Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address
Debate between Darren Jones and Alex Burghart(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government’s compliance with the Humble Address of 4 February 2026 relating to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as His Majesty’s ambassador to the United States of America.
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)
I updated the House last Wednesday on the Government’s response to the Humble Address motion of 4 February, after the first tranche of documents were laid in both Houses in response to that motion. The Government have been clear that they are committed to publishing all documents relevant to the Humble Address, and that further material will be published in due course as officials work through its full scope.
The first tranche, as the title of the document made clear, represented,
“Part of a Return to an Address of the Honourable the House of Commons dated 4 February 2026”.
It responded directly to a number of specific elements contained in that motion, namely papers relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment as His Majesty’s ambassador and the discussions that subsequently led to his dismissal. As the Government have said previously, there are specific documents that we would like to disclose but which the Metropolitan police has asked us not to in order to avoid prejudicing the ongoing criminal investigation into Peter Mandelson. The Government have agreed to that request. We will publish those documents in the future once the Metropolitan police has confirmed that it will no longer prejudice its investigation.
As a consequence of that, and as I set out to the House on 11 March, the Government have therefore taken the extraordinary step, as agreed with Mr Speaker, of briefing the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), on terms agreed by the Metropolitan police to ensure that there is as much transparency to the House as possible.
As the House understands, the Government must carefully assess the risk of prejudicing UK national security or international relations posed by the release of any official documents. Again, this process is subject to parliamentary oversight. Any such material will be and is in the process of being referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. I thank the Committee for its assistance and can confirm that this process was also followed regarding the first tranche of material published last week. Outside of this arrangement, the important and well-established constitutional principle that national security and international relations judgments are ultimately for the Government has not changed.
We are continuing the disclosure process for other documents across Government within the scope of the address. Given the breadth of the motion agreed by the House and the large number of materials and Departments involved, this process will take time and necessarily requires careful consideration. Where relevant documents are held, they are being prepared for release through an established process, including the appropriate checks relating to national security, international relations, legal privilege and the protection of personal data.
The Government have acknowledged that the documents published reveal that the appointment process fell short of what is required. As previously set out, the independent adviser looked last week at the process and concluded that he saw no grounds for the investigation that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), has requested, but as the Prime Minister set out this morning, the inherited process itself was not strong enough. That is why the Prime Minister has already strengthened the process and is committed to strengthening it further in the future. This forms part of wider changes that the Government are bringing forward to improve the system, including a review by the Ethics and Integrity Commission relating to financial disclosures, transparency around lobbying, and the business appointment rules, alongside a review of the national security vetting system.
As I have said, and I know Members across the House will agree, Jeffrey Epstein was a disgusting individual, and Peter Mandelson’s decision to put their relationship before his victims and the vulnerable was reprehensible. That is why there is cross-party consensus across the House for transparency and accountability and why the Government are committed to publishing all material relevant to the Humble Address. I will continue to keep the House updated as a matter of priority, as I have done to date, and I commend this statement to the House.
Alex Burghart
Since last Wednesday, it has become increasingly clear that either the Government did not follow due process in their appointment of Peter Mandelson or that they have not disclosed all the relevant documents. In different terms, either the Prime Minister’s assurances that full due process was followed were misleading, or the Government have not complied with the Humble Address. Either would be a contempt of Parliament.
Last Wednesday, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said:
“All the documents that are available in relation to Peter Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal are published…today, subject to those that have been held back by the Metropolitan police.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 371.]
But many, many documents are missing. I have detailed 56 documents in a letter that I sent him. To give a few examples, there is no prime ministerial readout on the advice that the Prime Minister received. This is a breach of protocol. A prime ministerial decision, even if made orally, should be formally recorded. Where is that record? It starts to stink of the sofa government that we had under Tony Blair.
There are no minutes of any meeting at which this appointment was discussed, by anyone, at any time. Were there really no meetings about this? Most suspiciously of all, we have no material from the Prime Minister, from his chief of staff or from Peter Mandelson: no box returns, no emails, no forms, no WhatsApps—nothing. It is as though their fingerprints have been forensically removed.
To narrow this down, on 11 November 2024 the Cabinet Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted to make a political appointment, the civil service would
“develop a plan for…the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest”.
That was the process, so let me ask the Chief Secretary two very specific questions. First, did Peter Mandelson receive security clearance, and if so, on what date? There was no such document in the release. Secondly, did Peter Mandelson make a full declaration of his interests? Again, there was no such document in the release.
I remind the Chief Secretary that noting the existence of a document does not prejudice an investigation in any way. The Government have already told us about one document that they are holding back at the request of the Met police; they are more than able to tell us about others. It is time for the Government to level with us. What is missing, and why?
Darren Jones
As I informed the House last week, the documents that pertain to tranche 1 are the documents the Government own, and they have been published in line with the Humble Address. The shadow Minister asks about the process followed for the appointment of Peter Mandelson. As the Prime Minister and the Government have said, the process that was followed was the process that was inherited; however, this has shown that that process is not sufficient, which is why it is being strengthened.
The shadow Minister made reference to questions about WhatsApps and other messages. I can confirm that those types of documents will be subject to a further tranche being published in due course. He also asked me about security clearance for Peter Mandelson. I refer him to the answer I gave last week in respect of that question, and to further comments from the Foreign Office.
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion
Debate between Darren Jones and Alex Burghart(2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your remarks at the outset of this statement. I also thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement, which I received at 1.30 pm. This whole business is really about transparency. The Government have had to be dragged to do this by Members on both sides of this House, so producing a 135-page document and putting it online 23 minutes before this debate is really not acceptable at all. I respect the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for coming to the Chamber and making this statement, but it really ought to be the Prime Minister sitting there, because all of this is about the Prime Minister’s judgment. It is very convenient that this document was published after Prime Minister’s questions, during which the man who made the decision—the man whose judgment is in question—could have been put under scrutiny by hon. Members. Very many questions arise from the documents published. I will put a few on record, and then return to the central theme.
There is the issue of severance pay, to which the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister referred. Why did Ministers agree to any severance pay, given what had happened? Many of our constituents will be disgusted that Peter Mandelson received £70,000. Will his full declaration of interests, which he was supposed to have handed over when he was appointed, be published? I do not believe that they are included in the tranche of documents published today. Is that because of a police request, or is it for some other reason? Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister publish a register of withheld and delayed documents, so that the House can be aware of what is being held back? Will he give us a little more information, either now or in the future, on redactions? It is important that this House understands who is deciding on what will be redacted.
This awful saga involving Jeffrey Epstein continues. I understand that, as this House meets, one of his ranches in New Mexico is being investigated because there are reports that bodies are buried there. At the centre of this scandal was a very rich and powerful man who despicably abused his position, and he was helped to become rich and powerful by his associates, one of whom was Peter Mandelson. Although I of course associate myself with the remarks made by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister about Epstein’s victims, it is very clear that those victims were not in the Prime Minister’s mind when he appointed Peter Mandelson. The Prime Minister has already admitted that he knew Mandelson had maintained his friendship with Epstein even after the latter’s conviction for his terrible crimes. That was a bad choice, and it is a choice that we can now read about in black and white on page 11 of the publication. It says:
“After Epstein was first convicted of procuring an underage girl in 2008, their relationship continued across 2009-2011, beginning when Lord Mandelson was Business Minister and continuing after the end of the Labour government. Mandelson reportedly stayed in Epstein’s House while he was in jail in June 2009.”
The Prime Minister claims that he was lied to; he was not lied to by this due diligence document. It may be that Mandelson denied those claims, and if so, perhaps the Prime Minister was lied to, but by an inveterate liar who had been fired twice before. We are supposed to believe that the Prime Minister, who was once the chief prosecutor in this country, could not see through this nonsense. It beggars belief.
Over the coming hours and days, we will see whether these documents reveal why the Prime Minister’s judgment failed so badly, but we must suspect that it was because his then chief of staff was Mandelson’s protégé. Morgan McSweeney had set up Labour Together, the Prime Minister’s private campaigning organisation. Peter Mandelson had advised Morgan McSweeney on the establishment of that organisation, which had been responsible for breaking electoral law so that it could hide the sources of its funds from the public and from the Labour party. Labour Together then sought to intimidate and smear journalists who revealed that wrongdoing, and it provided hundreds of Labour MPs and many of the top brass in the Cabinet with free money and free services. This was the ultimate “jobs for the boys”. The Prime Minister knew all that he needed to know. It was on him; it is on him now. He let his party and his country down. I very much doubt that either will trust him again.
Darren Jones
The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked me a number of questions, which I shall take in turn. The first was on the severance payment. He asked me why that payment had been made, and who approved it. As I set out in my opening statement, Peter Mandelson was employed as a civil servant, not as a Minister. That meant that on his summary dismissal by the Prime Minister, he had the right to take a claim to the employment tribunal. As we can see in the documents, Peter Mandelson asked for a much larger sum, with the implied threat that there would be legal proceedings, with associated costs. The Government would not have wanted to pay £1 to Peter Mandelson, but they reluctantly agreed to the award, given the contrast between the cost to the taxpayer of employment tribunal legal fees, and the cost of a payment; in the advice, the latter cost would have been higher than the amount that was given. The Prime Minister has since said that Peter Mandelson should either return that money or donate it.
On the question of who approved the severance payment, the House will see from the documents that the request from the Foreign Office was made to the Treasury. The payment was approved, in line with Treasury business rules, albeit reluctantly, and with an express condition that a non-disclosure agreement was not allowed in these circumstances. For the sake of completeness, there is reference in the bundle to that business case requiring my approval. I can confirm to the House that I did not receive that request, or indeed approve it.
The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked me about some of the documents, namely about redactions and a register of withheld documents. On the question of a register of withheld documents, I would need to take advice from lawyers in the Metropolitan police before I could say whether these documents are being held for their criminal investigation. I hope that the House is somewhat reassured by the mechanism that we have been able to establish with the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which has sight of these documents, albeit in a contained and controlled way. Government redactions to the documents are to protect only the names and contact details of junior civil servants, as is the practice. Other redactions that relate to international security and international relations are done with the approval of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Lastly, the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked me about the report from the Cabinet Office to the Prime Minister. As I said in my opening statement, the Prime Minister did ask subsequent questions of Peter Mandelson following that report being submitted by the Cabinet Office. His advisers at No. 10 undertook to answer those questions. Although that is a document that we cannot publish at this time, the Prime Minister is very clear that he regrets having believed the lies that Peter Mandelson put before him.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Darren Jones and Alex Burghart(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
On his visit to Washington in February last year, the Prime Minister and Peter Mandelson had an undisclosed meeting with US data company Palantir. Palantir at the time was a client of Global Counsel, the company in which Peter Mandelson retained a commanding share. Later that year, Palantir received a direct award for £240 million from this Government. Given the apparent conflict of interests, will the Minister agree to publish full details of that meeting in February last year, and explain why it was not disclosed at the time?
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Member for raising that particular contract, and since he last asked the Government that question we have done some research. The original contract was awarded by a Mr A. Burghart, under the previous Administration, with a direct ministerial award for the contract that was then renewed at the subsequent awarding that he refers to. He asked me for the disclosure of information, and that will of course be done under the Humble Address.
Alex Burghart
I never had an undisclosed meeting with Palantir, with a person—[Interruption.] I never had an undisclosed meeting with Palantir, with a man who was advising that company. This is something entirely different, as the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister knows full well. There was an undisclosed meeting between the Prime Minister and that company in February last year. That should not have happened. This looks, to all intents and purposes, like a conflict of interests. Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree to publish that information? He says it is within the scope of the Humble Address, but the Humble Address was about the appointment of Lord Mandelson. This is not about the appointment of Lord Mandelson; this is about a meeting that the Prime Minister and Mandelson had in February 2025. Will the Minister please publish the details of that meeting, and ensure that the new Cabinet Secretary looks into what happened at that meeting, and everything between that meeting and the direct award?
Darren Jones
The Humble Address deals with the matters in question, but I remind the hon. Member that he is asking about the extension of a contract that was awarded under the previous Government. To suggest that it was a new contract that had been in any way related to the meeting is incorrect.
Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review
Debate between Darren Jones and Alex Burghart(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the Cabinet Office review into Labour Together and APCO Worldwide.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)
Freedom of the press is a cornerstone of our democracy, and the Government are committed to upholding and protecting that freedom. Journalists must be able to do their job without fear or favour, including holding politicians of all political parties to account on behalf of the public that we all serve.
In the past week, there have been a number of media reports about the actions of the think-tank Labour Together in 2023 and 2024. Some of those media reports have included allegations about the conduct of the joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), who was previously the director of Labour Together.
As the Prime Minister confirmed last week, he asked civil servants in the Cabinet Office propriety and ethics team to establish the facts. As Members across the House will know, all civil servants are bound by the civil service code, which dictates that they act with integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality. The exercise to establish the facts around the allegations was bound by those principles.
That work has now concluded and the facts have been reported to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has been advised that the matter should now be referred to the independent adviser on ministerial standards, and the Prime Minister has done so today. This is not a new process, but a continuation of the process that the Prime Minister has started. The Prime Minister will make a judgment when he has received the advice from the independent adviser. That will happen very soon, and the independent adviser’s advice to the Prime Minister will be made public in the normal way.
The independent adviser is appointed to provide impartial, independent advice to the Prime Minister, in line with his published terms of reference. The current independent adviser was appointed under the last Administration by the Prime Minister’s predecessor and is independent of the Government. He will provide his independent advice directly to the Prime Minister.
I reiterate that a free and independent press is an absolutely essential part of a free, open and democratic society and is one of the things that makes our country great. Representing the public as a Minister is a privilege and a duty, and public scrutiny is rightly part of that. The Government are committed to protecting freedom of the press, and no journalist should ever be intimidated for trying to hold those in power to account.
Alex Burghart
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. The details of this story are quite extraordinary, even by the standards of this Government. While he was the director of the think-tank Labour Together, the now Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), paid a PR agency to investigate the “backgrounds and motivations” of British journalists who had written about Labour Together’s breaches of electoral law, of which there were many—more than 20, the most famous being a failure to declare £730,000-worth of donations. The agency produced a report that included an allegation that the journalists in question had relied on Russian hacking. Needless to say, those reports were entirely spurious.
The Minister has claimed that the agency acted beyond its brief, but in the past few days an email from the agency to the Minister has been published, showing that he was shown that a “human intelligence investigation” into the journalists would take place. That investigation included details of one journalist’s Jewish faith and made claims about his ideological upbringing and personal relationships. The report was then circulated to key members of the Labour party and to GCHQ, who swiftly said that there was no case to answer.
This looks to all intents and purposes like a deliberate attempt to smear and intimidate journalists whose only “crime” had been to report that Labour Together had broken electoral law. As of today, it is very difficult to see how the Minister’s position is tenable.
The referral to the independent adviser, which the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has just announced, is the right thing to do, but it should have been done immediately. This should not have been dealt with internally in the Cabinet Office, where the Minister in question is the Minister with responsibility for inquiries and whistleblowing—you couldn’t make this stuff up! I must ask the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister why the Minister has not been suspended while the investigation is going on.
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister refers to the work of the propriety and ethics team. We must also ask about the current membership of that team, because it is known that a political appointment was made to a civil service role of a woman who was previously an employee of Labour Together. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister now accept that that appointment was wrong?
It must also be the case that very many people took money from Labour Together: the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister—the list goes on. An organisation set up to conceal the source of its donations from the public and from the Labour party—is it not time for an investigation into Labour Together?
Darren Jones
I will take those questions in reverse order. The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster accused me of taking money from Labour Together. That is not true. I had a number of staff seconded to my office when I was a member of the shadow Cabinet. As I am sure Opposition Members know, that is an important contribution that is made to political parties, as the Opposition do not have access to the civil service, but no money was taken—not one pound, not one penny—and seconded staff were reported in the proper way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will revoke those comments when he gets the opportunity.
The hon. Gentleman’s second question was about the investigation led by the propriety and ethics team. I can confirm that that was led by a senior member of staff—not the member of staff to whom the hon. Gentleman referred—who reported directly to the Prime Minister.
The hon. Gentleman’s first question was about why the Minister in question has not been suspended while the investigation is taking place. That is because the independent adviser on ethics can investigate Ministers only while they are in office. If the Minister had been suspended or removed from office, the independent adviser would not be able to undertake his work, and the Prime Minister thinks it is important that the independent adviser is given the opportunity to do just that.
US Department of Justice Release of Files
Debate between Darren Jones and Alex Burghart(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
The crimes of Jeffrey Epstein were truly terrible—paedophilia, sex trafficking, child prostitution. It was an awful abuse of power, and it is of course a great embarrassment to our country that its most senior ambassador should have been caught up with a man like him. In this latest set of releases from the US Department of Justice, it is clearer than ever that theirs was a relationship built not just on affection, but on the transfer of money from Epstein to Mandelson’s family and the transfer of information from Mandelson to Epstein. In some cases, this was apparently market-sensitive information that Mandelson received only by dint of being a member of the Labour Government.
So we of course welcome the belated announcement that there will be an investigation into Mandelson’s conduct while he was a Minister, but this should have happened long ago. I say that because we know that, in February last year, Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister, wrote to the Cabinet Secretary explicitly asking for an investigation into the
“veracity of information contained in the Epstein papers about the sale of assets arising from the banking collapse and communications about them between Lord Mandelson and Mr Epstein.”
That investigation never happened.
In any case, I am afraid that the investigation announced today alone will not do. It is not enough to consider Mandelson’s historical conduct; there also needs to be an investigation into his behaviour while he was our ambassador in Washington. Given that he abused his previous position, it is entirely conceivable that he abused his most recent one. For example, I understand that on 27 February last year, Mandelson arranged for the Prime Minister to meet Palantir, a client of Mandelson’s company, Global Counsel. How many more such meetings were there, and what other information was shared? We all have a right to know.
Likewise, the Government cannot hide from their responsibility in having made Mandelson their ambassador in the first place. This was a political appointment, and it happened only because of political pressure. So one of two things must be true: either there was the most terrible failure of the vetting system, or the Government chose to brush that vetting information away. Both are very serious, but the Government must now be honest with us about which it was. It seems very unlikely that the Government’s vetting system broke down entirely. Indeed, on 10 September, the Prime Minister told the House that
“full due process was followed during this appointment”.—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 859.]
Can it really be the case that this “full due process” did not pick up the extent of the relationship?
On 3 November, Olly Robbins, the then permanent secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, told the Foreign Affairs Committee:
“Back before Lord Mandelson was announced as the appointee, there was a process...within the Cabinet Office to make sure that the Prime Minister was aware of Lord Mandelson and the issues around his appointment...we can confidently say that the relationship with Epstein was indeed surfaced”.
So the Government knew that Mandelson had a long-maintained and unhealthy relationship with Epstein, yet they continued with their appointment anyway.
The question is: who in No. 10 knew what and when? The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has a duty to tell this House precisely what the Prime Minister knew when he made the appointment, and to disclose the documents that the Prime Minister saw. If the Prime Minister genuinely did not know, somebody must have done. Who was it? Was it his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who is reported to have personally pushed the appointment? Was it the now Deputy Prime Minister, who was then the Foreign Secretary and who would have been party to some of the information?
It is time for the Government to be open and clear with us all. Something went very badly wrong with this appointment. It has caused very great embarrassment to this country and it is time that someone took responsibility.
Darren Jones
The person who has to take responsibility for their failings is Peter Mandelson. The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster knows that the process for political appointments, whether to ambassadorships or otherwise, was one set up under the previous Conservative Government. It was a process that we inherited and have since updated. The Prime Minister has been very clear that the declarations of interest put forward by Peter Mandelson were not wholly truthful. When it became clear from the release of information that that had not been the case, the Prime Minister moved swiftly to remove Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States.
On the first point that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made, in relation to an investigation requested by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, I can confirm to the House that his statement was incorrect. The former Prime Minister did ask the Cabinet Secretary to investigate in order to look for any particular documents that related, as he said, to the sale of RBS assets to JP Morgan. That investigation was undertaken. The Cabinet Secretary did respond to the former Prime Minister to confirm that no documents in relation to those questions were held by the Government. Evidently, now that more documents have become available to the public and to the Government, further investigations are now taking place.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Darren Jones and Alex Burghart(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Burghart
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply; I really appreciate it. In his role as chief of staff to the Prime Minister—
Alex Burghart
In his role as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, will he please write to all other Government Departments to make sure that the good example that will now be set by the Cabinet Office is followed by other Departments?
Darren Jones
Mr Speaker, you will know that I take accountability to Parliament very seriously, as do the whole Government. As I said in my first answer, I am happy to take a look at that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Darren Jones and Alex Burghart(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I am sure people will be pleased to hear that the Labour party is going to honour some of its manifesto commitments.
Last week, it was announced that the Government’s attempt to join the new EU defence fund had failed. This is a major setback for our relationship with the EU, and it is a major embarrassment for the Government. Since that time, no Minister has come to the House to explain what on earth has gone so horribly wrong, so perhaps the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster can tell us: what has gone so horribly wrong?
Darren Jones
First, regardless of the negotiation on SAFE, our collaboration with European partners is stronger than ever on defence and defence procurement. In relation to SAFE in particular, about which the hon. Member asked, this was always going to be a negotiation between the EU and the UK, and the UK Government rightly have to consider value for money considerations in return for how much access British industry has to the contracts being negotiated in Europe. Irrespective of the position on SAFE, I can confirm to the House that UK companies will still be able to take part in European procurement for defence equipment, with an up to 35% allowance for British components in those manufactured goods.
Alex Burghart
I admire the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s chutzpah in answering. He pretends that this was in some way not a defeat, but a victory—many more such victories, and we are lost.
The House will remember that in May, No. 10 trumpeted a new agreement with the EU, which gave the EU privileged access to our fishing waters for 12 years—12 years—to
“pave the way for the UK defence industry to participate in the EU’s proposed new…defence fund”.
Now that the EU has killed off that deal with what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster rightly describes as an unreasonable demand for £5 billion, are we going to get our fish back?
Darren Jones
The hon. Member will know that the agreement with the European Union was not just on one particular issue; it was a package of improvements in the relationship between the UK and the EU. He might want to welcome the agreement on food and drink regulation reforms, so we can get prices down on the shelves in British supermarkets, after they went through the roof under the last Conservative Administration.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
A few weeks ago I wrote to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about Chinese ownership of critical national infrastructure, including the possible acquisition of Thames Water. I have not had a reply, but since then The Telegraph has been briefed by the Government that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would block such an acquisition. Can he confirm to the House that he will use his powers under the National Security and Investment Act 2021 to launch an investigation before any Chinese acquisition of Thames Water is allowed to proceed?
Darren Jones
The House will know that because of the quasi-judicial powers I have under the National Security and Investment Act 2021, I cannot comment on individual transactions. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are always willing to use those powers to protect the national interests and national security of this country. I do not recognise that briefing to The Telegraph, but I will ensure that he gets an answer to his correspondence shortly.
Alex Burghart
Well, someone was briefing in the right hon. Gentleman’s name. I thank him for his answer, but on the same theme, the electricity distribution network for London and much of the south-east, as well as the gas distribution network for about 5 million people in our country and the water supply for about another 3 million, are currently under Chinese ownership. That includes the power supply for the Palace of Westminster, Whitehall and many security capabilities. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster tell us whether he has reviewed the national security implications of these legacy acquisitions? If not, will he commit to doing so?
Darren Jones
I can reassure the hon. Member and the House that we constantly keep critical national infrastructure risks under review and will take interventions as required to protect the national interest and national security of the United Kingdom.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Darren Jones and Alex Burghart(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for giving us a degree more clarity. Perhaps he will give us a degree more clarity again. Was he told that the alleged case of spying against Members of Parliament was due to collapse before the information became public and, if so, who told him?
Alex Burghart
I believe the right hon. Gentleman, but I find that answer extraordinary, and I think he should find it extraordinary, too. As we have already said, the right hon. Gentleman chairs the National Security Council. He oversees the Cabinet Office’s national security secretariat. The Prime Minister knew, the Home Secretary knew, the Cabinet Secretary knew, the chief of MI5 knew, the Attorney General’s Office knew, but the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister did not. Has he asked why he was not told, and what answer was he given?
Darren Jones
The hon. Member seems to be confused by his list of institutions. The only relevant institution in this case is the Crown Prosecution Service. It is the CPS that independently decides whether to bring forward these cases, and it was the independent decision of the Crown Prosecution Service not to proceed. Might I just point out that the Opposition’s arguments over the last few weeks have been quite bemusing? They started with an accusation that there was political interference in a Crown Prosecution Service case. That was proven not to be the case, so they changed their argument and are now asking, “Why did you not politically interfere, because that is the way we do things in this country?”
Income Tax (Charge)
Debate between Darren Jones and Alex Burghart(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
It is the greatest real-terms increase in funding since devolution began. If the devolved Government wish to take responsibility for devolved matters, they should do so. If they do not wish to do so, Labour will happily take over at the next election to deliver better services for the people of Scotland.
Many Members have asked me to comment on the new hospitals programme. As the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has confirmed, this Government are committed to delivering a realistic and deliverable plan, and we will deliver the outcomes of the review to the House in due course.
Many Members have also asked me about the difficult decision to increase employer national insurance contributions, in the context of Labour honouring its promise to working people not to increase employee national insurance contributions or income tax in their payslips. It is right that the Government are not legislating to exempt non-public sector organisations from these changes but, as the Secretary of State said, we pay for these services and it will be reflected in their settlements. To answer the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whether now or in the spring at the conclusion of the spending review, those departmental settlements will be published in the normal way.
Alex Burghart
Does the Minister not think that it is important that hon. Members see those figures, to see how much the services I mentioned will be taxed, before they vote on this Budget? Would that not be transparent?
Darren Jones
The hon. Gentleman perhaps forgets that the vote is tomorrow. No doubt he will come to the House to vote to support the allocation of £22 billion of extra funding so that the national health service can cover the cost of the doctors and nurses who, under his Administration, were striking on the picket line while Ministers refused to talk to them. Under this Government, they are back on the wards and in the theatres delivering for the people of this country.
The Government recognise the need to reform the social care system, and we thank those who work in the system for the work they do to help those in need. That is why we agreed a £600 million funding increase for 2025-26, and we will return to this issue in the second phase of the spending review.
I politely say to Members that I understand the temptation to ask for more spending, as I often did in opposition, but Ministers have to explain how they will pay for it. If Opposition Members want more spending or, indeed, fewer tax rises, they will have the opportunity tomorrow to set out to the House what they would do differently. Would they increase income tax and national insurance on workers once again? Would they increase VAT on people who go to the shops? Would they increase corporation tax for businesses, which we have pledged not to do? Would they reject the investment in schools, hospitals, the police service and the future of our country? Given their behaviour under the last Administration, do they wish just to borrow money every single month to pay the bills, month after month, increasing the national debt and increasing the cost of the national debt, but not investing in the fabric of this country, as this Government will do?