Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

Debate between Darren Jones and Julian Lewis

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)]

I thank Members from across the House for their contributions this afternoon and for sharing the condolences expressed by the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), on the news that we learned during the debate that Sir Alex Younger, the former director general of MI6, had passed.

As I have said to the House before, while it is right for Members to discuss process and how the Government have responded to the Humble Address, we must not neglect to remember the women and girls who are at the very heart of this matter. Their suffering cannot be forgotten in this pursuit of justice—a pursuit that has been denied to them for too long. On that point, I want to start by paying particular thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) for her powerful speech this afternoon and to take this opportunity to thank her for the work she carried out so diligently as part of this Government as the Minister for Victims.

The accounts that my hon. Friend has shared with this House this afternoon from victims such as Lisa are harrowing and should remind us of the anger and suffering that they rightly continue to feel each time we have one of these debates. But my hon. Friend’s speech has made me think that just reading the words on this page alone feels insufficient in the context of the cultural challenges that she raised, and with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to take a moment to take this opportunity to ask myself questions about my relationship with Peter Mandelson.

Did I consciously ignore the stories that followed Peter Mandelson, or indeed know about many of them, from many, many years ago? I do not think that I did. Did I ever ignore warnings that were put to me about Peter Mandelson? I did not receive any, to do so. But as I reflected on my hon. Friend’s speech, it made me think: did I at best subconsciously treat Peter Mandelson differently because I believed him to have influence and power within the Labour party? I think the answer to that question is yes, I did. Have I benefited from that relationship in the time I have been an elected politician? I think in part the answer to that question is yes, I did. For that I would like to apologise to the House, to the victims, to Lisa, and commit to then doing something about it.

In the first instance, I hear my hon. Friend’s request for a meeting with the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. I know that there is a request with No. 10 for the Prime Minister to do so, but if she thinks it appropriate, I make myself available for that meeting to discuss the issues that she has raised. I know that she will continue to be a strong advocate from the Back Benches for the action this Government are taking to halve violence against women and girls, as well as to pursue the duty of candour on which I know she worked so hard, and I look forward to continuing my work with her on these important issues.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

The Minister has shown once again what a decent man he is, and he is doing a very difficult job in defence of somebody who knew a lot more than he did. He was not chief of staff at the time that the Mandelson appointment was being carried out. On page 8 of the first bundle, we have the note from the private secretary to the Prime Minister, which says:

“We have sought a due diligence review…and your Chief of Staff”—

Morgan McSweeney at the time—

“has discussed Peter’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein which we will go through with you, but your Director of Communications is satisfied with his responses to questions about contact.”

However, we also know from earlier in the bundle that the Prime Minister specifically knew that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s flat while Epstein was in in jail for the abuse of an under-age girl. The Prime Minister knew all that at the time. What is the purpose of having a box at the end marked for the Prime Minister’s comments on the alternatives he has been given when in fact, as we now know and as has been clearly explained by the Paymaster General, there has been no redaction—the Prime Minister did not comment? Why did the Prime Minister withhold any remarks on this highly contentious matter? Where did he comment? Where did he give his decision? He certainly did not do it in the place that he was supposed to do it.

[Darren Jones]

In relation to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, he will know, because I have confirmed it to the House at the Dispatch Box previously, that questions were put by the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff to Peter Mandelson following the due diligence report to seek further information about the stories reported in the newspaper. He will also know that Peter Mandelson replied to those questions, and that information was then considered by those in No. 10.

As I have confirmed to the House, that document—the question and its answers—is one of the documents being held by the Metropolitan police. I have been advised repeatedly that I am not permitted to disclose what I have seen in that document on the Floor of the House, so I am afraid it will have to be one of those questions that remains until such a time as the Metropolitan police publishes its documentation. In relation to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, I refer him to the Paymaster General’s answer earlier today. That is the answer to that question.

This is my 11th update to the House on this matter, and I am grateful for the opportunity to answer Members’ questions. I will speak to a number of issues first, before turning to some specific questions from Members and setting out what the Government intend to do next.

Since the Humble Address motion was passed on 4 February, the House will know that a huge disclosure exercise has been undertaken by Government officials. The motion called for the disclosure of documents in respect of the appointment and dismissal of Peter Mandelson as His Majesty’s ambassador to Washington, alongside relevant communications. The publication of documents on 11 March, followed by the second tranche on Monday, has done that, in the Government’s view. I hope the Government have provided the House with the reassurance it needs that, with the exception of the small number of documents withheld at the request of the Metropolitan police, which we intend to publish when we are allowed to do so, the Government have discharged their duties to the House in relation to the Humble Address.

Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response

Debate between Darren Jones and Julian Lewis

Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

We are concluding internal drafting of the peerages Bill, and will look to secure time to introduce it in this Session. I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that we want to introduce legislation that is effective and meaningful; that is certainly our intention.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I think the country has a right to know how the Prime Minister reacted at the end of Mandelson’s vetting process. Have the Prime Minister’s comments on the outcome of the vetting been released, are they being withheld, or are we expected to believe that he made no comment about it at all?

[Darren Jones]

Let me make two points. As I made clear in my statement, vetting documents have been withheld by the Metropolitan police, although some of the documents have gone through the Intelligence and Security Committee, but I refer the right hon. Gentleman to what the Prime Minister said previously. As has been clear, the Foreign Office did not flag this information with the Prime Minister; he was not aware of it until it had been leaked to The Guardian.

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

Debate between Darren Jones and Julian Lewis

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

The second tranche of information will publish all remaining documents except those that are currently with the Metropolitan police in relation to ongoing criminal investigations. As I said to the House, this will be a very significant publication, which will warrant careful consideration from Members across the House. We want to publish it with sufficient notice to allow Members to consider it before coming to the House to ask any questions they may have of the Government, which is why we are now publishing it after the Whitsun recess.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

In more than 30 years of its existence, the Intelligence and Security Committee has never once suffered from a leak. Therefore, anything that is disclosed to it, no matter how sensitive, is not going to be published. Therefore, the question of it undermining the security vetting process if such raw data were published does not arise, because the ISC is the one parliamentary body guaranteed to ensure that that does not happen. So can the Minister stop obfuscating on that aspect and can he confirm that, irrespective of the question of the raw data, what will definitely be made available to the ISC, if it has not been already, are the annotations and the documents that show how an initial failure to pass vetting for Lord Mandelson became a decision to approve him and state that he had been successful in getting through the process?

[Darren Jones]

I can confirm that all documents that need to be referred to the ISC have now been referred to it. That process has concluded, which is why we can move to publication after the recess.

Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Debate between Darren Jones and Julian Lewis

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Darren Jones]

I will not—[Interruption.] I will happily give way in due course, but I want to turn to the substance of the motion first.

In recent weeks, some have accused the Prime Minister of dishonesty, saying that there was no way that Foreign Office officials would have given Peter Mandelson clearance against the vetting agency’s recommendation, let alone without checking with the Prime Minister himself. The Leader of the Opposition herself on BBC Radio 4 said, “He knew”, and that

“I know he is lying”.

However, the testimony provided by Sir Olly Robbins has disproved those accusations without further question. So rather than focus on the issues affecting our constituents and the country most, what do Opposition Members do? They try to shift the goalposts, and they have tried again and again to make their arguments fit.

Today alone, we have heard Opposition Members bounce from one accusation to another in a desperate search for something that will stick. We have been subjected to the ranting incoherence of the Leader of the Opposition while she was in search of something that she could use to justify today’s politically motivated spectacle—[Interruption.]

[Darren Jones]

I think we have heard enough of the ranting incoherence of the Leader of the Opposition.

Let us take the specific allegations in turn. First, as to whether the Prime Minister was correct when he said “full due process” was followed, yesterday the Government deposited a letter from the then Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, in the Library of the House. In that letter, it is clear that he was specifically asked by the Prime Minister to review whether due process was followed in the appointment, and he confirmed that it was.

Last week, the former permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins, stated to the Foreign Affairs Committee that his Department followed that process. We have also heard the Cabinet Office permanent secretary’s evidence, which covered this issue in great detail. Catherine Little stated unequivocally that “due process was followed” in relation to Peter Mandelson’s vetting.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Would not “full due process” have required the vetting to be completed before announcing the appointment, as was advised by the then Cabinet Secretary and then ignored or overruled by the Prime Minister personally?

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman should listen to my speech. I have just said that Catherine Little, Sir Chris Wormald and Sir Olly Robbins all agree on the point that due process was followed. When the Prime Minister received new information about the UKSV process this month, he immediately asked for the full facts to be established and he then come to this House on 20 April.

On the statement that Peter Mandelson’s appointment was “subject to developed vetting”, the Prime Minister has always been clear that this appointment was in line with the processes at the time. I understand that there have been some questions about this process, but to be clear, as Sir Olly Robbins told the Foreign Affairs Committee in November:

“As is normally the case with external appointments to my Department…the appointment was made subject to obtaining security clearance.”

As Sir Chris Wormald told the same Committee:

“The normal thing is for the security clearance to happen after appointment but before the person signs a contract and takes up post.”

And as the former Cabinet Secretary said in his letter to the Prime Minister, having conducted a review into the process,

“the vetting process was complete before the previous HMA Washington took up post on 10 February 2025, and it is more usual for security vetting to happen after appointment.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Out of 190 questions for written answer that I have put down in this Session, which is coming to its close, all but one have been answered. The exception is one that I mentioned on the Floor of the House yesterday during the statement by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister. He responded:

“I always ensure that I honour parliamentary questions in a timely fashion.”—[Official Report, 27 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 598.]

The last day for answering this question is today, and it so far has not been answered, so I wonder if I might give the Chief Secretary the opportunity to answer it now. It is this:

“To ask the Prime Minister who first suggested to him that Peter Mandelson should be appointed as Ambassador to the United States.”

[Darren Jones]

rose—

Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update

Debate between Darren Jones and Julian Lewis

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I am not sure that I should declare my voting intention from the Dispatch Box, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous answer.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The Government are keen to emphasise their transparency in the course of dealing with the Humble Address requests and demands, so here is an opportunity to put that to the test. Last Tuesday, I put down a question for written answer by the Prime Minister:

“To ask the Prime Minister who first suggested to him that Peter Mandelson should be appointed as Ambassador to the United States.”

It was accepted and published as such by the Table Office. Subsequently, it has been transferred to the Cabinet Office, for which he has responsibility. It is due to be answered tomorrow. Will the Minister give the answer to that question tomorrow, on time and substantively?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister’s responsibilities are just growing and growing!

Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

Debate between Darren Jones and Julian Lewis

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

Where the Government have the ability to take action to ensure transparency and accountability on this matter, they are making sure that they do so. For organisations that are outside of Government, it is for those organisations to consider such requests.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

It is not much good blaming the process when it is as plain as a pikestaff that the Government knew that Peter Mandelson’s appointment was, to put it mildly, extremely dodgy. If there were any conversations held, over the telephone or face to face, or any private emails sent from people’s personal email addresses, will they be made available to this House?

[Darren Jones]

The documents that fall within the scope of the Humble Address will be made available to the House in the way that I have set out.

Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion

Debate between Darren Jones and Julian Lewis

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend will know from the statements of the Prime Minister and the documents published today that he regrets having ever appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. In our country, we rightly respect the rules that are in place and that need to be observed, and there must be clear consequences for people who breach them. As I have said in earlier answers, even in our country, we have much further to go to tackle violence against women and girls and structural misogyny, and we should all have a shared ambition to tackle that as quickly as possible.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The Chief Secretary deserves our admiration for always being calm and courteous, even in the most trying circumstances, but he really must not take us for fools. Peter Mandelson had a reputation as one of the most slippery and sleazy characters in modern British politics. The Chief Secretary confirms that the Prime Minister was warned about what Mandelson had done in continuing a relationship with Epstein after he had been sent to jail for abusing a young girl. He is saying, “Well, the Prime Minister did not know the depth of this relationship.” Does he really expect us to believe that a shallow relationship with a convicted paedophile is okay?

Digital ID: Public Consultation

Debate between Darren Jones and Julian Lewis

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. It is very difficult today to get information out of the public sector because it is often paper-based or on IT systems that we cannot access. With digital ID and the gov.uk app, citizens will have more control and more insight into how their data is being used and for what purposes in the future, which will mean they feel more in control of which data they are sharing with the public sector.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

When asked by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) whether he could guarantee that a digital identity requirement would never become mandatory, the Minister said he wholeheartedly agreed, but is it not the case that the original scheme that the Government were minded to put forward was mandatory, so how much faith can we put in that assurance?

[Darren Jones]

First, the Prime Minister’s announcement was that it should be mandatory for digital verification of ID. This scheme enables that, but there are other routes available to people if they wish to follow them. The other commitment I can give the right hon. Member is that I suspect it will be on the face of the Bill that we will bring to the House later this year.

Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review

Debate between Darren Jones and Julian Lewis

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The independent adviser on ethics will be looking at the ministerial code and its application to the Parliamentary Secretary in relation to the statements that have been made and the facts that have been made available through the propriety and ethics team’s fact-finding process. My hon. Friend asks a wider question around the regulation of think-tanks, donations and so on, which I am sure will be debated as part of the forthcoming elections Bill. I agree that those things should, of course, be done in the proper and ethical way.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Is it not likely that, with the awards ceremony last night, the Government would have won the BAFTA for “One Scandal After Another” had they entered? The facts in this matter are not in dispute: the organisation Labour Together did not declare massive donations and was fined as a result; and in response, its head, now a Labour Minister, sought to gain dirt on the journalists who had truthfully reported the matter. Why does this need to be investigated? The facts are clear and the position is indefensible. I regard the three Ministers present as decent people and as gentlemen. Are they not sick of being put forward to defend the indefensible?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his concern for our wellbeing. As I have said, the independent ethics adviser will conduct his investigation and report to the Prime Minister in the normal way, at which point the Prime Minister will make a decision. It is not for me at the Dispatch Box to make the case one way or the other for the parties involved. However, I can inform the right hon. Gentleman that the allegations he has alluded to are disputed, which is why it is important that the independent adviser is given the opportunity to undertake that process and advise the Prime Minister in the proper way.

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

Debate between Darren Jones and Julian Lewis

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

Documents that are published as part of the Humble Address will of course comply with the terms of the Humble Address. As I have said to hon. Members before, if there are particular suggestions or concerns about specific Palantir contracts, those representations—with our assistance, if helpful—should be made to the Departments concerned, but I have not seen any suggestion that there has been a breach of procurement rules in relation to the issues raised.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

In response to an earlier question about the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee in relation to the Cabinet Office, the Minister rightly said that the ISC is concerned about its independence. As its former chairman, I can vouch for the fact that it was particularly concerned about the dominant role that the Cabinet Office had in its affairs. In his annual report covering 2023 to 2025, which was published on 15 December last year, my successor as chairman states:

“The Committee in the last Parliament became very seriously concerned that the vital scrutiny that the ISC provides was being undermined by continued interference by the Cabinet Office in the Committee’s Office… The root of the problem lies in the control exerted over the Committee’s staff and resourcing by the Cabinet Office.”

This is an opportunity to let the ISC have what it has asked for and wanted for years, which is independence from the Cabinet Office. Will the Minister please take that message back?

[Darren Jones]

I think the right hon. Member is referring to 2023, which is of course before this Government were in office. I confirm that we are in the middle of negotiations with the committee on a number of issues, partly in relation to its headcount. We have increased the budget available to the committee for staffing. We are considering the question of whether those staff should be independently employed separately from the Cabinet Office at the moment. It is not for me to speak on behalf of the committee, but I remind the House—and I am sure the right hon. Member would agree—that even though those staff are currently employed by the Cabinet Office, the work they do for the committee is exemplary, and the committee itself is strongly independent of Government.

Standards in Public Life

Debate between Darren Jones and Julian Lewis

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend will know that it was a clear manifesto commitment of our party to ban second jobs for Members of Parliament, except in limited circumstances such as those involving the maintenance of professional qualifications for doctors and lawyers. The Committee is considering those issues, on which it has been working in detail. The Government are working with the Committee to move those proposals forward as quickly as possible. I know that the Committee wishes to do the same.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

It is notable that despite the Government’s huge majority, they have run out of people to stand up and defend their position. The Minister is—I am not being patronising—a very intelligent man. I therefore ask that he does not insult the intelligence of the rest of us by talking about the Prime Minister having believed Mandelson’s lies after he asked him questions. We now know from the forensic questioning by the Leader of the Opposition that the Prime Minister knew that the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein carried on—“ongoing” was the word—after Epstein was jailed for offences related to paedophilia and prostitution. The Prime Minister apparently chose to ask more questions after that, and was lied to. What more did he need to know to realise that that man should never have been allowed within a mile of the post of ambassador to America?

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman will, in due course, see papers disclosed, in compliance with the Humble Address, that will be very clear in showing the questions that the Prime Minister asked of Peter Mandelson, and the lies that Peter Mandelson responded with.

US Department of Justice Release of Files

Debate between Darren Jones and Julian Lewis

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

All due process was followed. As the Prime Minister made clear, it was clear that additional measures for political appointments needed to be put into place, which have now been put into place. I remind my hon. Friend and the House that the information that became available, both at the time the Prime Minister sacked the former ambassador to the United States and in the last few days, only became available to the Prime Minister and the Government at the same time as everybody else.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Can the Minister not see that it is in the Labour party’s interest, as much as it is in the national interest, that this issue of stripping Mandelson of his peerage should be resolved as soon as possible and that wider legislation is brought in subsequently? The Minister may be a little young to remember when the late John Prescott compared Mandelson to a scorpion in a jam jar that he was holding, but can he explain to the House the fatal fascination of Labour leader after Labour leader appointing this man to post after post, given his chequered record of corruption and multiple resignations?

[Darren Jones]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman and the House that, whether it is Peter Mandelson, Michelle Mone or other peers who have brought the other place into disrepute, there needs to be a process for removing peerages. The Government are making it very clear today that this should be conducted on a cross-party basis to ensure the integrity of the other place and our democracy in the future, as it relates to all peers. I encourage Members across this House, and in the other place, to make sure those proposals are brought forward swiftly.

Regional Growth

Debate between Darren Jones and Julian Lewis

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I know that the Minister is drawing his parameters rather tightly today, but can he give us at least a hint of what impact the Treasury’s consideration anticipates for the defence investments in the regions resulting from the recent strategic defence review, given the closeness with which his Department was involved in the formulation of that review?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question, which recognises the significant increase in investment in defence and security that this Labour Government are making. He has asked for a hint, but the only hint I can offer is that the answer will come next Wednesday at the spending review.

Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill

Debate between Darren Jones and Julian Lewis

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Madam Chair.

We had a very constructive debate on Second Reading of the Bill. In particular, I wish to express my appreciation for the universal support that the House has shown for the provision of this vital funding. It is clearly a subject close to the hearts of many of us across the House. I look forward to further discussion on this important Bill today.

As the Committee is aware, the extraordinary revenue acceleration is an ambitious scheme designed to provide Ukraine with a total of $50 billion in additional support, to be repaid by the extraordinary profits generated on Russian sovereign assets held in the European Union. The United Kingdom’s contribution of £2.26 billion is joined by pledges from the United States, the European Union, Canada and Japan.

The Bill contains only two clauses. They are both straightforward. Clause 1 grants the Government the legal spending authority to fulfil the commitment we have made to provide Ukraine with the UK’s contribution to the extraordinary revenue acceleration. The clause empowers the Treasury or the Secretary of State to provide the Government of Ukraine with funds approved by Parliament as a result of the extraordinary revenue acceleration loans for Ukraine scheme, or

“any subsequent arrangements that are supplemental to or modify or replace those arrangements.”

Payments made under clause 1 will be those that are necessary to perform the UK’s commitment to the ERA scheme.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

In of course welcoming the Government’s measures, I note that the Minister referred to the extraordinary interest from the frozen Russian assets. Have the Government permanently set their mind against any possible actual seizure of the assets themselves, perhaps in agreement with other G7 members or EU members?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution. As we debated on Second Reading, this is a commitment across G7 partners and with the European Union to take action on the proceeds of the assets that are held. For other complicated legal reasons, there is no intention to seize those assets at this time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Among some of the excellent contributions we heard in this debate was the remark by the hon. Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) that if Putin is not seen to fail in Ukraine, British troops will ultimately end up being involved in some sort of conflict directly. Will the Minister take that message back to his Treasury colleagues? Some of us feel that the arguments about whether 2.5% of GDP should be spent now or in a couple of years’ time rather miss the point, because if we get to the stage where British forces are engaged, we will be spending far more than that. As a Treasury Minister, he should realise that investment in defence in peacetime can deter a much more expensive conflict.

[Darren Jones]

The Government’s position, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, is that we will set out the trajectory to 2.5% of GDP on NATO qualifying spend in 2025, following the conclusion of the strategic defence review and the spending review. He will also know that we fund our armed forces not just to be prepared, but to be ready to contribute. But clearly, I cannot comment on hypothetical scenarios in 2025. He was right to allude to contributions in the debate that rightly highlighted the Ukrainian armed forces on the battlefield fighting not just for their own country but for the security of Europe and the United Kingdom. I think we are all clear-eyed about that and, therefore, our responsibility to help them. That is why the Bill is one part of the package of support that we are putting in place and will continue to put in place over 2025.

I think I have answered most of the points substantively, and so I conclude my remarks.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Bill, not amended in the Committee, considered.

Third Reading