Oral Answers to Questions
Ed Davey Excerpts(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I associate myself with your remarks about Lord Alan Haselhurst, Mr Speaker, and can confirm to the Leader of the Opposition that he will be missed across the House. I also associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about Lance Corporal James Freeman, who was killed in Iraq. Our thoughts are with his family and unit. I also offer our thoughts and prayers to the family and friends of the 17 people who tragically drowned during the recent heatwave, many of whom were children.
The murder of Henry Nowak was an evil crime made much worse by the lies of the killer and the police response. The investigation must uncover everything that went wrong, and all police forces must act on its conclusions. Outside court, Henry’s father made a powerful plea that his son’s murder should not be used to create further division, but should instead be used to treat knife crime as a national emergency. Does the Prime Minister agree that the victims of knife crime and their families deserve a politics where we come together to solve these problems, instead of using them as a political football?
The Prime Minister
I join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the 17 people who lost their lives in the heatwave, many of whom, as he said, were young—each of them tragic. We send our condolences to their families.
On the case of Henry Nowak, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the approach he has taken. It is important in a case like this, which is so tragic—anybody who has seen the footage will have been deeply moved by it—that we reflect on our leadership roles here as political leaders. It is our duty to bring people together at a time like this, not to seek to divide them. It is particularly our duty to listen to what the devastated family are asking of us as political leaders. I thank all those who have acted in that way, because I think that is the right way to respond.
Ed Davey
I thank the Prime Minister for his reply and completely agree with him. We stand ready to work with the Government on serious policies to tackle knife crime.
With our armed forces overstretched, Labour now seems to be investing in a new weapon of war: the long-form essay. It gives another meaning to the phrase “drone warfare”—[Laughter.] Tony Blair says that the UK should suck up to Donald Trump, kowtow to US tech barons and go slow on Europe—the Prime Minister must be grateful for this rare endorsement of his agenda. Blair also claims that the sensible people are not radical and the radical people are not sensible. Is the Prime Minister concerned that unless he changes course, he will be remembered for being neither radical nor sensible?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman rather spoiled what was quite a good gag. I am surprised he has not done more to welcome the savings we are delivering for family fun days out this summer; I really thought he would have been delighted at the cheaper tickets for soft play.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ed Davey Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I join the Prime Minister in sending our condolences to the family of Lance Bombardier Ciara Sullivan, who died in a tragic accident, and to all her colleagues. I hope the Prime Minister will also join me in sending condolences to the family of Scott Hastings, the former Scottish and Lions rugby player who sadly passed away at the weekend.
In 2025, Donald Trump and Elon Musk abolished America’s international aid programme. At the same time, the Government made huge cuts to the UK’s aid programme. We now see a dangerous outbreak of Ebola in central Africa, which many people fear is going to spread and get much worse, yet there are rumours across Whitehall that the Prime Minister is planning further cuts to Britain’s international aid programme this year. Will he rule that out entirely today?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman raises the important issue of Ebola and Africa, and obviously we are working on it at pace and with others. We took a decision on aid in order to fund defence spending, because we needed to increase defence spending, but we are committed to our overseas aid, and we mitigated that decision with some of the measures put in place.
Ed Davey
I am not sure if the Prime Minister completely ruled out further cuts to the international aid programme. With defence chiefs this week writing to The Times to say that cutting aid for defence is a mistake, I hope that the Prime Minister and his Ministers will rule that out today. If he does not, I hope that Labour party members will ask all the Labour leadership candidates their position on the future of Britain’s aid programme.
In the past few days, two of those Labour leadership candidates—the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) and the Mayor of Greater Manchester—have ruled out any support for Britain joining the EU customs union, despite the fact that it would boost growth and help cut the cost of living. Is the Prime Minister relieved that he finally has something that he can agree with his colleagues on?
The Prime Minister
In the last two years, I have been negotiating serious trade deals that are vital for the most important sectors of our economy. These are trade deals with the EU, but also with India, North Korea and the United States. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the value of those deals. Before the deal with the United States, I went to Jaguar Land Rover in Solihull and talked to the workforce. They were worried sick about their jobs and communities. When we agreed terms, I went back to JLR—because of the deal we got with the EU, thousands of their jobs were safeguarded. The right hon. Gentleman’s approach would throw all that away. He would have to go and see those workforces and tell them that their jobs are gone. I am not going to do that.
Debate on the Address
Ed Davey Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I start by giving my sincere thanks, on behalf of all Liberal Democrats, to His Majesty King Charles for his Gracious Speech. We still believe President Trump should not have been rewarded for insulting British soldiers and the Royal Navy, but His Majesty was superb on that state visit.
I join others in paying tribute to the hon. Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Harlow (Chris Vince) for their accomplished speeches proposing and seconding the Loyal Address. Like me, the hon. Member for Bradford West worked in a factory. For her, it was crisps; for me, it was pork pies. If we throw in the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley), who worked in the soft drinks industry, together we are a meal deal. May I say that the hon. Lady is the real McCoy? She has already had an extraordinary life and career, talking from first-hand experience about how violence against women and homelessness touches millions of people. We are in her debt for that, and for her bravery and courage.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow on his speech. I hear he recently ran the London marathon—the House might be shocked to know that I have more experience with crisps than with long-distance running. It is a great pleasure to work with him on young carers and young adult carers, something that we are both passionate about, and I thank him for his leadership as chair of the all-party parliamentary group. As has been mentioned, the hon. Gentleman was a maths teacher for many years, and no doubt had to deal with bad behaviour in the classroom, so he may want to advise the Prime Minister on whether the Health Secretary should be put in detention.
There is a lot to cover in responding to this Humble Address, but I will start by directly addressing the atrocious acts of antisemitism that British Jews are experiencing at the moment, and the insecurity and fear that the community now feel. Week after week, British Jews are being attacked, intimidated and persecuted—Heaton Park synagogue, Kenton United synagogue, Finchley Reform synagogue, Jewish Futures in Hendon, Hatzola ambulances, and now the Golders Green stabbings. When I visited Western Marble Arch synagogue last week, members of the Jewish community questioned whether Britain is a safe place for them, or whether they must move abroad to be safe. No one should have to ask themselves that question in our country today—no one.
The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall, is right to call these appalling levels of antisemitism a “national security emergency”. He is also right to say that existing laws must be properly enforced. That is why I welcome the Government’s initiative to bring forward a policing Bill, and I urge them to ensure that police and prosecutors receive the right training and support to pursue antisemitic crimes much more effectively.
That is why the Liberal Democrats have long called for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to be proscribed as a terrorist organisation in order to tackle the threat that these Iranian terrorists pose to British Jews. The legislation to proscribe the IRGC—finally confirmed today, I believe—must be a top and urgent priority.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome what the Prime Minister is doing in relation to the IRGC, but he will be aware that some 30,000 individuals who protested on the streets of Iran are in jail. Some of them are on death row, about to be executed for standing up for liberty and freedom. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, should be taking action to try to get those people free? Now is the time to act.
Ed Davey
The hon. Gentleman is right to mention those in Iran who have been persecuted by the appalling Iranian regime. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will have heard that and will make as many representations as possible, but I accept that it is not an easy matter, given the regime in Tehran.
This is the 23rd Loyal Address that I have listened to in this House, and it is the most surreal by far. Everyone in this House and across the country knows that the Prime Minister may soon not be in power—not in place for his own programme and not able to deliver these promises. The votes on this King’s Speech ought to be interesting—a test of confidence in this Government and Prime Minister. The Liberal Democrats will be voting against it, but how many Members on the Government Benches will? By my reckoning, if every Labour MP who has called for the Prime Minister to go voted that way, the Government’s huge majority would be at risk. Let us see if they have the courage of their convictions.
The Liberal Democrats will be voting against it not just because the Prime Minister is now one of the weakest in post-war history, but because this King’s Speech does not offer the change our country needs. It does not offer the change needed to fix the insecurity that people and businesses are increasingly fearful of. It does not offer change to do with rising prices. People know that inflation in food, energy and fuel is set to rocket, but people do not think the Prime Minister has their backs on the economy. The financial and economic insecurity stalking our country is hitting growth, investment and jobs. We were promised change and a Government with growth as their mission, yet rather than change, we have had continuity from the failures that came before.
Faced with that calamity, what has the Prime Minister offered on growth? We have been offered an EU reset Bill that fails to reset. With a Prime Minister who knows a thing or two about failed resets, perhaps we should not be surprised. The Prime Minister’s refusal to remove his red lines on a new EU-UK customs union, to go further than his red lines on the single market and to deliver a new deep trading relationship with our European partners with a proper youth mobility scheme all mean that he is consigning our country to higher prices and lower growth and failing to address the economic insecurity plaguing our economy. Instead, we have been given taxes on jobs and the family farm tax.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Ed Davey
Not at the moment.
To be fair to the Government, some of our current economic problems stem from President Trump and his reckless war in Iran. Let us be absolutely clear: Trump’s war is stoking the cost of living crisis to new and alarming levels—fuel prices are up at the pump, food prices are set to go up even more, and people’s holidays are threatened. The Prime Minister’s biggest success was not taking us into Trump’s damaging war with Iran when the Conservatives and Reform were urging him to do so, yet because of the Government’s failure to build new and deeper economic alliances with Europe and the Commonwealth, as we have been urging them to do, this country is set to be hit far harder by the inflation caused by the situation in the strait of Hormuz.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
We all recognise the impact that Trump’s war is going to have on our economy. The right hon. Gentleman offers membership of the single market and the customs union as a solution to that, but prices in Edinburgh South West are going up right now. How long, in his estimation, would it take to access the single market and become a member of the customs union?
Ed Davey
The hon. Gentleman has obviously not noticed that we are the only party who have put forward a costed package to reduce the cost of petrol and diesel at the pumps—something that could be done immediately. I think he should pay more attention.
Trumpflation is predicted to be worse here because of the failures of this Government, and indeed the last. Cosying up to this White House was never going to work, and it has not. I suspect that history will show that the Prime Minister’s approach to President Trump was one of his worst mistakes.
The sad truth is that President Trump is one of the reasons why so many people in our country feel insecure, anxious and fearful about the future. From trade tariffs to the weakening of NATO, President Trump has broken all the certainties British people and businesses used to rely on, yet this Government have been far too slow to realise that and to respond to this new reality. The Conservatives and Reform may not have woken up, but there is no excuse for the Government. It has therefore been left to us. The country can know that my party will champion the new and changing international alliances that are so vital for the British economy and the defence of the United Kingdom.
Let me try to find an area of agreement. I do welcome the Government’s decision to bring forward an energy independence Bill, although we will scrutinise it line by line and advance our more ambitious ideas. I have long felt that energy independence should be a long-term goal for our country and our allies; even before Trump’s war in Iran, people and businesses were being hit because of our dependence on others for fuel. Energy bills for households are still around a third higher than before Putin’s war in Ukraine. When fossil fuel dictators like Vladimir Putin can hit the pockets of every family and pensioner in our country and tyrannical regimes like Tehran’s can hold our country and the world to ransom, surely it is time to wake up.
Oil and gas prices have a long history of spiking and hurting our economy. Even when North sea oil and gas production was at its height—now almost 30 years ago—the UK could still be hit because we have always been price takers. While I have always been pragmatic about our North sea oil industry for our economy—not least in Scotland—it is simply fantasy and fabrication for some in this House to pretend that there is a solution in the North sea to high energy prices.
The best way to cut energy bills is to invest in home-grown renewable power. We will therefore push the Government to go further in the energy independence Bill, just as we did on solar power early in this Parliament with the sunshine Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson)—now reflected in law.
The Prime Minister, or whoever replaces him, must take up our plan to protect people from Trumpflation on fuel bills and cut fuel duty, rail fares and bus prices to protect British families and businesses right now.
The Liberal Democrat agenda of greater security for families and businesses begins with greater economic, financial and energy security, but it is also built on greater security for our country. The Government must do far more to bolster our nation’s defences. With Vladimir Putin waging war in Europe and the need to redouble our efforts to support our brave Ukrainian allies to beat Russia, with a wildly unpredictable President sitting in the White House, leading a dangerous and idiotic war in the middle east and undermining NATO at every turn, and with a world order challenged by the rise of China, the case for an urgent and significant rise in defence spending is clearly a strong one.
It is even stronger when one looks at the state of our defence readiness. The Conservatives failed on the No. 1 task of any Government: to defend our country and back our armed forces. They left our Army at its lowest size since the Napoleonic war, and they left our Navy at its lowest size since the English civil war. Yet this Labour Government have moved at a snail’s pace, failing month after month to publish their own defence investment plan. In contrast, we have called for the immediate launch of defence bonds to raise £20 billion over two years, building on successful models used by Poland, and for a commitment to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 at the latest. We have argued for a new European rearmament bank so that our defence industries will lead the next generation of defence technologies.
If the history of the last century taught us anything, and if the experience of President Trump has taught us anything, it is essential and urgent that we work with our European and Commonwealth allies to secure and defend our country, our values and our way of life.
Central to our British way of life is the NHS, to which I now turn. It is important I do so, because I am likely to be the only Opposition party leader to stand up for healthcare in this debate, as the Conservatives are so embarrassed by their record and Reform’s leader has spent decades saying that he wants to get rid of the NHS entirely. The Government would have us believe that they have turned the NHS around after the mess left by the last Government, but when he is not plotting his next leadership bid against the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State would have Labour Back Benchers believe that he is fixing the NHS. If only.
Now we are told that the Health Secretary is planning to resign tomorrow. This resignation is taking so long that it would give NHS waiting lists a run for their money. Anyone who visits their local hospital knows that the NHS remains in a critical state. Thousands of people are still being treated in hospital corridors every day. We are now even seeing job adverts for people to provide care in corridors.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
It would be interesting to be reminded of how the right hon. Member voted on Andrew Lansley’s reforms of the NHS, many of which are still creating problems in our NHS today.
Ed Davey
The hon. Gentleman ought to know that although there was a long time when the Conservatives were messing up our NHS, Labour has had two years and has absolutely failed.
Let us turn to Labour’s promises to turn around primary care with more GPs, NHS dentists and community pharmacists. Some areas of the country have been going backwards since this Government came to power. When it comes to people feeling more secure in their lives and their futures, quality healthcare is central. I will not list off our policies for fixing the NHS, except one: care—social care and family care. Not for the first time, I must declare an interest.
I focus on care because it is the central, radical and transformational change that has to happen if we are to fix our NHS. Two years ago in the debate on the last Loyal Address I raised care with the Prime Minister as the big challenge that the Government had to tackle to rescue the NHS. I welcomed promises back then for cross-party working, but what has happened? Almost nothing. True, the excellent Baroness Casey has been dispatched around the country, on a timetable written in the Treasury, but her report will land just before the election so, once again, nothing will happen for care in this Parliament. That is a betrayal of the elderly and disabled who need better care, of their families and of the NHS. We will not let up in the fight to fix social care and to back people caring for their loved ones at home. We will put forward the changes that our country needs for people to feel less insecure when they face old age and illness.
Another aspect of our national life where insecurity has got worse and worse is farming and food. British farmers are world renowned. They are the key to ensuring that everyone has high-quality and affordable food on their plates. Yet they have been let down and forgotten time and again. They were let down by the Conservatives, who undermined our food security with bad trade deals and botched funding. The Conservative Government left England as the only country in Europe where farmers are not supported to produce food.
But somehow the Labour Government have managed to make things worse for farmers, not least with their terrible mess over the family farm tax. That is why we called for the inclusion of a good food Bill in the King’s Speech, to prioritise food security and back British farmers to produce British food. With Trump’s idiotic war in Iran hitting farmers with everything from higher fertiliser costs to higher prices for red diesel, the need for our good food Bill could not be more urgent. If that is coupled with our plans for a much closer trading relationship with Europe, there is a pathway to greater food security and lower food prices, and the Government must seize it.
There are many ways in which our party believes the Government should tackle the insecurity that people across the country feel right now: from quicker, tougher action on the damage being done by social media to our young people and people’s mental health, to backing the case for more community police officers to keep our communities safer, and having a fair asylum and immigration policy that is genuinely effective against irregular immigration but welcomes people who play by the rules and contribute to our great country; and from tackling the continuing scandals in our water industry to building the affordable and social housing that so many families and young people desperately need, and ensuring that children and families are at the heart of reforms to special educational needs.
My right hon. and hon. Friends will set out our approach on all those issues over the course of the debate, but I will end by addressing the threat to our country from another source: populist politicians and extremist parties that sow division, play the blame game and make wild promises, and that are a threat to our very democracy. They are exploiting our broken political system, which both the Conservatives and Labour have failed to fix.
The first-past-the-post electoral system of “winner takes all” was supposed to bring stability. It was supposed to provide majority Governments who could take the tough long-term decisions necessary to deliver for our country on the economy, the NHS and defence. We see how badly it has failed. We have majority Governments, yes, but with six Prime Ministers in a decade—soon, probably seven—we hardly have stability, when so many people now ask, “Is Britain governable?”
The concentration of power undermines so much and leads to the scandals that undermine the standing of our democracy even more: a twice-sacked Member of the House of Lords is handed our most prestigious ambassador post, despite the Prime Minister knowing his links to a convicted paedophile and sex trafficker; a Conservative Prime Minister consistently broke the rules that he himself set for the rest of us during one of our nation’s most severe crises; and a leader of a political party thinks a £5 million gift from a Thailand-based crypto billionaire does not reek of corruption
The threat is clear. Under our electoral system, a Reform party that takes its orders from its American boss at Mar-a-Lago could win a majority on less than a third of the popular vote. We must fix our broken political system before it is too late, but the King’s Speech is not up to that historic, vital task. We need a new Magna Carta to enshrine the rights of citizens and protect us from the populist extremists now threatening our country.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
The results in the Bradford district were some of the least representative, with Reform taking a majority of seats despite getting only 23% of the popular vote there. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, while Reform made gains in seats, it is not what the majority of people in this country support?
Ed Davey
I certainly hear the figures from Bradford; the hon. Lady makes the same case that our party makes for electoral reform of both local and national government. In the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), the Liberal Democrats now have every single councillor, but we do not have every single vote, and we would welcome electoral reform in those councils where we are over-represented. I hope the hon. Lady’s Government listen to the voices of Members on these Benches.
It is clear the country wants change—and, given the battering that the two old parties received at the recent elections, it is clear they are not offering it. Worryingly, many people are looking to the extremes on the left and the right, thinking that if we burn the system down, things will improve. Yet I do not believe the British people want Trump’s divisive, unfair America here, even though that is Reform’s offer of change. I also do not believe the British people want a reheated Corbynista agenda put forward by a Green party that no longer offers serious action to protect our nature and our climate.
It falls to the Liberal Democrats, then—the only non-populist, non-extremist party left standing—to offer the real change that people crave. Our change is about building things up, not burning them down. Our change is about bringing people, communities and our country together, not dividing and blaming people. From Europe to social care, from energy to defence, from political reform to our environment, I am proud to lead a party that is preparing for government so that our country can be changed for the better.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ed Davey Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Yesterday, we heard Christian Turner, Peter Mandelson’s replacement as US ambassador, say that the only country Trump has a special relationship with is Israel; that the Prime Minister’s job is in danger after next week’s elections; and that in the US, Jeffrey Epstein’s associates have evaded responsibility for their actions. The Prime Minister has had to fire one US ambassador for lying. Does he fear that he will have to fire a second for telling the truth?
The Prime Minister
Given what I have had thrown at me in the last two weeks by all the Opposition parties, that is the least of my problems. I know that the right hon. Gentleman likes stunts, but I was surprised that he joined in with the one yesterday. His business spokesman said last week that he was satisfied that I had not misled the House. The right hon. Gentleman’s opening position was that it was inconceivable that officials would give clearance to Mandelson and not tell Ministers that it was against the United Kingdom Security Vetting recommendation. That is what he said, and it did not happen. I expect frivolous accusations from the Leader of the Opposition. Clearly, I was wrong to expect anything better from the man in the wetsuit.
Ed Davey
I have got my drysuit on today, and let me tell the Prime Minister that when Boris Johnson was faced with that motion, he did not whip his MPs. There was a difference there.
Experts are warning that food prices will rise by 10% this year as farmers’ costs soar. Trump’s war has exposed how weak Britain’s food security is, yet under the system brought in by the Conservatives, England is the only country in Europe where farm payments do not actively support farmers to produce food. So will the King’s Speech include a good food Bill to fix that mistake and ensure that people can afford the food they need?
The Prime Minister
Of course food security is important, and that is why I was considering that, among other issues, in the ministerial meetings yesterday in Cobra. That is what I was spending my afternoon doing: ensuring that we were prepared and managing the risks of a conflict that will affect every single one of our constituents. What was the right hon. Gentleman doing? He was wasting his time in here on a baseless allegation and engaging in party political issues. He should have been working on the single most important issue of the day, but he wasted his time on a baseless political stunt.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ed Davey Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I associate myself and my party with the comments of the Prime Minister on our wonderful late Queen. I agree with him on the need to confront antisemitism wherever it is in our society, and on remembering Stephen Lawrence and his family.
I am sure many of us in this House were shocked by the revelations from Olly Robbins yesterday. He said that No. 10 told him to find a plum job for Matthew Doyle, another Labour crony who is friends with a convicted sex offender. The Prime Minister was asked on Monday whether No. 10 had proposed any political appointments other than Mandelson. Perhaps the past few hours have jogged his memory. Will he confirm today whether he knew that his office was lobbying for a diplomatic job for Matthew Doyle, and whether they were doing it on his authority?
The Prime Minister
As I said earlier, Matthew Doyle worked for many years in public service, both for me as Prime Minister and for other Ministers. When people leave roles in any organisation, there are very often conversations about other roles they may want to apply for. In this case, nothing came of it.
Ed Davey
The House and the public watching will note that the Prime Minister failed to answer my questions.
The chaos in this Government must not stop us focusing on the cost of living crisis hitting our country. President Trump’s idiotic war with Iran has already pushed up inflation in our country to 3.3%, and the Prime Minister knows there is far worse to come for the British people from here on in. They need help now. Will the Prime Minister follow other countries and use the Treasury’s extra revenue from higher fuel prices to cut rail and bus fares, and slash prices at the pump by 12p a litre?
The Prime Minister
Everybody can see that the conflict is causing serious economic damage in this country and countries around the world. The right hon. Member’s claim of a windfall for the Government is politically misleading and economically illiterate.
Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment
Ed Davey Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I start by reflecting on something that I feel, along with many Members across the House and, certainly, our constituents? That is how utterly depressing it is that we are having to have this debate at all. Just a few years after we went through all this under Boris Johnson and the Conservatives, and less than two years after the British people voted them out of office for indulging in this sort of chaos and distraction, here we are again.
Vladimir Putin is waging war on our continent. Donald Trump is waging war with Iran. We desperately need to strengthen our own national defences. Families and businesses are struggling against a cost of living crisis. Petrol prices have soared, and people are really worried about what Trump’s war will mean for their holidays this summer and their energy and food bills this winter. Our NHS is still in crisis. We all have constituents who are waiting weeks to see a GP, people who are dying on corridors in our hospitals, and loved ones who are not getting the care they need. We should be talking about them today. Theirs are the problems that the Government should be focused on every single day.
That is what Labour promised, after all. In their manifesto, they said that the problems in our country are a
“direct result of a governing party that, time and again, puts its own interests and obsessions above the issues that affect families.”
They promised to change that, but here we are again. Instead of fixing the NHS and social care, instead of properly funding our defence, and instead of cutting prices at the pump, here we are, having to ask why the Prime Minister appointed the close friend of a notorious paedophile sex trafficker to one of the most important and sensitive jobs in his Government.
Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein had been well reported and highlighted to the Prime Minister. He had already been forced to resign in disgrace twice from the previous Labour Government, and we now know that he was deemed a national security risk by the Government’s vetting agency. So we do, sadly, have to ask: why did the Prime Minister appoint Mandelson? Why did he announce the appointment before the national security vetting had been done, despite the then Cabinet Secretary Simon Case having told him that that should happen first? And why was he so determined to get Mandelson in post that he created, as Olly Robbins described it this morning, “an atmosphere of pressure” and a certain dismissiveness about the developed vetting process—a vetting process that the Prime Minister has since blamed for his mistakes?
Even after all this, even after yesterday’s statement, the Prime Minister still has not told us why he appointed Mandelson. He admitted that appointing Mandelson was a mistake and has apologised for it. He has tried to make the rest about process and officials, but he still has not answered the fundamental question: why?
I think we know a big part of the answer, do we not? It is Donald Trump. This all comes back to the way that the Prime Minister decided to approach his relationship with the President when he returned to office last year. Our party urged the Prime Minister to stand up to Trump, to stand together with our allies, and to approach him from a position of strength, not weakness. But he chose the opposite course. He decided to try to appease Trump, to flatter him, to stroke his ego, and to hope that he will be nice to us in return. Clearly, he thought that Peter Mandelson was the man for that job. So that is it: the decision to try to curry favour with Trump instead of standing up to him is the original sin that has landed the Prime Minister and his Government in the mess they are in today. Has it worked? Absolutely not.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister about the security vetting condition that required Peter Mandelson to be accompanied when visiting previous clients. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to find out whether the lack of accompaniment when visiting Palantir in Washington with the Prime Minister was a one-off or simply Mandelson continuing business as usual?
Ed Davey
My hon. Friend was right to ask that question yesterday, and I thought the Prime Minister’s response, which was that those types of meetings had not been recorded, was totally inadequate.
Despite all the flattery, Trump has still caused enormous damage to our economy and to the livelihoods of the British people with his tariffs and his war with Iran. Trump still undermines NATO, makes threats against our country and our allies, and insults Britain’s armed forces. Just look at what Trump said last night: that Mandelson was a “really bad pick”. I will not dwell on the hypocrisy of those words from a man who was close friends with Epstein, who partied with him and has so far taken no responsibility for that—those words from a President who still has as his Commerce Secretary a neighbour of Epstein who visited Epstein’s island and who lied about his relationship with him. All that is for another debate.
But Trump’s post, hypocritical as it is, does show the futility of trying to appease him. It shows how pointless it is to make a decision like who to appoint as US ambassador based on what Trump would like most. It does not work—it has not worked. I hope that on top of everything else, the Prime Minister and the Labour party will reflect on that point. The approach to Trump has failed. It is time to change course, to stand up to him, and to stand with our European and Commonwealth allies in defence of our national interest.
This is a mess of the Government’s own making. It is a mess born out of a futile attempt to appease Donald Trump. It is a mess that just keeps getting worse with today’s revelation, uncovered by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), that the Prime Minister pushed for the appointment as ambassador of another Labour crony with ties to a sex offender. Those catastrophically bad judgments have created a mess that has distracted and consumed the Government and stopped them from focusing on what the British people actually need.
The people out there do not want more Westminster drama; they are thinking about the hospital appointment that keeps being pushed back, the mortgage payments that just seem to keep going up, the loved ones who need care but are stuck on a waiting list, and the threats to our national security from an ever more dangerous world. Those are the things that keep people up at night, and they deserve a Prime Minister and a Government who are focused on them.
Our party will never stop making that case. We will never stop holding the Government to account, not for the sake of political point scoring but on behalf of the British people, who deserve better than this. The last Conservative Government failed our country by getting stuck in a cycle of chaos and scandal and refusing to move on. The question for the Labour party is whether it will repeat that mistake or finally deliver the change that our country needs.
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)
Today’s motion asks this House to consider the Government’s accountability to this place for Peter Mandelson’s appointment. The Government have been, and remain, fully committed to keeping the House informed of all relevant information related to Peter Mandelson’s appointment and subsequent dismissal as ambassador to the United States. Ministers have addressed the House on a number of occasions on this matter.
The Prime Minister has set out to the House that, while much of the debate on this issue has focused on process, at the heart of it all is the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson in the first place. The Prime Minister has been up front about that and takes responsibility for it. He knows that he should not have made the appointment. He regrets the decision, and he apologises for it, in particular to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Those women and girls have been subjected to intolerable cruelty and disgusting abuse, and are to date without justice. Their experiences should be taken seriously and they should be listened to.
I do not come to the House today to defend that decision—it was the wrong one. I am here to account for the Government’s accountability to this House on the process that followed. I take the Government’s responsibility to this House seriously, so I will not take the opportunity this evening to try to score party political points, or to defend a decision that the Prime Minister has said is wrong and for which he apologises. I do, however, commit to returning to this House as often as required.
Darren Jones
The Prime Minister followed the process that was in place, and I will turn to some of the details of that in the remainder of my speech.
On 11 March, I addressed the House in response to the Humble Address, as we released the first tranche of documents relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment and subsequent dismissal. I committed to keep the House updated as we worked to publish documents relevant to that Humble Address, and I recommit to doing so today. I reassure the House that we are proceeding at pace to process the outstanding documents, a number of which are currently being reviewed by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, with the aim of publishing the next tranche of documents as a matter of urgency.
In the debate, I was asked specifically about redactions in documents published in relation to the Humble Address. I will be clear: redactions are visible on the documents by the black marking out of information. If there is no marking out, it is not a redaction. All redactions are agreed via the Intelligence and Security Committee before they come to the House.
Security Vetting
Ed Davey Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
It is 2022 all over again. Back then, when the Prime Minister was in opposition, and when it was Boris Johnson who was accused of misleading Parliament and scapegoating senior officials, the then Leader of the Opposition could not have been clearer; he said:
“The public need to know that not all politicians are the same—that not all politicians put themselves above their country—and that honesty, integrity and accountability matter.”—[Official Report, 25 May 2022; Vol. 715, c. 298.]
He promised “change”. He promised to
“break this cycle and stop the chaos.”
He promised a Government with
“more focus on long-term strategy, not the short-term distractions that can animate Westminster.”
I am afraid that the fact that he has even had to make a statement today shows how badly he has failed—how badly he has let down the millions of people across our country who are so desperate for change.
The Prime Minister blames his officials. He says that he had “no idea”. He gives every impression of a Prime Minister in office, but not in power. The facts remain, even by his own account, that the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States even after he had been warned about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The Prime Minister announced the appointment before Mandelson had been vetted, despite the clear risk to national security of putting someone unsuitable in that role. One of his top officials, just three weeks into the job, clearly believed that the Prime Minister wanted Mandelson to be appointed regardless of what the vetting process turned up. The Prime Minister has relied on the vetting process to defend his decisions, so why did he ask so few questions personally about the vetting process?
We all know the truth: the Prime Minister knew that appointing Mandelson was an enormous risk, but he decided that it was a risk worth taking—a catastrophic error of judgment. Now that has blown up in his face, the only decent thing to do is take responsibility. Back in 2022, the Prime Minister rightly accused Boris Johnson of expecting others to take the blame while he clung on. That was not acceptable then, and it is not acceptable now. I hope that the Prime Minister can at least tell the House this. We will be listening very carefully to his answer. Was he given advice by Simon Case, the then Cabinet Secretary, that the necessary security clearances should be acquired before he confirmed his choice for US ambassador? Did the Prime Minister follow that advice—yes or no?
After years of chaos under the Conservatives, we needed a Government focused on the interests of the people—the cost of living crisis, the health and care crisis, and our national security. We needed a Government with honesty, integrity and accountability. Will the Prime Minister finally accept that the only way that he can help to deliver that is by resigning?
The Prime Minister
I set out in my statement the full facts. In September, when the Bloomberg emails came to light, I asked the then Cabinet Secretary to review the process. He told me that the process was as it should have been, and as soon as the information about the security vetting came to light last Tuesday, I asked for the facts to be established, so that I could update Parliament.
The right hon. Gentleman asks me about the announcement before developed vetting. He has heard the evidence that I have given to the House from the former Cabinet Secretary and from the former permanent secretary. In relation to the advice from Simon Case, when I asked the former Cabinet Secretary to review the process after September 2025, he specifically addressed whether the process had been followed by referencing the Simon Case letter, and assured me that the process was the right process to have followed. In answer to his question, that was specifically looked at by Sir Chris Wormald in the review that was conducted in September last year.
Middle East
Ed Davey Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I join him in what he said about the horrific attack in Southport. Our thoughts are with the families of Bebe, Elsie and Alice and with all those affected.
“A whole civilisation will die tonight”—
words I never thought I would hear from an American President. Though Donald Trump thankfully did not follow through this time, those words are a stark reminder of how reckless, immoral and completely outside the bounds of international law this President is. Regrettably, he is no friend of the United Kingdom. He is no leader of the free world. He is a dangerous and corrupt gangster, and that is how we must treat him. Will the Prime Minister advise the King to call off his state visit to Washington before it is too late? I really fear for what Trump might say or do while our King is forced to stand by his side. We cannot put His Majesty in that position.
Trump’s latest cunning plan, to blockade the strait of Hormuz, will only escalate this crisis and jeopardise the precarious ceasefire. It is right that the UK is not joining him, and I welcome the Prime Minister convening a summit to offer an alternative to Trump’s. We must work with our reliable allies in Europe and the Commonwealth and our partners in the Gulf to bring this conflict to an end and keep open the strait of Hormuz. That is critical for tackling the cost of living crisis, which is getting worse and worse for people in the UK. Petrol prices are now up by more than 25p a litre and diesel up 49p since Trump started this war—cheered on, let us not forget, by the leader of the Conservative party and Reform.
Does the Prime Minister recognise that families and businesses cannot wait months for the Government to step in and help? Will he use the windfalls that the Treasury is getting from higher fuel prices to cut the cost of living and keep the economy moving, with action to slash bus and rail fares, and to cut fuel duty by 10p today, bringing down the price at the pumps by 12p a litre?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. In relation to the language about destroying a civilisation, can I really be clear with this House? That was wrong. A threat to Iranian civilians in that way is wrong. These are civilians, let us remember, who have suffered immeasurable harm by the regime in Iran for many, many long years. That is why they are words and phrases that I would never use on behalf of this Government, who are guided by our principles and our values throughout all this.
In relation to the King’s visit, the relationship between our two countries is important on a number of levels. The monarchy, through the bonds that it builds, is often able to reach through the decades on a situation like this; and the purpose of the visit is to mark the 250th anniversary of the relationship between our country and the United States, and that is why it is going ahead.
In relation to the blockade, let me be clear, as I have been already in the last day or so, that we are focusing our efforts on opening in full the strait of Hormuz because of the damage that the situation is doing to economies around the world, including our own. That is why we have been working with other countries at various levels and will bring them together in a summit later this week. We, the UK, will not be joining the blockade that the President announced.
In relation to the help that is needed for families and households, obviously we have already put in place help for energy bills and heating oil, but we are keeping this under constant review as the situation evolves. The single most important and effective thing we can do is to de-escalate the situation and work with others to get the strait of Hormuz open, and that is why we are focusing so much of our efforts in that regard.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ed Davey Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about Monday’s despicable attacks on the Jewish community? Antisemitism has no place in our society. Given the potential links with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, I hope that the Government will move faster to proscribe the group as terrorists.
As a former Secretary of State for Energy who granted licences for oil and gas exploration, may I make a judgment on this argument? The Prime Minister is actually right, and the Leader of the Opposition is wrong—[Interruption.] The law is clear, and I believe in the rule of law.
Just before President Trump posted about his supposed negotiations with Iran on Monday, traders made hundreds of millions of dollars of extra bets on oil futures. This looks like Donald Trump giving his mates inside information so they can make themselves richer, while his illegal war in Iran makes everyone else poorer. It looks like corruption of the very worst kind. Does the Prime Minister share my fear that Trump is making his war decisions on the basis of what enriches him and his friends, rather than what makes peace in the middle east?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his verdict. At least he has read the law that the Leader of the Opposition obviously has not read. In relation to the traders, we have seen the activity there. What I can say is that all my decisions are based on the best interests of our country, and that is why I have decided that we will not get dragged into the war, unlike the Leader of the Opposition. I have decided that we will act in collective self-defence—in defence of ourselves and our allies. I comment on my actions, and those are the principles behind my actions.
Ed Davey
If Trump’s war pushes up energy bills by £500, the Chancellor’s very narrow plans simply will not cut it. While I do not fall for the crocodile tears of the leader of the Conservatives, who cheered on this illegal war without a thought for the impact on people’s energy bills, and while the Government are right to reject the idea of repeating Liz Truss’s blank cheque approach, the Government cannot ignore the millions of families who do not receive benefits and who already face a cost of living crisis. Can the Prime Minister at least guarantee to all those families and pensioners that he will not let their energy bills go up by £500 this year?
The Prime Minister
Well, let me now give my verdict. The right hon. Gentleman is right about the Leader of the Opposition wanting to join the war, and she is wrong about that. [Interruption.] At least the right hon. Gentleman has read the legislation on which I am being challenged; it does help. [Interruption.] At least the right hon. Gentleman is right that it was the leader of the Conservative party who said, “Let us all go to war,” without thinking through the consequences. We are now discussing the consequences.
In relation to the support, we have made clear the principles and the approach that we will take. We will keep this under careful review. Energy bills for households are capped until the end of June. It is really important that I make it clear that that will happen whatever happens in the conflict, because I know the public are concerned about that. We will then put in place appropriate support, and we will look at how we put the principles behind it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ed Davey Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I join the Prime Minister in offering my condolences to the family and friends of the two young people who have been killed by the meningitis bug in Kent and all those affected by this horrifying outbreak.
Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent is critical for the defence of our nation and the whole of Europe, but the current Trident missiles will reach the end of their lives in the 2040s. We have to make a choice now: lease new missiles from the United States, accepting whatever terms the President gives us, or build our own here in the United Kingdom. The Conservatives and Reform say that we have to rely on President Trump and the United States because we could not possibly do it ourselves. Does the Prime Minister agree with them?
The Prime Minister
Our independent nuclear deterrent protects us every day, and we should never forget how important it is. It is important that we renew it. We will do that in the best interests of Britain. The right hon. Member is openly advocating a plan without knowing how much it would cost and how it would work. That is not the way to deal with our independent nuclear deterrent.
Ed Davey
I am surprised by that response. The French can do it—does the Prime Minister really think Britain cannot?
Moving on, a New World investigation into GB News has found hundreds of shocking breaches of the rules of impartiality and accuracy, yet Ofcom has repeatedly refused to take action. Andrew Neil says:
“Just as Fox basically became the channel of Donald Trump, it’s clear they have turned GB News into the Reform channel”.
We cannot let GB News propaganda turn our great country into its version of Trump’s America. Either the Government rules are not fit for purpose or Ofcom is not properly enforcing them—which is it?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Member is right to raise an important question of free speech and our media. It is a matter for Ofcom, and it is important that we let it deal with it.