Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I commend my hon. Friend’s campaign to address the Croydon bottleneck. The last Government cancelled work to address this; we will carefully consider the case for upgrades, including step-free access at Norwood. I am proud that her constituents are travelling on rail services that are now back in public ownership, and benefiting from the first freeze in rail fares for 30 years—a Labour Government transforming our railways and building a fairer Britain.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I echo the Prime Minister’s words on Lance Corporal James Freeman and about the Royal Navy helicopter crash in Devon. I also send my deepest condolences to the family and friends of Henry Nowak. The circumstances around Henry’s wrongful arrest and tragic murder must be a wake-up call to the entire country and our institutions that every life matters, and it is the responsibility of everyone in this House to bring people together, not divide them.
Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Sir Alan Haselhurst—Lord Haselhurst—who died on Monday. Sir Alan served Parliament for over 50 years, eight of them in the Lords and 40 years as my predecessor as MP for Saffron Walden, while from 1970 to 1974 he was the Member of Parliament for Middleton and Prestwich. He was respected on all sides of this House, and was elected multiple times as your predecessor as Deputy Speaker, before he concluded in the other place.
Apart from serving his constituents, Sir Alan’s greatest passion in Parliament and perhaps in life was cricket, as you said, Mr Speaker. He was chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on cricket, a role which he encouraged me to take up and which I graciously declined, telling him I knew absolutely nothing about cricket. However, I think colleagues should know that Sir Alan’s intense lobbying is the reason that Sky Sports can be found on the parliamentary TV network. There is so much to say, but just to let everyone know, he was a good and kind man and he will be very much missed. My thoughts are with his wife Angela, his children Mark, David and Emma, and his grandchildren.
May I ask the Prime Minister by how much the welfare bill has risen since he came to office?
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 do not believe that there is two-tier policing in this country. I am really shocked that the hon. Gentleman pretends to have respect for Henry’s family and then acts in this way. [Interruption.] They are a grieving family—
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Brash, this is a very important question, and I want to hear the Prime Minister’s answer. If you want to carry on, go outside please.
The Prime Minister
The grieving family have asked us not to respond in the way that the leader of Reform has responded. They have lost their son in the most appalling circumstances, and they make a simple plea of us as human beings to please not exploit that. We all need to reflect on the words of Henry’s father.
My response—and the response of others, to be fair—has been focused on the lessons to be learned so that we can deliver justice. The hon. Gentleman’s response has been to appeal for rage. That is his response to a father who has lost his son and asked for that not to happen. Exploiting this tragedy to create grievance and division would be wrong in any circumstances, but to do it when the family are expressly saying, “Please don’t,” is unforgivable. It shows exactly who he is.
Mr Speaker
Points of order come after statements and urgent questions—[Interruption.] You did not ask a question, though—so the point of order can come after the urgent questions.
Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)
With permission, I would like to update the House on the Government’s response to the Humble Address of 4 February. Before I do, I think it is important for all of us to reflect again on the impact that this debate will have on the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Members across the House will be aware of the truly horrific crimes that he committed against countless women and girls; we hold them in our thoughts when discussing these issues again today.
The Government have today laid the second tranche of documents. These were laid before the House in advance of this statement and are now on gov.uk for the public to see. The documents we are publishing today comprise one of the largest Government publications ever laid before the House. This disclosure process has been wide-ranging, costing the Cabinet Office alone over £1 million. As the House knows, this was an official-led process, with judgments made by senior officials, and I am grateful for the careful work that they have undertaken right up until today’s publication.
While the first tranche dealt with Peter Mandelson’s appointment, withdrawal and severance, this second tranche responds to the parts of the motion that requested communications and documents concerning his appointment and vetting, as well as messages between Peter Mandelson and Ministers, special advisers and civil servants in the months prior to, and throughout the duration of, his appointment.
I recognise that the House will need sufficient time to review today’s tranche in full, given the size of the publication. As we have just heard from the Leader of the House, that is why I have secured Government time on Wednesday for a subsequent general debate: so that there is an opportunity for Members to ask further questions after today’s statement. To inform that debate and for clarity and accountability, I draw the House’s attention to the methodology set out in the publication today, which explains in detail how the Government undertook the disclosure process. I will not repeat that in full here today, but I will make reference to a number of areas that I know the House has expressed an interest in previously.
First, on redactions, in line with the motion, over 300 individual documents were referred under a process agreed between the Government and the Intelligence and Security Committee. I confirm that no material has been redacted on the grounds of prejudice to national security or international relations without the Committee’s approval. For clarity, all redacted material agreed with the ISC is labelled in the bundles today with three asterisks. Outside this arrangement, this process does not change the important and well-established constitutional principle that national security and international relations judgments are ultimately for the Government. I once again express my thanks to the Intelligence and Security Committee for its engagement in this process. Further limited redactions have been made outside the ISC process in respect of information that relates to junior officials’ names; contact details, like telephone numbers and email addresses; the personal or commercially sensitive data of third parties not relevant to the motion; and, where relevant, legal professional privilege.
I would also like to confirm that no redactions have been made to references to Global Counsel, other than to protect the identity of individuals who worked there and are not public figures. Officials have sought to be transparent in the material where the individual is a Global Counsel employee. Also, no redactions have been made to references to Palantir and Anduril outside the scope of the existing ISC redactions process, and no clear references to current or former UK politicians have been redacted on the basis of their being third parties.
I can also confirm to the House that no Government Minister or special adviser has determined any of the redactions themselves. The redaction process has been overseen by Cabinet Office officials and, where relevant, in agreement with the ISC. In addition, the Cabinet Office Humble Address team have taken advice from an independent King’s Counsel—this has included review of the methodological approach followed by officials—and acted on that advice to inform their work. This has helped to ensure that the Government are confident that their approach is compliant with the Humble Address and the Government’s legal obligations.
These additional targeted redactions, made outside the agreed ISC process, have been made in line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the ministerial code, and the resolutions on ministerial accountability passed by both Houses in 1997. This is important because it goes to the question of whether the Government have complied fully with the Humble Address. That question should be answered in the context of the established rules and precedents that relate to Humble Addresses. If these rules were not relevant, the Humble Address would have required extensive additional detail on the face of the motion dealing with these procedural issues. However, I recognise the level of interest in the House in respect of these redactions not related to national security and international relations, so, on the recommendation of the ISC, I can confirm that the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, has reviewed our approach to third-party redactions this morning. He has confirmed that we have applied the methodology set out in the document and that, in his view, the redactions are sensible, reasonable and proportionate. I thank the ISC for this recommendation and the hon. Member for the additional reassurance he has provided on this point.
As the House is aware, the Metropolitan police has also asked the Government to withhold some material in scope of the motion that it considered could be prejudicial to its ongoing criminal investigation or any subsequent prosecution. This request remains in place and I am very grateful, again, to the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, with whom we have also shared this information in order to provide additional accountability for the Government’s actions. I hope that Members will appreciate the need not to prejudice the investigation and understand that I will not be able to answer questions about certain documents that have been withheld. No responsible Government would wish to undermine a criminal investigation and put at risk the justice that it seeks, and I am sure that the House will share this position. I can, however, confirm that this material does include questions put to Peter Mandelson by the Prime Minister’s then chief of staff, and Peter Mandelson’s responses.
In addition, a small number of documents have been withheld at the request of the police, which fall broadly into the following categories: national security vetting material; conflict of interest process material; and relevant internal correspondence with Peter Mandelson. Such information will, of course, be published at the conclusion of the investigation or at the point at which it would no longer be prejudicial to the police investigation to do so.
The documents published in the first and second tranches contain the entirety of the documents the Government have available for disclosure, except those few documents I have just referred to in relation to the Metropolitan police. Members will no doubt have questions about what might be perceived to be “missing” messages and meeting notes, which I would like to address in turn. On messages that some might expect to be included, I can confirm that we have conducted multiple rounds of discovery from relevant Ministers, special advisers and officials, in line with the motion passed by the House. This has involved requesting searches of email, messaging platforms such as WhatsApp, and other related communications services on both work and personal devices.
However, the House should note that some messages may not have been backed up where devices may have been changed or disappearing messages turned on, for reasonable and permitted reasons, including before the dismissal of Peter Mandelson or the passing of the Humble Address—my messages included. I do recall having some limited exchanges with Peter Mandelson over WhatsApp, including those I have already discussed in the media, but these conversations did not involve transacting Government business and were in line with official guidance on the use of non-corporate communications channels at the time.
I share the view put by the Intelligence and Security Committee to the House that there are lessons for the civil service to learn in respect of better note-keeping, archiving and the use of appropriate levels of secure IT systems in the future. The Government have already committed to a review of the use of non-corporate communications channels, the terms of reference for which we will shortly publish, taking into account the concerns that have been raised in this House and the two tranches of documents that we have published in response to the Humble Address. I will of course keep the House updated as we progress that work.
I now turn to the material relating to Peter Mandelson’s national security vetting process. I can confirm that the vetting process summary and recommendation that was put by UK Security Vetting officials to the Foreign Office has been shared with the Intelligence and Security Committee. It was shared for the purpose of agreeing redactions, as part of the agreed process, so that it can be published when we are in a position to do so. What have not been shared are the highly sensitive personal data inputs collected during the interview process. These could, for example, relate to how much money an individual might have in a particular account or who a person may have had a personal relationship with in the past. If those participating in the vetting process cannot trust that the information they feed into that process is confidential, that will harm the integrity of the whole system. Anything less than full candour would be hugely damaging and profoundly negative for our national security; this would be felt by this and future Governments and, ultimately, by the British people. Sharing this data for any person undergoing developed vetting would therefore undermine the very basis of our national security vetting system.
This is the 10th update to the House on this matter that I have provided. With the exception of the small number of documents that are withheld at the request of the police, which we intend to publish when the police are content for us to do so, the Government now consider that they have duly discharged the duties set out in the Humble Address. I will, however, return to the House for the general debate on Wednesday to provide a further opportunity for colleagues to ask questions. On that basis, I commend this statement to the House.
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. There were three broad questions: first, on access to the documents; secondly, on what documents are available or not; and thirdly, on the redactions process.
On access to the documents, as I said in my response to the urgent question before the recess, I have been mindful of the fact that given the significant number of documents published today, we wanted to create as much time as possible for the House to scrutinise them and to be able to ask the Government questions. I agree that had I published these documents 45 minutes before standing up to give a statement for 45 minutes, that would have been insufficient in the circumstances. I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the lengths that I and the Government have gone to, not only to provide the documents in advance to him, the Leader of the Opposition, the Chairs of the relevant Select Committees and other stakeholders, but to publish them much earlier than is normal, and to secure a general debate on Wednesday.
In respect of the documents that are available, as I said in my statement, this tranche plus the first tranche of documents represent the entirety of the documents that the Government have available for disclosure, except for those that have been made available to the Metropolitan police. The hon. Gentleman invited me to list the documents that have been given to the Metropolitan police. As I have said from the Dispatch Box before, I am acting on the advice of the Metropolitan police in not being able to do that, but I am pleased that he welcomes the commitment that we have secured from them to give a little more shape by setting out the categories of the documents that are being held. I remind him and the House that we have also shared the documents directly with the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, so that there is an additional check and balance within Parliament, without being able to share the documents more widely until the Met police tell us that we can do so.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about notification of the Prime Minister’s decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador. I refer him to the first tranche and the document from the Prime Minister’s principal private secretary in No. 10 communicating that decision to both the Foreign Office and the palace.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me about the redactions process. As I set out in detail in my statement, that process was predominately with the Intelligence and Security Committee, where the information relates to national security or international relations. Secondly, non-national security redactions were undertaken in line with established process and precedent, with the additional check provided this morning, again by the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, in relation to third parties. I understand that the Chair has confirmed that he is happy with the process that the Government have followed.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving me access to the papers at 9.30 this morning. However, is it right that among the 1,500 pages of documents released, there is no written evidence of any mitigations being put in place either to minimise Peter Mandelson’s conflicts of interest or, more importantly, to reduce the risk to our national security that vetting had flagged, due to Peter Mandelson’s close connections with Russian oligarchs, senior Chinese officials, retired Israeli spymasters and a debt of £1 million to buy shares in a secretive Israeli start-up? Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister please tell us whether we will see such documents later because the police have got them, or whether they just do not exist?
Darren Jones
Without being able inadvertently to name specific documents, the best I can say to my right hon. Friend on the potential conflicts of interest, as I made clear in my statement, is that that nature of document has been made relevant from the perspective of the Metropolitan police criminal investigation.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I thank members of the ISC and the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for their work on this matter. I acknowledge again the women and girls who found the courage to come forward about the abuse that they endured at the hands of rich and powerful men. As we continue to discuss this matter, we must remember that those women are owed justice.
When Peter Mandelson was appointed, UK Security Vetting advice was overridden. The then permanent secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office suggested that he was subject to constant pressure, and there is a line in today’s files suggesting that senior people expressed interest that the vetting process go smoothly. Given the Minister’s repeated assurances that there was no pressure from Government relating to vetting, what does he think that line refers to?
We now know that Cabinet Ministers were privately praising and flattering Mandelson from before his appointment all the way until after his dismissal. Senior Ministers showed a staggering lack of judgment. Will the Chief Secretary explain why so much business relating to one of the most controversial public appointments in recent years appears to have been conducted over WhatsApp? It was private, informal and outside the official record. Government by WhatsApp, which the Lib Dems have continually called for an end to, must end, because informal messaging outside official channels creates accountability gaps that should trouble us all. Does the Chief Secretary agree that Government by WhatsApp must come to an end?
Documents released today display concerning evidence that Peter Mandelson lobbied Ministers on behalf of his clients. That would appear to be a serious breach of the code of conduct for the other place, yet an initial reading of the files seems to suggest that many Ministers were pliant and responded warmly to him. Will the Minister confirm whether any Ministers reported their concerns about this seemingly egregious lobbying?
The Government have outlined their plans for the removal of peerages Bill. At first glance, it is a narrow and woefully unambitious Bill that completely fails to rise to the moment. Will the Minister outline what it will take for the Government to make meaningful reforms to the second Chamber?
Senior Cabinet Ministers asked Mandelson for advice on a range of issues, despite many of those issues falling outside the scope of his role. Issues of how we run this country stretch far beyond this scandal. The ministerial code, which should strongly inform the conduct of those who hold the highest offices in the land, continues to exist as guidance rather than the law. Ministers who breach it face no legal consequences. The Prime Minister can choose whether to act on the findings of independent advisers, which means that accountability is optional, and it is far from clear what consequences follow when rules are broken. Will the Government use this moment to bring forward legislation to enshrine the ministerial code in law?
Darren Jones
The hon. Lady invites me in her first question to comment on the intent of conversations between people other than myself. I am sure the House will understand that all I can do at the Dispatch Box is refer to the documents disclosed in the bundle, given that I was not privy to those conversations.
The hon. Lady asks me a number of questions about the use of non-corporate communication channels. The guidance is very clear that non-corporate communication channels can be used, but, where government is being transacted, the decision needs to be recorded on official Government channels. None the less, WhatsApp has been used extensively, which has raised a number of questions for the Government to consider. We will do that as part of our review of the use of non-corporate communication channels, the terms of reference for which I will announce very shortly.
The hon. Lady asks me about the peerages Bill, which was confirmed in the King’s Speech recently and which we will bring forward in due course. We share the ambition to use it as a piece of legislation to modernise the House of Lords in respect of peers who have brought the House into disrepute.
The hon. Lady asks me again about putting the ministerial code on a statutory footing. We have had exchanges a number of times across the Dispatch Box, and I point to the fact that the changes this Government have already made have proven to be effective, given a number of Ministers who have had to resign.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Any cases that are clearly a real risk to national security should alarm everyone around this House. I think back to some of the questions that I put to then Prime Minister Johnson, as you will recall, Mr Speaker, about his relationship with Alexander Lebedev, for example. We have heard about the case of Oleg Deripaska with George Osborne and Peter Mandelson, as well as other characters, which is deeply concerning.
Let me land on a point about the non-corporate communication channels and IT systems. I am delighted to hear that the Government are reviewing those, but this is a matter of urgency, because it has become the norm for civil servants and those in Government, including in previous Governments, to use the likes of WhatsApp as the normal operating system. When will that review be published?
Darren Jones
The first part of my hon. Friend’s question goes to the point I made in my statement about the importance of allowing the developed vetting interviews to be fully confidential. We need to ensure that when people join the Government and undertake a DV interview, they are fully transparent with the Government about any relationships they have with individuals. Turning to the review of non-corporate communications channels, I hope to be able to announce its terms of reference very shortly.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
As far as the House of Commons generally is concerned, this statement is fairly meaningless, because it is impossible to ask questions about hundreds of pages, having had a few minutes to read them. So many general debates are damp squibs, so will the Minister undertake to answer every single question that has been put to him by the time he opens the debate on Wednesday?
Darren Jones
I am afraid that I am not at the Dispatch Box to speak on behalf of Mr Mandelson, and I was not in the developed vetting interview process; nor have I seen that information, so I cannot answer the specific questions that my hon. Friend has asked me. What I can do, though, is point her to the relevant comments in my statement: the Government have gone to lengths to ensure that references to Palantir have not been redacted in the documents, other than in line with normal commercial processes, given the level of interest in that company in the House.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
First, through the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, may I thank all of the officials at the Cabinet Office who have dealt with this matter in a very thorough, professional and—as far as I am concerned—courteous way? For that, I am grateful.
Casting forward, it is probably perfectly correct that a Prime Minister should be able to make a political appointment to an ambassadorial position, but there seem to be two key lessons that need to be learned here, and I wonder whether the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister could say a word or two on both. The first is that as a matter of course, vetting should be conducted prior to making public an announcement of appointment. The second is that there seems to be confusion—the earlier pages of part I, published today, indicate this—about what being a member of the Privy Council, a Member of the House of Lords, or a former member of the Cabinet means for what type of vetting is required. Can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister assure the House that those key lessons have been learned, and that very clear direction has been given to those who are charged with this important and sensitive job, so that they know precisely how and when to do it, and so that there is a level playing field for applicants?
Darren Jones
Let me gently remind members of the Scottish National party that Nicola Sturgeon was very effective at deleting messages during the covid inquiry. It is important that Ministers do not do that, and I am sure that the SNP has learned those lessons as much as everyone else. I made it very clear in my statement that the documents that we have available in front of us—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just say that I am not responsible for the answer? It is no use appealing to me. The Minister can answer by means of his own ability; he does not need my help.
Darren Jones
Thank you, Mr Speaker, but any encouragement is welcome. As I said to the hon. Gentleman, the documents relating to his questions are clearly set out in the bundle, and they speak for themselves.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Kendall
I remind the hon. Lady that I have already made it a requirement in law that chatbots must protect users from illegal content. I banned nudification apps, through a new criminal offence. We are requiring platforms to take down non-consensual intimate images within 48 hours, and we are requiring platforms to act faster on all those things. It is not true to say that we have not legislated to go further to protect children online. Is she right that there is more to do? Absolutely, and we will act.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The original sin underpinning many of today’s digital harms is engagement-driven digital advertising. That is what incentivised the platforms to hook young people on infinite scrolling, as members of FlippGen explained to me when I met them on Monday. It is also what drives the “London is broken” misinformation that Sadiq Khan highlighted, and what rewards the fabricated clickbait AI Auschwitz images called out by the Auschwitz Museum. Will the Secretary of State take steps to regulate digital advertising, as the Committee called for in its report published almost a year ago?
Liz Kendall
I or one of my Ministers will meet the hon. Member. She is right to say that once you have seen something, you cannot unsee it. That is especially true for young minds. We all know that young children will wake up in the night and talk to us about things that they remember seeing, but do not understand because they are too young. Either one of my Ministers or I will be more than happy to meet her, see those images for ourselves, and speak to Ofcom and others about what we can do to try to stop that.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State regret having been forced into a ban on social media for under-16s during proceedings on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, rather than having committed to a ban the first place, or introducing a Bill in the King’s Speech?
Kanishka Narayan
My hon. Friend has been a remarkable champion for the BSI, on this and on wider issues as well. I will not sing “Happy Birthday”, but I will certainly wish it a very happy birthday, and I look forward to continuing my conversations with it.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Having worked across Departments and with my technology counterpart in the Lords, we have published a comprehensive paper on how Britain can thrive in the age of AI. It calls for a digital sovereign strategy and an integrated approach to AI that is bold, responsible, pro-innovation, pro-trust and built alongside industry and civic expertise. I would be happy to discuss this. We see Britain having a leading place in AI services, but we have squandered leads before, and the Government have not offered a coherent, joined-up strategy on how to do this differently, in a way that is centred on trust and standards. Where is the Government’s AI Bill? Can we have guarantees that Labour’s latest internal drama will not cost Britain its most important economic opportunity in a generation?
Liz Kendall
We want to ensure that people from all walks of life and in every part of the country can seize the opportunities that tech and AI bring. That is why we are upskilling 10 million workers—a third of the workforce—in AI skills, why we are investing £170 million in the TechFirst programme to help young people get skills and training, and why we have launched the first ever level 4 apprenticeship in AI, so that young people in Harlow can fulfil their ambitions and we build a better country for all.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
I was born in Harlow, would you believe it, Mr Speaker?
Can the Secretary of State guarantee that under Labour’s EU reset, Britain will not align with any EU tech rules, including the AI Act?
The Prime Minister
Families across the United Kingdom are facing the impacts of a war that we did not choose, so it is welcome news today that inflation is falling. There is more that we can do, and I can announce today that we are giving our hauliers a 12-month road tax holiday, helping to keep prices down, and we are backing drivers by extending the freeze in fuel duty for the rest of the year. This is possible because of the decisions taken by the Chancellor, making us the fastest growing economy in the G7, and she will set out further action tomorrow. This is not our war, and although Opposition parties wanted to jump into it, Labour will always protect working people.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I would like to associate myself with the words of the Prime Minister regarding the tragic death of Lance Bombardier Ciara Sullivan. We send our condolences to her family on this terrible loss.
I welcome some of what the Prime Minister has said about fuel duty. Yes, there is still a freeze, but we asked him about this on 11 March and 25 March and he said he was not going to do it, so I thank him for the U-turn—[Interruption.] Labour Members are shaking their heads—it would make more sense if they just did what we are doing, because they get there in the end anyway.
Yesterday, Labour MPs voted to ban new British oil and gas licences. Why?
Mrs Badenoch
It gets worse and worse—the Prime Minister does not understand the policy. I am asking him about new oil and gas licences, which Labour Members voted against yesterday. If they had approved those licences for Jackdaw and Rosebank like we did, we would have that oil in this country now.
Just listening to the Prime Minister, I wonder if he is okay. He is so deep in the bunker. He is importing sanctioned Russian oil, nationalising steel and imposing price controls in the supermarket—it is like the Soviets won. This country needs a Government who have got their act together. Instead, what we have is a Prime Minister hanging by a thread with fake support from his Back Benchers, too scared to take difficult decisions, and losing his moral compass by backsliding on Ukraine. [Interruption.] Yes, he is. The shaking of Labour Members’ heads is so feeble—it is absolutely laughable. Yesterday, we saw them huddled in the corridors, talking about Andy Burnham and Wes Streeting. The fact is that the Prime Minister has a Cabinet fighting to replace him, and the worst part is that they are not getting rid of him over his terrible agenda—no, they actually like it. They just want a better salesman. Is it not the case that it does not matter who replaces him; the real problem is the Labour party? [Hon. Members: “More!”]
The Prime Minister
A lot has been happening in recent days, so the Leader of the Opposition may have overlooked the fact that last week, the Office for National Statistics announced that we have the fastest growing economy in the G7. Last week, we had the biggest fall in NHS waiting lists for 17 years. Today, inflation has come down more than expected. Mr Speaker, if you had offered me that and Arsenal becoming premier league champions, I would take it every day of the week.
The Prime Minister
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the bravery and sacrifice of the Royal Regiment of Scotland. I have had the privilege of meeting Scots serving in our armed forces across the world. They deserve our deepest gratitude. I cannot understand how the SNP and Greens have arrived at this decision, particularly when Glaswegians have contributed so much to the Royal Regiment. It is not too late to do the right thing, and I urge them to reconsider.
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
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. We have already committed to a moratorium on crypto donations to political parties, and the King’s Speech introduces tougher rules to protect our democracy. However, the £5 million question is: why did the Reform leader keep this donation secret? I see that he is not here to answer. What did the billionaire lining his pockets ask for in return? Those questions need to be answered—and that is why he is not here.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me for my first Prime Minister’s question since becoming SNP Westminster leader, following the SNP’s stunning victory in Scotland. I am enjoying the sense of challenge and opportunity a new job can provide—a sense of renewal I am certain the Prime Minister will be enjoying in the weeks ahead.
This week, we saw the latest chapter of Labour infighting, in which Andy “Brexit” Burnham wants the UK to stay out of the EU, but Peter Mandelson’s pal, the former Health Secretary, wants us to go back in. Can the Prime Minister advise us which of his potential successors he agrees with?
The Prime Minister
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new post and thank him for the calm, reasonable approach I have come to expect. My position is very clear: we have already negotiated a closer relationship with the EU, which we did last year. We will have another negotiation and agreement this year at a summit, where we will get even closer and take a big step forward in our relationship with the EU, which is in our national interest.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)
As I have set out to this House on previous occasions, the Government are working to comply with the motion passed in February. I can reassure the House that this remains the case, and I can provide the following update today.
The Government confirmed before Prorogation that we had referred more than 300 documents to the Intelligence and Security Committee. At the time, that represented all the documents in scope of the motion where the Government believed that publication would be prejudicial to UK national security or international relations. The Government have repeatedly assessed all the documents we have collected to make sure that all of those that need to be referred to the ISC are referred to the Committee. As part of this quality control process, the Government identified a small number of further documents that we felt should be reviewed by the ISC, and we immediately submitted those documents to the Committee. As Friday’s statement from the Committee set out, it has now considered all those documents.
As I have previously said to the House, the Government will be publishing a second tranche of material. This is currently being finalised and will be one of the largest Government publications ever laid in this House. That is reflective of the breadth of the motion, and also the Government’s commitment to transparency in responding to it. It constitutes a very significant disclosure exercise involving sensitive material from across Government. The Government have taken seriously our obligations to comply with the Humble Address in full, while also upholding other public interest issues, such as our duty of care to junior staff. The Government have carried out this work according to a robust process, with assurance from an independent KC.
Given that the House is due to rise on Thursday, and given the length of the publication, the second tranche will now be published after Whitsun recess to give the House sufficient time to review the material and to be able to ask me and the Government questions. It could have been published this Thursday, but I felt that the House would have deemed that to be inappropriate, given that it will be such a significant publication. [Interruption.] To refer back to my previous comments, this will be the largest publication—other than, I think, the Chilcot inquiry report—ever published to the House.
When the Government publish the second tranche of documents, we will also publish a methodology confirming the process we have followed, and the basis on which content has been redacted will be clear from the published information. The targeted redactions made to the material, beyond those relevant to national security or international relations, have been made in line with clear precedent set by previous Administrations in responding to Humble Addresses.
As I set out to the House on 23 February, and again when we published the first tranche of material on 11 March, we have taken the normal approach to redacting junior officials’ names, contact details such as telephone numbers and email addresses, the personal data of third parties where that is not in scope of the motion, and, where relevant, legal professional privilege. That has been done using the principles set out in the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and in line with the ministerial code and the resolutions on ministerial accountability passed by both Houses in 1997. Those resolutions state:
“Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with relevant statute”.
I am sure that Members across the House will recognise that there is no public interest in the Government publishing the names and contact details of junior officials or their telephone numbers.
Mr Speaker
Order. Minister, you have been in the House for some time. Ministers have three minutes to respond to an urgent question, and it is over three and a half minutes now. I was not given notice of extra time being needed, and other people would obviously need to know that, too. I set out the rules of the House, and we should adhere to them. We have broken them once again, and we have only been back a few days.
Darren Jones
Forgive me, Mr Speaker. In that case, I will sit down and provide further detail in answer to questions from Members.
Darren Jones
In response to the questions from the right hon. and learned Gentleman about compliance with the Humble Address, I refer him to the statement that I have made previously in relation to the principles set out in legislation and the motions of the House.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was, I think, asking me specifically about personal data that was collected as part of the security vetting process. As I think he suggested, the raw data that is collected as part of those investigations—perhaps relating to how much money someone has in a particular account, or with whom that person may have had a personal relationship in the past—would never be published, because if we did so, people would feel unable to answer those questions honestly and frankly in any UK security vetting investigation in the future, which would undermine the very basis of our national security system.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My first concern is about the number of WhatsApp and other channels that have been used for very informal but important communications between officials and Ministers—a practice that seems to have started very actively under the Johnson Government and continued thereafter. My second concern is about the use of low-level IT systems for quite serious documents of record. Can the Minister update the House on what is being done to tighten up those important channels?
Darren Jones
I share those concerns as well as similar concerns that have been raised by the Intelligence and Security Committee, not only about the extensive use of what we call non-corporate communications channels but about information that should have been on a higher level of classification that was shared at “official sensitive”. I have already announced to the House the imminent start of a review of the use of non-corporate communications channels, and I shall be taking further action to ensure that sensitive information is shared at the appropriate classification.
Darren Jones
I take these matters very seriously, as I am sure Members across the House would recognise, and I will not for one instant countenance the idea that, as loud as the hon. Gentleman may want to shout it, there is a cover-up. If there was any suggestion of a cover-up, I would not be standing at this Dispatch Box to defend the process; I would resign. That has not been the case, and I suggest the hon. Gentleman may want to focus on the substance of the matter at hand.
On the questions the hon. Gentleman has put to me, I have answered them in the statement and in my answer to the deputy Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I refer him to my previous answers.
Darren Jones
To confirm, the documents that relate to the recommendation put to the Foreign Office and the Foreign Office’s decision to appoint Peter Mandelson irrespective of the recommendation that was put to it have been referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee. What has not been referred is the raw data collected as part of interviews undertaken with Peter Mandelson, which in any circumstances we would not share in relation to any appointment. I confirm that neither I nor any decision maker in this process has seen that level of personal detail, because it is kept so securely to ensure that, when people go through this process, they feel able to give full and frank answers, without a wide range of politicians or others seeing their deeply personal information.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
This House did not pass the motion on the Humble Address so that Ministers could decide, four months later, which inconvenient information they would prefer that Parliament did not see. Given the ISC’s concerns that the Government are redacting information far too broadly, we must ensure that the Government are not just withholding documents and information from Parliament on their own say-so. Every day this pantomime drags on, public trust erodes further. Parliament asks for transparency, Epstein’s victims deserve justice and the public deserve answers, not redactions. The point is not that any Member of this House wants a junior civil servant’s personal data to be published, but that it is not the Government’s decision where the line is to be drawn.
Given that documents on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s trade envoy role are also due to be laid before this House shortly, will the Minister confirm that he will personally ensure that those are produced without redaction, too?
David Davis
On a point of order, given that this applies directly to the Minster, I draw the House’s attention to the motion tabled by the now Prime Minister on 4 December 2018 following non-compliance with a previous Humble Address. It starts:
“That this House finds Ministers in contempt for their failure to comply with the requirements of the motion for return passed on 13 November 2018”. —[Official Report, 4 December 2018; Vol. 650, c. 668.]
That motion was passed by this House.
We have just debated an area where the Government may potentially be in contempt of the House; indeed, the obfuscation we have heard looks like that. It is important that the House and the Government know that there is precedent in this area. I give notice that if, after we have received the next tranche of documents, the Humble Address has not been met in full, or if we have not been told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I will seek to table such a motion.
Mr Speaker
I do not want to continue the debate, so this is advice for other Members who are trying to catch my eye: an experienced Member like Sir David will not leave it here, but will pursue this through the many other avenues that are available. I suggest that the issue will be coming back at some point. I have also had a letter from the ISC, and at some point I will also need to respond to it, so it is not quite the end as we sit here.
Dr Mullan
Further to that point of order, while I do not have the same experience as my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), the Minister has said that the documents are ready to publish and that the only issue is securing Government time to do that on 1 June, the first day back after recess. What advice can the Speaker provide to the House on what other mechanisms are available to ensure that there is time on that day, if the Government are unwilling to allocate it?
Mr Speaker
It is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the Government, thankfully. As I understand it, there is a very large number of documents. What has not been mentioned in this debate is the ability to print such a large number and make them available to the House. I have been advised that publication will be coming as soon as possible—I do not want to speak for the Minister, but rest assured that it will not be left. It is important that we have time to go through those documents. They may be good reading for Whitsun; other Members may be campaigning. I am keeping a very close eye on it, but I understand that there is a big issue with printing such a high number of documents, so it is not as straightforward as has been presented.
Mr Francois
Further to that point of order, the Minister’s excuse for not guaranteeing that the documents will be available by 18 June is that he would need to secure parliamentary time. This is news to some of us, who have been here a while and understand that the Government effectively control the timetable of Parliament. Indeed, every Thursday when the House is sitting they make a business statement to tell us what is coming up in the next two weeks. Mr Speaker, are you aware of anything in the Standing Orders or Erskine May that would prevent the Government from making a business statement on Thursday, naming a day for publication after the Whitsun recess?
Mr Speaker
We love speculation. I did not quite hear the Minister say that he was worried about the by-election. I know that the Minister will want to ensure that this House is informed as soon as possible. I will look to ensure that that happens. Let us calm down and not speculate too much. Hopefully, Whitsun may bring some generosity to some Members—I think they need a little bit more sunshine.
National Security
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the national security statement, I should say two things in relation to matters that are sub judice. First, there are a number of live cases relating to recent antisemitic attacks. However, to help manage our discussions on an issue of national importance, I am granting a limited waiver to allow passing references to such incidents, as long as they do not engage in discussion of or speculation around the motivation for, detail of or immediate response to any specific individual incidents.
Secondly, I should inform the House that the case relating to two men spying on behalf of Hong Kong is still technically sub judice until sentencing. However, I am granting a limited waiver so that Members may discuss wider issues raised in the context of this case. Members should not speculate about sentencing issues.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on recent national security developments, including the increase in the national terrorism threat level.
The events of the last few weeks have illustrated the breadth and seriousness of the national security threats that we face from both terrorists and foreign states. In the response to those threats, they have also highlighted the strength and resilience of our world-leading law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Over recent weeks we have seen a series of arson attacks and incidents against British Jews and opponents of the Iranian regime, including the horrifying terror attack in Golders Green, which seriously injured two members of the Jewish community. We have seen the recent conviction of a 21-year-old man who planned to commit a terrorist attack to further his extreme white supremacist agenda. We saw convictions last week against two individuals under the National Security Act 2023 for surveilling and intimidating dissidents on behalf of China, and we are seeing record levels of investigative casework on terror plots, espionage and state-linked threats to individuals.
On 30 April, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre raised the UK national terrorism threat level from “substantial” to “severe”. The decision to change the UK’s terrorism threat level is taken independently of Ministers, based on the very latest intelligence. “Severe” means that a terrorist attack is highly likely in the next six months. The threat level was last at “severe” from November 2021 until February 2022. This increase in the threat from terrorism follows the recent stabbing attack in Golders Green, but it is not solely a result of that attack.
The terrorism threat in the UK has been gradually increasing. It is driven primarily by the broader Islamist and extreme right-wing terrorist threat from individuals and small groups based here in the UK. While the UK national threat level reflects JTAC’s assessment of the terrorist threat in the UK, it comes against a backdrop of increased state-linked physical threats, which is encouraging acts of violence, including against the Jewish community. In response, we have announced £25 million of immediate funding to strengthen policing, protect Jewish communities and provide reassurance. This brings the total protective security funding to £58 million this year, the largest investment a Government have made in protecting Jewish communities.
I have also initiated a review of the national threat level system, which currently captures only the threat from terrorism, to ensure that it remains fully relevant and that we are communicating as clearly as possible with the public about the national security threats we face today.
Contest, the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy, sets out a clear framework—prevent, pursue, protect and prepare—which aims to ensure that people can go about their lives freely and with confidence. We are broadening our intervention capabilities to better support those at risk of being drawn into terrorism, through the Prevent programme. We have improved training and guidance for frontline professionals and practitioners to better spot the signs of radicalisation. We are working with technology companies, international partners and Ofcom to tackle online content used to radicalise, recruit and incite terrorism.
Co-ordinated intervention is crucial to reduce the terrorist risk, so we are providing children and individuals with the right support with our interventions centre of expertise, which brings together MI5 and Counter Terrorism Policing with expertise from wider public services. MI5 and CTP work tirelessly to stop terrorist attacks, with 19 late-stage attack plots disrupted since 2020, including a chilling ISIS-inspired plot to target Jewish communities in Manchester using firearms.
We have delivered our manifesto commitment to improve the security of public events and venues across the UK through Martyn’s law, and free expert advice, guidance and training are available to owners and operators of venues and public spaces through the ProtectUK website. Through closer working across the emergency services, we are maintaining strong, multi-agency working capabilities to respond to a range of different scenarios. We keep our preparedness under constant review, and the response is exercised regularly, ensuring that our emergency services can respond immediately to terror attacks, as we saw in their brave response to the violent antisemitic attack in Golders Green.
Terrorism and state threats are sometimes interrelated, as we have seen with threats from states such as Iran, and the wider use of both terrorist groups and proxies by state actors, including Russia. We face a sophisticated and persistent challenge in responding to China, which presents a unique set of threats to the United Kingdom. The case last week demonstrates that we have the tools to successfully respond to that challenge, and Members across the House will know that a jury delivered its verdict following the nine-week trial of Bill Yuen and Peter Wai. The jury found both individuals guilty of assisting a foreign intelligence service—in this case, the Hong Kong police force—under the National Security Act. Wai was also found guilty of misconduct in public office.
The verdict represents the first convictions under the National Security Act related to China, and it sends a strong message that the full force of the law will be applied to anyone who carries out hostile acts in the UK on behalf of any foreign state. Both individuals held positions of power, leveraging these to conduct hostile activity on UK soil on behalf of China. It is simply unacceptable that an employee of a foreign power was conducting a shadow policing operation in the United Kingdom. That is why the Chinese ambassador has been summoned, and the Foreign Secretary will be making it clear to Hong Kong’s Chief Executive that this type of activity was, and will always be, unacceptable in the United Kingdom. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has also made it clear that Yuen’s employment at the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office must be terminated immediately.
The trial has understandably caused considerable concern within the UK among the Hong Kong community. The safety and security of Hongkongers in the UK is paramount. That is why my officials have been working closely with the National Protective Security Authority to deliver new guidance on transnational repression. The guidance provides examples of what transnational repression might look like and what to do if anyone feels under threat from any state.
Transnational repression from China, however, is just one type of state threat activity. That is why the Government are taking decisive action across a much broader range of state threats. We are: rolling out new training for police officers and staff to increase their understanding of state threats; driving forward the counter-political interference and espionage plan, to protect the UK’s democratic institutions and processes; bringing forward in the coming weeks fast-track legislation that will clamp down on individuals and groups carrying out hostile activity for foreign states, including those who act as their proxies, and which will include new proscription-like powers to ban the activities of state-backed organisations that pose a threat to the UK’s national security; and implementing all the recommendations made last year by Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of state threats legislation. We are responding to state threats in all their forms.
National security is the first duty of Government. As this House knows, that duty includes being able to respond to a range of threats. We are giving our police and intelligence services the resources they need for that vital role. Last year we provided an extra £140 million for Counter Terrorism Policing, plus nearly £600 million more for our intelligence services. This takes their funding to record levels.
Protecting our communities and standing up to hatred and intolerance is a shared responsibility of every person in the UK. I urge the public to remain vigilant and report any concerns they have to the police. Their contribution is a vital part of our efforts to keep our country safe.
Support to the victims of terrorism is a moral duty, and I would like to acknowledge the profound and enduring impact on the survivors and families of those affected by the attacks in Golders Green, and all terrorist attacks, whose lives have been forever changed.
I want to close by thanking those individuals serving in our police and security services for their dedication to keeping our country safe, and the public for their continued vigilance. We owe them all a debt of gratitude. I commend this statement to the House.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an important point. The relationship with local government is absolutely mission critical, and I work very closely with not only local government right across the country and the devolved Administrations, but ministerial colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. She is right to raise the importance of social cohesion. She will know that that Department has led a piece of work recently, but it is very important that that is wired right across Government. The defending democracy taskforce, which I chair, provides a fulcrum point across Government to work closely with the police, local authorities and the security services to ensure that we have the right approach and response to the threats we face. Ensuring social cohesion and tackling the kind of vile online abuse that we have seen in recent times is an absolute priority for this Government.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Week after week, British Jews are being attacked, intimidated and persecuted. We have seen what has happened at Heaton Park synagogue, Kenton United synagogue, Finchley Reform synagogue, and Jewish Futures in Hendon, and to the Hatzola ambulances, and more recently, there have been the Golders Green stabbings.
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 laws must be properly enforced, especially as the UK’s terror threat was raised to severe last month. Members of the Jewish faith in my constituency attend the North West Surrey synagogue, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer)—I call him my hon. Friend, despite the normal convention, because on this issue, in this House, I hope there is more that unites us than divides us. We must collectively fight antisemitism.
I want a future in which Jewish congregations can gather free of fear and have a Government who support their safety. In this climate, it is absolutely right that the Government take urgent action, but I question whether broadening the scope of Prevent will be enough, given the modern threats that we face. In the Southport and Golders Green attacks, we saw the abject failure of Prevent. It is clear that a full overhaul of Prevent is needed; warning signs must not be missed again. Yesterday’s King’s Speech confirmed the Government’s intention to introduce national security legislation, but this must be a priority. Please can the Minister confirm that the legislation will include an overhaul of Prevent, and set out the timetable for the Bill’s introduction?
Finally, the Liberal Democrats have long called for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to be proscribed. As Jonathan Hall has made clear, existing powers are already sufficient to proscribe the IRGC. That being the case, why have this Government dragged their feet and delayed action to proscribe the IRGC and keep British Jews safe?
Debate on the Address
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the mover and the seconder, I want to announce the proposed pattern of debate during the remaining days on the Loyal Address: today—debate on the Address; tomorrow—getting Britain working again; Monday 18 May—backing business to create economic growth; Tuesday 19 May—energy security; Wednesday 20 May—defence readiness.
I now have the privilege of calling Naz Shah to move the address, and I will then call Chris Vince to second it.
Mr Speaker
I won’t mention the Bolton-Bradford game on Thursday.
I call Chris Vince to second the address.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an absolute honour to second this Humble Address. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) for her incredibly powerful speech and echo her words about the importance of communities coming together to tackle the divisive politics that we have seen so often. I thank her for those comments.
May I also echo her comments about the House staff and the incredible job that they do to support all of us? Following my recent London marathon run, two of the Doorkeepers suggested that the only reason Sabastian Sawe did it in less than two hours was to get away from me talking about Harlow. As a big fan of curries, I look forward to having the opportunity to sample one in Bradford in the future, although I cannot speak for all my fellow Essex MPs.
Speaking to this motion is a unique opportunity. I have checked the records, and I am the first MP for Harlow to have had the opportunity to do so—mind you, Harlow has only been a constituency since the 1970s, and I am not counting Winston Churchill, who represented what is now Harlow when it still came under Epping. It may be the first time that a Harlow MP has delivered this speech, but I believe that this opportunity has come at the right time. When I reflect on the hurdles ahead, a lot can be learned by looking at Harlow’s past and Harlow’s future.
My seconding the Humble Address came about when I received a phone call from the Chief Whip on the train home. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West—and most Members across the House, I am sure—my first thought was, “What have I done wrong?” I thought that perhaps, as some Members across the House did, he had misheard me when I said “horned” during a speech; I did not much fancy explaining to him on a train full of my constituents that I had said “horned” and not another word that sounds like “horned”. Thankfully, that was not the case.
The Chief Whip told me there were certain traditions around the King’s Speech—that the seconder’s speech should be humorous and was an opportunity to mention the Member’s constituency as often as possible. This did sound like a good gig to me, to be fair. I cannot necessarily promise humour—although I will give it a good go—but I can certainly promise that I will mention Harlow as often as possible. Those listening at home may wish to count the number of times I do so. I believe the current count is seven. [Interruption.] Is it eight? What did I do for a living?
Harlow is never a dull place to represent. Members across the House will know that Harlow once again bucked the national trend when it came to last week’s local election results. We are getting quite good at that, even if it might not have been in quite the way I would have liked. However, it shows the ambition of the people of Harlow to see their town improve and grow—something that can only happen with this Government’s continued investment. Hint, hint!
The Chief Whip also told me that it was tradition to have an established MP propose the Loyal Address and for a “bright young thing” to second it. I have to say that I am not particularly bright and I am not particularly young—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] But I am definitely a thing, so I can claim one third of that description.
I think the Chief Whip asked me to give this speech because he was aware that, on the last day of term, I failed to achieve my 400th contribution to Hansard. I thank everybody for being here so that I can now do so. In this parliamentary term I look forward to making 400 further contributions, with multiple references to Harlow, my mother’s sterling career at HMRC, and the fact that I may have previously been a maths teacher. [Hon. Members: “More!”] There is more; don’t worry.
I think we all recognise, as His Majesty does, that this King’s Speech comes at an increasingly dangerous and volatile time that, like hon. Friends and other hon. Members, I have spent a great deal of time thinking about. During this turmoil, I have taken the time to reflect on what it means to be British—those British values. What is our country about? What is the real Britain? We mention Britishness more and more, but it can mean any number of things to any number of people.
When I think about what it means to be British, I think about my recent experience running the London marathon. To be clear, I am not referring to when the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), with his Union flag shorts on, overtook me on mile 17, just as I hit the metaphorical wall. I have looked it up and he is two years younger than me, so I have an excuse.
During my marathon run—or perhaps in my case I should say my marathon limp—along the streets of London, I saw neither hate nor division. I saw unity. I saw people coming together to cheer on perfect strangers in their shared endeavour. I saw Gordon Ramsay randomly heckle me to carry on. I even got support from a Man United supporter. I saw everyone—man or woman, black or white, gay or straight—all lining the 26.2-mile course. And by the way, that 0.2 miles at the end is only made possible by those supporters. That is the Britain I know. That is the Britain that I love.
That sense of supporting one another, and of coming together as a community in hardship and celebration, is alive and well in Harlow. In fact, it was baked into the very foundation of Harlow when it was first conceived as part of the new town revolution under the first majority Labour Government in 1945.
Harlow remains a strong community today. When I think of Britishness, I think of Rainbow Services, which supports projects across Harlow by getting young people to build infrastructure for their community; I think of Streets2Homes, the homelessness charity I worked at that supports the most vulnerable in our society; and I think about the Michael Roberts charitable foundation, which runs the local food bank.
As I mentioned, Harlow is a post-war new town designed by Sir Frederick Gibberd to be a place of neighbourhoods and communities. It was built as a solution to the problem of overcrowding in London. Harlow sought to alleviate that pressure, while keeping communities tightly knit together. We can still see remnants of that today, with people from Walthamstow moving to The Stow in Harlow, which gives people a fresh start in life with all the comforts of their community. To this day, Harlow is one community built by lots of smaller and close communities—communities like Potter Street, Bush Fair, Church Langley and Little Parndon.
As Harlow grew into its new town, so too did its pioneering spirit. Just two weeks ago, I was lucky enough to recognise one of those pioneers by unveiling a blue plaque in memory of Harlow-raised scientist Dr George Hockham, one of the key brains behind the invention of the fibre-optic cable. Fibre-optic cable, created in Harlow, revolutionised modern communication not just in Britain, but across the world. For me, George Hockham and many others like him from Harlow can be an inspiration for Harlow’s next generation—a generation who deserve a Government on their side. I also think of inspirations like Professor Hannah Fry and Paralympian Anne Strike. These inspirations are a reminder of what it means to be British, to achieve so much and to have such a proud community behind you.
Harlow has a history to be proud of and a future to be excited about. As a former teacher—I do not know whether I have mentioned that fact—I am filled with pride when I visit schools across Harlow and see the incredible young people learning there. That is why I am proud that education is at the heart of this Government’s offer in the King's Speech, building on the work done in the previous parliamentary Session.
Looking to this Session, the Government will tackle the broken special educational needs and disabilities system, giving every young person with SEND the support they need and supporting parents, not leaving them to battle a broken system. This issue cuts across this House. I am sure every hon. Member can recall a constituent coming to them broken, with nowhere to turn, at their wits’ end with a SEND system that benefits no one; I certainly can.
I also welcome the Government’s commitment to review the national curriculum to make it broader, recognising the importance of citizenship and financial education and the dangers of online harm. What our younger generation learn is so important. If I could achieve one thing, when I look back on my time serving Harlow, I want it to be achieving for the young people in Harlow the aspiration that they deserve. Every young person now sitting in a classroom in Harlow—primary or secondary—should have the opportunity to aspire to achieve whatever they want to do. That is what I want for Harlow.
Some might say the fact that I am standing in this Chamber, giving this speech, means that anyone can achieve anything if they are resilient enough. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, I can roll with the punches, and believe me, my journey to these Green Benches did not happen without me getting knocked down along the way. I say now, directly to the young people of Harlow: Do not give up on your dreams. Do not let someone tell you that you can’t do it. If you really want something and you are willing to work hard for it, you can achieve it. I am proof of that, and I know that in this Government, you have a Prime Minister dedicated to giving that opportunity to others—because he is even more proof of it than I am.
I would be remiss of me not to take this opportunity to mention a personal focus of mine in this place: supporting young carers and young adult carers. I call on the Government once again to ensure that support for those particularly incredible young people is a golden thread running through everything that they do.
Of course, Harlow is about more than just its young people, and my community has not been immune to the pressures of the cost of living crisis. I welcome the work already done—the freezing of rail fares and prescription charges, the lifting of the two-child benefit cap and the raising of the minimum wage—but most of all I am pleased that this Government, in this King’s Speech, recognise that there is more to do to support families in Harlow.
When we talk about cost of living pressures, it is easy to get lost in the numbers— as a mathematician at heart, that is even easier for me. But to bring the issue home, when I think of the reality facing hard-working and proud families in Harlow, I think of my friend Jamie, who works six days a week to pay the bills, put food on the table for his two-year-old son and provide for his family. At the end of the month, he has very little, if anything. He cannot enjoy himself. He cannot treat his family. This parliamentary Session must be defined by being the one where we see living standards improve for everyone in our society, not just for the privileged few. That is what will be in my mind’s eye when I cast my votes in this place.
I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) is waiting anxiously for me to point out that I stand here in this place as not just a Labour MP, but a Labour and Co-operative MP. I am proud of the Co-operative party and the work it has been doing alongside the Government to empower local communities, like mine in Harlow, through community ownership. I hope this next Session will bring even more co-operative opportunities for people in Harlow.
Of course, like those of many hon. Members in this place, my constituency name does not encompass the full nature of my area. The Harlow constituency does not end at the town boundary; I also represent incredible villages with incredible histories. I represent Roydon, a village that first appeared in the Domesday Book. Bordering Roydon are Lower Nazeing and Dobbs Weir, which are home to the Lea Valley growers—some of the biggest vegetable producers in the country. I also represent Sheering, one of whose most notable residents is Rod Stewart. For the first time, Harlow also includes Hatfield Heath and Hatfield Broad Oak—I know that the Leader of the Opposition will vaguely remember those places—which are incredible communities with a strong sense of what it means to look after your neighbour; I have got a “Neighbours” reference in there for the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport! Ironically, one of my predecessors, Bill Rammell, moved out of Harlow to one of the villages, but Harlow was not keen on this so it expanded its boundaries to include him back in the constituency, and we welcome him.
Part of the fun of representing such a diverse community, with its healthy share of rural and urban, is the mix I get to experience as its MP. I can visit local businesses in the morning, talk to a group of students in the afternoon, and then round up the day with a community event. I have attended my fair share of community events, although I am not convinced it was a great idea to run the Matching village 10K a week after the London marathon. I did not see the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay there—just saying! Perhaps he had already finished. [Laughter.] On the point about running, when I took part in the London marathon, I received the card from my parliamentary team wishing me luck, with one member of my team commenting: “You’ve run in enough elections, so a marathon should be easy.”
That brings me to my conclusion and to the line that I want to end with, which is from one of my own former teachers. Did I mention I was a teacher? Mr Feeley used to teach me science, although I am not really sure that we learned a lot of science in his lessons. However, I think this line perfectly sums up this Government. We should always remember: “it’s a marathon and not a sprint.” I would respectfully remind Members of that.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Prime Minister, in my part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, we have been subjected for some years to the humiliation of being governed by laws that we do not make and cannot change. Yet you, Prime Minister, now seem to want to impose that same denial of democracy on the whole United Kingdom by making us a subservient rule-taker from a foreign Parliament. How is that in the interests of democracy?
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman has been here long enough to not blame me for the problem. He should not say “you”.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention. I am very well aware of the tensions in Northern Ireland, and the issues that have to be dealt with in our relations with the EU, but we have to face the fact that promises were made about Brexit that were not true, and which have not borne fruit. It is in our economic interests, our national interests and our defence interests to be closer to Europe. Of course we will navigate carefully, taking on board the issues in Northern Ireland, as he would expect, but it is in our interest to be closer to the EU. That is what we are doing, and we will go further.
This moment demands even greater radicalism on energy security. The British people should not have to pay more in their bills, and their living standards should not be hit, because of a war that they did not vote for and that Britain is not involved in, which is happening thousands of miles away. That is a fundamental argument of this Government, and the Conservatives have no answer to it. For decades they ducked the long-term decisions to make our country, our energy and our economy stronger, so we are going to take control. We are going to declare Britain’s energy independence. That does not mean, and it will not mean, that we turn off the taps in the North sea—oil and gas will be part of the mix for decades—but we have to move so much faster on clean energy, with a whole-society effort and everyone playing their part as we take control of our energy security.
The Prime Minister
I have been in control rooms in Northern Ireland, watching decisions being taken on the use of fatal force. I am well aware of the nature of the decisions that have to be taken, the circumstances in which they are taken and how difficult those decisions are. That is not the same as the issues in the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.
Strength is the foundation: it is the way we maintain our control even in the storms of this world, and the way we change our country rather than just manage the crisis. More than anything, change means a Britain where every child can go as far as their talent or effort allows. It is a beautiful idea, one that I know is shared across the House, but as representatives we need to see the country as a whole to make sure we see every child, including the children growing up in poverty, the children who have special educational needs, the young people who cannot get a job, and the people who are ignored and excluded from our highest aspirations because they do not want to go to university. This is a King’s Speech to change that once and for all.
My late brother had difficulties learning, and he had to fight every day just to be seen. There are millions of people like him: people who are ignored by a system and a status quo that has no expectations for them. This King’s Speech will make sure that no child is left behind, because everyone has something to contribute to the success of this nation. Every child must succeed if we are to build a stronger, fairer Britain. That is how we tear down the status quo preserved by the Conservative party—a status quo that failed working people, a status quo that left Britain’s economy exposed, a status quo that made our country weak.
There are some in this country—some even in this House—who would feed the frustration with that status quo into a politics of grievance and division. This King’s Speech sets a different course, a more hopeful course, and a course that sees the conflict in Iran, a war on two fronts, not as something to wring our hands about, but as an opportunity we must take to shape our country’s future, to end the status quo that has failed working people, and to build a stronger, fairer Britain. That is what this King’s Speech delivers and I commend it to the House.
Points of Order
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, which I learned about before Prime Minister’s questions. It is deeply concerning to everyone in this House. There is now a police investigation, and we all need to do everything we can to support that investigation and be absolutely clear in our determination to deal with any of these offences, the like of which we have seen too much recently.
Mr Speaker
This is a very serious allegation, and I take it seriously. Members of Parliament are here to carry out their duties. What is being alleged is very serious, and I believe that it needs to be investigated thoroughly. The right hon. Gentleman has been here for a long time, so he will no doubt use the Table Office as part of the avenues to pursue what he has said—there may be other ways. There may be serious security implications for this House, which I will take up via other avenues.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) visited my constituency yesterday without notifying me. This is not the first time that the usual courtesies of this House have been disregarded by Reform UK when visiting Portsmouth. Further to that, is it in order for a former Immigration Minister who helped to shape the current asylum system to visit constituencies and push campaigns that mislead and cause hatred and division? Given the blatant disregard for this convention and courtesy to the House and the absolute lack of integrity and respect, can you advise what recourse is available to me as a constituency Member?
James MacCleary
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It seems that the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was very busy yesterday, as alarmed residents in the town of Seaford in my constituency reported sighting him too. He was apparently there campaigning to support the Reform candidate for Seaford North, who is set to lose his seat to the Liberal Democrats. I understand that it is a common courtesy in this place for Members to inform one another of official visits to their constituencies, but on this occasion, that did not happen. Could you advise me on this issue?
Mr Speaker
I thank both hon. Members for their points of order. As I have reminded the House on numerous occasions, Members must notify their colleagues if they intend to visit another Member’s constituency, except for purely private purposes. I expect Members on all sides of the House to show that courtesy to their colleagues. Whether they are Front Benchers or not, it is a courtesy, and I expect it to be done that way. I hope that those Members who have failed to do so will apologise to the Members concerned. It is election fever time; we do not need any more of it, so please observe the courtesies of this House.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition, who is no longer in her place, said that 1.5 million extra people were on universal credit. She will know that this is a deeply misleading number, because it is largely a consequence of the transition from legacy systems to universal credit—her background is in IT, so she should know how it works. In fact, more people are in work now than under the Tories, so given—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not quite sure that that is a point of order for me—[Interruption.] You are trying to correct the record on a matter of political judgment. If somebody has inadvertently misled the House, it is for them to correct the record, not me, and I certainly do not want to reopen the questions that we have just closed. Thank you for bringing that matter to the attention of the House—it will now be in Hansard.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. How do I gain your advice on a point of order that is inadvertently misleading about what the Leader of the Opposition said? The Leader of the Opposition—
Mr Speaker
Order. That is danger with what I have started. We have had some very serious points of order; let us leave it with those serious points of order. We do not have the time to play around.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on two matters relating to the completeness of ministerial answers to this House. On 24 April, in answer to a written parliamentary question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja), the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), referred to an attached spreadsheet that was not provided. This is the third time in recent months that this has happened. In addition, I wrote to the same Minister on 2 March, seeking clarification of an earlier written answer in the light of remarks he made in Westminster Hall on 27 January, and I have yet to receive a reply. Could you advise me on how Members can secure timely and complete information when matters referred for answers are—
Mr Speaker
Order. I think we have both grasped the nature of your question. You know the answer better than I do, Mr Holden. As a former Secretary of State and Minister, you know very well how these things happen.
I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. He will know that I am not responsible for ministerial answers. However, all Members should receive full and timely answers. Members on the Treasury Bench will have heard his concerns, and I hope that they will be passed on to the relevant Minister. I also note that the Leader of the House is in the Chamber, and he shares my concerns about the time it is taking to answer letters. It is not good enough. It is not acceptable. We are entering a period of calm, and hopefully when we come back, we can get all the outstanding questions answered.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend is a tireless champion for tackling violence against women and girls. Ensuring that victims receive the right, timely support is central to the Government’s strategy to tackle these heinous crimes. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that. I will ensure that we have a joined-up approach with the Department of Health and Social Care to better understand the experiences of women and girls on the Isle of Wight who need help.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
As the Minister said, sexual assault survivors from the Isle of Wight and all across the United Kingdom must be heard. Virginia Giuffre took her life just one year ago. She had shared her abuse by convicted paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, the friend of Peter Mandelson. On 16 April, Lisa Phillips—another courageous survivor—supported by Carly and Sam from the Sexual Predator Accountability Institute, came to Parliament seeking transparency from lawmakers. The clear question for the Government is: when will they go from giving platitudes to victims to tackling trafficking and cover-ups and delivering adequate support and justice for all women and girls?
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
One school in my constituency is concerned about a year 6 pupil with significant support needs. As a result of his progress, with the school’s help, he has been assessed as not needing specialist provision at secondary school, which his teachers feel to be wrong. What will the Minister do to ensure that children are not punished for the success of their previous schools when making the transition to other schools?
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not sure that that was linked to the right question. Let us move on.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Following the Women and Equalities Committee’s work on misogyny in music, we are now looking at women’s experiences in comedy. In 2018, Chortle found that a quarter of female comedians had been sexually assaulted by a fellow comic and that one in 13 had been raped by another performer. Given recent high-profile cases against male comedians, does the Minister think that this sorry situation has improved? What are the Government doing to ensure that all self-employed women are protected in the future?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, which builds on another question that I previously answered. We need to take a holistic approach to tackling violence against women and girls, which means involving every Government Department. I am really pleased that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology was present at the roundtable hosted by the Deputy Prime Minister last week, which looked at how best to support men and boys and at how we can tackle the issue she raises. This is about working with Ofcom to look at what more we can do to support the regulator and to prevent algorithms from pushing harmful content to our men and boys, but it is also about supporting teachers in the workplace to ensure that they feel safe and can escalate issues as they occur.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
Since I last raised the subject of suicides after domestic abuse, the domestic abuse homicide project has reported on the previous 12 months and seen a significant rise in cases. This morning, I held a roundtable with some of the organisations campaigning to ensure that suicides in cases of domestic abuse are investigated from the outset as homicides, and they all agreed that action is needed now. One small change that they said would make an important difference is requiring police officers to turn on their body-worn cameras when attending sudden deaths in domestic settings and tagging it afterwards, which means important evidence will be preserved. Will the Government encourage the College of Policing to update its guidance to introduce such a requirement?
Bridget Phillipson
I completely agree that we must ensure that women and trans people feel safe and are protected from harassment. We will treat everyone with the dignity and respect they deserve, because those are our values, and that is made clear in the Equality Act 2010. We have also been clear that we expect duty bearers to follow the Supreme Court ruling, and to seek legal advice where necessary. I recently received an updated code of practice from the EHRC. I am grateful to it for its work. My intention is to lay the draft code before Parliament in May, as soon as possible after the election period.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
Nurses have been hounded and harassed by the NHS simply for stating that biological sex is real. The Minister met some of them at my request, and I am grateful for that, but that was months ago. What has happened since? Has she got an answer from the Nursing and Midwifery Council about how many more nurses face such witch hunts? Has she got a date from the Health Secretary for when the NHS will ensure single-sex changing rooms for staff? In short, what can she say to those hard-working nurses whose lives have been ruined by senior people in the NHS?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his work to give every child in his constituency the best start in life. I am very glad that this Government have done more than any other to lift children out of poverty. Thanks to our work this Session, the Government have passed laws to deliver more rights at work, build new homes, save British steel, clean up our waterways, secure our borders, deliver record funding to our NHS and so much more—change delivered by Labour, and opposed by the Tories and Reform.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
It is the end of this Session, and what a contrast with the beginning. Back in July 2024, the Government Benches were full adoring new MPs asking sycophantic questions; yesterday, the Prime Minister was reduced to begging those same MPs to save his own skin. He has broken his promise to grow the economy; the only thing that has grown is the welfare bill. Can the Prime Minister tell us how many more people are out of work and claiming universal credit since he took office?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for her dedicated work on this. I am very proud of the work that we have done to recognise LGBT veterans. On top of that, people in our security services are some of the bravest and most professional who serve our country. That some of them lost their job because of their sexuality is a historical wrong, and I confirm today that the Security Minister is assessing this closely. I will make sure that my right hon. Friend is updated and has the meeting that she has asked for.
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?
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The Prime Minister
Let me reassure the House that the work of the international law unit has not ended. It will simply be done by a different team under a restructure. We will, of course, continue to monitor international humanitarian law in Gaza and elsewhere, and invest in conflict prevention and resolution.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the 50 pieces of legislation—the 50 Bills—that we have put through. We whipped to change the country —we all voted to change the country. The Opposition parties, of course, opposed almost all of it. That is why we have got stronger rights for renters and why we have got stronger rights for workers, investing in our roads and railways, reforming special educational needs and disabilities provision and driving down waiting lists—all opposed by the Opposition parties. And we are only just getting started. We are going to go further on a stronger economy, on energy security and a stronger defence.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
Before we leave the House for several weeks, I feel it is absolutely necessary to raise an issue in my constituency, about which I have been trying to get an answer from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and from the Environment Agency. We have a landfill site in Calne that is producing a sulphurous smell that is causing residents to need to close their windows and leading to children with sore throats, but I am not getting answer except that the Environment Agency itself admits that
“controls may not be working effectively”.
Like my constituents, I find it really disappointing that we are not getting any serious response. This is not the kind of thing we expect in the UK—we do not expect the air that we breathe not to be safe. I urge the Prime Minister to help me to get a response from DEFRA and the EA on what measures can be put in place to reassure my constituents that they are not suffering ill health.
Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)
Given the upcoming Prorogation and state opening of Parliament, I thought it would be helpful to return to the House to provide an update on the progress the Government have made to respond to the Humble Address of 4 February as quickly and thoroughly as possible.
As Members will know, the Government published the first tranche of material on 11 March. That first tranche primarily related to the aspects of the motion regarding Peter Mandelson’s appointment and his subsequent dismissal as ambassador, in addition to the details of his severance payment provided to him by the Foreign Office. Following the publication of the first tranche of material, we have been working at pace to lay a second tranche before the House. The House will recognise, given the breadth of the motion, that a very significant number of documents have been found to be in scope and that it is taking time to process them accordingly.
The Cabinet Office team responsible for the Government’s response to the Humble Address has been working through a large quantity of material, working closely with many officials across Whitehall, particularly in the Foreign Office. The team has been seeking to take an approach to sifting and publishing information that allows it to respond to the will of this House thoroughly but expeditiously, and in line with the approach taken by previous Governments in responding to Humble Addresses. This includes co-ordinating a number of requests to Government Departments to identify documents potentially in scope of the Humble Address, particularly electronic communications and the minutes of meetings between individuals and Peter Mandelson. This is the section of the motion that has the broadest scope.
As Members will have seen from the first tranche, the Government cannot publish certain details, such as the names of junior officials, personal information or legally privileged information. Separately, in line with the process agreed by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, the Government will not publish information that undermines or threatens our country’s national security or international relations. As colleagues will appreciate, both those processes require detailed consideration. The Government are very grateful to the ISC for its constructive engagement in that process, which we recognise has constituted significant additional work on top of its existing responsibilities. As I have set out previously, the Cabinet Office has also been working with the Metropolitan police to avoid prejudicing a live police investigation.
I can confirm that by the end of today, the Cabinet Office will have passed to the ISC all the material it has processed as part of the Humble Address and judged to be prejudicial to national security or international relations. This has amounted to over 300 individual documents. It includes a number that are relevant to the processes of Peter Mandelson’s security vetting, too. As I mentioned earlier, I am very grateful to the ISC for the important role it continues to play in the Humble Address process, and for the speed with which it is processing the documents.
I would like to reassure colleagues that Parliament will receive the second tranche of material as soon as possible following the state opening and the conclusion of the work of the ISC, and I will return to the House at that point. I commend this statement to the House.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend will recognise that appointments to the civil service are made on the basis of employment law, which is different from the situation for Ministers and Members of this House, but it is right that the Government have changed the rules to ensure that disgraced politicians do not receive payouts for wrongdoing, which is what happened under the last Conservative Administration.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Paragraph 1.6.c of the ministerial code states:
“It is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.”
Yesterday, the Prime Minister said to the House that Sir Olly Robbins
“went on to say: ‘I…have complete confidence that… recommendations to me and the discussion we had and the decision we made were rigorously independent of’ any ‘pressure.’”—[Official Report, 22 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 316.]
What Sir Olly actually said to the Foreign Affairs Committee was:
“I also have complete confidence that their recommendations to me and the discussion we had and the decision we made were rigorously independent of that pressure.”
Sir Olly said “that” pressure, not “any” pressure. The Prime Minister materially changed Sir Olly’s meaning. Robbins was clear that he had been put under pressure. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister know whether the Prime Minister intends to correct the record?
Darren Jones
It is not the view of the Prime Minister or the Government that the Prime Minister needs to do so.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
At Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, when asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), the Prime Minister failed to deny that he knew that his team were lobbying for a head of mission role for Matthew Doyle, and that they were doing so with his authority. Under the ministerial code, he has clear duties of transparency to this House. For No. 10 to ask the Foreign Office to find a plum diplomatic job for another Labour mate who was friends with a convicted sex offender, let alone to then keep it secret from the Foreign Secretary, is completely shocking. The Prime Minister has shown another catastrophic lack of judgment. Will the Minister ensure that an inquiry is launched by the Cabinet Secretary to determine who did the lobbying and why, and what the Prime Minister knew and when?
Chris Ward
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Communities should be benefiting much more from the taxpayers’ money we are spending on procurement. I believe he mentioned two businesses in his constituency yesterday—Wright’s Flour mill and Lea Valley growers. To be clear, those are exactly the type of businesses we have in mind when we say we are trying to support local businesses to make a big impact in the community with lots of local jobs and so on. That is the kind of group I want to help going forward.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his answers and for his endeavours to try to do better. The Minister and this House must recognise that public confidence is incredibly low due to repeated failures by the Government, I say respectfully, to do the right thing. How can the Government and the Minister ensure that changes take effect that restore confidence and remove any shade from areas of government? We have an obligation as elected representatives to openness and transparency.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Satvir Kaur)
The issues and delays that a number of civil servants and pension scheme members have encountered when accessing their pensions after a lifetime of service are completely unacceptable. Members of the House will have heard my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General’s statement to the House yesterday on the Government’s robust recovery plan to stabilise the service, while ensuring that support is in place for those impacted. We will continue to use every commercial lever possible to hold Capita to account so that public servants get the quality service they deserve as soon as possible.
Rachel Taylor
Happy Warwickshire day, Mr Speaker, and happy St George’s day.
My constituent Jillian dedicated her life to public service for 34 years before retiring. She is owed more than £2,000 in a lump sum from her civil service pension. She has constantly tried to get in touch with Capita over the past six months. She has submitted online forms, rung multiple times and has been told that Capita is not hitting its complaints target. After being on hold for several hours, a call operator told her that they could not tell her when she would receive an answer. This is unacceptable. Can the Government tell me what they are doing to support retired civil servants who have been left in limbo by Capita?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
There will be a Bill—a piece of primary legislation—going through Parliament this year, which will of course have appropriate scrutiny, as will our relationship with the EU going forward. I very much look forward to those debates. I will just give one example of how we are helping businesses. Businesses in the UK have had to pay up to £200 for export health certificates—more than 1 million of them—since 2023. I say that they should not have to pay those fees any more; the Conservatives and Reform say that they should.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The UK has become a global leader in agri-tech and particularly selective breeding, largely because of our flexible regulatory framework, including the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023. That would not have happened if we were still members of the European Union. The BioIndustry Association says that dynamic alignment would threaten UK leadership in biotech innovation. Will the Minister commit to securing a carve-out for precision breeding so that our success in this vital sector is not threatened by new or future EU legislation?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work that he and the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy do in this area. I was at CYBERUK yesterday, in the great city of Glasgow, and I can give him an assurance that we take these threats very seriously. The National Cyber Security Centre and our intelligence agencies continually monitor such risks and work closely with industry and with our international partners to protect our networks. As I set out yesterday, we will continue to strengthen our defences and ensure that we remain resilient.
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
The Government are absolutely committed to promoting and protecting the human rights of LGBT people worldwide. Our UK-EU security and defence partnership is underpinned by shared values, and I absolutely give that commitment. We will continue to work closely with EU partners to uphold those values.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Last week, someone in the heart of Government leaked some extremely sensitive documents to The Guardian. This appears potentially to be a crime under the National Security Act 2023. Has the Cabinet Office reported it to the Metropolitan police?
Mr Speaker
Clive, I do not need any help from you. You have been here long enough, like me—leave it to me to do my job, and I will let you do yours.
Gregory Stafford
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said that he did not have the information to hand but did not indicate whether he was going to let me know what the answer was when he did have that information to hand. If the Chief Secretary does not provide me with a written answer to that question, what opportunities do I have in this House to get him to answer it?
Mr Speaker
I think we are trying to prolong an argument that you have already had. I do not think we need to worry, because I know you have the ability and certainly the time to pursue it in every manner possible.