China: Foreign Interference Arrests
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sure we appreciate the fact that the Minister has come to the House at the earliest opportunity to provide an update on these serious issues. As there is now a live police investigation, Members should exercise caution in saying anything that risks prejudicing that investigation. I thought it important that the House got to this at the earliest possible time, and I must thank the Minister for that. I call the shadow Minister.
Dan Jarvis
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response. I am grateful to him for acknowledging the speed at which the Government have sought to make a statement. I know that he and right hon. and hon. Members will understand that there are strict limitations on what I can say about what is obviously now a live police investigation, but I hope that I speak for both sides of the House when I say that these are the most serious matters, which require us as a House to put the protection of our democracy above any political point scoring. That is how we should approach these proceedings.
The hon. Member, for reasons that I understand, sought to critique the Government’s position. I understand why he did that, but I am confident in the Government’s response to this incident and to our wider agenda on countering political interference. Of course, it is right that Members across the House have the opportunity to scrutinise Government policy and ask questions. That is precisely why we have moved at pace to provide an opportunity for them to do so.
I want to give the hon. Member and other right hon. and hon. Members a guarantee that, given the sensitivity of these issues and the obvious need to protect the operational activity of our police and the security services, we will look for other opportunities to provide appropriate briefings to relevant Members across the House by the relevant experts, to ensure that they can be updated in a way that simply cannot be done on the Floor of the House.
The hon. Member asked a number of questions. He will understand that there are strict limits on what I can say, but let me assure him about the seriousness with which we take these matters. I have always believed that the work that takes place across the House, led by Government, to defend our democracy should be a shared endeavour. The defending democracy taskforce was an initiative brought forward by the previous Government, and this Government have invested in it. It is the fulcrum at which we co-ordinate activity across Government and with law enforcement partners, working closely with Mr Speaker and the parliamentary security authorities here in the House, to ensure that our elected representatives are properly protected against the threats that we face. I assure him of the Government’s determination to stand with all Members to ensure that they are properly protected.
The hon. Member knows, because we have had such exchanges on numerous occasions, that matters relating to prosecutions are specifically matters for the Crown Prosecution Service. It is not for Ministers to opine and make judgments from the Dispatch Box, because the CPS is rightly independent of Government. But he does know—as do other hon. Members—how extremely disappointed the Government were that the trial last autumn did not proceed. Clearly, as he will understand, there is a crucial difference in that the charges in that case had been brought under the Official Secrets Act 1911. I am confident that the National Security Act 2023 provides the robust legislation we need to address the threats that we undoubtedly face.
The hon. Member mentioned FIRS, and I understand why he decided to do so. FIRS is an important capability that comes from the National Security Act. It is still a relatively new tool, and we are seeking to ensure that we can derive the maximum operational capability from it. We have not made any final decisions as to whether we will place other countries on the enhanced tier, but we keep that under very close review. As I have made clear, this Government will simply not tolerate attempts to interfere in our democracy. We have already taken tough action to strengthen our defences against foreign interference, and we will not hesitate to take further steps where they are necessary.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his immediate update to the House, given the recency of this breaking news. He will know that the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy did its report on the case of Cash and Berry, in which it made certain recommendations. The National Security Act 2023 is now fully in place. That is post the original Official Secrets Act 1911, which related to what was undertaken, allegedly, by Cash and Berry. Would the Minister agree that, given the essence of the grain of rice strategy pursued by China, we could see many more cases such as this, involving intelligence gathering by the Chinese as they seek to undermine our democracy and political system?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and his Committee for the important work that they do, and I am grateful for their report. He will have seen the comprehensive response from the Government. We want to ensure—and we are doing this—that the United Kingdom is the hardest possible target for those who would seek to interfere in our democracy. That is why we are investing in the processes of the defending democracy taskforce, why we commissioned the Rycroft review and why I announced the counter-political espionage action plan. There is a lot of work taking place across Government, working with law enforcement to ensure that we are protecting our institutions and our elected representatives. I hope that I can convey to my hon. Friend and the House the seriousness with which we take these matters, but I want this to be a shared endeavour, working with parliamentarians of all colours. This affects us all, and the Government are working at pace to stand against the threat.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of the statement, even if at this stage he is rather limited in what he can say. He is entirely right to say that we must continue to allow the police to do their job and to do it well. We remain grateful to all those who are working to keep our country safe, both here in the UK and abroad. It is essential we defend our country and our democracy, including through a robust response by counter-terrorist police.
The arrests this morning highlight the continued reach of foreign interference in the UK, whether it involves spying in its raw sense or the pervasive and persuasive influence of foreign money in our politics. The Government could be doing more to put an end to the clout of foreign money in our democracy, and there is an opportunity to limit the influence of foreign money through the Representation of the People Bill, but as Spotlight on Corruption has made clear, the provisions in the Bill as it stands—looking at company revenue rather than profit—can be easily exploited and far too easily gamed to allow foreign money in. This must stop.
The Security Minister mentioned the foreign influence registration scheme in his statement, but he was unable, not for the first time, to mention any plans to add China to the enhanced tier. How many times must we all come to this House to hear a report of further rounds of arrests under counter-terrorism legislation before this Government take this action? Do the Government plan to review their decision to allow the building of the Chinese mega-embassy, and will they go further to stop foreign money being funnelled into our democracy, including through an absolute donation cap and a ban on those who have worked for foreign regimes from making any donations at all?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend has raised important points with regard to our democracy on countless occasions, and I am grateful to him for doing so again today. I can assure him that the police have the resources they need to do a difficult and complicated job, and of course I would be happy to meet him at the earliest available opportunity.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Chinese only represent strength, and for them everything is transactional, so I think the country would rejoice if the Government were to summon the Chinese ambassador and say to him, “This sort of behaviour is intolerable. You cannot build this mega-embassy in just about the most sensitive site in London while you behave like this.” I am not asking about what MI5 and MI6 have said. This is transactional. We must say, “Treat British nationals like Jimmy Lai properly, and don’t spy on us; otherwise, we’re going to pause this embassy until you learn to behave.”
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
The conflict in Iran is deeply concerning, and I was glad to see that the Government’s flights are set to leave the middle east tonight. What more can my colleagues and I do to protect those stuck in the region from bad faith actors?
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Given the vulnerabilities of Members of Parliament, can I urge the Security Minister to work with the parliamentary authorities not just to pass information to Members but to work proactively with us to ensure that we are all aware of the risks that are posed to us and the steps we need to take to ensure that we are not exposed to interference from foreign states?
Dan Jarvis
I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not ask me about FIRS, because he has consistently done so and I always enjoy our exchanges. He will understand that I have come here at extremely short notice to provide an update to the House, and I cannot get into the operational details of matters that took place just a few hours ago.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Minister has said numerous times that the Government always prioritise UK national security, but those words ring hollow whenever we think of the Chinese embassy, and the fact that this Government have granted a mega-embassy close to underground cables carrying highly sensitive data. In the light of these highly concerning developments, surely the Government should show courage, strength and leadership, and with immediate effect revoke that decision in the interest of national security.
Middle East
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
With permission, I will update the House on the situation in Iran and the wider region, and our response. The United Kingdom was not involved in the initial strikes on Iran by the US and Israel. That decision was deliberate. We believe that the best way forward for the region and for the world is a negotiated settlement in which Iran agrees to give up any aspirations to develop a nuclear weapon and ceases its destabilising activity across the region. That has been the long-standing position of successive British Governments.
President Trump has expressed his disagreement with our decision not to get involved in the initial strikes, but it is my duty to judge what is in Britain’s national interest. That is what I have done, and I stand by it, but it is clear that Iran’s outrageous response has become a threat to our people, our interests and our allies, and it cannot be ignored. Iran has lashed out across the region. It has launched hundreds of missiles and thousands of drones at countries that did not attack it, including the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq, Bahrain and Oman. Overnight, Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy in Lebanon, launched attacks on Israel, seeking to escalate the war.
There are an estimated 300,000 British citizens in the region—residents, families on holiday, and those in transit. Iran has hit airports and hotels where British citizens are staying. It is deeply concerning for the whole House and the whole country. Our armed forces are also being put at risk by Iran’s actions. On Saturday, Iran hit a military base in Bahrain with missiles and drones. There were 300 British personnel on the base, some within a few hundred yards of the strike. Last night, a drone hit RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. There were no casualties in this strike. It is important for me to say that our bases in Cyprus are not being used by US bombers. The security of our friends and partners in Cyprus is of critical importance, and I want to be clear: the strike on RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus was not in response to any decision that we have taken. In our assessment, the drone was launched prior to our announcement. Iran’s aggression towards Britain and our interests is long-standing, and that is why we have always ensured that protections for British bases and personnel are at their highest level.
It is very clear that the death of the supreme leader will not stop Iran launching these strikes. In fact, its approach is becoming even more reckless, and more dangerous to civilians. It is working, ruthlessly and deliberately, through a plan to strike not only military targets, but economic targets in the region, with no regard for civilian casualties. That is the situation that we face today, and to which we must respond.
I have been speaking to our Gulf partners over the weekend. They are outraged by Iran’s acts, particularly as they played no part in any strikes, and they have asked us to do more to defend them. Moreover, it is my duty—the highest duty of my office—to protect British lives. That is why we put British jets in the air—Typhoons and F-35s—as part of co-ordinated defensive operations. They have already successfully intercepted Iranian strikes, including taking out one drone that was heading towards a coalition base in Iraq that is housing UK service personnel. I pay tribute to our brilliant servicemen and women for putting themselves in harm’s way to keep others safe, and I know the whole House will join me in expressing our gratitude and respect.
It is simply not possible to shoot down every Iranian missile and every drone after they have been launched. The only way to stop the threat is to destroy the missiles at source—in their storage depots, or at the launchers. The US requested permission to use British bases for that specific and limited defensive purpose, because it has the capabilities to do so. Yesterday evening, we took the decision to accept that new request in order to prevent Iran firing missiles across the region, killing innocent civilians, putting British lives at risk and hitting countries that have not been involved. To be clear, the use of British bases is limited to the agreed defensive purposes. We are not joining US and Israeli offensive strikes. The basis for our decision is the collective self-defence of long-standing friends and allies, and protecting British lives. It is in accordance with international law, and we have produced a summary of our legal advice, which clearly sets this out. We will keep the decision under review.
We are not joining the strikes, but we will continue our defensive actions in the region. France and Germany are also prepared to enable US action to destroy Iran’s capability to fire missiles and drones from source. I have been in close contact with President Macron and Chancellor Merz in recent days, as well as President Trump and leaders across the region, to that end.
Be in no doubt: the regime in Iran is utterly abhorrent. In January, it murdered thousands of its own people; the full horror of that is still hidden from the world. For decades, it has sought to destabilise the region and export terror around the world. Its proxies in Yemen have targeted British ships in the Red sea; it has facilitated Russia’s attacks in Ukraine; and the regime’s tentacles have even reached these shores, posing a direct threat to Iranian dissidents and to the Jewish community. Over the last year alone, Iran has backed more than 20 potentially lethal attacks on UK soil, each of which we have foiled. So it is clear that the Iranian regime must never be allowed to get its hands on nuclear weapons. That remains the primary aim of the United Kingdom and our allies, including the US, and ultimately, this will have to be achieved at the negotiating table.
In this dangerous moment, our first thoughts are with our citizens in the region—friends, family members and constituents. I recognise the deep concern that the situation is causing for those involved, and for communities across the country. We are asking all British citizens in the region to register their presence, so that we can provide the best possible support, and to monitor the Home Office travel advice, which is being regularly updated. Across much of the region, airspace remains closed, and local authorities are advising individuals to shelter in place.
The situation on the ground may remain challenging for some time, so we are sending rapid deployment teams to the region to support our British nationals on the ground. We are in close contact with the travel industry and Governments in the region, including with our friends in the UAE, given the concentration of British nationals in that country. We are looking at all options to support our people. We want to ensure that they can return home as swiftly and safely as possible. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office phone lines are open to provide consular support, and Ministers are available to meet MPs to discuss any individual cases. We are also reaching out to communities across the United Kingdom, including Muslim and Jewish community organisations, and we are making sure that sites across the country, including places of worship, have appropriate protective security in place.
The situation in the region is developing rapidly, so we will continue to update the House in the coming days. I have spoken recently about the toll that global events are taking here at home. They come crashing into our lives with ever greater frequency, hitting our economy, driving up prices on the supermarket shelves or at the pump, dividing communities, and bringing anxiety and fear. That is why how we operate on the world stage matters so much.
We all remember the mistakes of Iraq, and we have learned those lessons. Any UK actions must always have a lawful basis and a viable, thought-through plan. I say again: we were not involved in the initial strikes on Iran, and we will not join offensive action now, but in the face of Iran’s barrage of missiles and drones, we will protect our people in the region and support the collective self-defence of our allies, because that is our duty to the British people. It is the best way to eliminate the urgent threat, prevent the situation spiralling further, and support a return to diplomacy. It is the best way to protect British interests and British lives. That is what this Government are doing. I commend this statement to the House.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady asks about contingency plans for UK nationals. I can assure her and the House that we are working at speed with our partners in the region to take whatever measures we can to ensure that our people can return as safely and as swiftly as possible, and we will continue to do so. I am happy to update her and the House as we roll out those plans.
Let me be very clear: there were two distinct and separate decisions over the weekend. The first decision was whether the United Kingdom should join the US-Israel offensive against Iran. We took the decision that we should not. The second decision—a separate decision and, actually, a separate request from the US—was whether we should permit the use of bases for the distinct, specific defensive purpose of collective self-defence of our allies and to protect British lives that were put at risk by the actions of Iran on Saturday and Sunday. We took the decision that we should do so.
I am clear in my mind that any UK action must always have a lawful basis. It must also always have a viable and thought-through plan, and it must be in our national interests. The Leader of the Opposition is, I think, saying that she would have joined the initial strikes whether they were lawful or not. I notice that she did not say that the shadow Attorney General said that they would have been lawful, just that the law should be changed. I think she said that the Opposition would have joined the initial strikes without regard to whether they had a plan. She was very critical of us not joining sooner—it is impossible to have that position without arguing that we could and should have joined.
I fundamentally disagree, and I will tell the House why. Where our military personnel take action, putting their lives at risk, it is our duty—my duty—to ensure that the actions have a lawful basis. On Saturday, we deployed UK pilots into the sky in the region, and they have been working there ever since. They deserve to know that their actions are lawful and that there is a viable, thought-through plan. I will not countenance committing our military personnel to action that does not have a lawful basis. That is not a fair thing to do to our serving personnel. No UK Prime Minister has ever committed our personnel to action unless it has a proper, lawful basis.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Although the attack on Iran by the US and Israel was ill-advised, ill-judged and illegal, it is absolutely no excuse for the Iranians to recklessly bombard its Gulf neighbours. Is the Prime Minister in a position to give us more details on what we are doing with our Ukrainian friends to support the collective self-defence of Arab nations against the Iranian Shahed drones that are causing so much damage in Ukraine and now in the Gulf?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for that important question. Ukraine, sadly, has more expertise than anyone in dealing with drones. That is why we are putting Ukraine’s expertise and our expertise together and using it to help our allies in the region as they struggle with drones as we speak.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for my security briefing.
Once again, President Trump has launched a unilateral and unlawful act. Ayatollah Khamenei was a brutal dictator and a monstrous war criminal. He supported Hamas and the 7 October atrocities, and he massacred thousands of his own people for daring to protest against decades of repression. I shed no tears for him. Instead, I think of all the innocent Iranian civilians who have lost their lives. I think of the US service personnel killed in action, our allies and partners in the region who are being outrageously targeted by Iran, and our British bases which have already faced attack. They did not choose this war; Donald Trump did, and he will bear responsibility for it.
We have seen before what happens when an American President launches an illegal war with no idea how or when it is going to end, and we fear for what comes next. In discussions with the White House, has the Prime Minister demanded to find out Trump’s plan for what comes next? Does the Prime Minister understand that when he fails to stand up to Trump, especially when he breaks international law, it makes our country less safe? How will the Prime Minister be sure that defensive operations from UK bases will not become offensive? In rightly protecting our allies in the region, can we be assured by the Prime Minister that he will not follow Trump’s lead down a slippery slope into a protracted conflict?
Finally, we rightly expect our brave armed forces to protect British citizens around the world in crises like this, but that includes tax exiles like Isabel Oakeshott and washed-up old footballers who mock ordinary people who stay in the UK and pay our taxes here. As we protect them, does the Prime Minister agree that it is only right for tax exiles to start paying taxes to fund our armed forces, just like the rest of us do?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for his question. I agree that the response of Iran has been outrageous, particularly the hitting of countries that played no part in the strikes.
We have had extensive discussions with the United States at all levels, including the military-to-military level, continually over the course of the weekend. We deliberately took the decision not to join the offensive strikes that were carried out by the US and Israel. We did take the decision to take defensive action—first, by ourselves on Saturday with putting pilots in the sky, and, secondly, by allowing the bases to be used for purely defensive reasons. We clearly set out the legal basis upon which we took the second of those decisions. On the question about limits, it is limited to defence, and that is the basis upon which we have agreed the basing.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s last point, I want to be clear that it is my duty—our duty—to protect all UK nationals in the region. We will endeavour to do everything we can in order to do so.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Iranian regime, including its late leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are of course no friends of our country, but I thank the Prime Minister for clarifying that the UK had no involvement in the Israeli and US strikes on Iran. Indeed, I send my heartfelt condolences to all those who have sadly lost loved ones in the region. I am extremely concerned about the safety of the millions of people in the region, including the thousands of Brits who live there or are currently stranded there. Will the Prime Minister please confirm what steps are being taken to ensure their safety, especially from the one-way attack drones; what steps are being taken to evacuate Brits who are stranded and want to come back to the UK; and what steps are being taken with our allies to de-escalate the situation?
The Prime Minister
In relation to the protection of our citizens, we will obviously continue operating defensively in the air in the region, taking out the missiles, drones and strikes. We have permitted the US basing specifically for the purpose of taking out Iran’s ability to launch the strikes in the first place. The US has the capability to do that, in particular.
On the question of citizens and their understandable desire to return home as swiftly and safely as possible, we are doing all that we can. We are working very closely with our partners in the region. I ask all UK citizens in the region to register their presence so that we can give them the best advice, keep them safe and bring them home as soon as possible.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Although many of us believe that we should be guided by the law of national self-interest, rather than so-called international law, does the Prime Minister agree that we are right to be cautious in this matter? The British public will warmly support him in defending British people and bases, but they are very sceptical about being dragged into the cesspit of middle east politics. They remember Iraq, which some of us voted against, and all the arguments about weapons of mass destruction. What evidence is there that Iran was on the cusp of acquiring nuclear weapons? Since when has regime change from the skies ever changed a regime?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. This Government do not believe in regime change from the skies. The lessons of history have taught us that when we make decisions such as this, it is important that we establish that there is a lawful basis for what the United Kingdom is doing—that is one of the lessons from Iraq—and that there is a viable, thought-through plan with an objective that has a viable prospect of being achieved. Those are the principles that I applied to the decisions that I made over the weekend. They are the principles that I applied to the decision not to get involved in the offensive strikes by the US and Israel. They are the principles that I applied separately to the separate decision on a separate request from the US to be able to take defensive action to hit the launchers for the missiles that are currently going into allies’ countries in the region and threatening our citizens and service personnel. I stand by both decisions.
I repeat: I am not prepared to commit our military servicepeople to action unless I am sure that what they are doing is lawful and has a viable basis. We can discuss what the law is on another occasion, but the law is what it is, and they deserve to know that their Prime Minister cares and pays attention to whether what I am asking them to do is lawful. I will always do that.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Ind)
The Prime Minister will be aware that very many of our constituents remember the Iraq war, and they will have noted the similarities with this war: both in the middle east and both illegal. Of course, the current Iranian regime is horrible, violent, murderous and a threat to international order, but does he accept that our constituents are not prepared to see this country dragged into another war of the nature of the Iraq war?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue, because the ceasefire in Gaza remains fragile, and protecting Israeli and Palestinian civilians is critical to the next phase of the peace plan. I am proud of our commitment to a two-state solution, and we will be hosting the peacebuilding conference in March to build lasting peace and security for both Palestine and Israel. Hamas must decommission their weapons and destroy their terrorist infrastructure and can have no future role in running Gaza. While aid flows have increased, the level of need is still dire. The Israeli Government must stop blocking supplies and preventing the work of international non-governmental organisations. That is unconscionable, and it is costing Palestinian lives.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
May I associate the Conservative party with the Prime Minister’s comments about Ukraine and Team GB?
Before the Prime Minister and I became MPs, parties of every colour increased the cost of going to university. The system is now at breaking point for graduates. I believe that student loans have become a debt trap. It is time for all of us to do something about it. Will he cut interest rates on student loans?
Mrs Badenoch
I am amazed that while we are trying to talk about student loans, the Prime Minister has the cheek to talk about my party being smaller. His party is smaller too, including one MP who was arrested for child sex offences. Perhaps before he gets on his high horse, he should ask why his Back Benchers are saying that they are being called “the paedo defenders party”. [Interruption.] I did not say it—
Mr Speaker
Does the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) want to leave at this stage?
Mr Speaker
Just understand: it is very important that I hear the questions because I may have to make a judgment. I do not need any more shouting.
Mrs Badenoch
I know that Labour Members do not like it, but I have not said anything that is not true, have I? Perhaps they should get off their high horse and stop making stupid jokes.
Why don’t we talk about student loans? Policies that may have been fine for 2012, with low interest rates, are not fine for 2026. The fact is that graduates are paying more, not less. On Monday, the Schools Minister was asked on the BBC why Labour froze the repayment thresholds. She said that the Government have “huge pressures”. Those pressures have been created by the Prime Minister’s taxes and borrowing to pay for more welfare. Why is the Prime Minister taking from students to give to “Benefits Street”?
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister says that the Government are fixing the student loans system. How? He was not even talking about this until I raised it. The fact is that those policies—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. What I said earlier goes for the row of Benches over there as well. I expect a standard of a Chair of a Select Committee, not for them to shout somebody down.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister is only talking about student loans now because I raised them. He says that the Government are fixing the problem, but the fact is that he is not. Why is it that I am willing to ditch old Conservative policies that do not work, but he wants to keep them? He is not going to do anything about it at all. On Monday, the Government voted to increase benefits yet again. The fact is that the Prime Minister is taking money out of the pockets of graduates and giving it to people who are not working. It is not fair.
It is not just that the Prime Minister is saddling graduates with debt. Yesterday, the Bank of England, where the Chancellor used to work—in customer services—said that the Prime Minister’s policies are fuelling youth unemployment. That is not coming from us; that is from the Bank of England. For the first time ever, youth unemployment is now higher here than it is in the EU. While he blames everyone else, our young people cannot get jobs; they are losing hope and even leaving the country. Will the Prime Minister tell us how he plans to deal with that?
The Prime Minister
Yet again, the right hon. Member has shown why she is so utterly irrelevant—carping from the sidelines and trying to talk down the economy. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Hello? Please, I want to hear the questions, and so do your constituents.
The Prime Minister
All the right hon. Member does is carp from the sidelines, talk the economy down and talk the country down. In the meantime, because of our work, what is happening? Energy bills are down, as announced this morning. Inflation—down. Borrowing—down. What is up? Retail spending is up. Investment is up. Business confidence is up. That is the difference a Labour Government make.
The Prime Minister
I know how meaningful Pride in Place investment is to my hon. Friend’s constituents. We are backing communities with the funding and powers they need to invest in their priorities: unleashing jobs, growth and opportunity. In answer to his question, I can confirm that the next wave of Pride in Place will invest in an additional 169 neighbourhoods, focusing on smaller areas and looking closely at deprivation. We are reversing the austerity that ripped the heart out of our high streets and our communities, and giving local people a real say over how money is spent.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising this matter. I will look into it straightaway and give him a full answer. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Fenton-Glynn, you are getting carried away with some other colleagues behind you—Mr Davies and others—but please!
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Points of order come after urgent questions and statements. We are not going to change the policy of the House.
Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 week, 3 days 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
Darren Jones
To repeat myself, just for the record, I did not receive a pound from Labour Together. I would appreciate it if Members did not keep repeating that falsehood.
The answer to my hon. Friend’s question about the independent adviser is in the title: the independent adviser is independent of Government and is looking at this matter in the proper way, as my hon. Friend would expect. We will wait for that advice to come to the Prime Minister, which I expect to happen very shortly.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats are appalled by reports of smear tactics being used by the party that came into government with a promise to clean up politics following a decade of sleaze under the Conservatives. Investigative journalists have a vital role to play in holding Governments and commercial entities to account. A free and fair press is the cornerstone of a thriving democracy, and this revelation is an outrageous attack on our free press. Can the Government clarify what steps they are taking to uphold the independence of journalism in this country?
Successive Governments have eroded the public’s trust in politics, so will this Government now implement the Liberal Democrats’ suggestion of putting the ministerial code on a statutory footing? I have heard what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has said about keeping the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office in his job while the investigation takes place, but does he not agree that this is one more example of the Government insisting that process has to take precedence over political judgment? Can a way not be found for the Minister to step aside while a full investigation is undertaken?
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
To paraphrase Churchill, the cornerstone of a free society is a free press. Whatever the investigation may be looking into, I am afraid that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office has admitted that he set the investigation going because he did not like the report that had been issued about donations. That should not need an independent inquiry; the Prime Minister should sack this Minister now. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is here in effect to represent the Prime Minister, so I ask: will the Prime Minister U-turn before or after Prime Minister’s questions this week?
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
When the Prime Minister came to power, promising to clean up politics, he declared:
“Journalism is the lifeblood of democracy.”
We all know that Labour Together helped to mastermind the Prime Minister’s rise to the highest office in the land, and that it stands accused of running an orchestrated campaign to smear and discredit journalists. I think the Prime Minister should be here in this House answering questions, but my prediction is that that day will come. In the meantime, does the Minister agree with me and an ex-founder of Labour Together that this is some “dark shit”?
Brian Leishman
Please accept my apology, Mr Speaker. I withdraw the bad language.
Mr Speaker
Maybe the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister wants to answer that rather than me.
Darren Jones
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am happy to answer that point. As the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) pointed out, I have not received one pound in cash from Labour Together, which was the suggestion from some Members in the House. Instead, I received while in opposition some hours of seconded time from staff, who were provided policy research to my role when I was in the shadow Cabinet. That was normal at that time, whether in relation to Labour Together, trade unions or other organisations. I am happy to confirm that those were declared in the proper way. There has been no breach of the rules and I am happy to make those declarations to the House today.
Mr Speaker
If the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) believes there is something wrong, my advice would be to go to Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. That would be the way forward, rather than to debate this matter on the Floor of the House.
John McDonnell
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to delay matters, but it is now being reported in the media that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), has accidentally messaged details of his case to a mass WhatsApp group of the 2024 intake of Labour MPs, in which he said:
“Jonny rang, PM will ask Laurie to look in to it. Aim is to move fast. But PET did find I had not broken the code.”
I take it that Jonny is the Chief Whip and Laurie is the independent adviser. PET is the propriety and ethics team. However, the PET cannot determine whether or not a Minister has broken the code. A Government spokesperson has said:
“This was an accidental post and clearly meant for a more private conversation. It’s right that the independent adviser takes this away now.”
Could I have your assurance, Mr Speaker, that whatever has been provided to this Member from the propriety and ethics team will be published immediately, and that there will be openness and transparency on this matter?
Darren Jones
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that the Chief Whip spoke to the Minister in question this morning to inform him that the Prime Minister had decided to refer the matter to the independent adviser, but I can confirm that the propriety and ethics team will not have made a judgment one way or another about whether the Minister has been cleared or not in relation to the ministerial code. The propriety and ethics team advised the Prime Minister to refer it to the independent adviser, and it is for the independent adviser to come to a judgment on that and then to report to the Prime Minister.
Mr Speaker
I am going to leave it at that. I will just say that the PET will not be making the decision.
Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the statement updating the House on the Government’s response to the Humble Address motion, I would like to remind the House that Lord Peter Mandelson is the subject of an ongoing live police investigation. I understand that there is interest from the public on this matter and that there has been much coverage in the media. While the matter is not currently sub judice, I would gently say to Members that it would be helpful to exercise a degree of restraint in referencing specific matters under investigation. I know the House would not wish to do anything that risked prejudicing the investigation.
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement regarding the Government’s response to the Humble Address laid before the House on 4 February. I committed to keeping the House updated. This is now my third statement on this issue, and I will continue to update the House throughout the process.
I will first update the House on the work already being undertaken by the Government. I can confirm that work is ongoing across Departments to search for and identify the material relevant to the Humble Address, and Departments have been instructed to retain material that may be relevant to the motion. Given the breadth of the motion, this process will clearly take some time. However, I want to reassure colleagues that officials have been working throughout the recess, and expect to compile information relating to the House’s request very shortly.
As the motion envisages, we are carefully assessing the material for whether any of it may be prejudicial to national security or international relations. The House will appreciate that this remains a sensitive matter, and the Government are committed to referring this material to the Intelligence and Security Committee. The Cabinet Office is leading this work, in close co-operation with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, in a process agreed by the permanent secretary to the Cabinet Office. This was delegated by the new Cabinet Secretary, following her appointment by the Prime Minister last Thursday.
The Government intend to publish documents in tranches, instead of having one publication date at the end of the process, given that we are unable to confirm how long the process will take. The Government expect to be able to publish the first tranche of documents very shortly, in early March. I should, however, inform the House that it remains the case that a subset of this first tranche of documents is subject to an ongoing Metropolitan police investigation. That includes correspondence between No. 10 and Lord Peter Mandelson, in which a number of follow-up questions were asked. Because of the Metropolitan police’s interest in this document, we are unable to publish it in early March in the first tranche, but we will release it as soon as we are able to, upon consultation with the Metropolitan police.
There is also a small portion of the material that engages matters of national security or international relations, and thus the role that this House has envisaged for the Intelligence and Security Committee. We are working with the committee to establish processes for making this material available to it, and we are grateful to the committee in advance for its important contribution to reviewing these documents.
I recognise that the House will want to know about the next steps around the publication of the remainder of the information relevant to the motion—the information that is not included in the first tranche. I would like to make it clear that for anything we publish, we will take our normal approach to publishing material in the House, such as regarding the redaction of junior officials’ names and, where relevant, legal professional privilege.
Further work is needed to compile the information in scope, and to conduct the necessary assessments. However, I can commit to the House that we will release this further material, subject to the ongoing process with the Met police and the Intelligence and Security Committee, and we will continue to keep Members updated as we make progress. I welcome the House’s patience as the Government work swiftly to comply with the Humble Address.
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to mention a separate matter before I conclude. I understand that there has been a high level of public interest in the news of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest last Thursday, and in what may follow. The Government are clear that we are not ruling out action in respect of the line of succession at this stage, and we will consider whether any further steps are required in due course. It is vital, however, that we first allow the police to carry out their investigations. I know they will have the full support of the Government and, I am sure, this House as they do so.
I will return to the House with further updates, as I have committed to do, in due course—not just on this issue, but on wider reforms to standards, lobbying, transparency and the removal of peerages. I commend this statement to the House.
Darren Jones
I can confirm that those documents will be made available, subject, I am afraid, to the exclusion of one particular item, in which No. 10 asked Peter Mandelson a number of questions. The Met police have asked that to be held back, subject to their investigations, as I have said. That item will therefore have to be published at a later date, but the documents that are not subject to the Met police investigation will be published very shortly.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
The victims of Jeffrey Epstein have always been, and must remain, at the forefront of our minds. The decades of abuse and suffering that they endured can never be undone. Although nothing can erase that pain, we believe that recent decisions taken by the police and the Government represent a step in the right direction.
We welcome the Government’s work to begin releasing the files relating to the role of Peter Mandelson. Parliament asked for transparency, and the public deserves it. Earlier this month, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) called for a full statutory public inquiry into Jeffrey Epstein and his influence on the British political establishment. Only through an independent inquiry can we uncover the truth and deliver justice for the victims, so will the Government support that call? Once again, allegations of sleaze and scandal cast a shadow over our politics.
After a decade of misconduct and rule-breaking under successive Governments, it is clear that the current system is not fit for purpose, so will the Government finally commit to putting the ministerial code on a statutory footing, to ensure that breaches carry real consequences? Will the Minister commit to protecting those who speak out, by establishing a new office of the whistleblower, which strengthens legal protections and increases public awareness of whistleblowers’ rights? Transparency, accountability and integrity in public life are not optional; they are essential.
Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address Motion
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 weeks 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 Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
Last week, the House made a Humble Address to His Majesty for the Government to disclose material surrounding the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America. On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister updated the House on further action that the Government are taking.
My right hon. Friend confirmed that the Government will bring forward legislation to ensure that peerages can be removed from disgraced peers, and that Peter Mandelson will be removed from the list of Privy Counsellors. He also explained how we have changed the process for relevant direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles. He also set out other areas where we recognise the need to go further, including tightening transparency and lobbying.
In that statement, my right hon. Friend also set out how the Government are responding to the Humble Address motion, and I am pleased to provide a further update to the House today. The Government will comply fully and publish documents as soon as possible. As I said in the House last week, we welcome both the principle and content of that motion, and we will deliver on it as soon as we can. As such, Departments have been instructed to retain any material that may be relevant, and work is under way to identify documents that fall within the scope of the motion. We will do so as soon as possible when the House returns from recess.
In line with the motion passed by this House, where the Government consider that documents may be prejudicial to UK national security or international relations, the Cabinet Office will refer that material to the independent Intelligence and Security Committee. The Prime Minister has written to the ISC, and senior officials have met the Committee to discuss what it requires in order to fulfil that role. As I said in the House last week, full resources will be made available to ensure that process happens, and we will work with the Committee to explain the Cabinet Office’s process for providing material relating to national security or international relations. The Government are very grateful to the ISC for its work, and we commit to full engagement with it to ensure timely and effective release.
The House will also be aware of the statement from the Metropolitan police regarding the ongoing police investigation. That statement made clear that the
“process to decide which documents should ultimately be published remains a matter for…parliament.”
That is absolutely right, and we agree, but as the House would expect, the Government rightly do not wish to release anything that may undermine an ongoing police investigation. As such, we are working with the police as they conduct their inquiries to manage this process. I think that is the right way forward, Mr Speaker, and I hope you and the House agree.
In conclusion, the Government continue to take this matter incredibly seriously, and given the nature of the issues at stake and the scope of material in play, we will comply fully and deliver this material as quickly and transparently as possible. The Government will keep the House updated as they do so, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will publish a written ministerial statement later today.
Mr Speaker
Now that you have brought me into it, I will just say that the Intelligence and Security Committee is private and independent, and therefore I would not like to see that it was blocked from information. It would not affect any police investigation, because that information would not go into the public arena. I just want the House to be aware of that.
I also thank the Minister for coming to the House. To me, on something as important as this a written ministerial statement is not good enough; I think it should have been brought to the House. All sides are interested in it, and it is right that this House should be informed, so I really am pleased. I am sorry that the Minister has got the short straw, but I thank him for being here.
I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Alex Burghart
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker— I could not have put it better myself.
Alex Burghart
Thank you for granting this urgent question, without which hon. Members would not have had a chance to question Ministers before recess. Obviously, the House will rise for recess having received very little in the way of information, so it is very important that we hear from the Minister today so that we can try to have some confidence in the process. Simply put, the purpose of our question today is to try to elicit from the Government a commitment to give the House a timetable, and to confirm—as I think the Minister may have done—that they intend to comply fully with the language in the Humble Address. I say that because press briefings from Government sources this week have suggested that the Government might try to reinterpret the address in some way. For the avoidance of doubt, were that to happen, the Government would have to return to this House for another vote.
Last week, the Prime Minister told us that the process would have integrity because it was being led by the Cabinet Secretary, and that any criticism or denigration of the Cabinet Secretary would not be right. This week, the political forces in No. 10 have been briefing that Sir Chris Wormald is to be replaced—what a turnaround! Will the Minister reassure the House that any change in the Cabinet Secretary will not delay disclosure or publication of the documents that the House has required?
I have several further questions that I will put quickly to the Minister. First, have the Government completed their scoping exercise, and if not, by when do they intend to do so?
Secondly, where the Government propose to release material to the Intelligence and Security Committee rather than directly to the House, will they provide public updates to the House that this has been done?
Thirdly, in respect of documents withheld at the request of the Metropolitan police, will the Government tell us the precise legal mechanism being relied on, and will they commit to publish those documents in full when the police no longer request them to be withheld?
Fourthly, will Ministers publish a Keeling schedule-style register of withheld or delayed documents, setting out the category, the reason for non-disclosure and the expected release date for each? There are strong precedents for this.
Fifthly, at the Dispatch Box last week, the Minister told me he would write to me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) about the Palantir contract. He has not yet done so. Please will he confirm that he will this week?
Lastly, and separately, will the Minister commit to publishing all documentation relating to the nomination of Matthew Doyle as a peer? That is now a matter of acute public interest. [Interruption.] I will sit down, Mr Speaker. The Minister will appreciate that confidence in this Government’s integrity is very low. I hope he will comply in full.
Chris Ward
Everyone in this House has been sickened and dismayed by the revelations from all the Epstein papers that have come through and in relation to what my hon. Friend just said. That is outside the scope of this Humble Address, and it is a matter for the Palace to respond to.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The events of recent weeks have substantially diminished people’s faith in politics, when it was already at an all- time low. It has confirmed the worst of people’s suspicions about how everything works and punctured the optimism of those who believed in better. At the centre of all this are the victims, and their bravery is twofold: first, by retelling their trauma, and secondly, by taking on the world’s most powerful men and all those who aided and legitimised them.
The Humble Address passed by this place stands as a test of transparency and a test of parliamentary authority. People demand answers, and they deserve them swiftly. They will not stand for endless consultation, reviews and deliberation. Can the Government therefore confirm when they will bring forward legislation so that Peter Mandelson’s peerage can be revoked? What is their deadline for releasing the necessary files? Who in the Government will be held responsible if that deadline is not met?
Chris Ward
To be honest, if I was the hon. Member, I would not be shouting that—not after the last 14 years.
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Obese-Jecty, I do not need to hear these side comments, which are now coming from you more often. You are now a Front Bencher, and more restraint is required. I expect so much better of you as an ex-military officer and a gallant Member.
Chris Ward
To conclude my answer, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister set out the specifics on Monday. We will come forward with further details, and we will tighten transparency regulations as well.
Chris Ward
I completely endorse the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes about the independence and integrity of the ISC. He identifies two very fair points. I say that not as a reason not to comply; it is just the reality of the complexity of what we are dealing with. The volume is larger than in other Humble Addresses—that is not a complaint, but a statement of fact. However, there is no attempt to narrow the scope and no attempt to narrow the motion. The process that the Cabinet Office is going through is to define the scope and harness what falls within it.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about the Metropolitan police is well made. The Met and the Government both recognise that, ultimately, Parliament retains the right to publish material, but obviously a responsible Government will wish to act in a way that does not prejudice an ongoing live case, which we would all like to see reach a conclusion. We are working through these matters; they are complicated, but he raises them in exactly the right fashion.
Royal Assent
Mr Speaker
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the King has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Licensing Hours Extensions Act 2026
Secure 16 to 19 Academies Act 2026
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Act 2026.
Standards in Public Life
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)
Last week, I came to the House in the wake of information released by the United States Department of Justice about the depth and extent of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. I outlined the immediate steps that this Government took, including an initial review of material, which ultimately led to a referral to the Metropolitan police, and steps taken to modernise the disciplinary procedures to allow for the removal of peers who have brought the House of Lords into disrepute. I am here today to update the House on further action that the Government will take to rebuild trust in public life in the wake of the damaging revelations since my statement last week. [Interruption.] I will finish my statement first, if I may.
I am sure that the House will agree that issues of standards, while important in and of themselves, do not meet the scale of disgust that we all have when we see powerful, rich men misuse their positions to abuse women and girls. The procedural rules, and the rules that I will talk to the House about today, are important given what has been able to happen in the past, but we should start by recognising that our collective response requires wider changes in the culture and use of power, wherever it rests. This goes to the heart of who my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is. It is why he became a human rights lawyer in the first place, why he became Director of Public Prosecutions, why he changed the Crown Prosecution Service to be more victims-oriented, and why he became Prime Minister.
As I set out last week, Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable criminal who committed disgusting crimes. The Epstein scandal is another awful example of a culture that did not value the lives, let alone the voices, of women and girls. The series and sequencing of events across the last week has made it clear to us all, rightly, that for too long, and too often, influential people in positions of power—overwhelmingly men—have been able to avoid proper and just scrutiny because of the perverse power structures that incentivise their belief that rules do not apply to them. [Interruption.] If I may say so, Members who are chuntering from the Conservative Benches, while I am talking about the victims of sexual abuse and the abuse of power, should know better and recognise that they should be quiet and listen when we are talking about victims and the justice that they deserve to seek.
Peter Mandelson’s disgraceful behaviour raises a number of questions about the ability of the current standards system to catch those few individuals who seek to break our rules. This damages all Members across the House. The vast majority of public servants, whether officials or elected Members, come to serve the public, not themselves. This House, and indeed this building, is full of people working hard, unsociable hours, and making significant personal sacrifices, in order to try to make a difference to people’s lives, to do what is best for their country, to fight for their communities, and to use their position in this place to give a voice to those whose voices are too often not heard. The issues associated with Peter Mandelson, however, show that we must go further to ensure that no one can ever again behave in this way.
Since entering government, we have delivered on our manifesto promises to strengthen the role of the independent adviser, and we have set up the Ethics and Integrity Commission, while also publishing Ministers’ interests, gifts and hospitality more frequently and reforming severance payments to ensure that they are proportionate and fair. This is significant and important reform after years of repeated ethics scandals under the last Administration. This includes restricting payments for Ministers leaving office following a serious breach of the ministerial code, and requiring repayment of severance for those found in breach of the business appointment rules. It is also why the Government have introduced the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—a landmark piece of legislation to tackle injustice—so that when tragedy strikes, the state is called to account.
In response to the latest revelations in the past week, the Prime Minister has confirmed that the Government will bring forward legislation to ensure that peerages can be removed from disgraced peers and that Peter Mandelson will be removed from the list of Privy Councillors. We are changing the process for the relevant direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles, so that in cases where the role requires access to highly classified material, the selected candidate must have passed through the requisite national security vetting process before such appointments are announced or confirmed.
However, we recognise that we need to go further. We will work with the newly established Ethics and Integrity Commission to ensure that it achieves its aim of promoting the highest standards in public life. We will consider whether the current arrangements for the declaration and publication of financial interests for Ministers and senior Government officials are sufficient, and whether regular published financial disclosure forms or other additional transparency measures should be used in the future.
We will look closely at our system for providing transparency around lobbying, and it is clear that we should consider again the use of non-corporate communication channels within Government. Revelations from the Epstein files have shown that it has been far too easy to forward sensitive information via unofficial channels. There is a lack of clarity about the use of non-corporate communication channels within Government, which has raised concerns about the security of official information, as Conservative Members know from their former Ministers forwarding information from the Government via private email accounts to people when they should not have done so. The Government recognise the consistent calls for a strategic review of these channels, the role they play in Government, the legal framework in which they sit and whether the current codes of conduct and guidance relating to them are effective.
This work will focus on the issues for the Government, but it will complement a range of work being carried out both in this House and in the other place. The Government are committed to the principle that second jobs for Members of Parliament should be banned outside very limited exceptions, such as maintaining a professional qualification. The Committee on Standards is currently conducting an inquiry into second jobs, and we are working with the Committee to deliver meaningful change as quickly as possible. The House is considering the legislation currently before Parliament to introduce a duty of candour, and the Prime Minister has been clear that we will bring forward legislation to enable the removal of peerages from those who have brought the House of Lords into disrepute. The Government will ask the Lords Conduct Committee to expand its work reviewing the code of conduct in the other place to consider whether standards issues, including the rules relating to peers and lobbying, need to be reformed.
Finally, I want to provide the House with an update on the response to the Humble Address motion passed by the House last Wednesday. The Government are committed to publishing all relevant documents in line with the motion agreed by the House, and we are working at pace to do so. As the House agreed on Wednesday, papers that the Government believe should not be published on national security or international relations grounds will be referred to Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee. The Prime Minister wrote to the Chair of the Committee on Friday, acknowledging that it is important that documents are made available to Parliament as soon as possible. As the Prime Minister has set out, the Government are committed to being as transparent as soon as possible and in full compliance with the motion. The Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet Secretary to liaise with the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I will ensure that the House is kept updated on this work.
We have all been appalled at Jeffrey Epstein’s disgusting crimes and Peter Mandelson’s despicable behaviour. It is utterly contrary to what the Prime Minister stands for and the values at the heart of this Government. We are resolute in our commitment to fighting men’s violence against women and girls and to supporting their victims. Delivering on this mission is a critical part of our response to the terrible misogyny at the heart of the Epstein scandal. We also recognise that Peter Mandelson’s behaviour has posed difficult questions about our safeguards against corruption. I have set out today the steps the Government are taking to ensure that the British public can have confidence in the integrity of public life, and as I said last Monday and today, I will continue to update the House on these matters as our work develops. I commend this statement to the House.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
We cannot have points of order; we are just beginning the statement. [Interruption.] Those are the rules of the House. I am not going change them especially for you.
I call the shadow Minister.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Kendall
I would say that it is early days in Australia, and we also know the action that France and Spain will be taking. I do not know whether the hon. Lady was present during my statement last week, when I set out that we will consult on a range of different options, including a ban on social media for the under-16s, raising the digital age of consent, overnight curfews and stronger age verification measures. We want to get this right and to work with parents, teenagers, and industry, but we will take further action to give children the childhood that they deserve and prepare them for the future.
Liz Kendall
I thank my hon. Friend for the work she is leading on this crucial issue, and I know how passionately she and the Committee, and many other Members of the House, feel about the role of algorithms, misinformation, disinformation and the impact on our democracy and the political process. We have launched a specific consultation on children’s online lives, and how to give them the best life online, just as we want for them in the real world. My hon. Friend will also know that I constantly keep these issues under review, because we want to ensure that AI and tech is used for good, and not to cause further problems in our society.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The public support a ban on social media for the under-16s, Conservative Members support a ban on social media for the under-16s, and Labour Members support a ban on social media for the under-16s. The Secretary of State has said many fine words about her concerns for children’s safety online, but what we now need is action. Will she take the opportunity to make clear her position: does she, or does she not, support a ban on social media for the under-16s?
Liz Kendall
I am very aware of the strong views on this issue. The hon. Gentleman did not mention that organisations such as the Molly Rose Foundation, the NSPCC, and others, think that there are problems with a social media ban for young people, and I want to listen closely to those views. I say to the hon. Gentleman that it was Labour Members who stood up to X and Grok, when the Conservative spokesperson said it was a “legal grey area”, when it was not, and accused us of being like the mullahs of Iran. I am proud of the action we have taken to keep kids safe online; let us see what the hon. Gentleman has done.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
We have already heard from thousands of stakeholders, including concerned parents, teachers and young people, who are all crying out for help against fast-evolving online harm. That is why the Liberal Democrats have proposed a world-leading approach to ban harmful social media, based on a future-proof, harms-based approach that is backed by 42 children’s charities and online experts. As the world wakes up to this seatbelt moment for online safety, now is the time for action. A consultation is not good enough, so will the Secretary of State please assure us that it will at least look at how we ban harmful social media for under-16s, rather than if we do it?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend has always been a powerful champion for the good people of Watford. This Government are determined to make sure that national and local public services are more easily accessible online, through things such as the NHS app, and that people can get driving licences and information about benefits online. However, we are really concerned about those without digital skills. That is why we launched the first digital inclusion plan in a decade, including free digital skills training, which my hon. Friend’s constituents can take advantage of.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Amid the utter muck-storm of this week, it is World Cancer Day, when we should be thanking our incredible scientists whose breakthroughs give hope to patients at their lowest ebb. Does the Secretary of State think that her Government should charge VAT on medicines being supplied to those patients for free?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a superb champion for Paisley. Her constituents deserve a Scottish Government who match her dedication. For our part, we have delivered a record funding settlement. We are investing £280 million in Pride in Place across 14 Scottish communities. We have secured shipbuilding on the Clyde for over a decade and have just announced an AI growth zone in Lanarkshire. The choice is clear: a third decade of failure under the SNP, or real change for Scotland under Anas Sarwar.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
The whole House will be disgusted by the latest revelations about Jeffrey Epstein. All of us want to see his victims get justice, but the political decision to appoint Epstein’s close associate, Peter Mandelson, as Britain’s ambassador to Washington goes to the very heart of this Prime Minister’s judgment. When he made that appointment, was he aware that Mandelson had continued his friendship even after Epstein’s conviction for child prostitution?
The Prime Minister
As the House would expect, we went through a process. There was a due diligence exercise, and then there was security vetting by the security services. What was not known was the sheer depth and the extent of the relationship. Mandelson lied about that to everyone for years. New information was published in September, showing that the relationship was materially different from what we had been led to believe. When the new information came to light, I sacked him, but we did go through a due diligence exercise. The points that are being put to me were dealt with within that exercise.
In response to the Humble Address this afternoon, I intend to make sure that all the material is published. The only exemptions are anything that would prejudice national security—my first duty is obviously to keep this country safe, and when we drafted Humble Addresses in opposition, we always included an exemption for national security—or that would prejudice international relations. You and the House will appreciate, Mr Speaker, that in the course of discussions country to country there are very sensitive issues of security, intelligence and trade that cannot be disclosed without compromising the relationship between the two countries, or a third country.
So that I can be totally open with the House, I should also disclose that the Metropolitan police have been in touch with my office this morning to raise issues about anything that would prejudice their investigations. We are in discussion with them about that, and I hope to be able to update the House, but I do think I should make that clear to the House at this point, because those discussions are ongoing.
Mrs Badenoch
I will come to the Humble Address in a moment, but the Prime Minister cannot blame the process. He did know. It was on Google. If the Conservative research department could find this information out, why couldn’t No. 10?
On 10 September, when we knew this, I asked the Prime Minister about it at the Dispatch Box, and he gave Mandelson his full confidence—not once but twice. He only sacked him after pressure from us. I am asking the Prime Minister something very specific, not about the generalities of the full extent. Can the Prime Minister tell us: did the official security vetting that he received mention Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein?
The Prime Minister
May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend? She campaigns tirelessly to stop these antisocial, dangerous bikes terrorising communities. Our Crime and Policing Bill will mean that police can seize bikes without issuing a warning, and can destroy them. Product safety law means that authorities have the powers to intervene to stop the sale of unsafe e-bikes, but I share her determination to get these bikes off our streets.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the Prime Minister for your responses to my tribute to Jim Wallace on Monday, and may I urge the whole House to read the wonderful tributes paid to Jim in the other place yesterday?
I have been thinking about how victims of Jeffrey Epstein, and the victims’ families, must feel. We are hearing more and more stories of rich, powerful men currying favour with a paedophile sex trafficker; for example, we hear of Peter Mandelson sending Government secrets to help Epstein enrich himself further. Mandelson was made ambassador to the United States, even after his links to Epstein had been extensively reported by both the Financial Times and “Channel 4 News”. Given that the Prime Minister now admits that he knew about those links before he gave such an important job to one of Epstein’s closest friends, can he tell us whether he thought at all about Epstein’s victims?
Lord Mandelson
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that I have selected the amendment tabled in the name of the Prime Minister.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making excellent points. It is a surprise not to see the Prime Minister answering these questions himself. At the end of the day, he made the decision to appoint Mandelson to the post of ambassador, so he must explain his decision-making process, and what he knew and when. Why is he not here?
Mr Speaker
Order. In fairness, that is not a problem for Mr Burghart to address. Who responds is a matter for the Government.
Alex Burghart
I am glad that it is not my problem, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend is right: the appointment of this man was absolutely the Prime Minister’s responsibility. Today we are trying to dig into exactly what the Prime Minister knew, whether any information was kept from him, and, if so, who kept it from him.
Alex Burghart
My right hon. and learned Friend speaks from a position of experience. He is entirely right; the House is fortunate to have the ISC and that is one of the functions that it can perform. The Government can have reassurance on national security and the House can have reassurance that no material is being kept from it that the Government might find embarrassing.
In his remarks, will the Paymaster General, who I know will have had nothing to do with this and who I know is a man of integrity, think seriously about the options of gisting and the role that the ISC can play in that and make sure that the Government are not marking their own homework? It is important that our constituents and this House have confidence in what the Government provide us with.
Before I hand over to other Members, let me move briefly on to the conduct of Lord Mandelson while he was our ambassador in Washington, which I think is relevant to our debate because it again exposes the Prime Minister’s lack of judgment in appointing him. There is obviously strong evidence to suggest that Mandelson behaved entirely inappropriately when he was Secretary of State under the last Labour Government, but equally big questions are now outstanding about what was happening in 2025 in Washington—as I said, this is relevant now. On 27 February 2025, the Prime Minister, while in Washington, visited the American data and AI company Palantir at its headquarters. The meeting did not appear in the Prime Minister’s register of visits; it only came to light later.
Palantir, we should remind ourselves, was a client of Global Counsel, the company in which Peter Mandelson had a commanding share. Later that year, Palantir received from this Government a £240 million deal. That deal was granted by direct award. Given the allegations now coming to light about Mandelson’s conduct, will the Minister assure the House that the Cabinet Secretary will review the circumstances around the award of that contract, and assure himself that there are no other such contracts, no other undisclosed meetings, and that the Government will go through all communications and messages that Mandelson sent out while he was ambassador, some of which we must assume, were sent to old business contacts, a potential few business contacts, and so on?
The Prime Minister knew that Peter Mandelson had maintained an unhealthy relationship with a man who was a convicted paedophile, and he appointed him to the role of ambassador anyway. Everybody in this House should be shocked by that. It must be concluded that had the Prime Minister been pressed on that point at the time, the appointment would not have been made, because the Prime Minister knew, his aides knew—but the appointment was made anyway. What else did he know? Only after this Humble Address, and only if the Government treat it in good faith, will we know that. I very much hope that we do not find that there are gaps in our security and vetting process. If there are, the Government will be able to fix them. I think it also likely that we will see reports that consistently raised concerns which were swept away. It will then be the duty of the Government to disclose who swept them away, and why. Ultimate responsibility must rest with the Prime Minister. It is time for him to take responsibility.
Mr Speaker
Order. We are getting very carried away with the way in which the work of the Metropolitan police is being thrown around. I am meant to have been contacted, but neither I nor the House has been contacted. The House will understand that I am not responsible for the ministerial answers—let me put that on the record and see if we can tidy this up a little.
For the avoidance of doubt, I understand that there is an ongoing police investigation into this case. However, no charges have been brought. The House sub judice resolution does not apply. In that context, it is up to the Ministers how they reply, but the House rules do not prevent them from answering fully. Please do not hide behind the possibility that something is not factual—let us get this on the record. I have still not had a phone call on this matter.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I hear precisely what you say, Mr Speaker, and I entirely accept that interpretation of the sub judice rule. I am certainly not hiding behind that; indeed, I will come on to some remarks about this issue in a moment.
Mr Speaker
Order. Maybe I can help a little. I think the answer was, “We can’t do this, because there is a police investigation.” We have to recognise that that is not a reason, so do not let us play off each other. I have made my point from the Chair.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister has been giving way and will give way, but you cannot all stay on your feet shouting, “Will he give way?” Let us give the Minister some time; he will take your interventions when he feels he is in the mood to take them.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will take an intervention from the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), then I will take another intervention.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
There is clearly concern about Government amendment (a)—that it does not go far enough to enable scrutiny of those documents that might be withheld. Across the House, there is a growing consensus that the Intelligence and Security Committee could provide a way forward for the independent scrutiny of those documents. Could a manuscript amendment be tabled to that effect—something we can all join together and vote for, so that we can take this serious matter forward?
Mr Speaker
A manuscript amendment would be a matter for the Chair. As the Chair, I would be sympathetic to what the House needs to ensure that we get the best.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Well, I hope that the House always takes me at my word when I say that I will take these matters away with me.
The Cabinet Secretary will be taking independent advice on the decisions he takes through this process, and he intends for that advice to take two forms. First, he will have the advice of an independent KC throughout the process, and secondly, there will be scrutiny of his approach by the ISC. I hope that gives the House the necessary reassurance.
I have some past experience of drafting Humble Addresses on different matters in this House myself. The Opposition motion is clearly extensive—I think the House recognises that—but it is imperative that the Government protect sensitive information that could damage national security or relations with our international partners.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister just said that the deadline has passed to table an amendment. Can you confirm, Mr Speaker, that you just told the House that you would be sympathetic to a manuscript amendment, which would not be subject to that deadline?
Mr Speaker
The Chair is able to select a manuscript amendment, for which there is a high bar. There is a lot to clear up and I am sure that things can move forward, but in a nutshell, the answer is yes.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I hope the House takes in good faith what I have sought to do in the course of my speech, let alone in the course of the debate. I think that scrutiny of the process is very important.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I hope the House has seen, even over the course of this debate, the constructive approach I have tried to take on the role of the ISC in this process. That is precisely what I have done.
I want to turn now to another aspect of this matter, which is the peerage. Another action the Government are determined to take is to strip Peter Mandelson of his title, as the Prime Minister has set out. Frankly, I think people watching this debate will be bemused, because there is no other walk of life in which a person is unsackable unless a law is passed. We will therefore introduce primary legislation. The Government have written to the Chair of the Lords Conduct Committee to ask the Lords to consider what changes are required to modernise the process of the House in order to remove Lords quickly when they have brought either House into disrepute. The Government stand ready to support the House in whatever way is necessary to put any changes into effect.
Being in office is a privilege—every day is a privilege. That is why there is anger across this House about Peter Mandelson and his actions. The test for the Government in these circumstances is the action we take to respond. As I think has also come through in this debate, our utmost thoughts are with the victims: the women and girls who suffered at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein. Behind the emails, the photographs and the documents are many victims who were exposed to this network of abuse. They should be our priority in this matter, and I am sure they will be for the rest of this debate.
Emily Thornberry
No, please, let me finish. [Interruption.] I want to finish what I am saying.
Emily Thornberry
So the decision to appoint was made. There was supposed to be some due diligence before that happens.
I can help the House by explaining what that “due diligence” meant. As I have said, that was looked at by civil servants on the fast stream. We asked, “When you did the due diligence, what detail of the results was given to the Prime Minister?” I said that it was very important that we were given information about what the Prime Minister had been told at that point, because the friendship with Epstein was generally known about, but the ongoing friendship and the specific point about him having stayed, while a member of Cabinet, in Epstein’s New York townhouse was, to me, a very different matter. I wanted to know whether the Prime Minister had been let down by not being told that particular point. In the end, we cannot expect the Prime Minister to do all the due diligence himself—he does have a country to run. He relies on those around him to give him proper advice, so that he can then work on that advice and make decisions on that basis.
Simon Hoare
I think, Mr Speaker, that we usually prefer for matters relating to those sorts of things not to be dealt with on the Floor of the House.
Mr Speaker
To help the House, let me say that because this now relates to a person who is not a member of the royal family, the situation is completely different.
Simon Hoare
Thank you, Mr Speaker. My hospital pass has just gone through the shredder. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, in all candour: yes. The likelihood of Mr Windsor ever putting a crown on his head is so remote as to be unimaginable, but for clarity and probity, I agree with him. I do, however, think we should deal with the matter in hand today.
The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has written to Sir Chris Wormald, the Cabinet Secretary, asking him to appear before us. This follows a letter we wrote last October, to which we received a reply on the 30th of that month. The way of vetting a political appointment to be an ambassador was woefully inadequate. I welcome the fact that No. 10 has put in place new procedures, but that is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. It is either naivety or, worse, some form of complicity that the legitimate and obvious questions that should have arisen for any political appointee, but particularly Peter Mandelson, were not asked. I think it is extraordinary that the views of the Foreign Secretary were not invited on this appointment. I also find it very strange that vetting is undertaken only after the announcement of an appointment—that is a most bizarre way of dealing with things. I am pleased that the Government have realised that things need to change.
Alicia Kearns
There does seem to be amnesia about this. When Mandelson was made ambassador, it was well known that he continued the relationship with the convicted paedophile post his conviction, and there were simpering emails already in the public domain saying things like, “Oh darling one, all should be forgiven.” The suggestion that it only recently became unacceptable for him to be ambassador is wrong. If Labour Members want to suggest that it was not well known, let me tell them that colleagues like me raised it in this Chamber on the day that he was appointed, and I was greeted with jeers and boos from the Labour Benches. No one said, “Absolutely, maybe there are concerns”. Should that amnesia perhaps be reconsidered?
Mr Speaker
Order. It is not me who will say when it is 4 o’clock, but I would gently say that this is Opposition day and the Opposition may want to extend the time available for this debate. I am very bothered that not many people will get in given the rate that we are going at. I leave it to Members to take care of time.
Simon Hoare
Conscious of that, Mr Speaker, let me say that I agree with my hon. Friend, and then conclude with two asks of the Government. First, will they confirm when a Bill will be introduced and that it will be passed speedily in both Houses before the Easter recess; and, secondly, although it is not my job to speak on behalf of those on the Labour Back Benches, I ask the Government to read the Chamber. Allowing the Government Chief Whip and others to press this amendment would, as the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) has said, send such a bad message to our constituents and to victims—not just of Epstein and Mandelson but to the wider victim community—that when push comes to shove, officialdom somehow or another circles the wagons and finds a vehicle to filter and to protect.
As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) said, the best thing that we can have is transparency. The best disinfectant is sunlight. We need as much sunlight on these papers as possible, and we can start to make some progress this afternoon. Do not press the amendment and publish the Bill.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
In this Chamber, just under three hours ago, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom made a long overdue and welcome admission. For months, he, various Labour Members, Ministers and members of the Cabinet have told us all to ignore our eyes and our ears. The Prime Minister has said that he was not aware of the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, but today he admitted at that Dispatch Box that he did.
Mr Speaker
Order. I can inform Members that this debate will now run until 7 pm to allow more Members to speak. Sorry for the interruption, Stephen Flynn.
Stephen Flynn
Four hours is plenty for me, Mr Speaker.
This is a dark and disgusting day for this Chamber and for each and every person living on these isles, because their Prime Minister admitted that he knew about the relationship. Of course he knew; in The Guardian in 2023, Rowena Mason wrote about the court documents that had been released in the United States of America, which referenced the fact that Jeffrey Epstein had maintained a relationship with two individuals prominent in British public life. Members will know them. They were Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Peter Mandelson. The Prime Minister knew, just as he knew when Jim Pickard of the Financial Times asked him in January 2024 about the relationship. He has seen the photos that each of us in this Chamber has seen of Peter Mandelson in luxury accommodation in New York alongside Jeffrey Epstein.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I must inform the House that a manuscript amendment to amendment (a) has been tabled by the Prime Minister, and I have selected it. For the convenience of the House, the manuscript amendment adds the following words to the end of the amendment:
“which shall instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament”.
Copies of the manuscript amendment are now available in the Vote Office. I will call the Minister to move the amendment formally when winding up the debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Who is the Minister giving way to? Four Members are standing.
Mr Speaker
Order. In fairness to the Minister, he has given way time and again to Conservative Members, and now, quite rightly, he is giving way to the hon. Lady. Don’t feel that you have been hard done by, please!
Natalie Fleet
Does the Minister agree that we are here today because of the brave women who have spoken out and led us here? Does he agree that we have a responsibility—a shared responsibility as a House—to make sure that no stone is unturned, and that as a Government we will make absolutely sure that the victims at the heart of the paedophile Epstein’s crimes get the justice that they deserve, we will continue to call out this behaviour wherever we see it, and we will do everything we can, now that we are in government, to halve violence against women and girls? It is too little too late, but it is needed now more than ever.
Simon Hoare
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This relates to the point the Minister made about the Metropolitan police asking that certain documents not be released, in case they prejudice a trial or investigation. You know as well as I do, Sir, the importance of privilege to this place. Will your office and counsel work with the Cabinet Office to ensure that the rights and privileges of Members of this House are protected?
Mr Speaker
Just to sum up, the Metropolitan police have no jurisdiction over what this House may wish to do. It will be a matter of whether or not the Government provide the information. I want to let Members know that the police cannot dictate to this House. I will leave it at that; I am not going to continue the debate, which has been a long and important one. Let us move on.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I will now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026. The Ayes were 392 and the Noes were 116, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
China and Japan
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
They went on their feet, not on their knees. [Laughter.]
Mr Speaker
Thank you. Can we calm it down? I am sure you will want to catch my eye and I would like to hear what you have to say, so let us not ruin the opportunity.
The Prime Minister
In this context, refusing to engage would be a dereliction of duty, leaving British interests on the sidelines. Incredibly, some in this House still advocate that approach. But leaders do not hide. Instead, we engage and we do so on our own terms, because, like our allies, we understand that engagement makes us stronger.
Protecting our national security is non-negotiable. We are clear-eyed about the threats coming from China in that regard, and we will never waver in our efforts to keep the British people safe. That is why we have given our security services the updated powers and tools they need to tackle foreign espionage activity wherever they find it, and to tackle malicious cyber-activity as well. The fact is that we can do two things at once: we can protect ourselves, while also finding ways to co-operate. It was in that spirit that we made this visit.
I had extensive discussions, over many hours, with President Xi, Premier Li and other senior leaders. The discussions were positive and constructive. We covered the full range of issues, from strategic stability to trade and investment, opening a direct channel of communication to deliver in the national interest, enabling us to raise frank concerns about activities that impact our national security at the most senior levels of the Chinese system. We agreed to intensify dialogue on cyber issues and agreed a new partnership on climate and nature, providing much-needed global leadership on this vital issue.
I raised a number of areas of difference that matter deeply to this country. I raised the case of Jimmy Lai and called for his release, making clear the strength of feeling in this House. Those discussions will continue. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in touch with Mr Lai’s family to provide further briefing.
I raised our human rights concerns in Xinjiang and Tibet. We discussed Taiwan, wider regional stability, Iran and the middle east. I called on China to end economic support for Russia’s war effort, including the companies providing dual-use technologies, and urged it to use its influence on Putin to push for the much-needed ceasefire in Ukraine.
I also raised the fact that Members of this House have been sanctioned by the Chinese authorities. In response, the Chinese have now made it clear that all such restrictions on parliamentarians no longer apply. I want to be clear: this was not the result of a trade. Yes, Members will want to see more—I understand that—but that is precisely the point: ignoring China for eight years achieved nothing. This step is an early indication, not the sum total, of the kind of progress that this sort of engagement can achieve through leader-to-leader discussion of sensitive issues, in standing up for British interests.
My visit was also about creating new opportunities for British businesses to deliver jobs and growth for the British people. We took with us a brilliant delegation of nearly 60 businesses and cultural powerhouses—the very best of British—as an embodiment of what this country has to offer. If anyone is in doubt as to why this matters, I urge them to spend a few minutes with any one of those businesses; they will describe the incredible potential there and the importance of getting out there and accessing the market.
We made significant progress, paving the way to open the Chinese market for British exports, including in our world-leading services sector. We secured 30-day visa-free travel for all Brits, including business travellers. We secured China’s agreement to halve whisky tariffs from 10% to 5%, which is worth £250 million to the UK over the next five years—a significant win for our iconic whisky industry, particularly in Scotland. That lower tariff comes into force today. In total, we secured £2.3 billion in market access wins, including for financial services, £2.2 billion in export deals for British companies and hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of new investments.
In addition, we agreed to work together in some key areas of law enforcement. Last year, around 60% of all small boat engines used by smuggling gangs came from China, so we struck a border security pact to enable joint law enforcement action to disrupt that supply at source. We also agreed to scale up removals of those with no right to be in the UK and to work together to crack down on the supply of synthetic opioids.
We will continue to develop our work across all these areas, because this is the start of the process, not the end of it. My visit was not just about coming back with these agreements, but about the wider question of setting this relationship on a better path—one that allows us to deal with issues and seize opportunities in a way that the previous Government failed to do.
Finally, I will say a word about my meetings in Tokyo. Japan remains one of our closest allies; together, we are the leading economies in the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, and we are partners in the G7, the G20 and the coalition of the willing. Japan is the UK’s largest inward investor outside the United States and Europe.
I had an extremely productive meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan, where we set out our shared priorities to build an even deeper partnership in the years to come. Those include working together for peace and security, supporting Ukraine as we work for a just and lasting peace, and deepening our co-operation in cutting-edge defence production, including through the global combat air programme. We discussed how we can boost growth and economic resilience by developing our co-operation: first, in tech and innovation, where we are both leaders; secondly, in energy, where Japan is a major investor in the UK; and, thirdly, in trade, where we are working together to maintain the openness and stability that our businesses depend on. That includes expanding the CPTPP and deepening its co-operation with the EU. We will take all of that forward when I welcome the Prime Minister to Chequers later this year.
This is Britain back at the top table at last. We are facing outward, replacing incoherence and isolationism with pragmatic engagement, and naive posturing with the national interest. In dangerous times, we are using our full strength and reach on the world stage to deliver growth and security for the British people. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Kyle, you said to me when you were going to China how well you would behave and how you owe me a big thank you. You are not showing it today!
Mrs Badenoch
Mr Speaker, I am not worried about the Business Secretary; the entire business community thinks he is a joke and does not know what he is talking about.
As I was saying, of course we should engage with other countries, even hostile ones, but we need to do so with our eyes open and from a position of strength. That requires a Prime Minister and a Government who put our national interest first.
The Prime Minister
Let me see if I understand the right hon. Lady’s position. This is the Leader of the Opposition who said we should empty-chair the most important NATO summit for years, who would not turn up to the G7 and who would rip up our valuable trade deals with the US, India and the EU. This is the Leader of the Opposition who characterised Greenland as a “second-order issue”, and then undermined the Government’s position on sovereignty. When it comes to China, her policy is to stick her head in the sand, unable to influence anything. In a volatile world, that is not policy; that is an abdication of responsibility—no wonder members on her Front Bench are leaving in droves.
The Leader of the Opposition talks of the embassy. China has had an embassy in the UK since 1877. It is currently spread across seven sites. She is so busy trying to hold her party together that she has clearly not read the letter from the security and intelligence services. She claims great interest in the China embassy. She was offered an invite for a Privy Council briefing on the issue. What did she do? She chose not to attend. That is a dereliction of duty. Even worse, she sent in her place the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp)—that is a double dereliction of duty. Instead of taking up a Privy Council briefing, she took up a megaphone on the streets outside the embassy. I changed my party from a party of protest to a party of power. She is rapidly going in the opposite direction. Her reply this afternoon seems to be that we should engage with China, but not engage with China, and that, instead of leader-to-leader discussions where we raise all the opportunities and the difficult issues, each and every one of them, she would get a bag of sand and put her head in it and influence absolutely nothing. The Conservatives are so unserious about world affairs.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I am pleased to see that his trip went so well. This morning, I was in touch with the Scotch Whisky Association, which wants me to convey its congratulations to the Prime Minister on securing reduced tariffs on exports to China. There is, of course, more work needed, however—a Prime Minister’s job is never done. The biggest overseas market for whisky is, of course, the US, where the tariff is still too high. Will the Prime Minister confirm that this will not be the end of his support for the Scotch whisky industry and that he will continue to be an advocate for it?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I can confirm that we are continuing to work with the US. Of course, the India deal we secured will also have an impact on whisky tariffs.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I start by paying tribute to my friend Jim Wallace, one of the great Scottish Liberals. I offer our thoughts and prayers to his family and many friends. Jim devoted his life to public service, his Christian faith and the cause of liberalism. But his judgment was not always impeccable, for it was Jim who gave me my first job in politics. We will miss him.
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of the statement. I listened to the Conservative leader, whose position now seems to be to oppose trade with the world’s biggest economies—so much for global Britain. With President Trump threatening tariffs again, just because of the Prime Minister’s trip, and with Vladimir Putin still murdering civilians in Ukraine, now more than ever the United Kingdom must forge much closer alliances with nations that share our values, our belief in free trade and our commitment to mutual defence. China shares none of those.
The Prime Minister’s main focus should be on the closest possible ties with our European neighbours, our Commonwealth allies and our friends such as Japan and Korea. Once again, he has made the wrong choice. However, unlike the Conservative party, we think he was right to go and engage. But just like with President Trump, he approached President Xi from a position of weakness instead of a position of strength, promising him a super-embassy here in London in return for relatively meagre offers from China.
The Prime Minister rightly raised the case of Jimmy Lai, whose children fear for his health after five years held in captivity, so will he tell us what Xi said to give him confidence that Mr Lai is now more likely to be released? Did he also challenge Xi on the bounties on the heads of innocent Hongkongers here in the United Kingdom, or the revelation that China hacked the phones of No. 10 officials for years? In other words, did he stand up for Britain this time?
Yet again, the Prime Minister had to spend time on a foreign trip responding to revelations about the vile paedophile and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein’s relationship with Lord Mandelson. The Prime Minister has rightly said that Mandelson should resign from the other place, but since he has not, will he back a simple piece of legislation to strip him of his peerage? Surely this House could pass it tomorrow.
The Prime Minister
I start by offering my deep condolences on behalf of the Government in relation to Lord Wallace. He was a kind and decent man, and I know he will be sorely missed on the Liberal Democrat Benches. May he rest in peace.
Of course we need to build stronger alliances with our key partners, and that is what we have been doing, particularly with the EU. But the right hon. Gentleman is wrong: it is not a choice between doing that and engaging with China. One can do both, and that is what we are doing. Where there are opportunities, and where there are sensitive and really important disagreements, I think it is more important to have a meeting to discuss them.
The House is violently agreeing that there are issues that need to be discussed. The difference between us is that we think that having a leader-to-leader meeting to discuss those big issues is better than sticking our head in the sand, if we really want to influence them. So we can do both.
Yes, I raised the case of Jimmy Lai, and we have now spoken to his family about that discussion. Yes, I raised the case of Hong Kong. I raised a number of human rights issues, as I listed. The point is that, by being in the room and having the debate one to one, at leader-to-leader level, it was possible to raise those issues. There is frankly no point standing in this House shouting and screaming about issues if you are not prepared to get in the room to discuss them. It gets you absolutely nowhere.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I want to welcome the Prime Minister’s serious engagement with serious power: it is essential to safeguarding our national interest. The complexities of China require from Britain a whole-of-society approach, which is completely impossible until the Government publish a clear China strategy to explain what is off limits and how we are going to rebalance competition with Chinese industry that is six times over-subsidised compared with our firms. Last week in Europe, I heard very clearly from our partners that they are worried that the lackadaisical approach to policing Chinese competition risks deeper integration with Europe. The EU has 143 trade measures in place against China; we have none. So will the Prime Minister now follow up his meetings last week and publish a strategy, co-ordinated with our allies, so we can take out the guesswork and put in place the guardrails for this important relationship?
The Prime Minister
Obviously, the general approach was set out in the Lady Mayor’s banquet speech I gave just before Christmas. My right hon. Friend made a really important point about Europe. As I mentioned, President Macron went to China just a few weeks ago and Chancellor Merz is due to go very shortly, and my right hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that the three of us, as the E3, discussed in advance the approach we would take and agreed to discuss during our visits and afterwards the outcomes and how we go forward as a group of European nations.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
What absolutely unites everybody in this place is absolute outrage at the treatment of Jimmy Lai, a British citizen whose only crime is to campaign for democracy and to ask the Chinese to obey the spirit and letter of the solemn agreement that we made with them before the 1997 takeover. The Prime Minister said at the weekend that he had raised the case of Jimmy Lai “respectfully” with the latest Chinese emperor —“respectfully”? Does the Prime Minister not realise that the Chinese only accept strength—that everything is a deal—so why did he not say to them, “There will be no Chinese embassy until you stop spying on us in this House, you give an absolute assurance to us on Diego Garcia, and, above all, you free Jimmy Lai now”?
The Prime Minister
I raised the case of Jimmy Lai in terms with the President, as in fact I did, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, at the G20 when I met the President for the first time, and we have updated the family in relation to the progress we have made. But the position of the Conservative party seems to be that we should raise the case of Jimmy Lai by not going to China and raising the case of Jimmy Lai.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
We must engage pragmatically with our allies and with others around the world when it serves the national interest. That is why I welcome the Prime Minister’s engagement with our close ally, Japan, as well as with our major trading partner, China. I also welcome his commitment to the global combat air programme, which, as the Defence Committee illustrated, is of vital strategic importance as we develop the next generation of fighter jets. But our Japanese and Italian friends are understandably nervous, because we have as yet not put pen to paper on the full contract for Tempest, as was planned last year. Can the Prime Minister clarify when that fully formalised contract on GCAP will be penned, and can he also confirm that the timeline and programme will slide sideways?
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, when the Prime Minister was in China and Japan, he gave comment that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor should testify before Congress in the United States. What the Prime Minister chose not to do was to offer an unreserved apology to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein for appointing his other friend, Peter Mandelson, as the ambassador to the United States of America. Now that he is back from China and Japan, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to do just that, and does he agree with me that Peter Mandelson should be subject to a police investigation for potential criminality while in public office?
The Prime Minister
Only the SNP could go about this in this way—instead of welcoming the halving of tariffs on Scottish whisky, the right hon. Gentleman raises things that have absolutely nothing to do with China or Japan. Only the SNP has no interest at all in delivering for Scotland.