British Indian Ocean Territory

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

rose—

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Who are you giving way to, Minister? Three Members think it is them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I will continue with my remarks for the moment. As I have said, we are confident that nothing in this treaty conflicts with our ability to uphold international law and continue to operate the base as we do today.

Moving on to the UK-US relationship, we have been clear that before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following: pass primary and secondary legislation; update the UK-US exchange of notes; and put in place arrangements on the environment, maritime security and migration. This Government consider it our duty to protect the public. Therefore, it is our duty to pursue this agreement with clarity and resolve, and we will not put party politics ahead of national security, as we see the Opposition doing today.

We have made strong progress towards finalising an updated UK-US agreement and will reach an agreement on it before the agreement between the United Kingdom and Mauritius concerning the Chagos archipelago, including Diego Garcia, is ratified. These matters are still under negotiation, so it remains to be determined whether any updated agreement will be subject to ratification. We will keep Parliament informed about that.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I listened to the criteria that the Minister expressed before ratification is possible. Is American agreement one of the criteria that she considers essential?

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Member will have heard me say that before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following: pass primary and secondary legislation; update the UK-US exchange of notes; and put in place arrangements on the environment, maritime security and migration. It is important—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

That is precisely the case; it is as plain as a pikestaff, yet the Government persist with the policy.

It is perfectly reasonable and respectable for the Government to say, “The facts have clearly changed, and all these things have come to light, so we will pause this. There is no hurry in this matter, nor any dishonour in saying that we need to consult on it more widely—potentially indefinitely. Nevertheless, we will continue the process and keep it open.” I appreciate that, to save the Government’s blushes, we cannot simply can it, but we can pause it.

If the Minister wants more evidence that the Chagossians have been trampled all over during this process, she need only refer to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which said in December 2025 that we should pause the deal in order to ensure that the Chagossians’ voices are properly heard. She is being attacked from all quarters, and the unifying message from all those quarters is, “For goodness sake, let’s pause this—just think again.”

[Lincoln Jopp]

Does my right hon. and gallant Friend agree that this could well be a case of, “If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, it is possible that you have failed to appreciate the gravity of the situation”?

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend, who is experienced in these matters, makes an extremely good point. We need to keep our heads in all this. The Conservative party has been consistent in its opposition to this terrible, terrible surrender deal. The people out there honestly cannot understand why the Government persist with it. It is plainly not a matter of national security. I fear that all this is underpinned by the Government’s insistence on satisfying their post-colonial guilt. The Government need to get over that and understand that national security has primacy in this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Before I turn to the subject of the Opposition day debate, I must comment on the answer that the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), gave to the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart)—a Member I respect hugely. She mentioned climbing the greasy pole, possibly even in relation to me. It is always amusing when people who have served in the Cabinets of multiple Conservative Prime Ministers accuse Back-Bench Members of somehow being involved in climbing a greasy pole. It is just very, very amusing. [Interruption.] I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for his comment; I understand he also did pretty well in the past.

This motion is the Conservatives playing politics with national security—their friends in the other place using a wrecking amendment to block the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill being a prime example of that. Conservative Members have never been able to answer this question: if there was no problem with British sovereignty and operation of the base, why did they begin the negotiations in the first place?

[Lincoln Jopp]

I thank the and hon. and incredibly loyal Member for giving way. Does he realise that, as the result of a UN judgment in 1965, the United Kingdom was required to enter into negotiations with Argentina over the future of the Falkland Islands? Those negotiations continued until 1982, when they were concluded in a rather different way from that envisaged by the UN.

[John Slinger]

I thank the hon. and even-more-loyal-than-I Member for his intervention. We spar across the House—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Evans]

It is indeed. I applaud the Government and their Ministers for doing that.

We hear time and again from Government Members that we have had ample time to debate these issues. I entirely agree, but that is exactly the problem. These debates have been going on for so long because we are not getting the answers that we need to do our job and scrutinise this deal. Anyone making a good argument should be able to justify their point and evidence it. I will summarise some of the key questions that I want answered, and will say why we seem stuck. I will then explain why that matters, and, finally, will give the context of this debate.

First, we ask about the legal position. The Government say that there is legal jeopardy, but the Conservatives contend that what the International Court of Justice says is non-binding, that there is no court that could pass judgment, and that there is a Commonwealth opt-out. The Government say that the cost is £3.4 billion; the Government Actuary says that the figure is £34 billion, and the Conservatives contend that the Government are using the wrong tool to make a judgment on cost, because net present value does not count. When it comes to the environment, the Government say that safeguards are in place, but the Conservatives contend that Mauritius does not have a navy that would enable it to hold up its side of the bargain and prevent damage to fishing.

Turning to the nuclear aspect, we Conservatives recognise that the Pelindaba treaty creates a conflict, and the Government have not explained why it does not. As for the US’s involvement and whether it has a veto, we believe that the 1966 agreement would need to be taken into account. Finally, although it has not been mentioned today or over the past few weeks, there is the long-term security of this base. At the end of 99 years, there is only an option for us to buy and continue, so what happens at that point? We have not secured the long-term security of the base at all.

[Lincoln Jopp]

My hon. Friend will have heard the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), list the preconditions before treaty ratification can take place. I am pretty sure that I asked about America, and she said that there needed to be an exchange of letters. The position of the American Administration is that the Chagos deal as proposed by His Majesty’s Government would be

“an act of GREAT STUPIDITY”.

We seem quite a long way from getting American agreement and acquiescence. Does my hon. Friend, like me, foresee that we would need a protracted period of negotiation with the United States of America to get its acquiescence to this deal?

[Dr Evans]

Fundamentally, the US should express its concerns publicly, and it has now done so. We have asked Ministers, both in this debate and on Monday, whether the UK Government can make a unilateral decision without amending the notes. The Government have said that they have to amend the notes, but they have not set out what happens if the US does not agree. That is the key part of this, but the Government keep reading out the same answer that I got on Monday when I asked that question, the same answer that I got when I intervened on the Minister, and the same answer that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) got. They say that they have set out the process, which is primary legislation, secondary legislation, and then amendments to the notes. The question is: what happens if the Americans do not agree to that amendment of the 1966 notes? I will take an intervention if the Minister can tell us, because the fundamental point about US involvement is this: if they say no, but we say yes, where do the islands go? What happens to the agreement? What happens if they say yes and we say no? Those fundamental questions are why we keep coming back to this issue. If there was clarity and simple answers to simple questions, the Opposition would understand that and be able to make a balanced judgement. Instead, we have gaps in our understanding from the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). With his final words on self-determination echoing in my ears, I have no doubt he will be reflecting on whether he is going to afford the people of Romford the same rights that he is demanding for the Chagossian people.

[Tom Hayes]

The Conservatives have argued against the Government’s position and have done so believing that that is what is right. They have never impugned the patriotism or the loyalty of the Labour party to this country, unlike the hon. Member for Romford. Does the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) agree that we should take no lessons from Reform, who take their line from either Musk or Moscow?

[Lincoln Jopp]

I thank the hon. and gallant Member for his intervention. If he wants to do so, I suggest that he takes it outside, as they say.

I am very time-constrained, but I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches who have informed the debate with incredibly detailed research and knowledge. I have been delighted to see the Minister’s PPS running backwards and forwards from the officials’ Box, because I was rather hoping that the summing up would not simply be a reheating of the opening remarks made by the Minister with responsibility for the Indo-Pacific, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra). There have been substantive points made from these Benches, which I hope will be answered in the summing up.

I am very time-constrained and a lot of points have already been covered. In search of inspiration I was wondering what I might add to the debate, so I will read out a piece of casework which, although not relevant to the Chagos islands, is an interesting comparator. It comes from a member of the public who had written to his bank manager. I suppose I owe it to him to anonymise him, so I need to come up with some sort of pseudonym. I will call him Mr Powell.

Mr Powell wrote to his bank manager: “Dear Sir, a number of years ago, I inherited a large seven-storey home in Mayfair. I am incredibly lucky and I acknowledge that fact. It is far too big for me to live in. I live solely in half of the ground floor. For as long as I can remember, I have had Americans living on the other floors. I like these Americans, so they live there rent-free. What I am proposing, sir, is that I give you, the bank, this house. I then propose to pay you, the bank, rent above the market rate not only for me, but for all the Americans who live upstairs. I would be very grateful for your advice on this issue.”

The bank manager wrote back to Mr Powell: “Dear Mr Powell, are you okay? I am concerned for your mental state, because what you are proposing would appear to be an act of GREAT STUPIDITY.” [Laughter.] The bank manager went on to make the following four points: “First, you do not need to do this at all. Secondly, it will cost you a fortune. Thirdly, you do realise that at the end of all this you will have given away your house? Fourthly, on a personal note, were these arrangements ever to become public, I fear that your neighbours would laugh at you. Yours, the Bank Manager.”

I simply leave that analogue there, to let my colleagues in so that we may wrap this debate up.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Tice, thank you.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Last time I checked, there were 404 Labour MPs. Why does the Minister think that his Whips could not come up with a single Back Bencher to come to the Chamber and support his position today?

[Stephen Doughty]

Because they see this for what it is, which is simply party political game playing. Games are being played with our national security in the other place in a way that is deeply reckless and irresponsible.

International Day of Education

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Thank you for that welcome, Ms Vaz. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous), who is also the chair of the APPG on global education, on securing this debate and on his long-standing interest in this matter. I also thank the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for his gracious words of welcome, particularly because he was due to be standing at this Dispatch Box. When I saw him walk into Westminster Hall, I have to admit that my blood ran slightly cold, worrying that perhaps our shared team had prepared the same speech for us both to give—I should have known better.

We on this side of the House recognise the huge benefits that education brings to supporting aspiration and helping to fulfil potential. Whether at home or abroad, we know that education lays the foundation for young people to build better futures. Here in England, the last Conservative Government raised standards in our schools and lifted the UK’s standing in international league tables for literacy to first in the western world, and fourth in the world. We also increased the number of full-time teachers by around 27,000, which is about 2,000 a year on average—a higher annual rate of growth than the 6,500 over five years promised by the current Government.

Internationally, we played our part in supporting initiatives to lift people out of poverty. With the United Nations International Day of Education approaching on 24 January, this is an opportune moment to reflect on the links between education and economic development, and the role that the UK can play. Members will be aware of the UN’s sustainable development goal 4, which focuses on quality education to

“Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”.

The previous Government focused effort and resources on this area, including expanding and improving access to education, especially for women and girls, who face particular barriers to securing a meaningful education and childhood in parts of the world. This led to 19.8 million children, including 10 million girls, being supported with a decent education since 2015. That made a profound difference to those lives.

The international women and girls strategy launched in 2023 had a strong focus on education. It highlighted the wider societal benefits of improved education for women and girls in developing countries, including that

“A child whose mother can read is 50% more likely to live beyond the age of five”,

is more likely to be immunised, and is about

“twice as likely to attend school.”

Girls benefiting from higher levels of education are also less likely to be affected by violence from a partner, less likely to marry as a child and more likely to find employment and start businesses. One of the great untapped potentials in developing countries is the enterprise and entrepreneurial spirit of women. Better education can help to unleash that potential. That is something that Members in all parts of the House can agree on.

That strategy also focused on the three Es of educating girls, empowering women and girls and championing their health and rights, and ending gender based violence. But education is the essential first step. I ask the Minister, are the Government committed to implementing that strategy? With international development budgets understandably being reduced to support efforts to bolster our defences and national security, can the Minister update the House on the areas where the Government intend to focus resources for the rest of the decade?

My team and I had prepared a rather different speech, but I have been very struck by the fact that four Members have mentioned Afghanistan. If the Chamber will indulge me, I, like the sponsor of this debate, would like to understand from the Minister what the Government are doing in terms of education in Syria, Iran, Gaza and the west bank and Sudan, but I want to tell a rather different story about international education.

It is 2009 and we are in Basharan in the Helmand river valley of Afghanistan. There is a small village in Basharan with a defunct school. A young company commander by the name of Sean Birchall takes over that area and is determined that the school should open for boys and girls. He spends vast amounts of time going backwards and forwards, at great risk, to Lashkar Gah to try to get the education department there to provide teachers and school equipment, such as books and chairs. Sean was killed by a bomb, leaving a widow and an 18-month-old son, Charlie. Nevertheless, the men and women in his company of Welsh Guards continued his extraordinary work and the school got up and running.

Fast forward to April the next year and I am the commanding officer of the Lashkar Gah battlegroup. We have Basharan in our patch, and very near one of the routes into Basharan was an impassable road—the Taliban had put a tax office on it and seeded it with a number of improvised explosive devices. I was given the mission to clear the road. I discussed it with the company commander and said, “It looks to me like we now need to start at one end and go to the other, or start at the other end and go to the other.” He said, “Let me have a think.” Then he said, “Right. I want to start in the middle and clear out in two directions.” I said, “Right, okay.” Taking the Taliban tax office would send a signal to the area that there was greater control.

This involved a lot of moving people and equipment around, which alerted the locals that it was happening. I was at the checkpoint nearest to where we were going to start the operation the next day, and a young lance corporal called Cammy sent a message saying, “Commanding officer to the front gate,” so I went there. My approach to counter-insurgency, which I told the battalion, was: “We need to take risks to be safer.” It is one of the paradoxes of counter-insurgency; it is incredibly dangerous but, nevertheless, it can bear results.

Cammy introduced me to a fellow with a wooden leg—a local—who had come to the gate and asked what was going on. Cammy said—he did not ask me—“I’m going to tell him the plan for tomorrow,” and I said, “Crack on.” So he told him the plan: that we were going to go in the next day and take down the tax office, and that we were going to clear the bombs but knew it was very dangerous indeed.

The man, who was known as the Muj—mujaheddin—said, “Well, I’m going to come with you tomorrow at dawn and I’m going to show you where the bombs are.” I asked him, “Why are you going to do that? It’s incredibly risky.” And he said, “I will show you where the bombs are so that you can clear them, so that you can open the road and my daughter can go to Basharan school.”

We all had a fitful night’s sleep, and, good as gold, the next day, at dawn, he turned up and we gave him a can of yellow spray-paint, and he hopscotched his way around a high-density minefield and sprayed paint on where the bombs were. It is so rare for the good that we enable off the security line of operations—namely education—to play so directly into local consent, in order to advance the cause and British interests.

Under the UK aid flag, our support for education should be a sign of hope and freedom for those who receive it. We have had strong successes in recent years in delivering quality education for those who need it across the world, providing new opportunities for millions. Along with our key partners, the UK should continue to play a leading role, exercising our resources, leverage and expertise to improve educational outcomes and lift millions, globally, out of poverty and into a better future.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is spot on. This is the critical moment when the Government should tear up the Bill and scrap this disaster. It should not proceed at all.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend noticed, like me, that all the military veterans in the Government and on the Labour Benches—with one notable exception—seem to have abandoned their post today? I have counted about nine veterans on our Benches. If more veterans had been on the Labour Benches, perhaps they could have told the Front Benchers about the forlorn hope. The forlorn hope were the people who were sent out either to defend the indefensible or to go on suicidal attack missions. They were in search of either promotion or pardons for sins of the past. Does she agree that the Front Benchers have been sent out here to defend the indefensible?

Proposed Chinese Embassy

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

Is the hon. Lady referring to Russia, or to another country? In relation to the China, I will say again what I said earlier: China is the world’s second largest economy and the UK’s third largest trading partner, and not engaging with China is no choice at all. Through engagement, we can be strong on security and on the economy.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Can the Minister not hear herself, and not see how absurd it is for the Government to insist that they should treat the decision on the embassy as a quasi-judicial, independent planning question? It is not a planning question; it is a question of national security, and if the Prime Minister had any backbone, he would own it, decide it one way or the other, and then talk to the House about it.

I do not know how up to speed the Minister is on her Greek mythology, but before the Trojan horse was pulled into Troy after a 10-year siege, one priest, Laocoön, said that the horse should not be pulled in because it would spell the end of the city. That is the role that this House is playing today. Does the Minister think that the decision about whether to pull the Trojan horse into Troy should have been treated as a veterinary issue?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Member for his lesson in Greek mythology, most of which I am familiar with. It is important to have a serious debate about our relationship with China, and to continue to have a consistent and pragmatic approach to our engagement. I have already said that China is our third largest trading partner, but also all G7 nations engage with China economically and diplomatically, and it is important that we continue to do so.

US National Security Strategy

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the work that he does on his Committee, which very much informs the work of Government. I agree that it is important for the UK to continue to develop its own capabilities, and to work closely with allies on security, not just to make sure that the UK is strongly defended, but in the interests of prosperity and security across the world.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I spent about five years, on and off, working in the Ministry of Defence, and we had a saying: plans without resources are hallucinations. On 8 September, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry told my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) that the Defence investment plan would be published “in the autumn.” Some people think autumn ends on 30 November; others, being generous, say it ends on 21 December. Will the Minister tell us today when the defence investment plan will be published, given that, in her words, national security is the Government’s “first priority”?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. This matter will, I am sure, be brought to the House by the relevant Ministers. We recognise the importance of boosting our defence and security co-operation, including with European allies who are strong in their defence of Ukraine. We do that through bilateral partnership agreements with France, Germany and Poland; our security and defence partnership with the EU; and our continued leadership of the joint expeditionary force and the coalition of the willing in support of Ukraine. As I have said, I am sure that the House will be updated on this matter by the relevant Ministers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with all the points that my right hon. Friend has made on this issue. The bravery that the volunteers show means that they themselves are directly targeted; they described how, with each change of control, they end up getting targeted again by the warring party that has taken control of the area. What we have seen is absolutely horrendous. We will continue to speak up for Sudanese and other aid workers.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

8. What assessment she has made of the level of threat that China poses to UK interests.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

15. What assessment she has made of the level of threat that China poses to UK interests.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)]

China poses a series of national security threats, including on espionage, cyber-attacks, transnational repression and support for Russia in its war against Ukraine. We challenge China robustly in relation to all those threats. China is also our third-largest trading partner, and a country that we need to co-operate with on international issues, including trade and climate change.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer. There is a rumour going round Whitehall that the Foreign Secretary is not the Foreign Secretary, and that the real Foreign Secretary is Mr Jonathan Powell. That could not possibly be the case, of course, because it would make a mockery of the ability to hold the Foreign Secretary to account. Can the Foreign Secretary demonstrate that she really is in charge by telling us the precise instructions that she gave Mr Powell before he met the Chinese Foreign Minister four days ago?

[Yvette Cooper]

As the Prime Minister set out yesterday, in relation to China we need not just strong action on security and the economy in our national interest, but engagement. Since 2018, President Macron has visited China twice, and he is there again this week, and President Trump met President Xi in October and will visit China in April, yet until last November, there had been no UK leader-level meetings with China for six years under the Conservative Government. It is important that we engage with China on both security and the economy through our National Security Adviser, through the rest of the Government and through Ministers.

Budget Resolutions

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Let me begin by drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, not because I believe there is a conflict, but because it illustrates the fact that I am one of those sadly rare individuals in the House who have spent the last 30 years owning and building a business. Hopefully, it also illustrates that I know whereof I speak.

I sincerely wish, on behalf of my employees and my constituents, that I could welcome today’s Budget. Before I am a Conservative, I am a British citizen, and I want the country to win. All of us should hope that any Budget, delivered by any Chancellor of any party, will put the country on a sound footing for a prosperous future. Sadly, today’s Budget was, to me, most redolent of the omnishambles Budget of 2012. We have to admit, as a party, to mistakes that we have made in the past. That Budget attempted to be politically smart to satisfy the Government’s Back Benchers, but in the hours and days that followed, it quickly unravelled, and I must tell Labour Members that I think exactly the same will happen with this Budget, because it is full of contradictions and incoherences in seemingly small areas. Take electric vehicles. I declare an interest, as the driver of an electric vehicle. The Government are pumping money into subsidising the roll-out of charging—indeed, there are grants for take-up—but the pence per mile being charged will discriminate against particular groups who need their cars, such as the disabled and the elderly, and against those in rural constituencies, who will be seriously disincentivised. It will also have a psychologically damaging impact on people who are thinking about buying an electric vehicle.

Another of those areas is the housing market. We seem to think that an attack on landlords and the higher end of the market will not have an impact on the rest of the market. I am afraid that Labour Members will hear their constituents squealing, given the inflated prices in the capital, and I think that measures on housing, too, will unravel pretty quickly.

The Chancellor said that she wants to encourage co-operatives and employee ownership, yet she has dealt a hammer blow to employee ownership by reducing by 50% the tax incentives for owners to transfer businesses to their employees, so we will see less of it.

Much was made of the apprenticeship changes and the roll-out of nurseries. That is great, but hidden in the Blue Book is a £7.5 billion hit to students and an overall reduction in per pupil funding in education. All of these things will be revealed in the days to come.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend about the inherent contradictions. Would it be fair to characterise this Budget as the left hand not knowing what the further left hand is doing?

[Kit Malthouse]

That is a very good way of putting it. The other way of putting it is to say that there is a huge attempt to gaslight the country and, I am afraid, Labour Members about what is actually being proposed.

Let me give another example. We are told that the Government are trying to encourage business investment, yet the Blue Book contains a £1.5 billion reduction in incentives for business investment. The contradictions are clear, and I urge Members to read the Blue Book, because the Chancellor is relying on us not reading the leaked book. Sometimes it is quite impenetrable, and sometimes it is quite difficult to understand, but there are some key things that I want to point people to, if I may.

First, I ask Members to turn to paragraph 1.3 of the executive summary, which tells us that, contrary to what the Chancellor said, debt will rise over the next few years. Debt moves from being

“95 per cent of GDP this year and ends the decade at 96 per cent of GDP, which is 2 percentage points higher than projected in March”.

That was the first thing she said that was incorrect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans (Caerphilly) (Lab/Co-op)]

The two groups in society most affected by poverty are the young and the old. I think that that speaks to Labour party values. Harold Wilson once said that our party and our movement is

“a moral crusade or it is nothing.”

That is what separates us from the Opposition parties. The simple fact is that I do not buy the Liberal Democrats’ reinvention as the cuddly leaders of social mobility, especially when their leader sat in the coalition Government that oversaw austerity. Equally, I do not believe that the Tories yet understand what they did to the economy, and in particular to the people they plunged into poverty. That is the real legacy of the Tory Government.

I think the important thing is that we are supporting young people. It is amazing today that we are allowed to say that 450,000 children will be lifted out of poverty. That is an achievement in itself, but we are also with them on their journey. We are ensuring a youth placement for the long-term unemployed aged between 18 and 21, and ensuring that small businesses can give them apprenticeships. Those are important achievements. Furthermore, it is amazing that we have been able to raise the state pension limit for so many pensioners, who for so long froze under the Tory Government and had to make a choice between heating and eating. We are not talking about these things in the abstract; they are actually happening in constituencies such as mine.

However, I think this is our proudest achievement, and the one thing the Chancellor should be remembered for. Last September, I chaired a meeting in Caerphilly of all the pensioners affected by the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, and I wrote to the Chancellor to ask for the £2.3 billion in its investment fund to be transferred to them immediately. I am proud to be standing here today while a Labour Government are bringing about that legacy—for these people worked underground and kept the country moving; they knew intolerable suffering from the industrial diseases they had after they finished work. These are the people who made Britain great, and we should honour them.

We have heard all sorts of blame today for the problems we have, but it comes down to one thing: for 40 years, we have been in the grip of a failed economic theory, and we see it still today. We hear all the time that we can cut taxes and keep public services at the same level or improve them, and that there are no consequences of that, but there is only one outcome: more borrowing. That went on under previous Governments over and over again, but eventually we have to pay the piper. [Interruption.] I hear Opposition Members chuntering from a sedentary position, so I give way.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. What is his message to the people who have been made unemployed since the Labour party came to power?

[Chris Evans]

If the hon. Gentleman asks me a specific question, I will answer it. What does he mean? This is what I am talking about—this is the reason we are where we are. We are sitting on a debt mountain and we have to pay the piper. [Interruption.] He says that unemployment is rising. In what specific sector? Give me a sector. No; so we are just talking in the abstract.

[Chris Evans]

To be honest, it is a bit rich for the Conservatives to talk about job losses. In the 1970s—[Interruption.] Let me give the hon. Gentleman a history lesson. In the 1970s, they said that unemployment would never reach 1 million. Under the Tories, in the golden years of Thatcher and Major, unemployment reached 3 million—3 million people unemployed. Let us not forget that they also moved most of those unemployed people on to incapacity benefit. If we are talking about the benefit bill, it actually rests at the door of the party opposite—that is the truth. More people claimed incapacity benefit under the Tory Government. They failed to bring about an economic plan. Those people lost their jobs because of heavy industry leaving. They did not plan for that or bring anything about; they just put people on the scrapheap. That is why we have the problems we have today.

The fact is—[Interruption.] Sorry, I did not catch what the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) said. Does want to make an intervention? I do not mind. It is the third one I have taken.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way a second time. The Chancellor said on Sky News, “It’s on me now.” I would be grateful if he could set a date for when this Government are going to take responsibility for the country. I have plenty of things I could be doing in Spelthorne, so I will go away and come back when he is prepared to be accountable and take responsibility for the state of the nation under this Government.

[Chris Evans]

When I was elected in 2010, all I ever had whenever I spoke was people saying, “Apologise.” Why do the Tories not apologise for the mess we find ourselves in now? Let us be fair and start from there. We have had 14 months; the party opposite had 14 years.

[Lincoln Jopp]

You’re in charge.

[Chris Evans]

Yes, we are in charge and we are taking the action we need to take. I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman wants us to do. Does he expect us to stand there and do nothing, or to walk away? Is that what he wants? At the end of the day, this is going nowhere. What we need to talk about are the fundamental problems.

We have heard a lot of analysis from the Opposition Benches about what is wrong, but what are we to do? We have to grasp the nettle. The fact is that net zero is here. We hear a lot of Members on the Opposition Benches saying, “Net zero is causing us problems.” The simple fact is that it is here and there are countries that are way ahead of us. We have an opportunity to be a green superpower. We can invest in nuclear energy. We can invest in tidal power. We can invest in renewables and carbon capture technology. These are the waves of the future, along with AI. This is where the jobs will come from. This is where the growth will come from. We have to pick winners, but we have to have the political will as well.

I have visited a number of companies in my constituency and the issue they have is energy bills. Captiva is a very successful spa and Team Rees Gym is also very successful. Both have talked to me about energy bills. I welcome the reduction in energy bills of £150 on average and £300 for the most impoverished, but I would like to see some sort of deal on energy for businesses to ensure that their costs come down and they can carry on competing. I welcome the increase in the minimum wage, but I also ask the Chancellor for some help for small and medium-sized businesses, so that they can carry on employing people and producing apprenticeships.

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I will indeed come to breakfast clubs—how could I miss them out?

The Resolution Foundation has estimated that scrapping the two-child limit would bring 330,000 children out of poverty and prevent a further 150,000 children from falling into poverty over the course of this Parliament. Children in my constituency will therefore have an improved standard of living, which is exactly what I want for them, just as Labour Members—and others, I am sure—want for their children. In fact, it is estimated that in Lewisham East, 3,530 children’s experience of relative child poverty will be reduced.

That builds on the vital work already begun by this Government, including on expanding access to free school meals, opening free breakfast clubs in every primary school and investing in historic amounts of affordable and social housing. Alongside that, we have the recently announced freeze of rail fares and prescription prices.

Every child deserves to be free from poverty and the effects of poverty. For far too long, successive Conservative Governments allowed child poverty to skyrocket; this Government will not. As a result of that failure, almost a fifth of children in my constituency grow up in poverty, but with the policies announced today, it is evident that the Labour Government are tackling child poverty as the moral imperative that it is.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Does the hon. Member acknowledge that whether parents get their money from income or from benefits, the Government, having inherited 2% inflation, have taken it up to 3.6%, which reduces the value of that pound in parents’ pockets?

[Janet Daby]

Parents want to provide for their children. Parents make choices, and the Government are making choices to support parents. We are doing that by lifting the two-child limit; Opposition Members should support that. We must not forget that these announcements have been made possible by making tough choices. Following the previous Government’s mismanagement, the nation was faced with an appalling fiscal situation.

I turn to defence. The Government are investing in capital investment over the course of the Parliament to kick-start the rebuilding of our armed forces, which is absolutely necessary when we consider how unrest in Europe is coming closer to our shores every day.

Since 2010, economic growth in my constituency of Lewisham East has lagged 30% behind the national average—that trend has been repeated in many other regions. The investment that will support councils and communities across the UK is therefore desperately needed.

Finally, as a member of the International Development Committee, I turn to international development. The UK has been at the forefront of global efforts in particular to prevent violence against women and girls, to promote peace and co-operation between different ethnic and religious groups, and to support the economic development of communities across the world. I am therefore pleased to see that paragraph 4.61 of the Red Book says:

“The government remains committed to restoring ODA spending to 0.7% of Gross National Income”

as their fiscal forecasts continue to improve. I am pleased that we are still focused on that, so that we can promote overseas the values and rights that we enjoy here in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Spencer]

I am so pleased that the hon. Member raised the point about people who are in work but still poor. I will come on to that in relation to tackling child poverty, so if she waits a second, I will respond to her questions in full.

For the moment, I want to concentrate on the more macro costs point. Food inflation has gone up to 4.9%. Food costs are a big chunk of daily spending, especially for people who are poorer. That is a direct result of decisions to raise employer national insurance contributions. It turns out that taxes on businesses get passed on to working people.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Who knew?

[Dr Spencer]

Who knew, indeed.

Energy costs are a big chunk of everybody’s outgoings, and we are still waiting for them to come down. Property costs also are a big chunk of people’s outgoings, and this is reducing and putting more pressure on the private rented sector, particularly landlords. The measures in the Budget today around the increased taxation on property revenue will be passed on to the consumer—that is, people who are renting—adding yet another cost pressure. I wish Labour Members would think through what happens not just in step one of a Budget intervention but in steps two, three and four in relation to the impact on their constituents.

One way to deal with child poverty is to look at the cliff edges of the taxation system, including the wrapping down of universal credit when someone works for 28 hours. When the Work and Pensions Committee looked at in-work poverty costs—the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), who is in his place, was the Chair at the time—one of the things that really came out, through and through, was that lots of the families in difficulty were single-parent families and they struggled with the 28 hours’ provision because of childcare costs and the marginal benefit. We also need to look at cliff edges in relation to housing allowance and council tax. We need to get rid of the cliff edges to ensure that work always truly pays.

Also really important in helping child poverty is making sure that the child maintenance system works. There are plenty of families with a parent who should be supporting their child but is not doing so. That is absolutely scandalous and it needs to be fixed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Today we have heard from across the House where the divide in this debate really is. There is a train of thought on the Conservative Benches that if we continue to do what the Conservatives have done over the last 14 years, things will surely get better. Well, given the experience of the 14 years of the previous Government, that is madness. Things did not get better, and for working people in this country things got materially worse, so a different course is needed.

Given the range of difficult and competing interests that the Chancellor has had to face, which have been well rehearsed, I believe that this Budget provides balance and respite for working people. When taken in the round, the two-child benefit cap will help 6,000 children in my constituency. For all the talk of, “Well, if people just worked a bit harder, things would be better,” the fact is that 60% of those households have at least one person in work. These are people who are rolling up their sleeves and doing everything that has been asked of them, but they still cannot get on in life because of the wage levels in the jobs they occupy—many of which, by the way, are important and foundational for our economy.

The rail fare freeze, the bus fare cap and measures on energy bills, on prescription charges and on the minimum wage and national living wage will give people respite and ease things a bit.

What I want to talk about, though, is the thing that really made my heart sing as a co-operator in this House: the Chancellor of the Exchequer talking about co-operation and co-operative businesses at the Dispatch Box in the main Budget. Why is that important? It is important because for so long, even when the economy has grown, many working people have not been the beneficiaries of that growth. Many communities have been hollowed out and become more and more removed from the economies that they work to serve. We believe that co-operatives and mutuals provide that bridge. They are more sustainable and productive, and they treat their workers better. They have better pay differentials, and they invest in apprenticeships at a higher rate and so on. All the arguments are there, but we have been waiting for quite a long time for a Government who understand co-operatives, see the value of them and are willing to put something behind them.

The work being done to establish a co-operative development agency so that every region of the country can benefit is music to our ears. The work being done through the mutuals and co-operative business council—where those voices and interests around the country are being brought together with the support of the Department for Business and Trade and the Treasury—is essential for doubling the size of the co-operative economy in a way that can make a huge difference.

Of course, community ownership of local assets through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will end those years of communities constantly fighting to at least keep what they have, and will mean that they can begin to look to the future and what they can build together. Co-operatives and mutuals, like every other business, rely on a thriving economy and a local community that has disposable income to spend in that local economy, so the business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure will be a big boon to our high streets, town centres and pubs and to many other parts of the economy.

It is no surprise that today the Co-operative Group has announced £1 billion of investment in the UK because it believes in the direction of the Government and the country—more importantly, it believes in the people of this country and wants to get behind them. I pay tribute to Shirine Khoury-Haq, the CEO of the Co-operative Group, for the work she does in driving that agenda. If anyone wanted to meet a business leader in this country who runs a tight ship financially from a business point of view, but also leads with her heart when it comes to social investment, they could do worse than looking at Shirine and her team at the headquarters in Manchester.

But we do need to go further. Our building society network and our credit unions have so much potential, but we can do much more with them. I say to every Member of this House that there are more members of building societies and credit unions than people who voted in the last general election, so they are quite an important constituency to look after and support. I know that the Minister is working hard on this issue. One very small change he could make would be to review the common bond, so that credit unions can grow, expand and offer a wider range of financial services to local communities.

There is a lot in the Budget on councils and support for them. I perceive this Budget almost as one that gives communities the right to survive, to get through what has been a difficult period and to have respite. The next challenge will be: how do these communities begin to thrive? How do working families stop worrying about every single paycheque because they are just about making ends meet and begin to think about a better future where they can thrive, really enjoy life and get the most from it? For many people, local neighbourhood services are the foundation of public services in their local area but, let’s be honest, for most parts of England, they have been eroded by pressures in adult social care, children’s services and temporary accommodation.

Whatever we think about our missions and ambitions as a Government—they are all important, of course—we also need to accept that if people open their front door and walk out on to the street and it does not feel and look better, we just will not get a hearing when we get to the ballot box the next time round. For many parts of our movement, the elections are coming pretty soon down the line, so I urge the Government to focus on that.

Let us celebrate the move to further devolution. Mayors will finally get the power to impose a visitor levy, which they have been asking for. We see even more capital investment going into our regions, further empowering mayors—that should be celebrated.

There is a lot in the Budget about investment in Britain plc, which is to be welcomed, but we need to be better at co-ordinating across Government. I have asked questions of a number of Departments, be it the Home Office about police vehicles purchased by local forces, the DWP about vehicles commissioned through the Motability scheme, or the Cabinet Office about the procurement of Government vehicles. There are no checks and balances to ensure that British vehicles are procured. Surely that is the simplest thing a Government can do—use the lever of procurement to ensure that we are supporting British jobs in our regions. On top of the good work that has been done, I urge the Chancellor to commission an urgent cross-Government review to ensure that we support British businesses across all procurement lines.

[Lincoln Jopp]

No one can doubt the hon. Member’s commitment to the people of Oldham. He is being very loyal to the Chancellor and her Budget. I have a simple question: if unemployment goes up in his constituency from today, before the local elections next year, will he resign?

[Jim McMahon]

Well, I think that would just make the unemployment situation worse, wouldn’t it? I am looking at the practical measures taken in the Budget. I am here to be helpful to the Government, not make matters worse.

I became an apprentice when I left school. I did not go to university; I went straight to work and earned a technical qualification. My two sons have followed the same route. That is a route for many working-class kids in the country. However, only 16% of apprenticeships are advertised in July and August, when kids are leaving school and looking for opportunities. The system is not geared towards helping young people to succeed. When we have a review of those not in employment, education or training and ask why so many people are out of work and not contributing to society, we will find that it is because the whole system is not geared towards supporting them in that endeavour. Today’s announcement of free apprenticeships up to the age of 25 could, if it includes a review of apprenticeships, be absolutely life-changing for tens of thousands of young people.

My final plea, in the seconds I have left, relates to HMRC mileage rates, which have not been reviewed for working people for 15 years. A social care worker who does home visits is on the minimum wage, but they are, in truth, subsidising HMRC for travelling between appointments. That is not right. The Department of Health and Social Care has already considered this, but will the Treasury take it on board, too?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

This Labour Budget safeguards the priorities of the British people: protecting our NHS, reducing national debt, and easing the cost of living. There is no better lens through which to view them than the eyes of the younger generations, who will feel the greatest impact of the decisions that we make today. Of course people are concerned about their material lives, but they are also emotionally and philosophically worried about the long-term future of the country. In particular, there was the feeling, after 14 years of the Conservatives, that things were not getting better, and the worry that their children would not be as well off as them, and would not have the same, let alone more, opportunities. That is a primordial fear, as any parent will know, and we all agree that we should be taking action right here, right now, to build back up, so that this becomes a land fit for future generations. The Budget does that. It rebuilds this country in many ways, but I want to focus specifically on young people. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that this Labour Government is on the side of kids and will back their potential.

Today I participated in an online assembly at Oakfield primary academy, just after the Chancellor’s speech. I am sure the children will be inspired to see this country’s first female Chancellor delivering such a brilliant Budget. As she said, she got involved in politics because the Conservatives under-invested in schools like hers, and she is, I am sure, someone with the long-term interests of young people at the forefront of her mind. It is excellent that the Chancellor is prioritising the youth guarantee, and the measures announced today are beginning to turn the tide against entrenched inter-generational unfairness.

This Government are unleashing the talent of all our young people, with £800 million over the next three years for the youth guarantee, guaranteeing every young person a place in college, an apprenticeship, or personalised job support; funding to make training for under-25 apprenticeships free for SMEs; increasing the minimum and national living wages; £5 million for libraries in secondary schools, on top of £10 million to ensure that every primary school in England has a library; and £18 million to upgrade playgrounds across the country. We are ending the two-child benefit cap, lifting 450,000 children out of poverty.

[Lincoln Jopp]

For the record, why did the hon. Member vote against lifting the two-child benefit cap when the SNP proposed it earlier?

[John Slinger]

I am a Labour MP and I vote with the Government—it is as simple as that.

Lifting 450,000 children out of poverty is the biggest reduction in child poverty over a Parliament since records began. That will positively affect 2,020 children in my constituency of Rugby. This investment is not just anti-poverty, but pro the prosperity and life chances of all our children. More broadly, the Budget has at its core investment in housing, infrastructure and skills. The Chancellor’s decisions ensure £120 billion in additional capital spending over this Parliament, with a 10-year infrastructure strategy, an NHS back on its feet after 14 years of the Conservatives in government, a benefits system that provides support for those who need it, and help into work for people who can work, as I saw on a recent visit to Rugby jobcentre. The Budget ensures a stable economy, with support for entrepreneurship, growth forecast to rise, and inflation and borrowing forecast to fall. We are transforming the business rates system to protect the high street, with permanently lower tax rates for eligible retail hospitality and leisure properties. That will affect around 1,090 properties in my constituency of Rugby alone. The Chancellor rightly asked everyone to contribute. We all share a responsibility—in this House, in boardrooms, in businesses of all sizes and in organisations —to invest in our young people, and I am glad that this Government are sending that clear message today.

Only on Monday, when one young person at Ashlawn school in my constituency asked about my views on the pension triple lock, I pointed out that while we must of course help pensioners—and we are doing so—when thinking about how to allocate resources most fairly, our young people have a very good claim for more support. So, if you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am calling for a youth triple lock: three measures beyond the youth guarantee that will focus attention on the needs and voices of young people. My suggestions would be free bus travel, inflation-beating maintenance loans for students and additional help for young people with housing, but that is for another day. We are going in the right direction, as this excellent Budget shows.

I am also pleased that the Budget stays true to what Government Members hold dear: our Labour values—values that put the priorities of the British people first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. I am a bit confused by his answer to my last intervention. Why was it a bad idea to lift the two-child benefit cap when the SNP suggested it, but a good idea now that his Chancellor suggests it?

[John Slinger]

The hon. Gentleman is a decent man and I like him a lot, but he seems a little fixated on this point. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken difficult economic and fiscal decisions so that she can lift the two-child cap, as well as doing many other things. We are getting child poverty down—I am proud of that and I will always support it.

We are protecting our NHS, reducing the national debt and borrowing, and improving the cost of living. To unleash the potential of our country, we must place the needs of young people ever higher up the political agenda, which I intend to do in this place. While some talk this great nation down, we get on with the job of building it back up and laying the foundations on which to grow in the long term, and, most importantly, enabling our citizens, especially our young people and future generations, to thrive and play their part in building a fairer and far more prosperous country for all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood]

I will make a little progress; I can see the time.

The difference between 3% per year and 0.25% per year in growth in disposable income adds up to £2,700 less per family in disposable income because of the Chancellor’s choices.

We needed a Budget for jobs, but instead this was a Budget about saving the Prime Minister’s job by giving his mutinous Back Benchers the welfare rises that he forced them to vote against just last year. If the Government really wanted to support jobs, they would have undone some of the damage that the Chancellor did last year, particularly on hospitality.

A number of Members have raised the issue of hospitality and business rate reform. Before the election, the Chancellor was clear that business rates would be reformed, which meant that pubs, restaurants and cafés would have lower bills. Instead, the owners of cafés, pub landlords and restaurant owners saw their business rate bills more than double in April. We have heard today from the Chancellor that—because of the effects of revaluation and the fact that she has decided to go with a reduction of only 10p on the multiplier, instead of the 20p signalled when the Government introduced the legislation last year—when the new regime comes in, we will again see the bills for those pubs and cafés increasing, even though business rate bills have only just doubled.

This is a bad deal for hospitality. It will have a devastating impact on our high streets, and it is made only worse by the decision of the Chancellor to increase alcohol duties. That will hit pubs again, and make it more difficult for our pubs, our bars and our responsibly licensed venues to compete with supermarkets piling them high and selling them cheap.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that we have lost, I believe, 90,000 jobs from the hospitality industry just since the last Budget? While I do my bit to try to save the British pub industry on my own, does he worry, as I do, that today’s Budget will just make it harder and harder for hospitality?

[Mike Wood]

I do not think such declarations are in my current entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but Members may wish to look at my historical declarations. I disclose that I have received some hospitality below the threshold from UKHospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association, the Campaign for Real Ale and the British Institute of Innkeeping. My hon. Friend is clearly right, although I think his figures are slightly out of date, because it is not 90,000 jobs that have been lost in hospitality; the latest figures from UKHospitality suggest that 111,000 jobs in hospitality have been lost since the Budget.

As the Safeguarding Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), indicated earlier, these jobs ought to be an opportunity for social mobility. Instead, the Chancellor’s choices have been destroying those opportunities. The Budget, the measures that have been announced today and the taxes she has been piling on businesses and working people across the country will continue to destroy other opportunities, making our communities weaker, our economy poorer, and our families less well off.

Ambassador to the United States

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I thank and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) on securing this emergency debate.

The focus of the debate thus far has been primarily on three areas: the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s appalling crimes, the conduct of Lord Mandelson prior to his being appointed and the judgment of the Prime Minister in both appointing and firing Lord Mandelson as the British ambassador to Washington. Quite rightly, in this debate the House has focused on those three areas, but I will add a fourth area that I find as chilling as the other three. Since December last year, our ambassador in Washington has been potentially subject to leverage and blackmail, because someone—we do not know who—had politically fatal kompromat on Lord Mandelson throughout his whole time in office.

I am amazed that the Foreign Office has not gone into full lockdown and damage limitation mode, having found out that potentially Lord Mandelson could have been blackmailed this entire time. If it had turned out that he had been an agent of a foreign state, the Foreign Office would have done that. All it knows now is that someone—we do not know who—had politically fatal kompromat on him that whole time.

The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) talked about some of the behaviours of Lord Mandelson in office, and that is the bit I am concerned about. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that Sir Ben Wallace gave an interview to Times Radio recently in which he said that Lord Mandelson had been lobbying No. 10 Downing Street on behalf of a single defence manufacturer for Britain to buy an unmanned military set of equipment—a major buy—without a competition, bypassing UK small and medium-sized enterprises and expertise. I will not put two and two together, but it seems extraordinary that someone who was meant to be promoting British interests overseas was instead promoting US defence capability to No. 10. We buy a lot of good kit from America, of course, but the absence of a competition skews the pitch and is odd behaviour.

I hope that when the Minister gets an opportunity to speak, he will talk about what measures No. 10 and the Foreign Office are taking to examine every single thing that Lord Mandelson did when he was our ambassador, in order to establish the extent to which the politically fatal kompromat had skewed his judgment and driven his behaviour.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her work on these matters. We have seen those reports; the Foreign Secretary referred to them in the House yesterday afternoon. As I said earlier, the threshold that the Government must test against is the one we outlined in September, which is about the real risk. We have found that there is a real risk, and our actions have flowed from that determination.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

T9. It has been more than a fortnight since the Alaska summit, and the deadline set by President Trump at that time has now passed. What diplomatic efforts are the Government making to maintain US focus on the Ukrainian theatre of operations in the face of Russian intransigence?

[Mr Lammy]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that our National Security Adviser and I are in direct touch with the Ukrainians on these issues, and the Chief of the Defence Staff was in Washington last week following up on these matters. I think we are all grateful to Tony Radakin, who leaves today after 35 years of service to our country, for the work he is doing. Of course, the Defence Secretary is also co-ordinating via the coalition of the willing.