UK Common Frameworks Publication

Chris Ward Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Written Statements

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

Following sustained and constructive dialogue with the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive, I am informing the House that three frameworks have been published by the UK Government on behalf of the Scottish and Welsh Governments, and the Northern Ireland Executive:

Blood safety and quality common framework

Organs, tissues and cells common framework

Late payment common framework

This brings the total number of finalised common frameworks to eight. This is in addition to four bilateral common frameworks finalised with the Northern Ireland Executive and published on 26 February by the Department for Transport: rail technical standards; commercial transport and operator licensing; driver licensing; and motor insurance.

These documents have been updated to reflect changes in both policy and legislation since the common frameworks were laid for scrutiny, and accommodate many of the recommendations made, not only by the UK Parliament, but also legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In addition, changes have occurred in key areas such as the Windsor framework replacing the Northern Ireland protocol. The Windsor framework has reduced regulatory divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland for goods remaining in the UK. The standard text was updated in the relevant common frameworks following agreement by the four Governments.

The continued efforts and joint working by the four Governments have enabled the operation of the full programme of common frameworks since they were provisionally published in 2021-22. The final publication of these frameworks is an excellent example of strong communication and collaboration. It demonstrates that together, the four Governments of the United Kingdom can take the right decisions for the benefit of citizens and businesses, protecting the integrity of the UK internal market.

For completeness, it was agreed between the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive that the specified quantities common framework was no longer required as this had little risk of divergence, and the four Governments also agreed that the mutual recognition of professional qualifications framework is not required at this time.

As we look ahead, we are focused on the future transparency of the programme. The UK Government are clear that this should not only allow the four legislatures of the UK insight into the effectiveness of common frameworks, but also ensure that all relevant stakeholders with a specific industry interest can utilise this information.

Finally, the UK Government are firmly committed to the speedy finalisation of the remaining common frameworks. We continue to work with the devolved Governments to complete the remainder of the programme and the Government will update the House on those developments in due course.

[HCWS1421]

Draft Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 (Amendment) Order 2026

Chris Ward Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 (Amendment) Order 2026. 

The draft order flows from the legislation agreed by the House yesterday afternoon, and is a necessary and technical measure to address a historical misapplication of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, which sets ministerial and other office holders’ pay. The office holders within scope are the Leaders of the Opposition in both Houses, the Speakers in both Houses, the Chief Opposition Whips in both Houses and two assistant Opposition Whips in the Commons. The context for the order is that in 1997 a formula was introduced to link pay increases for Ministers and certain office holders to senior civil service pay bands. That formula set out that ministerial salaries should be increased by the average annual change in the mid-point of senior civil service pay bands.

During the financial year ’23-24, the Cabinet Office identified that the formula had been misapplied. Since the introduction of the formula in ’97, the salaries of permanent secretaries have often been excluded from the calculation despite the 1975 Act not permitting such an exclusion. That technical misapplication has happened under successive Administrations over several decades. The formula was originally proposed by the Senior Salaries Review Body, which recommended that permanent secretary pay should not be included in the calculation for ministerial pay. This Government believe that the policy that has been applied since 1997 in line with the SSRB recommendation is the correct approach. This Order in Council is being introduced to ensure that the law aligns with long-standing policy.

The order performs two primary functions. First, it resets the statutory salary levels for all Ministers and specified office holders. Given the historical misapplication, resetting the salaries in law will give legal clarity and a baseline for any future uplift. Secondly, the order amends the formula to exclude permanent secretary pay bands from any future calculations. That change simply formalises the policy approach that has already been applied in practice for several decades on a clear legal footing.

For the initial financial year beginning 1 April, the order sets out transitional measures where the higher of the old or new formula will be applied to ensure that no individual is disadvantaged by the retrospective effect of this order. The order’s impact is therefore minimal: it only affects ministerial office holders and a small number of office holders in Westminster.

For Ministers, this order will result in no change to their take-home pay—a point I emphasise with no little disappointment! The Prime Minister has maintained that the policy of freezing ministerial salaries for all Ministers will continue; it has been in place since 2008. The order therefore does not affect individuals who choose to take their entitled salaries. The Government have been unable to calculate annual pay increases while work on the order was ongoing, so we will provide back payments to current and former office holders dating back to 1 April 2023, which is when the mistake was identified. This legislation is also linked to the salaries of Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of Ways and Means, which increase through the same formula. They will also receive back payments dating from 1 April 2023.

The Government are bringing forward this order to address a historical misapplication of the 1975 Act, which sets ministerial and certain office holders’ pay. It is a necessary, technical and minimal measure to address a misapplication of the law, and it ensures that the law aligns with long-standing policy under successive Governments. I look forward to hearing from other Members of the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ward]

I thank the Opposition for their broad support. I will not be drawn too far on Whips’ salaries, if that is okay, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for the spirit in which that point was raised.

As I said, although it is technical in nature, the order helps to iron out a discrepancy in application, and makes sure that the law has an accurate effect. As I have outlined, it is not about creating new policy or changing ministerial pay. I am afraid that I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question about pension entitlements, but I will get back to him shortly.

As I say, the order addresses a historical discrepancy that was entirely accidental and that it is important now to rectify. With that, I commend it to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill

Chris Ward Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the limited numbers who took part in this debate, taking advantage of the lack of a time limit. This is a simple Bill with just two clauses, and it has a simple purpose: to increase the number of Ministers who can be paid to 120, which is the average number of Ministers since 2010. It is also rooted in the simple principle that holding ministerial office should not be dependent on individual wealth.

The Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General set out, amends the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975. It does so to better reflect the nature of modern government, including the number of Ministers any modern Government tend to require. It allows, but does not require, a maximum of 120 salaried members across both Houses. That number is based on the average number of Ministers since 2010 under successive Governments. Since 2010, an approximate average of 11 Ministers have been unpaid in each Government. I know that is not among the great injustices of our age—hence this is a short Bill—but the Bill addresses a clear inequity that limits those in the other place who are able or willing to take on a ministerial role. This Bill rectifies that, broadening the bench of those able to serve as Ministers. It recognises that private income should never be a requirement to serve as a Government Minister.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

Was any consideration given to reducing the ministerial total, as against increasing it, in preparing this Bill?

[Chris Ward]

The number of Ministers in the current Government is virtually the same as it was in the previous Government. I think actually it is one lower than the previous Government. The intention of this Bill—this speaks to a point raised by a couple of Members—is not at all to increase the number of Ministers or the size of Government; it is simply to rectify the anomaly of unpaid Ministers in the other place. The right hon. Gentleman served in several Governments of this size over the past 10 years, and he asked why this Bill should come forward at this time. One answer to “Why now?” is that the leader of the Conservative party in the House of Lords proposed it in an amendment. It was put forward by the Conservative side. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that that was wrong. That is one of the reasons this has come forward, and it is one of the reasons for addressing the inequality with which we are dealing.

Let me refer to a point that was raised by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). The Bill will allow, but will not require, one additional salary at Secretary of State rank. It is for the Prime Minister to decide whether or not it goes to a Secretary of State; Parliamentary Under-Secretaries can be rewarded as well, as can Ministers of State. The Bill also allows four additional salaries at Minister of State or Secretary of State level, and 11 additional salaries overall. As I have said, those limits are cumulative, which means that the Prime Minister has discretion to make the awards. There is no prior intention; it is about discretion.

Let me turn briefly to what the Bill does not do. As the Paymaster General said, it does not alter the salaries of Ministers, much to the disappointment of the former Deputy Prime Minister. They will remain frozen, as they have been since 2008. The Bill does not necessarily create additional ministerial roles; this is a point that was raised. Indeed, it simply reflects the average number of roles since 2010. It does not alter the maximum number of paid Commons Ministers, which remains at 95—it effectively reserves 25 places for Lords Ministers—and, of course, it does not affect MPs’ pay, which is rightly entirely independent of this House. All that the Bill will do is increase the maximum number of salaried Ministers, so that it is in line with the average number of Ministers over the last few Parliaments. As I have said, the size of the Government remains unchanged, and the Government have no intention of increasing it. The purpose is merely to allow higher numbers to be paid, and to remove that inequity.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) raised the issue of the amount of minimum service for severance pay. The Government have already addressed that by introducing a power requiring a Minister to serve for six months before any severance payment can be made, thus removing some of the absurdities under the last Government, which she rightly pointed to. People were being paid for a day, or in some cases a few hours, in the job. She also raised the matter of second jobs. I remind her that the Labour party has a manifesto commitment to address that, and to ensure that second jobs are permitted only in particular circumstances—for doctors, for instance. The Modernisation Committee is dealing with that issue. I am keen for it to be addressed as quickly as possible, but it will come back to the House.

The hon. Lady mentioned the ethics adviser. Let me emphasise again that at the beginning of this Government, the Prime Minister made changes; there was an increase in the role and the independence of the independent advisers, so that they are truly independent—we have seen that they are, on several occasions—and the ethics adviser can now initiate his own inquiries. That is an important point. The hon. Lady also asked what roles the new salaried Ministers would fulfil. As I have said, that is a matter for the Prime Minister, and we have no intention of changing that.

[Lisa Smart]

The Minister of course will know that the Prime Minister is responsible for the contents of the ministerial code. While the ethics adviser can launch an investigation, the Prime Minister reserves the right to raise concerns about any such investigation, so that the independent adviser does not proceed. Have I understood that correctly?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ward]

As I have said, the Prime Minister polices the ministerial code and has responsibility for it. The independent adviser was given the power to initiate his own investigations of Ministers, which is, I think, an important step forward. It comes, in part, because of some of the problems we saw under the last Government. I think that the role of the independent adviser has been significantly strengthened under the present Government.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I am reminded of that great fictional character Sir Humphrey Appleby, who once observed that a party with 300 members gets to form a Government, but 100 are too young and too callow, and 100 are too old and too silly, so the Government pretty much select themselves. I congratulate the Minister on making it into the middle group.

On the subject of second jobs, being a Minister is essentially a second job, for which the Minister is remunerated. Does he not feel that it is a bit mean-spirited to pull up the drawbridge on other MPs who might desire to have a second job, just as he does?

[Chris Ward]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for flattering me by not putting me in the first or third group. As I say, the Labour party has a manifesto commitment to limit second jobs significantly. It is not about pulling up the drawbridge in all circumstances; there will be exemptions, particularly for people who serve in the NHS and so forth. However, I do think that we should consider the hon. Gentleman’s point. There is a basic expectation from the public that being a Member of this House is an MP’s one and only job, except in exceptional circumstances, but this matter is being dealt with by the Modernisation Committee, and we will look at its findings.

The right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) said that nothing bold or radical is being put forward, but I point out that this Bill comes alongside a number of other reforms that this Government are delivering to modernise our democracy. Last week, following the Herculean efforts of the Paymaster General and others, legislation was finally passed to remove hereditary peers from this legislature—and not a moment too soon.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Ward]

I will not, because I know the right hon. Gentleman is not a great fan of that legislation. In a few months’ time, this Government will also introduce legislation to widen the franchise to people aged 16 and 17, delivering on our manifesto commitment. What better sign of bold and radical constitutional reform than removing hereditaries and broadening the franchise? I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, because I am feeling generous.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

I thank the Minister for his generosity. He is right to say that the Government have moved to remove hereditaries, which is an important step forward, but they have failed to do a number of other things that were in their manifesto, including introducing an age limit and making rules about attendance. Can he give some clarity about when that legislation will come forward, and about whether he can also get rid of the bishops?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ward]

I thought that the right hon. Gentleman might raise the bishops. He is quite right to say that the removal of hereditary peers is a step forward in modernising the other place, but it is not the conclusion of the process. Our manifesto commits to a number of things that will be included in the second phase of Lords reform. A Committee is being set up to advise on how we go forward. I look forward to debating that second phase with him, and issues including a retirement age and other steps for modernising the second Chamber. However, those steps are quite far removed from this Bill.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, this is a simple Bill. It has a very narrow purpose, and it is designed to address a very simple inequity. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill (Money)

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Stephen Morgan.)

Question agreed to.

Draft Procurement (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Chris Ward Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Procurement (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. The Procurement Act 2023, which was introduced under the last Government and passed with cross-party support, is a step forward in making public procurement simpler, more transparent and more trustworthy. It is not the whole journey, of course: we will be setting out further reforms shortly to ensure that our procurement budget goes further and does more to support jobs and growth and to reduce unnecessary burdens on businesses. The Act does deliver progress, however, and reflects a clear expectation from the public that procurement should be open to scrutiny, that spending should stand up to challenge and that public money should always deliver value.

The public rightly want to know what the Government are buying, who we are buying it from and what we are paying. That is the gap that the draft regulations will fill. They will not change how contracts are awarded, but they will complete a key element of the Procurement Act’s transparency framework by making it possible to follow significant payments under public contracts, and on a single central platform. That will strengthen confidence in the system, support better contract management and drive better value for money. It will benefit contracting authorities and suppliers, and the taxpayer too, by tightening fraud prevention and ensuring proper scrutiny of how our money is spent.

This statutory instrument will implement section 70 of the Act by amending the Procurement Regulations 2024 to set out what payment information must be published for payments of more than £30,000 under public contracts, and how it must be published on the central digital platform. It is designed to be proportionate and manageable, requiring quarterly reporting and applying only to contracts procured from 1 April 2026.

The draft regulations also include a small number of connected measures that will make the transparency system work properly across the market. They will ensure that, where a supplier is awarded a notifiable below-threshold contract, which is generally more than £12,000 for central Government and £30,000 for non-central government, they are registered on the central platform. That will close a significant transparency gap, while improving the visibility of small and medium-sized enterprise and voluntary, community and social enterprise participation in public procurement.

The draft regulations will also require contracting authorities to state in below-threshold tender notices when a competition is reserved for SMEs and/or VCSEs. That will make sure that when an opportunity is reserved for SMEs or VCSEs, it is clearly flagged up front so that it is easy to find, bid for and, hopefully, win.

The draft regulations will also make a limited set of practical and technical amendments to keep the regime functioning as intended. That includes flexibility for direct awards in scenarios in which it is urgent to protect life, public order or safety, or where the central platform is unavailable. Additionally, they incorporate minor corrections and consequential amendments; notably, they will facilitate the move away from the old Contracts Finder system. That is intended to remove duplication and ensure that the new Find a Tender service is the single place to publish and find information.

The draft regulations will generally apply to all of the UK, but in Scotland and Wales they would not be applicable if the procurement were carried out by devolved Scottish or Welsh contracting authorities, unless they were using a reserved procurement arrangement. The Government have obtained agreement from the relevant Northern Ireland Department in respect of provisions that apply to procurements regulated by Northern Ireland Ministers. Those are limited to the corrections and technical amendments and do not include the implementation of section 70 or the amendments relating to below-threshold contracts.

In conclusion, the statutory instrument will complete an important part of the Procurement Act’s transparency offer. It will make payment publication meaningful by linking payments to contracts, it will close transparency gaps, and it will keep the system coherent and workable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ward]

I thank the hon. Members for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire and for Hazel Grove for the tone of their contributions. I welcome their cross-party support; as the draft regulations follow the Procurement Act introduced by the last Government, I would have been surprised not to get it, but it is still nice to hear it.

In answer to the question about the central digital platform, it is fully operational. The final phase is to implement the last legislative requirements, which will be rolled out later this year, in time for the requirements coming into force. On the timetable, the technical amendments in the SI will come into force the day after they are made; others will come in on 1 April, and the changes related to Contracts Finder will come in on 1 October.

On the points raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, there are no national security concerns that I am aware of, but I will write to her if anything further comes in on that. I am glad to have her support.

The core of the draft regulations is simple: the public should always be able to follow significant payments under public contracts in a way that is meaningful, joined up and transparent. The regulations will help them to do that by linking payments to contracts and suppliers on one platform.

I thank Cabinet Office officials for all their work on this SI and to implement the Act: a lot of work has gone on. I am grateful to colleagues across Government Departments and the local authorities that we have been closely working with. The hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire mentioned work with contracting authorities; we have worked very closely to get people ready for this measure and to make sure that it works properly. I thank everyone for their work and engagement. I hope that Members will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Chris Ward Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 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 2026.

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The purpose of this statutory instrument is to implement the procurement chapter of the UK-India comprehensive economic and trade agreement via an amendment to the Procurement Act 2023.

The UK-India CETA was signed on 24 July 2025. It is one of the most significant and ambitious bilateral trade agreements that the UK has concluded since leaving the EU. India is of course one of the economic heavyweights of the 21st century and is likely to become the third largest global economy by the end of this decade. Our trade with India is already worth £47 billion a year, up 15% year on year, and it is of course a market with huge and growing demand for imports, presenting major opportunities for British businesses and procurement.

However, India’s markets are also behind some of the highest trade barriers in the world, locking out many British businesses. The deal we have secured knocks down many of those barriers and goes well beyond India’s agreements with other countries. Indeed, it opens the door for British businesses on an unprecedented basis, especially in respect of Government procurement.

The procurement chapter will unlock around £38 billion a year of contracts in sectors such as advanced manufacturing, healthcare, construction, infrastructure and clean energy. For the first time, UK companies will be able to compete for those contracts. Alongside that, we are gaining access to India’s procurement portal, providing a line of sight for British businesses on a huge and growing market. Under the terms of the agreement, British businesses will have access to procurements above £478,000 for goods and services, and £5.3 million for construction services.

We have also gained exclusive treatment for UK bidders to be treated as class 2 suppliers under the Make in India policy. This will apply if at least 20% of the product or service is from the UK or India. That will give British companies a significant competitive advantage, as it goes beyond anything negotiated by others. We have also achieved commitments on fairness, openness and transparency, including the use and accessibility of e-procurement systems, and we have agreed requirements for the publishing of notices and awards of contracts and domestic review procedures for businesses to challenge should the chapter’s rules not be followed correctly.

Our agreement is also significantly stronger than the political agreement the EU has now reached with India. In particular, we have negotiated unique access to India’s £38 billion federal procurement market, something the EU has not obtained. The EU also does not have any agreement relating to class 2 status under the Make in India policy.

Those are the benefits of the agreement legislated for in the regulations; I will turn briefly to the process for introducing them. As Committee members will know, the regulations were laid on 19 January in order to bring the trade agreement into force as quickly as possible while allowing for parliamentary scrutiny under the proper process. They will update schedule 9 to the Procurement Act 2023, implementing in domestic law the UK’s procurement obligations in the agreement. Suppliers entitled to benefit from it will be considered “treaty state suppliers” under section 89 of the Act, which will provide them with equal access and rights in UK public procurement as are afforded to UK suppliers. In turn, the agreement requires India to provide comparable access to UK suppliers.

The Procurement Act 2023 (Commencement No. 3 and Transitional and Saving Provisions) Regulations 2024 are also being amended to ensure that the UK’s obligations under the agreement apply in relation to contracts that can still be entered into under the previous procurement regime.

The territorial application of these regulations in relation to contracts under the 2023 Act extends to England and Northern Ireland. It also extends to Scotland and Wales, but not in respect of procurement carried out by a devolved Scottish authority or regulated by the Welsh Ministers. The Welsh Government, with whom we have been in discussion, are making a separate SI to implement this agreement. It was laid in the Senedd on 10 February and is scheduled for debate on 10 March and due to enter into force on 31 March, the day after these regulations.

The Scottish Government are implementing the agreement separately under their own legislation, which was laid before the Scottish Parliament on 7 January and considered by the Economy and Fair Work Committee on 4 February. The Scottish Parliament approved the SI on 18 February, and it will enter into force on 24 March. The territorial application of this SI in relation to contracts under the previous procurement regime extends to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The procurement chapter unlocks unprecedented access to India’s federal procurement market. It covers access to approximately 40,000 tenders per year worth at least £38 billion per annum. It is good news for British businesses and our economy, and I hope hon. Members will join me in supporting these regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ward]

I am grateful for the spirit in which the debate has been carried out.

The hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire rightly mentioned that the regulations build on the Procurement Act passed under the last Government. That is a good thing, although we will set out plans shortly to improve it. He is quite right that nothing in the regulations affects the national security powers, and that the regulations tidy up contracts completed prior to the Procurement Act—that is why they are important.

On business engagement and impact assessment, this is really about getting a foot in the door of the Indian market for UK businesses, and it is very hard to model the impact of that at this stage. It is a large and growing market, with huge demand for imports. Until we gain access, as we have done, to the procurement portal and are established in the market, it is hard to know the exact material economic benefits, but obviously we hope that this will be a first step in that. As I say, it is a foot in the door that is greatly welcomed. I should point out that the Department for Business and Trade is working incredibly hard on business engagement in India. We have a team on the ground there to try to maximise this and capitalise on it as much as possible, and they are working really closely with British businesses to make sure that they can do that.

In terms of application, the regulations come into force on 30 March. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process has been completed on the broader trade deal, so this will align with that. As I said, our aim is for the agreement to come in as quickly as possible.

On the point raised by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove about services and the ambitious nature of the deal, we estimate that the agreement is worth around £5 billion a year to the UK economy. For an individual trade deal, that is very significant; as I say, it is more ambitious than a lot of the deals that have already been completed, and it is the first type of deal like this that the Indian Government have agreed.

While none of us is in the mood to relitigate Brexit, or talk through that too much, I will make two minor points. First, Britain has negotiated a stronger deal than the EU. As I said, the EU has not gained the same arrangements around the Make in India policy and treatment of suppliers as class 2, and it has not gained access to the procurement portal in the same way that we have, so our deal is materially better. Secondly, I gently say that if the Liberal Democrats want to enter a new customs union, they should know that any free trade deal that we did on that basis would not be an independent free trade deal; it would be a trade deal agreed by the EU, and it would be on qualitatively inferior terms, because the EU has just negotiated its deal and ours is stronger. There is a consequence to the position that the Liberal Democrats take. I hope that helps; if there are points that I have missed, I will write with further detail.

In conclusion, this agreement is a major milestone in our relationship with India, a vast and growing economy that we hope British businesses can contribute to as much as possible. Implementation of the procurement deal is a big step forward for us, and I hope colleagues will join me in approving the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Ward Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

The Government strongly support inclusive PPE for all workers and welcome the new British Standards Institution standard. Central Government commercial teams have seen increased provision of inclusive PPE across major programmes and projects. I know how seriously my hon. Friend takes this issue; so do the Government, and I hope to meet with her soon to discuss it further.

[Kirsteen Sullivan]

With the Government on a mission to build 1.5 million new homes and invest billions in upgrading critical infrastructure, fit-to-form PPE is more important than ever for the expanding workforce. The Government have an opportunity to embrace BS 30417 and use the state’s substantial purchasing power to increase employee safety through inclusive PPE for all. Will the Government commit to becoming an early adopter of the standard and lead industry by example?

[Chris Ward]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: fit-to-form PPE is vital to protect all workers, and I agree that there is an opportunity for Government to do more here. We welcome the new standard and think it will contribute to good practice, and we will monitor how that proceeds. I understand that the BSI will present on this to the construction sector soon. My hon. Friend and I are due to meet shortly, and I look forward to discussing how we can take this forward.

[Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

13. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help tackle cyber-threats.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

15. Whether his Department has issued guidance to the Department of Health and Social Care on the procurement of secure IT systems infrastructure from British businesses.

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

The Government are determined to ensure that our £400 billion-a-year procurement budget supports British businesses. The Cabinet Office has published the digital, data and technology playbook, which provides guidance on how to source and contract digital data and technology projects. It includes guidance for all Departments, including the Department of Health and Social Care.

[Sonia Kumar]

We have seen the devasting impact of cyber-attacks on British companies and the NHS, and there are serious concerns about the NHS data being entrusted to external firms such as Palantir. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that new NHS IT systems are secure, ethically governed, protect patient data and public trust, and are British where possible?

[Chris Ward]

My hon. Friend raises a serious point, which builds on the last question, which the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, who is also the Security Minister, answered, and the question about digital ID. If it is okay with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) , I will write to her about the steps that the Department is taking and how we are working across Government on this important matter.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

16. What recent discussions he has with the European Commission on linking UK and EU emission trading systems.

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

As part of our new partnership with the EU, we are currently negotiating an agreement to link emission trading schemes. This will lower costs for businesses and consumers, and, alongside the food and drink deal mentioned previously, add £9 billion a year to our economy. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office speaks regularly with Commissioner Šefčovič on this, and we will keep the House updated on progress.

[Tom Hayes]

The EU’s carbon budget amendment mechanism came into being on 1 January. It affects the IFA2 interconnector between Britain and France, which I visited recently. CBAM is a trade block for UK electricity exports to the EU, imposing costs on exporters of £2.2 billion, and it robs the Treasury of up to £8 billion at a time when we need that money to invest in our public services and to have a stronger buffer against external shocks. Does the Minister agree that we should not be shooting ourselves in the foot and throwing away money, as the Conservatives would do, and that we should instead be boosting trade, boosting energy security, boosting our national security and seeking an exemption from CBAM?

[Chris Ward]

Absolutely; I could not agree more. At the heart of the negotiation on which my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office is leading is how we reduce bills, ease the route to decarbonisation and reduce our reliance on volatile fossil fuel markets, which, as we have seen in the last week, is not just a national security issue but a cost of living issue. That is why we are working so hard on it, and why such work is broadly welcomed by so many businesses.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

17. What steps he is taking through civil service reform to support the economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alaba]

I thank the Minister for that response. Small businesses are the backbone of our local economies, but in my constituency, sunny Southend East and Rochford, they are held back by traffic congestion on the A127. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that local infrastructure projects, such as a new link road for south-east Essex, receive cross-party prioritisation, and can drive productivity and growth for small and medium-sized enterprises?

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

My hon. Friend refers to the A127, and I could mention that the A259 in sunny Brighton has the same hold-ups, but we will not dwell on that. He is right that we need to do more to support SME growth and productivity, and to free up opportunity across the country. We have recently changed procurement rules to make sure that more money—and more power as well—is kept in local communities. We will publish further plans soon. I hope that Transport Ministers have heard his point about a new link road.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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?