is independent, rigorous and highly respected. The ISC will then decide what to do with the material that it is sent.

[Ms Billington]

Just for further clarity, people are concerned that there will be a decision made by the Government, in the form of the Cabinet Secretary, about what is referred to the ISC. We are keen to know that the bulk of the documents will be in the hands of the ISC, which can make the decision about what needs to be kept private and what should be made public. Can the Minister clarify that the ISC will have control over what needs to be kept private and what can be made public?

[Chris Ward]

The release of information will be done in the way I have just set out. Either it will be done through the Cabinet Secretary working with independent lawyers or, if the material is deemed potentially to conflict with national security or foreign relations, it will be handed to the ISC, which is independent and can make a decision. To the point that my hon. Friend made earlier—this is really crucial—there will not be political involvement from Ministers or No. 10 in this process. The Cabinet Secretary and the ISC will work on it with lawyers.

[Paul Holmes]

I really must push the Minister, because he is giving conflicting messages. At one stage, he said that the direct contract award will be in scope of the ISC, without committing to any timescales. He has now said that the scope of the release of documents is a matter for the Cabinet Secretary, with no political involvement. As a political Minister, he has stood at the Dispatch Box to say that the direct contract award will be in scope. Will it be in scope or not?

[Chris Ward]

Any correspondence involving Peter Mandelson is within scope. As I say, that will be looked at by the Cabinet Secretary, who will make decisions with independent lawyers and working with the ISC.

[Derek Twigg]

Can I give an assurance that we in the ISC are very confident that we can do an effective job on this? It is worth pointing out that we cannot be told what we can and cannot publish. That will be a matter and a decision for us. May I ask for an assurance, following on from what the Minister has just said, that there will be no block whatsoever on the documents that the ISC should be getting?

[Chris Ward]

Yes, I can confirm that. I thank my hon. Friend, who has huge expertise. We will work with the ISC on this.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Chris Ward]

I am not going to give way any more. There are four or five minutes to go. I will make some progress, if that is okay.

As the Prime Minister mentioned today, there will have to be discussions with the Metropolitan police over material. The Metropolitan police has issued a statement today on material that will be released. I confirm to the House that material will not be released today, because of the conversation with the Metropolitan police, but it will be released as quickly as possible, in line with the process set out before the House.

[Dr Chowns]

The Minister has set out the difference between national security matters and issues which may be embarrassing to the Government—let’s face it, practically anything could damage international relations with Donald Trump; who knows what he is going to take offence at—but the process he has just outlined implies that the Cabinet Secretary will scrutinise every bit of information before deciding whether it gets released or whether it gets to the ISC. How long will that take? Will he give us an assurance on the volume of material he anticipates sending to the ISC and the timetable? What will be the deadline for releasing that material, either into the public domain or to the ISC?

[Chris Ward]

As I say, the timeline will be as soon as possible. We want to get on with this. There is a lot of material to go through. We will get to this as quickly as possible. Other Humble Addresses have taken a number of weeks or months. We want to be as quick as possible and we will work with the ISC as soon as we can to get it progressing. I hope the hon. Lady welcomes the spirit with which we take that on.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Chris Ward]

No more, I am afraid. I am so sorry.

I just want to deal with two more points. On a public inquiry, which a number of Members mentioned, as I say, there is an ongoing police inquiry that has the freedom to go where it wants and the co-operation of everyone in Government. We believe that that, along with the process we have set out, is the right way to proceed.

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Will the Minister clarify that the documentation will go to the ISC, and that the ISC, not the Cabinet Secretary, will be the decision maker on risk to national security and international relationships, and on what should be in the public domain?

[Chris Ward]

Let me try one more time. It will either be made public by the Cabinet Secretary, or it will go to the ISC and a decision will be made through the Committee. It will be done with the independence, resources and—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Chris Ward]

No, I am winding up now.

It is absolutely right for the House to have debated this incredibly important issue, and I thank right hon. and hon. Members for the spirit in which they have done so. The lies, venality and treachery of Mandelson shame this House. I, and the Prime Minister and I know hon. Members all around me, have nothing but contempt for the way Mandelson acted and lied to the British people. I am glad that this will now be shown to the British people. I share the anger and disgust of so many Members. We will comply with the amended motion and we will update the House on progress. With that in mind, I commend the manuscript amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Manuscript amendment (i) to amendment (a) made.

Amendment (a), as amended, agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to require the Government to lay before this House all papers relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment as His Majesty’s Ambassador to the United States of America, including but not confined to the Cabinet Office due diligence which was passed to Number 10, the Conflict of Interest Form Lord Mandelson provided to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), material the FCDO and the Cabinet Office provided to UK Security Vetting about Lord Mandelson’s interests in relation to Global Counsel, including his work in relation to Russia and China, and his links to Jeffrey Epstein, papers for, and minutes of, meetings relating to the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson, electronic communications between the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff and Lord Mandelson, and between ministers and Lord Mandelson, in the six months prior to his appointment, minutes of meetings between Lord Mandelson and ministers in the six months prior to his appointment, all information on Lord Mandelson provided to the Prime Minister prior to his assurance to this House on 10 September 2025 that ‘full due process was followed during this appointment’, electronic communications and minutes of all meetings between Lord Mandelson and ministers, Government officials and special advisers during his time as Ambassador, and the details of any payments made to Lord Mandelson on his departure as Ambassador and from the Civil Service except papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations which shall instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Ward Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

2. What steps he is taking to help increase the number of education and training opportunities for young people through the Erasmus+ programme.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)]

I am delighted that the Government have negotiated associate membership of the Erasmus+ programme from 2027. That could open up opportunities for more than 100,000 young people from all backgrounds to learn, train, study or volunteer abroad. It is good news for further education colleges, universities and businesses, and is just one example of how this Government are building a strong new relationship with the EU that is in our national interest.

[Matt Rodda]

I thank the Minister for his answer and warmly welcome the Government’s new commitment to this scheme. It is hugely important to my residents in Reading, for families and young people, for employers and for science and technology. Could the Minister say a little more about how this wonderful scheme will help employers and growth in the Thames valley and help our local Reading University and the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts?

[Chris Ward]

I know that the scheme has been welcomed at many universities, including Reading. I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned on this for a long time. In my constituency, Sussex University was home to the first Erasmus student. When I visited last week, the university was delighted that it will have more students soon. I want to point out, though, that this is not just about universities; it is also about apprenticeships, FE colleges, youth workers and sports professionals. It is a huge opportunity for 100,000 people, so quite why the Conservatives and Reform oppose it is beyond me.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The Minister has mentioned apprenticeships. Does he agree that there should be opportunities through the future town funding that the Government have announced? Coleraine and Londonderry, in my area, should enable young people to take advantage of the opportunities and ensure that local employers offer more training and apprenticeships.

[Chris Ward]

As I have just said, this is about apprenticeships as well as universities. The hon. Gentleman should write to me and the Minister for the Cabinet Office about how we can roll this out. It is a UK-wide programme that will benefit all parts of the United Kingdom. The Minister for the Cabinet Office met the devolved Governments yesterday to discuss that and other matters.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

In his statement last month, the Paymaster General promised us that he had secured a great deal for the first year of the Erasmus programme. It is a technique that will be familiar to mobile phone and satellite TV customers around the country. Can the Minister tell us what the Paymaster General could not tell us in that statement: what will it cost in the second and subsequent years?

[Chris Ward]

It is a one-year agreement, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and we have negotiated a 30% discount. That is a good deal. It will be reviewed after 10 months, as he knows. At its heart, the programme is about opportunities for young people from all backgrounds—youth workers, sports professionals, universities and so on. If the Conservative party really wants to fight the next election promising to take that away and to narrow opportunities, I am afraid that it is making a big mistake —on this, as on so much else.

[Mike Wood]

I think the Minister has given the game away: he has just said that it would be wrong to walk away from that. He will know, as the whole House knows, that any negotiation is successful only if you know, and more importantly your negotiating partners know, that there is an alternative to a negotiated agreement. Can the Minister assure the House that, if the European Union is not able to offer similar terms and similar cost for second and subsequent years, he would be prepared to walk away from the negotiations?

[Chris Ward]

The cheek of the hon. Gentleman to talk about unsuccessful negotiations! The Conservatives had years to negotiate and they left a Brexit deal that narrowed opportunities, harmed our economy, harmed businesses and made it tougher for young people. We are very confident that this is a great deal for the British people. It will be reviewed after 10 months. If the hon. Gentleman wants to put himself in a position of narrowing opportunities for young people, he is making a big mistake.

[Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)]

3. What steps he is taking to improve relations with the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

9. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the Government’s insourcing policies.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)]

The Government are committed to delivering the largest wave of insourcing in a generation. As part of that, we have consulted on plans to introduce a public interest test before any further services are outsourced and we will publish the results soon. Let me be clear: this Government will end the decade-long drive to outsource our public services and we will do so to deliver better value for money for taxpayers and better services.

[Graham Leadbitter]

The Minister repeated the promise that was made nearly 18 months ago when the Labour party came into power. We are not seeing a massive amount of insourcing at the moment. I have constituents in Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey who work on three different military bases as contractors. Many used to be civil servants and they have lost considerable pension benefits as a result of that outsourcing. There are many others in a similar position in Department for Work and Pensions offices, the Cabinet Office itself and other Government offices throughout the country. When can those workers expect to see some fairness in their contractual arrangements?

[Chris Ward]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point about workers in his constituency before. We are making progress. The Employment Rights Act 2025 will make some progress, particularly by reinstating the two-tier code. We have consulted on a public interest test. I will bring forward our conclusions and proposals on that very soon, but as I say, the central point is that this Government will reverse the decade-long drive to outsource and bring more powers and resources in-house to deliver better value for taxpayers.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

When the Government finally bring the in-sourcing process to fruition, they will have a lot more purchasing power over the services they buy and the goods they procure. Can the Minister give the House a categorical assurance that every penny of British taxpayers’ money spent using these new powers will be spent with British companies and British industries, so that we are supporting our own British economy?

[Chris Ward]

That is one of the Government’s goals. Prime Minister Carney said he thought that Canada should be Canada’s best customer. I think that Britain should be Britain’s best customer, and we should work towards that. As I say, we will publish the proposals soon and I hope that we can make progress quickly.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I have been trying to get records from the Cabinet Office of a meeting held between Peter Thiel of Palantir, then Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings on 28 August 2019. I am getting conflicting data back. Is it in the public interest that the management of this information is being outsourced to Palantir?

[Chris Ward]

My understanding is that that has been dealt with by way of a reply to a written question that we have already put in the public domain.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that too many retired civil servants are waiting too long to be paid their pensions and lump sums. Seventy thousand people are still caught up waiting for past discrimination to be addressed under the McCloud remedy, and there are already concerns about Capita’s management very early in its new contract period. Does the Minister share my concern that this is completely unacceptable and that urgent action, as called for by the Public and Commercial Services Union, is required? Can he provide the House with a full statement on Capita’s performance in administering the civil service pension scheme at the earliest opportunity?

[Chris Ward]

I know that this issue is affecting a lot of constituents who are former civil servants. I have had a lot of letters on it; I am sure everyone else has as well. The Minister for the Cabinet Office met PCS about the issue recently. He has also, I believe, met the chief executive of Capita. We are committed to holding Capita to account. We will do so, and if it is okay with my hon. Friend, the Minister for the Cabinet Office will write back to him with a fuller statement.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

10. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to enable local authorities to invest in local businesses.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)]

The Government are putting power, opportunity and resources in the hands of local communities and local businesses. Just last week, the House approved measures to reserve around £1 billion of contracts a year for local businesses in the UK. That will make a big difference to businesses in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend. We are consulting on further steps and will bring them forward soon.

[Tristan Osborne]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Under the last Government, social enterprises were decimated by cuts to their budgets during austerity. We have many good social enterprises in my constituency, such as Medway Community Healthcare, Emmaus and Medway Voluntary Action. What more can be done to support social enterprises after 14 years of austerity?

[Chris Ward]

I agree that social enterprises are the backbone of many communities. I pay tribute to the ones my hon. Friend mentions, and there are some in my constituency as well. I agree that we need to do more to open up procurement and to support social enterprises, as well as SMEs and the voluntary sector more widely. We published a procurement statement last year to help to address that, but we will go further on it soon.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

East Sussex county council has launched a scheme to fine East Sussex Highways when its roadworks overrun and cause disruption to local businesses. A clear case is that of Victoria Place, where businesses such as Gianni’s, Qualisea, Gr/eat Greek Cuisine and many more were disrupted by overrunning works to pedestrianise the street. Does the Minister agree that the fund should be used to help compensate those businesses for the disruption, and can the Cabinet Office support East Sussex county council to do just that?

[Chris Ward]

As half of my constituency is in East Sussex, I am always happy to support East Sussex county council. I think we are slightly off beam with the broad thrust of the topic, but I get the hon. Member’s point about the frustration that constituents, including mine, have with overrunning works. We will follow up with him if there is anything further that the Cabinet Office can do.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)]

11. What recent progress he has made on the delivery of the infected blood compensation scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is a very important question, and I fully support it, but we have to shorten the questions to get others in. The Minister will give a good example in his reply.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)]

My hon. Friend raises a really important issue that affects her constituency. As I said earlier, we need to do more to support great British businesses like Alexander Dennis. In the consultation, we are looking at reforming social value. I think it needs to go further; there should be meaningful social value that really helps local communities.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

T5. While Opposition parties fight over who can promise the biggest cuts to our vital public service, Labour believes in an active state, working alongside British businesses to drive growth. Does my hon. Friend agree that we can do more to ensure that British companies are prioritised in procurement?

[Chris Ward]

I absolutely do. As I have said previously, Britain should become Britain’s biggest customer. We have a procurement budget of £400 billion a year. In my opinion, we do not use that well enough to support British companies, but I am working with the Chancellor and colleagues across the Government to make sure that we do so in future.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Last year, in their UK-EU trade deal, the Government sold out British fishermen, giving away 12 years of access to our fishing waters, and we have seen that the Government have form in using our fishermen as pawns in negotiations. Will a Cabinet Office Minister please confirm that, in any trade negotiation or sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, no part of our fishing industry will be returned to the common fisheries policy?

Draft Local Government (Exclusion of Non-commercial Considerations) (England) Order 2026

Chris Ward Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Local Government (Exclusion of Non-commercial Considerations) (England) Order 2026.

This order has a simple but important purpose: to put power and opportunity, and to keep resources, in the hands of local communities and businesses. It will ensure that local authorities, parish councils and fire, waste and national park authorities in England can reserve contracts that are cumulatively worth around £1 billion a year to suppliers based in the UK or in their local community. It will boost small and medium-sized enterprises and voluntary groups by ensuring that they have a better chance of benefiting from local procurement, and it will cut red tape and simplify contracting regimes. It is also proof that this Government are using every lever at our disposal to ensure that public procurement drives growth and opportunity in every part of the country.

The order disapplies section 17(5)(e) of the Local Government Act 1988 in specific and carefully defined areas, to enable local authorities in England to reserve public procurement competitions for below-threshold contracts to suppliers based in either the UK or their local area. Below-threshold contracts are contracts that are valued below the financial thresholds set out in the Procurement Act 2023: approximately £207,000 for goods and services, and £5.2 million for works. Those may be considered lower-value contracts, but they matter enormously to local businesses and support local jobs. Last year, they accounted for over £1 billion of spend and for almost two thirds of the contracts awarded by sub-central authorities.

Currently, local authorities are prevented from awarding below-threshold procurements on the basis of supplier location, meaning that a local authority—for example, in the great city of Brighton and Hove—is unable to reserve procurements for local companies, even if doing so would boost local jobs, tap into local expertise and still deliver comparable value for taxpayers’ money. This Government believe that that should change, and that central and local government should not be agnostic about where public contracts are awarded, where jobs are created and where resources are concentrated.

It is important to note that the powers in the order are optional. Local authorities can decide whether the powers will benefit their communities and deliver better procurement opportunities, but we believe that they should have the freedom to use them if they wish, and we know from feedback that many are keen to do so. The order also seeks to boost transparency in local procurement. When authorities use these powers, they will have to advertise the opportunity and state clearly in their advertisement which area the competition is reserved to. Suppliers will therefore know up front whether they are eligible, and the public will be able to see how and if local authorities are using the powers.

On geographical scope, the order applies only to England, but the devolved Governments are aware of it, and we have been working with them and keeping them abreast of developments. Whether they wish to implement a similar policy is of course a matter for them, but we are happy to support them on that.

I have two further points to make. First, the order gives flexibility to local authorities to define the local area that will apply to a reserved procurement. It could be reserved to their own specific area—for example, Brighton and Hove council—or extended to include neighbouring counties or neighbouring London boroughs. That additional flexibility reflects feedback from local authorities, building on the consultation that the previous Government carried out. We think it better reflects the reality of how local government operates, and how local authorities can support jobs and services in their areas.

Secondly, the order can only be applied on a geographical basis, and not on political grounds. Section 17 of the Local Government Act, to which the order applies, was enacted to prevent politically motivated boycotts of foreign countries through procurement, and those safeguards are fully maintained. The order simply disapplies section 17(5)(e)—the geographical location provision—in two specific circumstances: for UK-wide reservation or for local area reservation, and only in relation to local thresholds. All other section 17 provisions, regarding political affiliations and so forth, remain in full force. This builds on the work that the previous Government had done in this space.

Before bringing the legislation forward, we listened and worked carefully with local authorities, which have been overwhelmingly supportive; indeed, many have been asking for this power for years. There is also strong support from the Federation of Small Businesses, which has described it as

“exactly the kind of practical reform we called for”.

Statutory guidance has been published to support the implementation, which we have worked on in consultation with the Local Government Association, and the previous Government consulted on similar proposals in 2023. We are standing on the shoulders of the Procurement Act, so I hope there will be a degree of cross-party consensus.

In conclusion, this order reflects the calls of local authorities, small businesses and communities. Building on the work of the 2023 Act, it will provide the tools for local authorities to keep around £1 billion in their local communities, with the prospect of much more to come. It also underlines the Government’s commitment to ensure that procurement is a lever for jobs, growth and opportunity across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ward]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and the spirit in which they were intended. I think that there is good agreement on this issue, and I will discuss each of his four points. First, on boycotts and divestment, as I said, the safeguards are essential and fully maintained by this order. We have worked in close liaison and built on the work that the previous Government did to ensure that is the case. The order disapplies only the geographic location provision in very narrow areas. Broader protections remain in place—there is no change to that.

As the hon. Gentleman says, the Procurement Act prevents contracting authorities from discriminating against suppliers that are entitled to the benefits of international agreements. That of course includes Israel and any World Trade Organisation signatory. Boycotts would be unlawful under that Act and remain completely unlawful. Councils could not do that under the order, as these are very narrow and specific measures. However, the hon. Gentleman’s point is well made, and it is one that I have looked at closely as we have gone through this legislation. I support the point he made.

Secondly, on local government reorganisation, when the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill goes through and reorganisation happens, the geographic areas will need to be updated in this legislation. If it is okay with the hon. Gentleman, I will ask my colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to write to him and follow up on the specific point about how that will go through. It has been taken into account as we progress.

On EU procurement models, for my sins, the hon. Gentleman is going to hear a lot more from me about EU models and how we go about our new relationship with the EU, because I will be taking the relevant Bill through Committee soon. The changes that will be made by that Bill and how we will deliver them are not affected by this order at the moment. He will hear a lot more about how we will change some of that as the proposed EU Bill goes through. I will follow up with him on that.

The hon. Gentleman’s final point was about how we will follow up with local government to ensure that it takes up these powers and uses them. As I say, this is an optional power; there is no compulsion for local government to use it. However, given the level of consultation that has been done under successive Governments, I am optimistic that such use will happen. We are working with the Local Government Association to try to raise awareness and drive through implementation. My Department, along with MHCLG, will also write to local authorities to inform them of the powers and of how they can apply them, and to offer them support to do so. We are offering support without compulsion, but we will continue to monitor the situation and try to drive their use.

I hope that responds to the points raised. This is about giving a power that local authorities have been requesting for a long time. I think that it will make a big difference to businesses across the country. I want to thank everyone who has worked on this under successive Governments, including those from MHCLG, the Cabinet Office and the LGA, for their support. I hope that all hon. Members will join me in supporting it.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Ward Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

1. What his Department’s priorities are in negotiations with the EU on a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)]

As you are aware, Mr Speaker, the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office is at a funeral today and is therefore unable to attend this session, so he has asked me to reply on his behalf.

This Government are determined to deliver a closer relationship with the EU. As part of that, we are negotiating a bold SPS agreement, the potential benefits of which are huge: reducing unnecessary checks at the border, cutting costs for businesses of around £200 per shipment and, in the long run, boosting the UK economy by around £5 billion a year. We have started negotiations and hope to have them concluded by early 2027. This is just one example of this Government filling in the holes left by the Conservatives.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am sure we all understand the reasons for the Paymaster General’s absence today, although I am less clear on his reasons for being absent from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee next Tuesday; he has declined our invitation to attend. A bold deal is indeed something to be wished for, but only if it does not bring with it lots of unintended consequences for the farmers, food producers, chemical companies and others whose work will be impacted by it. If Ministers will not engage with the Committee, will the Minister give me some assurance that there will at least be engagement with those vital industry interests?

[Chris Ward]

I understand that the Minister for the Cabinet Office has offered to meet directly with the right hon. Gentleman, the Chair of the Committee, on this—he will get back to the Committee. We will obviously be engaging on this matter and showing scrutiny across Parliament as much as possible. This is an incredibly important part of the deal. As I say, the benefits of the agreement are potentially very important; it will be of real benefit to farmers and other communities.

[Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

2. What steps he has taken to ensure that trade union recognition is considered when determining the award of public contracts.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)]

The Government’s social value model provides opportunities to reward suppliers that recognise a trade union or other forms of worker representation. We are looking at further reforms to procurement to ensure that the rules do everything possible to boost jobs and skills and reward good work. I am working with trade unions, businesses and other organisations on this matter.

[Lorraine Beavers]

I refer to my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Bidfood, which has public contracts with the Army, prisons and schools across the UK, has torn up a long-standing recognition deal with GMB and Unite, leaving workers open to fire and rehire. Does the Minister agree that public contracts should go only to businesses that recognise and work constructively with trade unions?

[Chris Ward]

I personally think all businesses should recognise and work with trade unions. Our social value model, which we are reforming and will shortly strengthen, allows contracting authorities to consider the economic and social impact and reputation of bidders. Of course, the Employment Rights Bill—the biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in a generation—will end the scandal of fire and rehire.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

On determining awards for public contracts, what steps are being taken to prioritise UK firms in public procurement, especially for the provision of vital equipment, like personal protective equipment, in our NHS?

[Chris Ward]

We are going to bring forward plans, hopefully in the next Session, to reform procurement rules. A big part of that, as the Chancellor has said many times, is to help people to buy British more, and to support local jobs and economies around the country. Despite all their other failings, the previous Government did make some progress on this matter through the Procurement Act 2023, and we will build on that in the next Session.

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

3. What recent progress his Department has made on negotiations with the EU on a youth experience scheme.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)]

Me again—it is not going to be all me, don’t worry!

I am delighted to say that we have held several rounds of negotiations with the EU about a youth experience scheme, which will be balanced, capped, time-limited and subject to a visa requirement, and will deliver huge benefits to young people. I have to say, one tragedy of the deal negotiated by the previous Government is that it reduced and narrowed opportunities for young people. This Government will change that.

[Ben Coleman]

The Chancellor said recently that an “ambitious” youth experience scheme with the EU would be good for growth and good for business. The Centre for European Reform has estimated that such an agreement could add nearly 0.5% to UK GDP over 10 years. Can the Minister reassure my constituents that the Government will maximise all the opportunities on offer for our young people from all backgrounds to work, study, do apprenticeships and volunteer in European Union countries in order to boost our economy and to rebuild cultural links after the damage of the Conservative party’s botched Brexit?

[Chris Ward]

Yes, I can. This agreement will make a real difference to jobs, maximising opportunities for young people and for cultural exchange. That is why we are working so hard on it, and it is why we are also working on an associate relationship with the Erasmus+ scheme. The exact parameters of that relationship are, of course, part of the negotiations, but we will update the House on it shortly.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

In October, more than 200 UK and EU cultural and creative organisations issued a joint statement calling for the UK to rejoin Creative Europe and take part in its proposed successor, AgoraEU, giving lots of young people access to grants and cultural exchanges. What assessment have the Government made of rejoining Creative Europe?

[Chris Ward]

As I said, one of the tragedies of the deal the last Government did was that it excluded opportunities for cultural exchange, particularly for young people. We are going to change that—it is part of the negotiations. I will ask my colleague the Minister for the Cabinet Office to come back to the hon. Lady on her specific point on the cultural bit, but in general, our aim is to get as close as we can to that agreement as quickly as we can.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

4. What recent progress his Department has made on implementing a digital ID scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

T3. The Prime Minister was clear this week that the wild promises of Brexit have hurt our economy, eroded trust in politics and that there is no credible economic future for Britain without a closer relationship with the European Union. I completely agree. Can the Minister set out when he expects a youth experience scheme to be agreed and confirm that we will seek to rejoin Erasmus on terms that ensure that young people from all backgrounds can access opportunities across the European Union?

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)]

As I said in response to an earlier question, we are in the process of negotiating the EU youth experience scheme, which came out of the agreement secured earlier in the year. We are also seeking associate membership in Erasmus. Those are just two examples of how we will try to take on a much closer relationship with the EU that will have benefits for young people, the economy and cultural exchange.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

T7. What steps is the Minister taking to support small and medium-sized businesses in Banbury with public procurement?

[Chris Ward]

Small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of our economy, and we are looking at reforming procurement rules to do everything we can to make sure that the £400 billion a year we spend on this does everything possible to help small businesses. We consulted in the summer, including on late payments and reforming social value, and we are going to bring forward a package of reforms shortly on this.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

T4. May I take the Security Minister back to the subject of the security of undersea cables? He may know that in Shetland we have had two catastrophic breakages this year as a result of fishing boats breaking the cables. It has now become clear that there is no basic sharing of information between the Government and cable companies, and the cable company in that case had to submit a freedom of information request to get VMS—vessel monitoring system—data. Surely we can do better than that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

T9. To support transport operators in North Warwickshire and Bedworth, what discussions has the Minister had with EU counterparts on securing a professional driver exemption from the 90/180-day Schengen travel restrictions for UK drivers of heavy goods vehicles and coaches?

[Chris Ward]

I recognise the importance of this issue to my hon. Friend’s constituents. Amendments to Schengen rules are predominantly a matter for member states, but the Minister for the Cabinet Office has regular discussions with his counterparts in the EU, and I will ensure that he is aware of those concerns.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Last week, the National Security Adviser was due to appear before the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. Did he? If not, why not?

Government Procurement

Chris Ward Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for securing the debate. He raised a number of important and specific points, which I will answer shortly. If he will permit me, I will briefly set out the Government’s approach to procurement, not least because it is the first opportunity that I have had to do so as the Minister responsible for procurement.

I want to emphasise that this Government and I see public procurement as an incredibly important vehicle for social and economic change, and not in the slightest bit boring. Public procurement accounts for one in every three pounds of public spending, totalling some £400 billion a year, so it is a huge opportunity and responsibility to make sure that that budget is spent wisely, and that it does everything possible to boost British jobs and growth, and delivers opportunity and fairness across the country.

[Gareth Snell]

To follow up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) about the great announcement that police forces will be able to buy things locally, when will the Minister extend that to ensure that British police services are buying British cars, that the Government car service is buying British cars, that the Motability scheme is using British cars and that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office fleet is using British cars? All those currently use foreign-made vehicles, which is not using British taxpayers’ money for British jobs.

[Chris Ward]

As my hon. Friend knows, the Budget announced progress on that with the Motability scheme, and the Chancellor has spoken many times about the need to buy British. Hopefully, we can start to roll that out and make much greater progress on it. I am glad he welcomes today’s announcement, which I will come to, but whether we are talking about British steel, British shipbuilding, wind farms or, as we saw in the Budget last week, driving innovation and spurring investment across the UK, we need to do far more to ensure that we buy British.

That is also why, just this week, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) said, we have announced measures to allow local authorities to reserve contracts for suppliers in their area. That will help to keep more than £1 billion of potential spend in local communities, and it will benefit small and local firms considerably. This flows from our decision earlier this year to publish a national procurement policy statement that required contracting authorities to consider wider objectives, such as creating local skills, jobs and opportunities, and to maximise procurement spend with small and medium-sized enterprises.

Over the summer, the Government consulted on a range of proposals to go further, including broadening the definition of national security to economic security, allowing greater support for critical UK industries, such as shipbuilding or steel, and plans to introduce a public interest test to support and help deliver a wave of insourcing. The proposals also included further expanding support and opportunities for SMEs, including tackling the scourge of late payments, and, to go to the thrust of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West, reforming and tightening the definition of social value to see it delivered much more effectively.

We are working through the consultation responses. I have met with a number of businesses, unions and contracting authorities to discuss this further, and we are drawing up plans to bring forward legislation in the next session for a new procurement Bill to deliver these changes.

As the Minister responsible for procurement, I have two central goals. The first is to make the current procurement regime less bureaucratic and burdensome—streamlining the processes wherever possible, reducing unnecessary form-filling and, in particular, making it easier and fairer for SMEs. The second is to ensure that every pound of that £400 billion procurement budget is used to support British jobs, British industries and growth across the country. Within that second goal lies the question of social value, which my hon. Friend raised. I am sympathetic to a number of points he made, and I have discussed particularly with SMEs recently how we can do more in this space.

As my hon. Friend said, the social value model was introduced in 2019 and refreshed in 2025. It is not currently mandatory for all contracting authorities or contracts, and it is applicable only to central Government Departments, executive agencies and non-departmental bodies. As I said, we are consulting on changes that will open up procurement on social value grounds much more widely.

As my hon. Friend will know, the purpose of the social value model in the guidance, which has been in place for only a couple of months, is to ensure that contracting authorities can reward suppliers for more than simply best price, so that they can reflect quality jobs, support people into work and do training opportunities. For example, if we want to build a new road or a new infrastructure project, the contracting authority can consider more than price; it can consider what it does to help the community.

I agree with my hon. Friend that the definition of “community” needs to be improved and clarified. We need to be much clearer about community voice and view on this issue; again, I want to try to bring that forward in the legislation. It is early days to assess the impact of those measures, but I take on board the points that he raises regarding flaws in the process and the need to go further. As I said, that chimes with some of the points that he made.

I am particularly conscious that social value does not become just a tick-box exercise, particularly where large companies can employ more people and consultants and win contracts simply by being able to fill in a form better. That is absolutely not what social value is or should be, and it will absolutely not be what this Government allow to happen when we bring forward legislation in the next Session.

We also need to look at the threshold at which social value requirements apply so that we can ensure that SMEs and community groups have a much more level playing field and we can open up the requirement much more. Again, that will be a part of the consultation process.

My hon. Friend asks about the targeted recruitment and training approach for large contracts, and again he made some very good points. I agree that it needs to be a tool to provide local communities with the skills they need. At the moment, the social value model provides some flexibility for contracting authorities in that regard—for example, things such as skills gaps or local problems in the area—but we can do more. I will consider the points he raises and get back to him, and I thank him for those.

My hon. Friend also asks whether all vacancies for works contracts are on the DWP “Find a job” website, and the answer is yes. As of February 2025, there has been a requirement for all Government suppliers to advertise jobs relating to Government contracts in the local jobcentre. As I am sure he can recognise, the aim is to ensure that local people have every opportunity to access quality jobs, but again I will look at the points he makes about how that is playing out and if we can improve it.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned Northern Ireland and how we can do more to support procurement there. I am talking with the Northern Ireland Executive about how we can work together and try to ensure that new legislation that we bring forward in the next Session can apply in Northern Ireland, should they wish it to do so.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West for securing this important debate. Procurement is one of the most important levers we have in government, and we should have far more debates in this House on it. Procurement matters to Government, to taxpayers, to British business, to workers and to people across the country. The best way that we can support UK businesses further to deliver growth is to go further and faster on reforming public procurement. That is what this Government have already done, and that is what we will continue to do. We will deliver a simpler, less bureaucratic process, better value for taxpayers and more opportunities for local jobs and skills in all parts of the country, and we will bring that forward soon. I thank again my hon. Friend and other Members for contributing to the debate tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Government Transparency and Accountability

Chris Ward Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)]

I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward this debate. I know that she has raised these matters before a number of times in the House—

[Dr Johnson]

Because you are not listening.

[Chris Ward]

I am listening. I am pleased that she has secured this debate. I could see her frustration throughout. I will come to her specific points shortly, but by way of introduction I will set out the Government’s position.

As the hon. Lady said, the Prime Minister made it clear that the Government are committed to restoring trust, accountability and transparency in politics, and to ensuring that those of us who have the enormous privilege of serving in public office are held to the highest standards. As the Prime Minister himself wrote in his foreword to the updated and strengthened ministerial code,

“Restoring trust in politics is the great test of our era. The British people have lost faith in its ability to change their lives for the better.”

It is worth remembering briefly why the Prime Minister felt it necessary to write those words and why trust in politics is at such a critical moment, as the hon. Lady said. Frankly, the events of the last Parliament cast a long shadow over this issue—particularly partygate, which resulted in a Prime Minister being fined for breaching laws that he introduced, and being found to have deliberately misled the House at this Dispatch Box. That is unprecedented, and it has proved deeply corrosive of public trust.

Those events were compounded by the former Prime Minister’s complete disregard for the role of the independent adviser on ministerial standards. Two independent ministerial advisers resigned because they lost faith in his upholding even basic standards. In contrast, I do not accept the hon. Lady’s assertion about how this Government are approaching the matter. This Prime Minister is determined to repair the breach in public trust and to rebuild it, and to ensure that government is once again in the service of working people.

[Dr Johnson]

I understand what the Minister is trying to say with his whataboutery, and his “Somebody else might have done it first,” but the point is that his Government are in government, and they are not delivering on their promises. The ministerial code already requires Ministers to be open and transparent, and to answer the questions, and they are not doing that. A tightened-up ministerial code will not be worth the paper it is written, given that the current one is not being adhered to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ward]

I will come to that, because enforcement of the code is one of the key points that I want to get to, along with how the Prime Minister is trying to address standards, and the problems that we experienced in the last Parliament. That is why he issued the updated, strengthened code, which includes the seven principles of public life—the Nolan principles that the hon. Lady referred to, and which this House debated just a few weeks ago. Those principles are front and centre of the new code, and make it clear that public service is a privilege that comes with responsibility.

Among the Nolan principles, first articulated some 30 years ago and highly relevant to today’s debate, is openness:

“Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner.”

There is also accountability. Holders of public office should be accountable for their decisions, including in this place. Another of the principles is honesty:

“Holders of public office should be truthful.”

I know the Prime Minister well. I know that he cares deeply about those principles. It is why he has spent his life in public service, and he is determined that this Government will uphold them.

The ministerial code includes a strengthened role for the independent adviser on ministerial standards. That role is no longer sidelined; it is now central to assuring accountability. Crucially, the independent adviser can now initiate his own investigations without the Prime Minister’s permission, which is an important step forward. I am also proud that this Government introduced the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, or the Hillsborough law, which will establish a duty of candour across public bodies and help ensure accountability across all authorities.

This Government have delivered on a manifesto commitment to establish an ethics and integrity commission, which will help drive up progress on standards. The ministerial code also includes strengthened principles on the acceptance of gifts and hospitality by Government Ministers, an issue that the hon. Lady has raised in this House previously. The Cabinet Office has also published a revised and strengthened code on public appointments, which will make that process faster and more transparent.

[Dr Johnson]

Does the Minister understand that £130,000 for a part-time job is a damn sight more than most of my constituents—in fact, almost all of my constituents—are getting, and that if the Prime Minister has appointed somebody or signed off on someone’s appointment, having received money from the person he is appointing, the public will want to know how much that person and their businesses may have given him?

[Chris Ward]

I was going to come to that. The hon. Lady has raised that point before, including on Monday.

[Dr Johnson]

Will he answer that point?

[Chris Ward]

I am going to, if she lets me. This is a matter for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport predominantly. The Culture Secretary made a statement to this House on the matter. All donations from Mr Kogan were made in line with the rules, and we are perfectly transparent on that. The Prime Minister asked the independent adviser to look at the matter, and at the Prime Minister’s role in it. Again, I contrast that with the behaviour of the last Government. The adviser was satisfied with the Prime Minister’s response, and said that the disclosures made by the Prime Minister were an important demonstration of the Prime Minister’s

“commitment to transparency and to ensuring that…necessary steps”

were taken to improve the process underlying standards in public life. Again, that is a contrast.

I also point out that the Prime Minister stands at this Dispatch Box every week at Prime Minister’s questions. Hon. Members have had ample opportunity to ask that question, and they have chosen not to do so. There was no moving away from this; the process has been transparent. Everything was published in line with the rules, and there is ample opportunity to question both the Prime Minister and the Culture Secretary about this. I hope that answers the hon. Lady’s point. Returning to other actions—

[Dr Johnson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Ward]

I will make a little progress, if the hon. Lady does not mind.

The Government have taken action to improve openness and transparency, and we recognise the importance of accountability, particularly in this place. Ministers take their obligations seriously and, as I say, the Prime Minister and the independent adviser are committed to upholding both the spirit and letter of the code. That is why, during the Government’s first year in office, there were 190 oral statements across 168 sitting days—more than one per day. That is more than in the whole of the previous parliamentary Session. The Prime Minister has made nine statements to this House, including one earlier this week, and the Foreign Office has made 30 statements. As of this Monday, I am told that there have been 228 oral statements this Session—you will have been there for many of them, Madam Deputy Speaker—and over 1,000 written statements. I merely point that out to show that the Government do come to this House and make statements.

On parliamentary questions and letters, which the hon. Lady spoke about at length, I agree that it is important that Members get timely and helpful responses. Having been a Back-Bench MP asking these questions, I know how frustrating it is not to get timely and helpful responses. Clearly, she has raised some serious points about air ambulances and other issues. If it is okay with her, I will take those up with the relevant Departments and see what I can do to raise those points.

I gently point out that the number of parliamentary questions being submitted is at a record high. This summer, roughly three times as many parliamentary questions as usual were submitted, and one Member who I will not name has submitted over 1,000 questions. I am not saying that that is a reason for Ministers not to reply; they are replying. Civil servants and Ministers work hard, but there is a lot to get through, and we are working hard to on that.

[Dr Johnson]

Take the Department that has received the most questions this parliamentary Session, the Department of Health and Social Care. It has received 15,000 questions since 4 July 2024, which is 29 questions per day. It has five Ministers and a whole army of civil servants to answer those questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ward]

That is true; the Department of Health and Social Care is the Department with the largest number of PQs submitted. It is taking action to improve its PQ performance, but it receives a huge number; PQs are at record numbers. I am just saying that there is not wilful avoidance; a lot of this is about the volume, and trying to get through the questions.

I will try to make some progress. The Government are also engaging in the ongoing parliamentary inquiry, requested by Mr Speaker, on ministerial statements and the ministerial code. The Government are determined to ensure that when we have public inquiries, they lead to meaningful change, accountability and justice. For example, we are carefully considering the latest report from the covid-19 inquiry, and will respond fully in due course. To further drive accountability and implementation, the Government have launched a publicly accessible list on gov.uk of all recommendations made by inquiries, and the progress that the Government are making in response.

As I said, the Government do take transparency and accountability extremely seriously. We are, as with so many other things—from the economy to prisons and the immigration system—having to rebuild faith and trust in our politics from the very low base that we inherited. The hon. Lady made some good points about responses to PQs and letters, on which I will follow up, but the Government are making progress and are committed to going further. I welcome the debate, and the opportunity to discuss this tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Cabinet Office

Chris Ward Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the Adjournment debate on the Nolan principles on 12 November 2025 secured by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan).

[Chris Ward]

… the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have both looked at this recently and published reports on how to improve whistleblowing in the civil service, but neither of them recommended creating an independent body due to the risk of duplication. The Government agree with that, but I do hope that he will work with us—I am sure that he will—during the passage of the Hillsborough law to try to ensure that it delivers the candour, justice, accountability and safety that whistleblowers need.

[Official Report, 12 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 285.]

Written correction submitted by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward):

[Chris Ward]

… the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have both looked at this recently and published reports on how to improve whistleblowing in the civil service, but neither of them recommended creating an independent body. Doing so would risk duplication, but I do hope that he will work with us—I am sure that he will—during the passage of the Hillsborough law to try to ensure that it delivers the candour, justice, accountability and safety that whistleblowers need.

Draft Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Chris Ward Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. The purpose of the statutory instrument is simple: to implement the procurement chapter of the UK-Iraq partnership and co-operation agreement and the UK-Kazakhstan strategic partnership and co-operation agreement. Both agreements are part of the UK’s ongoing continuity trade programme following our exit from the EU.

As the Committee will know, the UK’s trade continuity programme aimed to replicate existing EU trade agreements where possible after the UK left the EU. The goal was to ensure businesses, consumers and investors maintained stability and access to benefits such as preferential tariffs. The UK-Iraq PCA and the UK-Kazakhstan SPCA are two of the last remaining trade agreements to be updated, and the SI implements the procurement chapters of them.

Before I cover the procurement chapter commitments in some detail, I want to provide the House with more background on the two agreements. The UK-Iraq PCA and the UK-Kazakhstan SPCA establish frameworks to govern our trade and economic relationship with Iraq and Kazakhstan. They will strengthen our co-operation across a range of priority areas and signal our commitment to two strategically important partners.

The UK-Iraq PCA was signed during Prime Minister al-Sudani’s visit to the UK in January this year. During that visit, both Prime Ministers announced a trade package worth over £12 billion. That package, when fully delivered, will represent a tenfold increase compared with our current annual trade. The UK has therefore started a new chapter in our relationship with Iraq, and the PCA will deepen our bilateral relationship across a wide range of sectors including, but not limited to: energy, transport, scientific research, education and culture, as well as counter-terrorism and arms controls.

The UK-Kazakhstan SPCA, which was signed in April 2024 by the previous Government, provides a framework for political dialogue and deeper co-operation on trade, security, climate, education and culture. The agreement goes further than existing World Trade Organisation arrangements on the provision of services, creating more favourable conditions on the establishment of cross-border supply. It also exceeds Kazakhstan’s current WTO commitments on global procurement, aligning them to the WTO Government procurement agreement, to which Kazakhstan is currently in the process of acceding.

The treaty is a substantial indication of the UK’s commitment to strategic political and economic co-operation with Kazakhstan, and it confirms our long-standing shared interests. UK businesses have traded with Kazakhstan since its independence in 1991 in areas such as minerals, education and architecture. The agreement will deepen those links. The text of the SPCA also makes important and specific references to bilateral dialogue on human rights, labour relations and gender equality.

It is important to note that the procurement chapters of the agreements broadly replicate the standards and market access commitments of the original EU agreements before our exit from the EU. Some of the language has been tweaked to better reflect the specific bilateral context between the UK and the two countries today. A key distinction between the Iraqi and Kazakh agreements is that the procurement market access commitments in the SPCA can considered broadly equivalent to that of the WTO GPA. However, the market access levels in the Iraq PCA are lower than that as they only include access to central Government entities.

As part of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process to enable parliamentary scrutiny, both agreements were laid in Parliament on 9 July. The agreements cleared the CRaG scrutiny process on 16 October, and this SI was subsequently laid on 21 October. The procurement chapters of the agreements can only take effect once the agreements have implemented in domestic legislation. The SI will achieve that by updating schedule 9 to the Procurement Act 2023 to implement in domestic law the UK’s procurement obligations under both agreements. Through the addition of the agreements to schedule 9, suppliers entitled to benefit from them will be considered “treaty state suppliers” under section 89 of the Procurement Act. That will provide them with access and rights in UK public procurement equal to that afforded to UK suppliers. In turn, the agreements require Iraq and Kazakhstan to provide equivalent access for UK suppliers. The Procurement Act regulations are being amended to ensure that the UK’s obligations under both agreements apply in relation to contracts that can still be entered into under the previous procurement regime.

The territorial extent of this instrument is UK wide. The territorial application of the instrument in relation to contracts under the Procurement Act extends to England and Northern Ireland. The same extends to Scotland, but not in respect of procurement carried out by a devolved Scottish authority. The same extends to Wales, but not in respect of procurement regulated by Welsh Ministers. Therefore, the Welsh Government will make a separate SI to implement the agreements in respect of procurements regulated by Welsh Ministers, and the Scottish Government will implement the agreements separately, under their own legislation, in respect of procurement carried out by a devolved Scottish authority. The territorial application of this instrument in relation to contracts under the previous procurement regime extends to England and Wales and Northern Ireland.

I hope that hon. Members will join me in supporting the statutory instrument, which helps to update and strengthen our relationship with both Iraq and Kazakhstan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ward]

I was rather expecting some further contributions, but there we go—I can see what the time is. I welcome the continuing cross-party support on this matter across the Committee. As the hon. Gentleman said, much of this work—particularly on the Kazakhstan agreement—was started under the previous Government.

The hon. Gentleman raised a couple of points. We do not expect there to be a material policy change. As I said, the regulations replicate much of where we were pre-EU exit. There are some technical tweaks, but, to his point, there is no material change. On additional burdens on business, which he also mentioned, we do not expect there to be a significant impact from the regulations because the underpinning framework is not being substantially amended; these really are technical changes.

On SMEs, as I said, we do not expect huge changes, but once the regulations are agreed to formally by the House, updated guidance will be published to inform SMEs, affected people and suppliers looking to trade into Kazakhstan and Iraq and vice versa. More broadly, the Government have a big programme of work to try to improve support for SMEs in the procurement regime. Some really important progress was made on that in the Procurement Act—there is cross-party agreement here—but we are looking to go much further and ensure that the public procurement budget of almost £400 billion a year does everything it can to support SMEs. We will look to do that going forward, but we do not expect there to be material change from the regulations. I think that covers all the hon. Gentleman’s points.

The implementation of the regulations will be a key step in formalising our relationship with both countries, with mutual benefits on both sides. We are committed to enhancing our relationship with Kazakhstan and with Iraq. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.