Security Vetting
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Prime Minister, I wish to make a brief statement. The subject that we are about to discuss is of the utmost seriousness. I expect the discussion to be focused on the facts and the issues at hand, and not on personal attacks against individual Members. Although certain criticisms may be made about the Government collectively, “Erskine May” makes it clear—in paragraph 21.24—that any accusations against individual Members about lying or misleading the House may be made only on a substantive motion; they may not be made as part of an exchange on a statement. The House rule on this is in place to ensure that Members focus on the substantive matters under discussion. If a debate is needed about matters of individual conduct, that must be drawn in the proper terms with notice. I encourage all Members to engage in respectful debate, as our constituents would expect.
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to provide the House with information that I now have about the appointment of Peter Mandelson as our ambassador to the United States.
Before I go into the details, I want to be very clear with this House that while this statement will focus on the process surrounding Peter Mandelson’s vetting and appointment, at the heart of this there is also a judgment I made that was wrong. I should not have appointed Peter Mandelson. I take responsibility for that decision, and I apologise again to the victims of the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who were clearly failed by my decision.
Last Tuesday evening, 14 April, I found out for the first time that on 29 January 2025, before Peter Mandelson took up his position as ambassador, Foreign Office officials granted him developed vetting clearance, against the specific recommendation of the United Kingdom Security Vetting that developed vetting clearance should be denied. Not only that, but the Foreign Office officials who made that decision did not pass this information to me, to the Foreign Secretary, to her predecessor, now the Deputy Prime Minister, to any other Minister, or even to the former Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald.
I found this staggering. Therefore, last Tuesday I immediately instructed officials in Downing Street and the Cabinet Office to urgently establish the facts on my authority. I wanted to know who made the decision, on what basis, and who knew. I wanted that information for the precise and explicit purpose of updating this House, because this is information I should have had a long time ago, and that this House should have had a long time ago. It is information that I and the House had a right to know.
I will now set out a full timeline of the events in the Peter Mandelson process, including from the fact-finding exercise that I instructed last Tuesday. Before doing so, I want to remind and reassure the House that the Government will comply fully with the Humble Address motion of 4 February.
In December 2024, I was in the process of appointing a new ambassador for Washington. A due diligence exercise was conducted by the Cabinet Office into Peter Mandelson’s suitability, including questions put to him by my staff in No. 10. Peter Mandelson answered those questions on 10 December, and I received final advice on the due diligence process on 11 December. I made the decision to appoint him on 18 December. The appointment was announced on 20 December. The security vetting process began on 23 December 2024.
I want to make it clear to the House that, for a direct ministerial appointment, it was usual for security vetting to happen after the appointment but before the individual starting in post. That was the process in place at the time. This was confirmed by the former Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, when he gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 3 November 2025. Sir Chris made it clear that
“when we are making appointments from outside the civil service…the normal thing is for the security clearance to happen after appointment but before the person signs a contract and takes up post.”
At the same hearing of the same Select Committee, the former permanent secretary to the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins, said that Peter Mandelson
“did not hold national security vetting when he was appointed, but, as is normally the case with external appointments to my Department and the wider civil service, the appointment was made subject to obtaining security clearance.”
After I sacked Peter Mandelson, I changed that process so that an appointment now cannot be announced until after security vetting is passed.
The security vetting was carried out by UK Security Vetting—UKSV—between 23 December 2024 and 28 January 2025. UKSV conducted vetting in the normal way, collecting relevant information, as well as interviewing the applicant, in this case on two occasions. Then, on 28 January 2025, UKSV recommended to the Foreign Office that developed vetting clearance should be denied to Peter Mandelson. The following day, 29 January 2025, notwithstanding the UKSV recommendation that developed vetting clearance should be denied, Foreign Office officials made the decision to grant developed vetting clearance for Peter Mandelson.
To be clear, for many Departments a decision from UKSV is binding, but for the Foreign Office the final decision on developed vetting clearance is made by Foreign Office officials, not UKSV. However, once the decision in this case came to light, the Foreign Office’s power to make the final decision on developed vetting clearance was immediately suspended by my Chief Secretary last week.
I accept that the sensitive personal information provided by an individual being vetted must be protected from disclosure. If that were not the case, the integrity of the whole process would be compromised. What I do not accept is that the appointing Minister cannot be told of the recommendation by UKSV. Indeed, given the seriousness of these issues and the significance of the appointment, I simply do not accept that Foreign Office officials could not have informed me of UKSV’s recommendations while maintaining the necessary confidentiality that vetting requires.
There is no law that stops civil servants from sensibly flagging UKSV recommendations while protecting detailed, sensitive vetting information, to allow Ministers to make judgments on appointments or on explaining matters to Parliament. Let me be very clear: the recommendation in the Peter Mandelson case could and should have been shared with me before he took up his post. Let me make a second point: if I had known before Peter Mandelson took up his post that the UKSV recommendation was that developed vetting clearance should be denied, I would not have gone ahead with the appointment.
Let me now move to September 2025, because events then, and subsequently, show with even starker clarity the opportunities missed by Foreign Office officials to make the position clear. On 10 September, Bloomberg reported fresh details of Mandelson’s history with Epstein. It was then clear to me that Peter Mandelson’s answers to my staff in the due diligence exercise were not truthful, and I sacked him. I also changed the direct ministerial appointments process so that full due diligence is now required as standard. Where risks are identified, an interview must be taken pre-appointment to discuss any risks and conflicts of interest. A summary of that should be provided to the appointing Minister. I also made it clear that public announcements should not now be made until security vetting has been completed.
In the light of the revelations in September last year, I also agreed with the then Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, that he would carry out a review of the appointment process in the Peter Madelson case, including the vetting. He set out his findings and conclusions in a letter to me on 16 September. In that letter, he advised me:
“The evidence I have reviewed leads me to conclude that appropriate processes were followed in both the appointment and withdrawal of the former HMA Washington”.
When the then Cabinet Secretary was asked about that last week, he was clear that when he carried out his review, the Foreign Office did not tell him about the UKSV recommendation that developed vetting clearance should be denied for Peter Mandelson. I find that astonishing. As I set out earlier, I do not accept that I could not have been told about the recommendation before Peter Mandelson took up his post. I absolutely do not accept that the then Cabinet Secretary—an official, not a politician—when carrying out his review could not have been told that UKSV recommended that Peter Mandelson should be denied developed vetting clearance. It was a vital part of the process that I had asked him to review. Clearly, he could have been told, and he should have been told.
On the same day that the then Cabinet Secretary wrote to me, 16 September 2025, the Foreign Secretary and the then permanent secretary of the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins, provided a signed statement to the Foreign Affairs Committee. The statement says:
“The vetting process was undertaken by UK Security Vetting on behalf of the FCDO and concluded with DV clearance being granted by the FCDO in advance of Lord Mandelson taking up post in February.”
It went on to say:
“Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was conducted to the usual standard set for Developed Vetting in line with established Cabinet Office policy”.
Let me be very clear to the House. This was in response to questions that included whether concerns were raised, what the Foreign Office’s response was and whether they were dismissed. That the Foreign Secretary was advised on, and allowed to sign, this statement by Foreign Office officials without being told that UKSV had recommended Peter Mandelson be denied developed vetting clearance is absolutely unforgivable. This is a senior Cabinet Member giving evidence to Parliament on the very issue in question.
In the light of further revelations about Peter Mandelson in February of this year, I was very concerned about the fact that developed vetting clearance had been granted to him. Not knowing that, in fact, UKSV had recommended denial of developed vetting clearance, I instructed my officials to carry out a review of the national security vetting process. But, as I have set out, I do not accept that I could not have been told about UKSV’s denial of security vetting before Peter Mandelson took up his post in January 2025, I do not accept that the then Cabinet Secretary could not have been told in September 2025 when he carried out his review of the process, and I do not accept that the Foreign Secretary could not have been told when making statements to the Select Committee, again in 2025.
On top of that, the fact that I was also not told, even when I ordered a review of the UKSV process, is frankly staggering. I can tell the House that I have now updated the terms of reference for the review into security vetting to make sure it covers the means by which all decisions are made in relation to national security vetting. I have appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead the review. Separately, I have asked the Government Security Group in the Cabinet Office to look at any security concerns raised during Peter Mandelson’s tenure.
I know that many Members across this House will find these facts to be incredible. To that, I can only say that they are right. It beggars belief that throughout this whole timeline of events, officials in the Foreign Office saw fit to withhold this information from the most senior Ministers in our system of government. That is not how the vast majority of people in this country expect politics, government or accountability to work, and I do not think it is how most public servants think it should work either.
I work with hundreds of civil servants—thousands, even—all of whom act with the utmost integrity, dedication and pride to serve this country, including officials from the Foreign Office who, as we speak, are doing a phenomenal job representing our national interest in a dangerous world—in Ukraine, the middle east and all around the world. This is not about them, yet it is surely beyond doubt that the recommendation from UKSV that Peter Mandelson should be denied developed vetting clearance was information that could and should have been shared with me on repeated occasions and, therefore, should have been available to this House and ultimately to the British people. I commend this statement to the House.
The Prime Minister
Let me respond to those points. First, when I found out what had happened on Tuesday evening last, I wanted to have answers to the questions of who had made the decision to give clearance on developed vetting contrary to the advice, why that was done, and who knew about it, so that I could provide the information to the House. That is the exercise that has been conducted since Tuesday evening, so that I could come here today to give the full account to the House, which I have just set out.
The right hon. Lady asks me about developed vetting security clearance after the appointment. What I set out was not my words; I read out the evidence of the former permanent secretary and the former Cabinet Secretary in relation to that. I think the quotes that I have given the House are clear enough.
The right hon. Lady asks why Peter Mandelson failed. It is important to make a distinction between the information provided to the review and the recommendation. The information in the review must be, and has been, protected—otherwise, the integrity of the entire system would fall away—but the recommendation does not have to be, and should not have been, protected.
In relation to the answer about full due process, that was the information that I had and which I put before the House, and it was confirmed to me by Sir Chris Wormald. In September, I asked him to conduct a review of the process to assure me that the process was correctly carried out. He did that and wrote to me on 16 September to give me his conclusions. In relation to reports in the media, No. 10 was repeatedly asked about the facts surrounding Peter Mandelson’s clearance, and was assured that the proper process was followed in that case.
In relation to those in No. 10, let me give the answer. Nobody in No. 10 was informed about UKSV’s recommendation. To be clear, and for the record, the Cabinet Office permanent secretary received information recently, and then sought the necessary and legal advice. Once those checks were completed by the Cabinet Office permanent secretary, I was told. That is in the last two weeks or so, and that was entirely the right procedure—to get the legal advice, and then to bring it to my attention at the first opportunity. The right procedure was followed by my officials in the last few weeks.
In relation to why I was furious about the process, it was for the very reason that I strongly believe I should have been given this information at the very outset. I strongly believe there were repeated times when I should have been told. I should have been told on appointment, and I should have been told when Peter Mandelson was sacked. The Cabinet Secretary should have been told when he reviewed the process. The Foreign Secretary should have been told before she was asked to sign a statement to the Select Committee, and I should have been told when I ordered a review of vetting.
In relation to the point that the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) makes about what I said in February, in answer to a question of hers, I make it very clear that I had not seen the security vetting file. I did not know that UKSV—[Interruption.] The question asked was about vetting. I knew about the due diligence, which is why I put before the House what I knew about the due diligence in relation to Epstein. I told the House what the due diligence had said. I did not tell it what security vetting had said, because I had not seen the file in relation to that. As for the particular details on Peter Mandelson, I acted on all the information I had available to me. The simple fact of the matter is that I should have had more information; I did not have that information. The House should have had that information, and I have now set it out in full to the House.
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. Her Committee did ask relevant questions, and that is why I have indicated that it was unforgivable that the Foreign Secretary was asked to sign a statement in response to those very questions without being told about the recommendation. The questions were asked; the Foreign Secretary was advised and asked to sign a statement without being told the relevant information. That is unforgivable. As for the appointment before developed vetting, I have changed that process now, so that it can never happen again; my right hon. Friend the Committee Chair heard me quote the evidence of the former Cabinet Secretary and the former permanent secretary in relation to that.
Let me deal with my right hon. Friend’s third point, which is that somehow Downing Street’s wish to appoint Peter Mandelson overrode security concerns—[Interruption.] No, Mr Speaker, let me be very clear: if I had been told that Peter Mandelson, or anybody else, had failed or not been given clearance on security vetting, I would not have appointed them. A deliberate decision was taken to withhold that material from me. This was not a lack of asking; this was not an oversight—[Interruption.] It was a decision taken not to share that information on repeated occasions.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
It is 2022 all over again. Back then, when the Prime Minister was in opposition, and when it was Boris Johnson who was accused of misleading Parliament and scapegoating senior officials, the then Leader of the Opposition could not have been clearer; he said:
“The public need to know that not all politicians are the same—that not all politicians put themselves above their country—and that honesty, integrity and accountability matter.”—[Official Report, 25 May 2022; Vol. 715, c. 298.]
He promised “change”. He promised to
“break this cycle and stop the chaos.”
He promised a Government with
“more focus on long-term strategy, not the short-term distractions that can animate Westminster.”
I am afraid that the fact that he has even had to make a statement today shows how badly he has failed—how badly he has let down the millions of people across our country who are so desperate for change.
The Prime Minister blames his officials. He says that he had “no idea”. He gives every impression of a Prime Minister in office, but not in power. The facts remain, even by his own account, that the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States even after he had been warned about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The Prime Minister announced the appointment before Mandelson had been vetted, despite the clear risk to national security of putting someone unsuitable in that role. One of his top officials, just three weeks into the job, clearly believed that the Prime Minister wanted Mandelson to be appointed regardless of what the vetting process turned up. The Prime Minister has relied on the vetting process to defend his decisions, so why did he ask so few questions personally about the vetting process?
We all know the truth: the Prime Minister knew that appointing Mandelson was an enormous risk, but he decided that it was a risk worth taking—a catastrophic error of judgment. Now that has blown up in his face, the only decent thing to do is take responsibility. Back in 2022, the Prime Minister rightly accused Boris Johnson of expecting others to take the blame while he clung on. That was not acceptable then, and it is not acceptable now. I hope that the Prime Minister can at least tell the House this. We will be listening very carefully to his answer. Was he given advice by Simon Case, the then Cabinet Secretary, that the necessary security clearances should be acquired before he confirmed his choice for US ambassador? Did the Prime Minister follow that advice—yes or no?
After years of chaos under the Conservatives, we needed a Government focused on the interests of the people—the cost of living crisis, the health and care crisis, and our national security. We needed a Government with honesty, integrity and accountability. Will the Prime Minister finally accept that the only way that he can help to deliver that is by resigning?
The Prime Minister
In relation to the right hon. Lady’s question, let me be clear: I should not have appointed Peter Mandelson. As soon as the further revelations came to light, I did ask the Cabinet Secretary to review the process, so that I could be assured about the process. He wrote to me on 16 September, setting out the conclusions of that review, and assuring me that the process had been followed properly.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Prime Minister has spoken about process, the reviews, and trying to put that which went wrong right. That is to be supported, but he is asking the House and the country to believe that notwithstanding a front-page media splash saying that Peter Mandelson had failed the vetting process, there was nobody in No. 10 or in any Government Department who even thought to say, “Is there any truth in this? Could I have a briefing on that? We need to knock this story down.” If nobody asked, that is the shameful thing; does it not say to the Prime Minister that the operation of his Government, which seems to be, “Process, strategy, review, never my fault,” is not sustainable, or welcomed by the country at large?
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
The problem the Prime Minister has got is no one believes him. The public do not believe him, the MPs on this side of the House do not believe him and his own gullible Back Benchers do not believe him. So does the Prime Minister agree with me he has been lying?
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but we do not use that word, and I am sure the Member will withdraw it.
Lee Anderson
Mr Speaker, I have the greatest respect for you and your office, but I will not withdraw: that man could not lie straight in bed.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
When Sir Olly Robbins came before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 3 November last year, he was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) whether, in the context of vetting, Lord Mandelson’s appointment was escalated. Citing a need to maintain the integrity of the vetting system, Sir Olly replied:
“I certainly cannot comment on that, I’m afraid”.
Does the Prime Minister not find it perverse that, when specifically asked by Members of this Parliament about Mandelson’s vetting, Sir Olly declined to discuss the very topic we are now debating in this House?
The Prime Minister
We have taken a number of measures in relation to crypto—
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
In the readout of the Prime Minister’s meeting on 15 April on vetting, it states:
“There is no evidence that the decision to grant DV despite the UKSV advice had been disclosed to anyone outside FCDO and UKSV”
until the vetting document itself was shared with the permanent secretary of the Cabinet Office. Is the Prime Minister therefore saying that neither the Chair of the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security nor the National Security Adviser were aware of the security risk with our most important strategic ally until the vetting document itself was shared with Cat Little?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. A lot of Members are still trying to catch my eye, so can I help the Prime Minister and everybody in the Chamber? Please help each other; let us speed up the questions.
The Prime Minister
I have accepted the error of judgment on my behalf, but I was not provided with information. Had I been provided with it, I would not have made the appointment.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
This morning the Secretary of State for Scotland said that to deal with an “unconventional” US Administration, we needed an “unconventional ambassador”. Prime Minister, does “unconventional” now mean appointing a man to a senior position when we know his lies, corruption and misconduct had allowed corruption at the very heart of our democracy? Will the Prime Minister tell us when he first knew about the evidence and the advice—
The Prime Minister
I first knew last Tuesday, as I have set out to the House.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Prime Minister has told us that the Cabinet Secretary gave him bad advice, Peter Mandelson lied to him and the Foreign Office did not tell him anything. He is really in danger of being known as the mushroom Prime Minister: he is kept in the dark and fed—I do not know if I am allowed to say it, Mr Speaker.
Sammy Wilson
I will not say it.
Is it not the case that the Prime Minister wished to remain in the dark? He knew in September that there was a security vetting, yet he never asked about it until April. Surely that is an indication that he was quite happy to be kept in the dark, because he had made his mind up anyway.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
I suspect that most reasonable people have concluded that if the Prime Minister knew and inadvertently misled Parliament, he should resign. If he did not know, he is running an incompetent, shambolic Government and really should resign. If he was lied to yet again, he is simply too gullible and lacking in basic curiosity to serve as Prime Minister. Is he so detached from reality that he is the only person who cannot see that?
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Your Party)
In September, the Prime Minister stood at that Dispatch Box and told the House that he had full confidence in Peter Mandelson, a man whose relationship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein was public knowledge. The Prime Minister knew, and backed him anyway; now, he claims he had no idea that this twice-fired Government Minister had failed MI6 vetting, despite journalists putting that directly to Downing Street that very same month. We all know that the Prime Minister appointed Mandelson because he owes his job to him. He appointed him, he defended him, and now he claims to know nothing. He is gaslighting the nation, so let us call this out for what it is: the Prime Minister is a barefaced liar, and if he had any decency left—
Mr Speaker
Order. Leave now—I will name you otherwise. I would go now, if I were you.
Mr Speaker
I am about to name you. I have given you the option to leave—I would leave if I were you, very quickly. Move before I read this out; I am giving you one option.
Mr Speaker
You have no duties. I have a duty to carry out, which is to control this House. One chance—do you want to leave now, or not?
Zarah Sultana
Mr Speaker, I have a duty to the House and my constituents to also tell the truth that the Prime Minister is a liar.
Mr Speaker
Right—I call the Whip to move the motion.
Zarah Sultana, Member for Coventry South, was named by Mr Speaker for disregarding the authority of the Chair (Standing Order No. 44).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 44), That Zarah Sultana be suspended from the service of the House.—(Gen Kitchen.)
Question agreed to.
Mr Speaker directed Zarah Sultana to withdraw from the House, and the Member withdrew accordingly.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
The Foreign Office raised severe concerns regarding Peter Mandelson’s links with Epstein, Russia and China in the due diligence report that the Prime Minister received before the appointment was announced. The Prime Minister, however, brushed those concerns aside and announced Mandelson as ambassador none the less. Given what the due diligence exercise had already flagged, it was surely predictable that Mandelson would fail security vetting for those reasons, but No. 10 had already told the Foreign Office, before Sir Olly Robbins had taken up his post, to proceed with the appointment. Notwithstanding these issues, that is exactly what he did by putting in place the safeguards. Can the Prime Minister please explain why he has sacked a loyal and brilliant public servant?
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
With permission, I will update the House on the Government’s response to the recommendations of the infected blood inquiry’s additional report.
I will start by updating the House on the delivery of compensation by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority—or IBCA, as we refer to it. As of 7 April, 3,273 people have received an offer and over £2 billion has now been paid out. That includes the first payments to all eligible groups. I am sure that Members across the whole House will welcome that progress.
In July last year, the infected blood inquiry published its additional report, which made recommendations for both the Government and IBCA. Part of our response to that report was a public consultation on changes to the infected blood compensation scheme. I am here today to update the House on the outcome of that consultation. First, I should say that I am deeply grateful to everyone who responded and provided deeply personal stories. They must be at the heart of the decisions that the Government make, just as they were throughout the work of the inquiry.
The consultation was vital for engaging the community on our proposals. The Government have also sought advice from the infected blood compensation scheme technical expert group. Alongside the consultation response, today I am publishing the group’s final report, which sets out its advice to the Government and amendments to the compensation scheme. To inform that advice, the technical expert group conducted roundtable discussions with community representatives on specific aspects of the scheme, and that was separate to the consultation. For transparency, I am also publishing the minutes of the roundtable discussions, the group’s own meetings and a summary of written responses to the roundtables.
Let me turn to the changes to the scheme. Today the Government have published our full response to the consultation, and that sets out how the scheme will now change. Before I lay out each change in detail, let me explain the overall package. The community was clear that the scheme must do more to recognise people’s individual experiences and compensate them fairly in a way that minimises the administrative burden placed on those who have been harmed, minimises the demand for evidence and maintains the delivery of tariff-based compensation. Those requirements underpin the changes.
For infected people, the changes will increase the amount of core compensation available and increase the options available for supplementary compensation awards. For affected people, additional core compensation will be available to those eligible. We consulted on seven specific areas, and we are making substantive changes in all seven. In four areas, we are actually going further than our original proposal.
Let me turn first to the special category mechanism. We will introduce a new supplementary award to give additional compensation to people who have been assessed as eligible for the SCM or who can now demonstrate to IBCA that they meet the criteria. After considering the community’s views, we will ensure that every eligible person has this award backdated to 2017, because that is when the special category mechanism was first introduced.
Many of those infected suffered from terrible mental health issues as a result of their infection, as we heard in their testimonies. We will amend the scheme so that the new SCM supplementary award gives people additional compensation where the psychological harm that they experienced means that the core route compensation simply does not go far enough. We believe that this will result in more comprehensive recognition of the mental health issues caused by infected blood and the resulting years of harm.
The inquiry recommended that we change the core route’s severity bandings to recognise the harms caused to infected people by interferon treatment, and proposed a new “level 2B” severity banding for those who receive this treatment. We accept that change is necessary, and we will introduce this new severity band to increase people’s injury, financial loss and care awards. In addition, if someone has had multiple rounds of interferon treatment, they will be compensated for each round.
The inquiry recommended changes to the calculation of past financial loss and past care awards for those who choose to continue receiving support scheme payments. We will remove the 25% deduction applied to past care compensation, as was recommended by the inquiry. The consultation also set out two options for how financial loss could be calculated for those who continue to receive support scheme payments: the way the scheme currently does it, and an alternative. Because of the range of views on which was best, we will ensure that people receive past financial loss compensation based on whichever of the two calculations presented is most financially beneficial for them.
The inquiry asked the Government to look at the evidence requirements for the exceptional loss award. We were keen to hear the community’s views on that in order to develop a way forward that avoided lengthy, individualised assessments of people’s circumstances. We will ensure that all forms of evidence of actual earnings can be considered by IBCA. We will also make additional compensation available to infected people who lack evidence of earnings but who had clear potential to earn more than average. We will offer a £60,000 lump sum on top of people’s core awards to those who can show they either had a job offer or recently started a job where the salary was higher than the median salary but had their progress impeded by their infection.
Through the consultation, we also heard about the experiences of affected people and the particular harms they suffered. We will increase the core injury award for several groups of affected people, including bereaved parents whose child sadly died before they turned 18, bereaved partners, and children and siblings affected under the age of 18. Those changes will give more compensation to affected people whose particular experience of the scandal was undoubtedly profound and deeply harmful. The awards will form part of the core award, and they will not require additional evidence from applicants.
I know that the matter of unethical research is of particular concern to Members across the House. It is one of the most shocking aspects of the scandal. We heard that the existing approach may not have compensated everyone who suffered that wrongdoing. We have therefore changed the scope of the award so that anyone treated in the UK for a bleeding disorder in 1985 or earlier will receive further compensation.
It was also clear from the consultation responses that the amount offered does not reflect the harm done. I say today to the House that we will increase the unethical research awards. That includes increasing the £25,000 for those who attended Treloar’s school to £60,000 as well as introducing a new unethical research award for those treated elsewhere for a bleeding disorder during childhood at a rate of £45,000. We are also tripling the award for those treated for a bleeding disorder in adulthood to £30,000. I have touched on all seven of the areas we directly addressed in the consultation; of course, I encourage hon. Members across the House to read the full response that is being published.
The consultation also invited respondents to raise any other concerns they had about the design of the scheme. One of the most compelling things we heard was that the scheme does not sufficiently recognise the profound impact of infection during childhood. We have heard the community clearly on that, so we will make a further change to the compensation scheme to address it: we will introduce a 50% increase to the core autonomy award for people who were infected at age 18 or under.
I hope those changes go some way to showing our commitment to listening to the community and making decisions, with those impacted at the forefront of our minds. In order to make those substantial changes to the scheme, we will bring forward further legislation in due course.
While the consultation provided one way for the community to offer feedback, the inquiry recommended there be an identified way for concerns to be considered. Today, I am pleased to launch a new mechanism that builds on existing engagement and feedback channels through which people can raise concerns about the function of the infected blood compensation scheme with the Cabinet Office and with IBCA. Both organisations will then publish quarterly summaries of feedback received on the scheme’s design and delivery, and any action being taken as a result. I expect the first of those summaries to be published in early July.
The findings of the inquiry must be met with tangible, systemic change. I hope that what I have set out goes some way towards showing our commitment to enacting this change. I pay tribute to Sir Brian Langstaff, his team and everyone who gave testimony to the inquiry for ensuring that that human element of this tragedy remains a focal point of the inquiry’s work.
The compensation scheme’s most basic purpose is to provide financial recognition of the losses and harms faced by victims, both infected and affected. Beyond that, it must reflect and embody their stories if it is to truly deliver justice, not just for those we tragically lost, but for those who continue to fight. I commend this statement to the House.
Middle East
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on my visit to the Gulf, the evolving situation in the middle east and the implications for Britain’s security.
Before I do that, I want to put on the record in this House my total determination to make the changes across the entire state that are so clearly necessary to honour the victims, the injured and the families of Southport. Today’s report is harrowing. It is difficult to read and I cannot begin to imagine the pain upon pain that it will cause the families it affects. Our thoughts are with them today. The Home Secretary will respond to the report in full after this statement.
Last week I visited the Gulf and was able to thank in person some of the brave men and women who, from day one of the US-Iran conflict, have resolutely defended the interests of this country, its people and its partners. I thank them again, in this House, for their courage and their service. I am sure the whole House will join me in those thanks.
While in the Gulf, I met leaders and senior military representatives across the region, including the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, the President of the United Arab Emirates, the King and Crown Prince of Bahrain, and the Emir and Prime Minister of Qatar. In recent days, I have also spoken to the Sultan of Oman and the Emir of Kuwait. Across all those conversations, I agreed to deepen our engagement on both defence and economic resilience, because they all made it abundantly clear that the solidarity and strength of our partnership with them has been a comfort in these challenging times. We should not forget that the nature of Iran’s response—the indiscriminate attack upon countries that never sought this conflict and the huge damage done across the Gulf to civilian infrastructure, with civilian casualties—is abhorrent. It has clearly shocked the region and all of us.
We must bear that in mind now as we lift our sights to the future, because while the ceasefire between the US, Israel and Iran is undeniably welcome, it is also highly fragile. The region remains on edge and a lot of work is required to reopen the strait of Hormuz and de-escalate the situation, leading to a sustainable ceasefire. In pursuit of that goal, we call for Lebanon to be included, urgently, in the ceasefire. Diplomacy is the right path and I welcome the talks taking place this week. Hezbollah must disarm, but I am equally clear that Israel’s strikes are wrong. They are having devastating humanitarian consequences and pushing Lebanon into a crisis. The bombing should stop now.
We also put on record our thanks to Pakistan and other partners for playing such an important role in diplomatic efforts. We hope the process will continue without further escalation. That applies to the running sore that is the strait of Hormuz, shamefully exploited by Iran. All the leaders I met were crystal clear that freedom of navigation is vital and must be restored—no conditions, no tolls and no tolerance of Iran holding the world’s economy to ransom. The impact of Iran’s behaviour in the strait is causing untold economic damage that is visible on every petrol forecourt in this country.
My guide from the start of this conflict has always been our national interest. That is why we stayed out of the war and why we continue to stay out of the war. It is why we are working now to restore freedom of navigation in the middle east—because that is squarely in our national interest. Clearly, that is not a straightforward task, and it will take time. I have met UK businesses in energy, shipping, insurance and finance, and they are clear that vessels will not be put through the strait until they are confident that it is safe to do so. That is why we are working around the clock on a credible plan to reopen the strait.
I can confirm today that together with President Macron, I will convene a summit of leaders this week to drive forward the international effort we have built in recent weeks, bringing together dozens of countries to ensure freedom of navigation in the strait of Hormuz. The summit will be focused on two things: first, diplomatic efforts to bring pressure to bear for a negotiated end to the conflict and for the strait to be opened; secondly, military planning to provide assurance to shipping as soon as a stable environment can be established. Let me be very clear: this is about safeguarding shipping and supporting freedom of navigation once the conflict ends. Our shared aim is a co-ordinated, independent, multinational plan. This is the moment for clear and calm leadership and, notwithstanding the difficulties, Britain stands ready to play our part.
Let me return to the impact of the conflict on our economy. We all know that the consequences will be significant and that they will last longer than the conflict itself. We continue to monitor the effects. I remind the House that energy bills went down on 1 April and that whatever happens in the middle east, those bills will stay down until July. We are investing more than £50 million to support heating oil customers, and fuel duty is frozen until September—all because of the decisions this Government took at the Budget.
However, there is a wider point. We cannot stand here in this House and pretend that a global shock threatening to hit the living standards of British people is somehow a novel experience; Britain has been buffeted by crises for decades now. From the 2008 financial crash, through austerity, Brexit, covid, the war that still rages in Ukraine and the disastrous premiership of Liz Truss, the response each time has been to try to return to the status quo—a status quo that manifestly failed working people, who saw their living standards flatline and their public services decimated.
This time, Britain’s response must and will be different to reflect the changing world we live in. That starts with our economic security: during this conflict alone, we have capped energy bills, raised the living wage, strengthened workers’ rights and ended the two-child limit, which will lift nearly half a million children out of poverty. Looking forward, it also means a closer economic relationship with our European allies, because Brexit did deep damage to the economy, and the opportunities we now have to strengthen our security and cut the cost of living are simply too big to ignore.
It continues with our energy security. I say once again that oil and gas will be part of our energy mix for decades to come. However, we do not set the global price for oil and gas. Households across the country are fed up with international events beyond their control pushing up their energy bills. I stand with them on that. We will go further and faster on our mission to make Britain energy-independent, because that is the only way we will get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster and take control of our energy bills.
Finally, we must strengthen our defence security. That means boosting our armed forces, as we have, with the biggest sustained investment since the cold war. It means doubling down on the most successful military alliance the world has ever seen, of which this party in government was a founding member: the NATO alliance. It also means strengthening the European element of that alliance, taking control of our continent’s defence more robustly, and deepening our partnerships, as we have done with our deals to build Norwegian frigates on the Clyde and Turkish Typhoons in Lancashire. Not only is that creating thousands of secure jobs and opportunities for our defence industry right across the country, but it is enhancing the way that our armed forces can collaborate with our allies.
As the middle east conflict shows once more, the world in which we live has utterly changed. It is more volatile and insecure than at any period in my lifetime. We must rise to meet it calmly, but with strength. That is exactly what we are doing at home and abroad. We are strengthening our security, taking control of our future and building a Britain that is fair for all. I commend this statement to the House.
The Prime Minister
I notice that the right hon. Lady’s opening sentence has changed. She used to say, “We didn’t start the war, but like it or not, we’re in it, and we should be in it.” That was her position. Now she says—well, they cannot make their mind up. They supported the war without thinking through the consequences, and now they are pretending they did not support the war and were against it all along. She challenged my position, and she did the mother of all U-turns on the most important decision the Leader of the Opposition ever has to take.
I thank the right hon. Lady for her support for the planning that we are doing with other countries. It is important. It has a number of components: the political and diplomatic component; the logistics of getting the vessels through, on which we are working with the sector; and, of course, the military component. We have been working on that for two or three weeks, and now, with President Macron, we are bringing together the summit later this week.
Yes, we all want to get energy bills down, and oil and gas will be part of the mix for many years, but it is because we are on the international market that our bills have gone up. That is the problem. The strait of Hormuz is a choke point for oil and gas getting to the international market. That has pushed the price up, and that is being reflected in every household. That is why the only way to take control of our energy bills is to go faster on energy independence.
The Leader of the Opposition used to make that argument. In 2022 she said that
“it’s investment in nuclear and renewables that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels”
and keep costs down. She changes her mind on everything. That was her argument; now, just like she pretends she was not in favour of getting involved in the war, she pretends she was not in favour of keeping costs down.
The Leader of the Opposition says that we must be ready. That is coming from a party that hollowed out our armed services. On the Conservatives’ watch, frigates and destroyers were reduced by 25%. Minehunting ships were reduced by 50% on their watch. Yet she lectures us about being ready, having hollowed out our armed forces and hollowed out our capabilities. We are investing £300 million more in shipbuilding, and we have 13 ships on order. That is the difference between the two parties. I hope that she, and they, will forgive me, but after 14 years of their breaking everything under their watch, I am going to resist the offer of joint planning from the party that crashed the economy, hollowed out our armed forces and trashed our public services. Thanks, but no thanks.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The Foreign Affairs Committee has just come from a meeting with some of the Gulf ambassadors, who are genuinely grateful for the help that Britain has given in defending their countries, and want to say how grateful they are that the Prime Minister visited the Gulf, in an act of true solidarity. But when people heard the Israeli Defence Minister say that his war aims in Lebanon would follow “the model in Gaza”, our blood ran cold. Could the Prime Minister tell the House what role the United Kingdom can play to ensure a ceasefire in Lebanon, and that Israel is prevented from taking over Lebanon south of the Litani river?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising the important question of Lebanon; I want to be really clear in relation to that. Lebanon should be included in the ceasefire, and we are using every opportunity we can to make that argument. I am pleased that there is some diplomacy at the moment, but those attacks should stop and it is important that we are very clear about that.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I join him in what he said about the horrific attack in Southport. Our thoughts are with the families of Bebe, Elsie and Alice and with all those affected.
“A whole civilisation will die tonight”—
words I never thought I would hear from an American President. Though Donald Trump thankfully did not follow through this time, those words are a stark reminder of how reckless, immoral and completely outside the bounds of international law this President is. Regrettably, he is no friend of the United Kingdom. He is no leader of the free world. He is a dangerous and corrupt gangster, and that is how we must treat him. Will the Prime Minister advise the King to call off his state visit to Washington before it is too late? I really fear for what Trump might say or do while our King is forced to stand by his side. We cannot put His Majesty in that position.
Trump’s latest cunning plan, to blockade the strait of Hormuz, will only escalate this crisis and jeopardise the precarious ceasefire. It is right that the UK is not joining him, and I welcome the Prime Minister convening a summit to offer an alternative to Trump’s. We must work with our reliable allies in Europe and the Commonwealth and our partners in the Gulf to bring this conflict to an end and keep open the strait of Hormuz. That is critical for tackling the cost of living crisis, which is getting worse and worse for people in the UK. Petrol prices are now up by more than 25p a litre and diesel up 49p since Trump started this war—cheered on, let us not forget, by the leader of the Conservative party and Reform.
Does the Prime Minister recognise that families and businesses cannot wait months for the Government to step in and help? Will he use the windfalls that the Treasury is getting from higher fuel prices to cut the cost of living and keep the economy moving, with action to slash bus and rail fares, and to cut fuel duty by 10p today, bringing down the price at the pumps by 12p a litre?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. In relation to the language about destroying a civilisation, can I really be clear with this House? That was wrong. A threat to Iranian civilians in that way is wrong. These are civilians, let us remember, who have suffered immeasurable harm by the regime in Iran for many, many long years. That is why they are words and phrases that I would never use on behalf of this Government, who are guided by our principles and our values throughout all this.
In relation to the King’s visit, the relationship between our two countries is important on a number of levels. The monarchy, through the bonds that it builds, is often able to reach through the decades on a situation like this; and the purpose of the visit is to mark the 250th anniversary of the relationship between our country and the United States, and that is why it is going ahead.
In relation to the blockade, let me be clear, as I have been already in the last day or so, that we are focusing our efforts on opening in full the strait of Hormuz because of the damage that the situation is doing to economies around the world, including our own. That is why we have been working with other countries at various levels and will bring them together in a summit later this week. We, the UK, will not be joining the blockade that the President announced.
In relation to the help that is needed for families and households, obviously we have already put in place help for energy bills and heating oil, but we are keeping this under constant review as the situation evolves. The single most important and effective thing we can do is to de-escalate the situation and work with others to get the strait of Hormuz open, and that is why we are focusing so much of our efforts in that regard.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for confirming that, despite the significant unwelcome trolling and pressure from President Trump and Israeli PM Netanyahu, the UK is not being dragged into this war and that it is not in our national interest. Given that the US has now initiated a blockade of Iranian ports, can the Prime Minister confirm what steps are being taken to help de-escalate the situation and reopen the strait of Hormuz so that goods can transit freely and we can ease the cost of living pressures for our constituents? Also, what is being done to help de-escalate the situation in Lebanon? Can he confirm that any future UK involvement in the region will be strictly limited to defensive purposes?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend and reiterate that we will not be dragged into the war. We are taking steps across a number of levels. What we can do together to de-escalate was central to the discussions I had in the Gulf states last week; they are shocked and angry, frankly, that they have been attacked in the way that they have been attacked. They were not involved in the conflict, and it is clear to them that they were targeted within hours of the beginning of the conflict starting, and that civilian infrastructure and civilians were targeted as well. They are absolutely clear that that targeting was put in place before the conflict started. We are working with them and across the coalition of dozens of countries to de-escalate and to get the strait of Hormuz open just as soon as it is viable and credible to do so.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister may recall that on day one of this war, I supported his defensive attitude to it and said that we could not change the regime from the air. We agreed and he has been proved right, but—with apologies to Leon Trotsky —we may not be interested in war, but war is interested in us. We all agree that we have to rapidly re-arm, but the trouble is that with an ever-increasing proportion of our economy being taken up by the state pension and benefits, perhaps we cannot afford to do so. Will the Prime Minister work with the Leader of the Opposition to take the necessary—perhaps unpopular—decisions to return defence spending to what we spent in 1989 at the end of the cold war?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hilary Benn
We have already made that clear in the protections that are contained in the Bill, including the right to give evidence remotely, application for anonymity and no cold calling. Veterans have welcomed the fact that we are now planning to put those protections in place.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
The Secretary of State says that there is no such thing as vexatious prosecutions. I think that he would do well to remember the cases of Phil Shiner.
In 1991, the SAS shot and killed three members of the IRA’s East Tyrone Brigade in Coagh. The coroner originally found that the soldier’s use of force was reasonable and proportionate, and that the IRA men in question had the intent to murder. A judicial review was brought against these findings, but in October last year it was thrown out by the High Court in Belfast, with the judge saying that the case was “ludicrous” and
“utterly divorced from the reality”.
Depressingly, this morning we hear that that case is to continue 35 years after the incident and after the soldier in question has been investigated for years. How can the Secretary of State think that is right?
Hilary Benn
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be genuine protections. On the question of legal aid in Northern Ireland, that is a matter, as he well knows, for the Northern Ireland Executive. Given the case that he has cited, I was not aware that the previous Government at any point considered removing the right to bring judicial review against any decisions at all. If he is now advancing the argument that judicial review should not be available in certain cases, I would say good luck to him because that is a foundation of our legal system.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
On a recent visit to Northern Ireland, I met with numerous stakeholders, including veterans, victims and survivors, all of whom are seeking justice. Yet I fear that both the former legacy Act and the current troubles Bill conceive of justice too narrowly, while the constricting lens of lawyers is preoccupied with criminal sanctions and civil compensation. Stakeholders want answers, not retribution. That is why I have tabled amendments to the troubles Bill to formally provide the option of a restorative justice pathway for the many victims of the troubles who simply want to know what happened. Does the Secretary of State agree that restorative justice has an important role to play in reconciliation, and will he meet me to discuss supporting my amendments?
Hilary Benn
I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of what the Government are doing. We have brought economic stability to the country after the disaster of the previous Government, we have given record support to the Northern Ireland Executive and we are working through our negotiations with the EU to reduce the impact of the Windsor framework. The SPS agreement, which as I said is widely welcomed across Northern Ireland, is a really good example of that.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Though the funding in the spring statement is welcome, the Secretary of State told us that he was looking at alternative sources of funding for the charity sector because of the disappointment in Northern Ireland over the local growth fund split of 70:30. Will he update the House on his conversations?
Hilary Benn
There will be a report from the Treasury to the Northern Ireland Executive. It is for the Executive to take the decision, but I say from this Dispatch Box that I would welcome its publication.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Hospitality adds nearly £2 billion to Northern Ireland’s economy, supporting more than 75,000 jobs, but last year more than 2,000 hospitality workers in Northern Ireland lost their jobs. Does the Secretary of State agree with Unite the union, of which I know he is a member, that this is the result of the Government’s disastrous national insurance rises?
The Prime Minister
Can I extend my sympathy to residents in Lancashire who are being utterly failed by their Reform county council? It is the same picture across the country. In Kent, Reform is cutting social care. In Worcestershire, it is hiking council tax by 9% despite promising lower taxes. In Staffordshire, the scandals and infighting have been so bad that Reform is on its fourth leader in 11 months. It is a warning to the whole country: Reform has nothing to offer but chaos, grievance and division.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I asked the Prime Minister six questions last week and he did not answer a single one. He has a duty to this House to answer the question. Let us see if he can do better this week. I will start with a simple one. Will the Prime Minister approve the licences for the Rosebank and Jackdaw gasfields in the North sea?
Mrs Badenoch
We can have renewables and oil and gas. The Prime Minister says it is a matter for the Secretary of State—I thought that he was the Prime Minister. He loves to hide behind legal process every single time. I wonder what a Director of Public—[Interruption.]
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister loves to hide behind legal process. I wonder what a Director of Public Prosecutions would make of the defence, “Sorry, I can’t produce my WhatsApps—my phone has been stolen.” The Jackdaw gasfield could be up and running before winter. All that gas would be used here in the UK to heat 1.6 million homes. That is enough to power Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex put together. Will the Prime Minister approve the licences, or is the Energy Secretary running the Government?
The Prime Minister
The Conservatives are the ones who doubled the spend on welfare. They were the ones with a broken system. When we tried to mend it, what did they do? They voted against it. [Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady talks about the spike in energy prices. That is because of the war, which I say we should not join and she says we should join, without following through on the consequences. Time and time again, she gets the big calls absolutely wrong. She wanted to drag us into the war—she got that wrong. She opposed taking control of energy security—she got that wrong. She opposed our decision to cut energy bills—she got that wrong. She seriously thinks that that will make her relevant—she has got that wrong.
The Prime Minister
Let me do that. The Israeli settlements, including the E1 settlement, are a flagrant breach of international law and threaten the viability of a two-state solution. That is why, alongside international partners, we have sanctioned those responsible and their supporters who incite violence. We have consistently urged the Israeli Government to act to stop these incidents. We also recommend that settlement products are labelled so that consumers are informed, and we will continue to take the necessary action to defend Palestinians and protect the two-state solution.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about Monday’s despicable attacks on the Jewish community? Antisemitism has no place in our society. Given the potential links with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, I hope that the Government will move faster to proscribe the group as terrorists.
As a former Secretary of State for Energy who granted licences for oil and gas exploration, may I make a judgment on this argument? The Prime Minister is actually right, and the Leader of the Opposition is wrong—[Interruption.] The law is clear, and I believe in the rule of law.
Just before President Trump posted about his supposed negotiations with Iran on Monday, traders made hundreds of millions of dollars of extra bets on oil futures. This looks like Donald Trump giving his mates inside information so they can make themselves richer, while his illegal war in Iran makes everyone else poorer. It looks like corruption of the very worst kind. Does the Prime Minister share my fear that Trump is making his war decisions on the basis of what enriches him and his friends, rather than what makes peace in the middle east?
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to hear the hon. Member’s question, as do those who are interested in snooker.
Dr Tidball
Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I thank the Prime Minister for the £35 million of funding to transform the Crucible theatre and keep the world snooker championship at the heart of Sheffield? I want my constituents to be able to enjoy this fantastic tournament, day and night, and to travel in by tram-train from Stocksbridge to Sheffield via Oughtibridge, Wharncliffe Side and Deepcar. I am grateful to our South Yorkshire Mayor, Oliver Coppard, for kick-starting these plans. Will the Prime Minister work with me and the South Yorkshire Mayor to ensure that we get spades in the ground for a tram-train extension to Stocksbridge as soon as possible, so that my constituents can enjoy the snooker?
The Prime Minister
I see that Reform Members have walked out. They obviously realise that they are absolutely snookered. [Hon. Members: “More!”]
The Prime Minister
Sheffield and the Crucible theatre are the beating heart of snooker, and I am delighted that they will host the world snooker championship for many years to come. This is what Labour stands for: investing in things that make us proud of the places where we live. I reassure my hon. Friend that we are working closely with South Yorkshire combined authority on better transport links and providing over £1.4 billion to spend on its priorities, which could include a new tram fleet and more modern stops, or delivering extensions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On 21 November last year, Robert Clancy, a hugely valued and much loved member of my staff, took his own life. He was 29. While successive Governments have done a great deal to deal with the scourge of suicide in this country, there is much more that can be done. Will the Prime Minister personally commit to meeting me to discuss how we can prevent others from experiencing the unimaginable pain that Rob’s family and friends have endured?
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I refer you to paragraph 22.9 of “Erskine May”, which stresses the primary importance of ministerial responsibility? We have to admit that Prime Ministers have always tried to dodge questions at Prime Minister’s Question Time, and you are not responsible for the answers that they give, but what we have seen in recent weeks is not just dodging questions; in reply to every question the Prime Minister is asked, he refers to the Leader of the Opposition’s policies. This is not Leader of the Opposition’s questions; it is Prime Minister’s questions.
Mr Speaker
Once again, as I said last week, I do not have responsibility for, or authority over, answers. It is incumbent on Ministers to try to ensure that there is an answer, but it is not for me to judge whether the answer is correct. That would be politicising the Chair. If that is what the House wishes to do, it can by all means do that, but I have not got that power.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your guidance on the rules about how many questions a Member needs to stay in the Chamber for after speaking?
Mr Speaker
None whatsoever, because we are in Prime Minister’s Question Time.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I have given advance notice to you and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). There is an important tradition and custom in this House that Members remain in the Chamber for at least—
Mr Speaker
Order. That is absolutely not a point of order, and is not relevant, and I have certainly not had any indication of what you are asking me.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray
I am happy for the hon. Gentleman also to meet representatives of BDUK and the Minister for Digital Economy. He is absolutely right; while there will continue to be gaps for the very hardest-to-reach places, there are solutions out there, like wireless solutions, fixed-wireless access and, indeed, satellite broadband, which BDUK is examining now.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Starlink is a US telecoms company owned by a South African American who advocates civil war in the United Kingdom. OneWeb is a European satellite telecoms company, which is part-owned by the UK. Yesterday the Science Minister told my Committee that OneWeb could be used to ensure domestic communications resilience in remote areas. Can the Minister tell me whether our critical rural broadband infrastructure is more dependent on Starlink or on OneWeb?
Liz Kendall
I reassure the hon. Gentleman’s constituents in Chorleywood—a place I know well—and people right across the country that this Government have provided the biggest ever funding settlement for science. The STFC’s budget is not being cut; it is actually rising slightly, but is flat over the spending review period because of the impact of inflation. Within that context, it is right to ask the STFC and UKRI together to get those budgets under control. Experts will be helping to ensure that we prioritise the most important research. We strongly back curiosity-led research, especially in physics, which is so important for the foundation of our economy and society. However, we do need to sort this problem out.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Modern warfare is technological warfare, so UK research and innovation is critical for our defence. When the Secretary of State has spoken with the Defence Secretary about the defence investment plan, as I assume she has, which sectors has she prioritised for investment in UK companies in research and development—drones, space, cyber, chips? Could she spell out her vision of the role of UK tech in defence, if she has one?
Liz Kendall
As the former head of MI6 has repeatedly said, the single biggest thing that we could do to strengthen our defence and national security is to invest in research and development. UKRI has had the biggest funding settlement from any Government ever under this Labour Government. The Conservatives want to slash UKRI’s budget by £6 billion, which would wipe out all our funding for AI, advanced manufacturing, life sciences and much more. We are backing our defence sector, with 10% of the defence equipment budget going on backing UK businesses—the Tories would slash the funding on which they depend.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
UK Research and Innovation funding will continue to be undermined if the Government’s own procurement strategy sees billions going to companies outside the UK, such as Palantir in the US, when British tech has the solutions. Although we welcome the announcement of AI investment funding, it pales in comparison with the ongoing procurement investment. Will the Government back Liberal Democrat amendments to the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill for a comprehensive digital sovereign strategy, backing British tech, research and innovation, which is vital for both our economy and our national security?
Liz Kendall
One of my reflections in this job is that it took eight years for the Online Safety Act 2023 to come in, and it is still to be fully implemented. We need to move faster. MPs discuss a Finance Bill every year, and technology moves incredibly fast, so I am always prepared to take further action when it is needed.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
I am asking this question on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), the shadow Secretary of State, who cannot be here today, but wants the House to know how important this issue is to her. The lobular moon shot project is a plan to fund critical research into lobular breast cancer. It is a disease often missed by screening and with no targeted treatment. A total of 463 Members of this House, including the Leader of the Opposition, support this plan. The Health Secretary says that there is no political disagreement on this, yet nothing has materially happened. His Department now says that it is for DSIT and UK Research and Innovation to comment on budget allocations and spending research priorities. I ask the Secretary of State this: is the moon shot project a research priority for her, as it is for 463 of her parliamentary colleagues?
Liz Kendall
This Government are determined to protect the UK’s position as a world-leading creative powerhouse and unlock the extraordinary potential of AI to grow the economy and improve British lives. Today, we published a report and impact assessment, fulfilling the commitments made in the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. We have listened to the views on our initial consultation and confirmed that the Government no longer have a preferred option. We have also set out where we will do more work with our creative and AI sectors, including on digital replicas, labelling AI-generated content, creator control and transparency and support for our brilliant small and independent creatives. Every country is grappling with this issue and we are determined to get this right, so that both these vital sectors can continue to flourish, thrive and lead the world.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My first instinct is always to protect people from the cost of living. The immediate action we have taken in relation to those who heat their homes with oil is the £53 million that we announced this week. That is particularly important for rural communities and for Northern Ireland. De-escalation in the middle east is the quickest way to reduce the cost of living. Anyone who advocated for the UK to rush headlong into the offensive without a clear picture of what it would mean for our forces or without thinking through the economic impact for families should stand up and apologise.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just say that I am not responsible for the answers? I just have to say that.
Mrs Badenoch
It is a shame that the Prime Minister is not responsible for the answers either. He wants us to believe that he is a serious leader, but he does not do the work. He outsources the decisions and when things go wrong he blames the vetting, he blames the chief of staff, he blames the Cabinet Secretary—he blames anyone but himself. This Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson, but did not bother to ask the questions. If he cannot be straight with the House on something as simple as this, why should we believe a word he says about anything?
The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition talks about doing the work. Three weeks ago she said we should rush into war. She did not do the work; she did not think through the consequences. Committing our military to a war without thinking through the consequences is the gravest mistake for a Leader of the Opposition. She comes back a week later and says, “Oops! I got that one wrong.” She is utterly irrelevant and she has no judgment. This is the Leader of the Opposition who said that I should have empty-chaired the most important NATO summit in years, this is the Leader of the Opposition who said that Greenland is a second-order issue, and this is the Leader of the Opposition who would have jumped into a war with Iran without stopping to think.
On top of that, this week, we have the failure to condemn and sack—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I repeat that I am not responsible for the answers, but this is certainly not Opposition questions.
The Prime Minister
Add to that the failure to condemn and sack the shadow Justice Secretary for the poison and division that he spreads. It is turning out to be quite a month for the Leader of the Opposition who claims that she never makes any mistakes.
The Prime Minister
Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, my principles have been clear and unwavering. We will protect our people in the region, we will take action to defend ourselves and our allies, and we will not be drawn into the wider war. I want to see this war end as quickly as possible. The longer it continues, the bigger the impact on the cost of living. That is where we have intervened to support households with the costs of heating oil. The best way forward is a negotiated settlement, with Iran giving up any aspirations to develop a nuclear weapon.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I join the Prime Minister in offering my condolences to the family and friends of the two young people who have been killed by the meningitis bug in Kent and all those affected by this horrifying outbreak.
Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent is critical for the defence of our nation and the whole of Europe, but the current Trident missiles will reach the end of their lives in the 2040s. We have to make a choice now: lease new missiles from the United States, accepting whatever terms the President gives us, or build our own here in the United Kingdom. The Conservatives and Reform say that we have to rely on President Trump and the United States because we could not possibly do it ourselves. Does the Prime Minister agree with them?
Defending Democracy Taskforce
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before the Minister makes his statement on the defending democracy taskforce, I would like to make a related statement. Hon. Members will recall that in October 2024 I established a Speaker’s Conference to examine the security of Members, candidates and elections. That cross-party group published two reports: the first in June and the second in October 2025. Together, those reports set out more than 60 recommendations to tackle the serious and wholly unacceptable levels of abuse and intimidation faced by politicians.
The scale of the challenge is clear, and no single body can address it alone. The conference therefore called for action across Government, law enforcement, political parties, traditional and social media, and several other relevant stakeholders. It also recognised Members’ collective responsibility to lead by example in how we treat each other. Responses to both reports have now been published. I notified all Members and Members’ staff of that earlier in the week, so they should have seen them.
I am encouraged by the clear sense of shared purpose and determination to tackle the issues shown by all partners. I thank them for their constructive engagement and positive response to the conference’s work.
Although the conference has concluded its formal work, I remain committed to monitoring progress closely and will continue to press for delivery of its recommendations where necessary. With that, I am pleased to call the Security Minister, who will update the House on the work of the defending democracy taskforce, which includes action that the Government are taking in support of the conference’s recommendations.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
Thank you for your statement, Mr Speaker. With permission, I will make a statement on the work the Government are leading to defend our democracy and those who serve within it, particularly as we approach the local and devolved elections taking place in May.
Twice in the last decade, devoted and beloved Members of this House have been lost to abhorrent acts of violence. Each time I enter the Chamber, my eyes are drawn to the shields dedicated to Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. They are not simply memorials; they are a daily reminder of the duty we owe to one another and to our democracy to ensure that no one is deterred from public service by fear, intimidation or violence. It is in that spirit that I come to the House to set out the challenges we face, what the Government are doing, and to make clear what we will not tolerate.
The work of elected representatives at every level matters. It shapes millions of lives and our country’s future. That is why those entrusted to serve must be able to do so without fear or favour. Free debate and honest disagreement are the lifeblood of democracy, but let me be clear that harassment, intimidation, abuse and violence are not political expression. Today, the volume, breadth and tempo of threats against elected representatives is unprecedented. Colleagues across the House will recognise the grim reality of assaults, vandalism, stalking, blockading and a blizzard of online abuse. This is not theoretical; it affects hon. Members, councillors and candidates, and it affects our families and our staff.
Women and ethnic minority representatives report the highest volumes of abuse, including overtly sexualised and racially charged threats, which have a chilling effect on who feels able to stand for public office. When fear warps debate, when candidates step back and when fewer people from diverse backgrounds feel able to stand, the damage is deep and lasting. That is why this Government treat harassment and intimidation not as an inevitable occupational hazard, but as a serious threat to our democracy itself.
I know that you share that stance, Mr Speaker, and I pay tribute to your leadership, especially through the work of the Speaker’s Conference. Our response is rooted in the defending democracy taskforce, which I chair, working across Government, law enforcement, Parliament, the Electoral Commission and the intelligence community. The mandate of the taskforce, renewed by this Prime Minister, is clear: to tackle the full spectrum of threats to our democracy. That means preventing and deterring harassment, ensuring real consequences when it occurs, and providing proportionate, effective security for everyone who participates in our democratic process.
This is a year-round task, but the upcoming local elections demand that we intensify our focus and, where necessary, go further. Yesterday, I chaired a meeting of the defending democracy taskforce with Ministers from the devolved nations. It was a constructive discussion on strengthening our collective security posture ahead of May. We reaffirmed our readiness to support colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The police are at the forefront of defending democracy efforts, and I thank officers and staff across the country for their dedication and diligence. Ahead of the May elections, we are working with the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to strengthen guidance for frontline officers responding to incidents involving elected representatives. It is essential that the consistency of police response is improved across all force areas, and I welcome the police’s decision to act on the recommendation of your conference, Mr Speaker.
I am pleased to inform the House that Deputy Chief Constable Chris Balmer, from Cambridgeshire police, has been appointed to the role of the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for defending democracy. I have written to the chair of the NPCC and to DCC Balmer to stress the importance of their work to democracy itself. I emphasised the importance of keeping pace with the evolving threat that abuse poses to democracy, and we will be meeting with both shortly.
Every police force now has a dedicated superintendent co-ordinator for Operation Bridger, which handles the protection of Members beyond the parliamentary estate. Through Operation Ford, force elected official advisers at working level exist to support both Members of Parliament and locally elected representatives. I have extended the Operation Ford offer to cover all elected representatives across England, Scotland and Wales, supported by a full-time network of 66 Home Office-funded force elected official advisers. I am also pleased to announce the creation of a new threat assessment centre. This will support Operation Ford by centralising and co-ordinating intelligence nationally for incidents that target locally elected representatives. This function will be live ahead of the local elections.
Where the law fails to provide adequate protection, we will strengthen it. We have seen protests deliberately targeted at private homes, timed to intimidate families and children, and designed to exert pressure through fear. That is why the Crime and Policing Bill introduces a new offence to restrict protests outside the homes of public office holders. Peaceful protest is a cherished right, but the doorstep of a private home is not an appropriate setting for it. In addition, the Representation of the People Bill will introduce a new aggravating factor, empowering courts to hand down longer sentences to reflect the seriousness of crimes committed against those who serve our democracy, whether elected representatives, candidates, their staff, campaigners or electoral officials.
Many Members across this House and beyond have faced sustained online abuse and intimidation. Some have questioned whether to stand again. That is simply unacceptable. Through the Online Safety Act 2023, the UK has established one of the strongest online safety frameworks in the world. Services now have clear legal duties to identify, remove and prevent illegal content, including threats, incitement and non-consensual intimate images, such as explicit deepfakes. As we approach the May elections, the Government will engage directly with major social media platforms to support and inform their election preparedness.
Countering threats to our democracy is a priority for this Government, but I have always believed that this should be a shared endeavour. Therefore, today I am directly appealing to every Member of this House, and to colleagues across local government and the devolved Governments, to play their part. Where we see harassment or intimidation, we must act. Where we experience it, we must report it. I know it can be time consuming but reporting really does matter. The Parliamentary Security Department works closely with the Home Office and the police to assess threats and put protections in place, but it can only do so with accurate information.
Every report, even if the incident is judged to be below the criminal threshold, helps the authorities build a clearer picture of the threat. I urge colleagues: if there is an immediate danger, of course call 999, reference Operation Bridger and use your SOS fob; for non-emergency incidents, report them via 101 or online, again referencing Op Bridger, and inform your Bridger single point of contact. Metro mayors, local councillors and police and crime commissioners should reference Operation Ford, and this will be picked up by the local force elected official adviser.
Let me be equally clear about our message to those who threaten, intimidate or harass those participating in our democracy—and this applies to individuals and groups alike: anonymity is not safety, no one is beyond reach, and whether the offence occurs online or offline, those responsible should expect to be investigated and prosecuted.
We must challenge at every turn the notion that abuse, threats and intimidation are now an inevitability for those working in politics and public life. Across our society we must never become desensitised to rhetoric about harming those who serve in public life. When we hear it or see in our communities, it should be challenged, not shrugged off as some new normal. All of us in this House must also lead by example. Those entrusted with public office set the tone for our national conversation. If we allow abuse to creep into our exchanges, whether in the House or on the campaign trail, we risk normalising behaviour that undermines democratic debate. By leading with civility, even in moments of sharp disagreement, we demonstrate to the country that principled argument can co-exist with mutual respect.
I can inform the House that an extensive programme of work is well under way to ensure the security of the local and devolved nation elections in May. This includes support for returning officers to keep polling stations and count centres secure, alongside expert guidance on personal security and cyber-security for candidates.
History shows us that our democracy is precious, so today, together we should draw a line, declaring with one voice that we will not be deterred from serving the public, and we will never tolerate abuse, threats and intimidation. Together we will confront unacceptable behaviour, hold perpetrators to account, and defend our democratic way of life. In doing so, we honour the words of Jo Cox, who taught us that we
“have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]
Mr Speaker
Can I thank the Minister for his statement and for taking on the recommendations of the Speaker’s Conference? I would like to put on record my thanks to those who served on that conference for all the effort that was put in. I think this is when the House is at its best.
I call the shadow Minister.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Member for that brilliant question. We have to do everything we can to support women entrepreneurs, and it is vital that we look at the challenges we see women facing in a range of sectors. That is why we have work continuing through the Women’s Business Council and why we have the investing in women code, which has been backed by our first female Chancellor. That is also why we want to see the progress of women both in entrepreneurship and in the workplace as a priority. I was proud to attend the 30% Club’s International Women’s Day breakfast this morning in the House.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is sad but true that International Women’s Day rings hollow for far too many women, particularly the three brave women I have just met. They are survivors of Epstein and, for them, important days like that come and go. What is the Minister doing to ensure that we do not just mark important days for women and girls, but give them the protection and justice that they deserve? What is she doing to hold perpetrators such as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to account for not just reports of sharing state secrets, but the trafficking and sexual abuse of women and girls?
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The focus must absolutely be on the victims of these appalling crimes and on putting in place support for women and girls who have faced horrendous violence. Multiple police forces are assessing allegations arising from the Epstein files. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has established a national co-ordination group and appointed a senior investigator to support forces in reviewing the extensive material and progressing the resulting investigations. The senior investigator will work with UK forces, the National Crime Agency, specialists on violence against women and girls, the Crown Prosecution Service and US authorities to ensure a consistent and evidence-led approach.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
It has been almost a year since the Supreme Court ruling, and I come here time after time to ask what progress has been made. I was going to ask today if the Government can confirm that every Department is fully compliant with the ruling, but honestly there is almost no point; we know that the answer is no. In the week of International Women’s Day, is it not the truth that the former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission had a point when she said that the Labour party seems to have “completely abandoned” women’s rights?
Jess Phillips
The hon. Gentleman highlights another incredibly sad case. Of course, I work with the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland—we work very closely with all the devolved Administrations to make sure we are working together to deal with this problem collectively.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Despite incomplete responses from police forces and nothing from Police Scotland, “Healthcare Today” reported back in 2025 that Women’s Rights Network found via freedom of information requests that one in seven sexual crimes committed in hospitals—that is 266—were committed on hospital wards, and that two in five female medical students reported sexual harassment or assault at university. With just 4% charged for these offences, perpetrators are getting away with it, and are surely committing more attacks. Against the backdrop of Labour’s shameful choices on jury trials yesterday—all appalling—when will the Minister and this Government act to protect women on wards?
Jess Phillips
If the hon. Lady were to read the violence against women and girls strategy, she would see that there is a specific section on healthcare workers and workers across the community, specifically targeting the issue of sexual harassment within the NHS. I would also point out to her that the charging rate for sexual crimes fell to a historic low under her Government, and I am very pleased to tell the House that it is now increasing.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
Last month, The Guardian revealed that suicides following domestic abuse may be vastly under-reported, with research in Kent suggesting that they could be 15 times more prevalent. There has been just one manslaughter conviction from such a death in the whole of UK legal history. Liberal Democrats in the other place recently tabled an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, supported by Women’s Aid and Advocacy After Fatal Domestic Abuse, which would require police to investigate suicides as potential homicides where there is a reasonable suspicion of a history of domestic abuse. Given the Government’s reluctance to support that measure, will the Minister commit to making the College of Policing’s published guidance on this matter statutory, so that these cases are properly investigated across all forces?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is right: women often spend years being dismissed, being misdiagnosed, or just not being listened to. That is unacceptable, and we are determined to tackle it. In order to improve early diagnosis of the condition, we continue to roll out community diagnostic centres, and our renewed women’s health strategy, which we will publish soon, will focus on speeding up diagnosis and treatment of both mental health and gynaecological conditions, including endometriosis.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
Within an hour of the Government’s publication of their Islamophobia definition this week, there were calls from within the Labour party for it to be weaponised to stifle free speech, but we know that there have been multiple cases of our public services being too scared of being called Islamophobic to speak freely to save women and girls from serious harm. Can the Minister explain why the Labour party thought it was worth trading the safety of women and girls for their own narrow political interests?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to arrange the meeting that my hon. Friend asks for. Our £1 billion investment in new helicopters is good news for steelmakers in her constituency, and secures thousands of jobs across the United Kingdom. We are making defence an engine for growth and jobs. We are building helicopters, new Typhoons in the north-west and new frigates, and creating a decade of shipbuilding on the Clyde—a Labour Government investing in our armed forces.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Why does the Prime Minister think now is the right time to increase the cost of petrol?
The Prime Minister
Fuel duty is frozen. It is going to remain frozen until September, and we will keep the situation under review in the light of what is happening in Iran. But the most important issue is de-escalating the situation.
I come back to the Leader of the Opposition’s position, because this is one of the most important decisions that a Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition ever has to take: whether to commit your country to war. The day after the initial US-Israeli strikes started, her shadow Foreign Secretary said that the US-Israeli initial attacks were absolutely right and that
“it’s a position my party supports.”
She asked why I have “not actually worked with” America
“to be much more proactive”.
Last Wednesday, the Leader of the Opposition said:
“we are in this war whether they like it or not. What is the Prime Minister waiting for?”—[Official Report, 4 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 803.]
Then yesterday she says, “I never said”—[Interruption.] I know the Conservatives don’t want to hear it. [Interruption.] I wouldn’t want to hear it if I were them. After all that, she says—
Mr Speaker
Order. Enough is enough. I cannot hear it. [Interruption.] Who wants to lead the first ones out? Right. We will have a little bit more silence.
The Prime Minister
After nine days of saying, “Join the war, join the war, join the war”, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition says:
“I never said we should join”,
and
“I haven’t said we should have gone in with the US”.
I will tell you what has happened, Mr Speaker: she and the Reform leader have been spooked, because they realise they have jumped into supporting a war without thinking through the consequences, and now she is furiously trying to back-pedal.
The Prime Minister
We are working across all Departments and with allies to deal with the impact of the conflict in Iran, as the House would expect. If I had asked the Leader of the Opposition last week, her position would have been, “We support the initial strikes and we want to join the war.” This week, she says, “We don’t want to join the war.” I am sorry, but that is a screeching U-turn. Mr Speaker, in this job, you do not get a second shot at making the right call on taking your country to war. If she were Prime Minister, we would be in the war, and she would be coming back to Parliament a week later to say, “Oh, sorry. I got that one wrong.”
Mr Speaker
Order. Order! I am sorry I am interrupting you, but unfortunately we have to stick to Prime Minister’s questions, not Leader of the Opposition’s questions.
Mrs Badenoch
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, “If she were Prime Minister”, but if I were Prime Minister, HMS Dragon would have left a week ago. The only time—[Hon. Members: “More!”] The only time, he has taken decisive action was stopping Andy Burnham standing in the by-election.
Let us talk about what the people out there are worried about. I heard from a builder who has 115 employees using 75 vans. With the jobs tax, sky-high energy bills and now a hike in petrol prices, that builder is having sleepless nights. How does the Prime Minister justify a rise in fuel duty to that small business owner and millions more like him up and down the country?
Mrs Badenoch
Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] Hang on. I think they should wait for it. I have never criticised our armed forces. I have criticised the Prime Minister. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Swallow, you’re going out. I’ve had enough—week in, week out. Either leave now or I will name you.
Mrs Badenoch
I have never criticised our armed forces; I am criticising the Prime Minister and his decisions. Let me remind the House of his record on the armed forces. This is the same man who worked with Phil Shiner, a traitor to this country who made up evidence to put our soldiers in prison for crimes they did not commit. That is his record, so I will not take any lectures from him. By the way, military families in this country are also worried about petrol prices, and he has nothing to say on that.
There is another group of people who have been hammered by this Government: farmers. I spent all last year telling the Prime Minister that his family farm tax was killing British farming. Now, those farmers are being punished with higher fuel prices. Does the Prime Minister think that is fair?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue and I know that it is not only his mum who will be watching, but his constituents whom he serves very, very well. Our supercharger will significantly reduce costs for thousands of major industries. Eligibility for the scheme is being reviewed this year. I can tell my hon. Friend that we are working with the ceramics industry on whether the scheme can be extended to more firms. Under the previous Government, industrial energy prices doubled and over 1,000 jobs were lost in the sector. We will not tolerate that.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for her powerful and courageous speech in the debate on jury trials yesterday—I really hope the Prime Minister was listening.
Thirty years ago this week, a man carried four handguns into Dunblane primary school and murdered a teacher and 16 children. I was deeply moved by the BBC documentary about it last night and by the courage of the parents who campaigned for a ban on handguns to keep other children safe, including Mick North, who lost his five-year-old daughter, Sophie, on that dark day. Mr North has rightly called on the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) to renounce his description of the handgun ban as “ludicrous”—something the hon. Member still refuses to do. Mr North has also called for a review of firearms legislation to close any loopholes. Does the Prime Minister agree?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this matter, because people will be really worried about the impact on them. To reassure households, the cap is in place until the end of June—until July—so that deals with the situation for households. We are working with the sector and others, and with allies, to do everything we can to ensure that energy bills do not rise. We are working around the clock on that. The most important and most effective thing we can do is to work with our allies to find a way to de-escalate the situation.
The right hon. Gentleman is right about the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of Reform. Last week, they were urging us to join—[Interruption.] This is serious. [Interruption.] If they had been leading the country, we would be in a war. They have now come to Parliament to say—
Mr Speaker
Order. Who said “lying” again? I want that withdrawn. Is that withdrawn? [Interruption.] I will deal with it, thank you. I do not want any more from those on the Front Bench. We take this very seriously; calling another Member a liar is not acceptable.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Is it about PMQs? The right hon. Lady did not ask a question, so is it relevant? Points of order come after statements and UQs—[Interruption.] I will make that decision. We now come to the urgent question.
Digital ID: Public Consultation
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her question; the Government look forward to working with her and her Select Committee as we develop these policies. She is absolutely right. We are focusing on building the app and the login system with digital ID, but the big prize in the years ahead is when we can get the old services off the old computers, into the app and working well. I do not underestimate the challenge of that process, but it presents an opportunity for investment and reform that will modernise those systems, deal with those legacy issues around security and the quality of data, and ultimately provide better services to the public. It will take a number of years to do, but I am confident that in the end, it is the only viable route to modern public services in our country.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am grateful to the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. Let us be clear about why we are here. Following collapsing public support, strong opposition from the Liberal Democrats, a petition signed by nearly 3 million people—including over 5,000 of my constituents—and significant unease expressed by Labour MPs, the Government had no choice but to step back from a mandatory scheme. But in the spirit of being a constructive Liberal Opposition, we have some suggestions for the Government if they want this scheme to have any level of public support whatsoever.
First, any digital ID scheme must never be mandatory. People should not be forced to turn over their data simply to go about their daily lives. We cannot and should not turn people into criminals just because someone is unable or unwilling to obtain one. Any scheme must genuinely assure privacy, with very clear legal limits and strong technical protections to prevent misuse or surveillance. Individuals must retain ownership and control of their own data. The data must not be reused, sold or accessed beyond its original purpose.
The Government should also give assurance on the decentralisation of any register. A single point of failure puts the personal details of millions at risk, which is unacceptable. Any scheme must also have a clearly defined purpose set out in law. We could not support a system that extends into different parts of our lives over time, without clear and unequivocal democratic approval.
Robust safeguards are vital. Yes, it is about what this Government want to do, but it is also about what a potential future Government may wish to do with the power such a scheme would present. Can the Chief Secretary confirm that a digital ID scheme will never be mandatory, either for employment or to secure a home in the UK?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I hope to move on at 1.30 pm, because many Members wish to speak in the next debate, so if we could speed up questions and answers, that would be excellent. Ian Lavery will give a good example of a speedy question.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The general public need to be on board with this or it will be a complete and utter failure. When it comes to the most deprived and those who lack the technological abilities to access these systems, what is my right hon. Friend going to do to make sure he can bring people onside, so that this scheme can be a success?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There is a clear and growing concern across the United Kingdom, including with myself and my constituents, regarding digital ID. The general public seek firm assurances about their personal autonomy. The Chief Secretary is a very honourable man and very much liked in this Chamber, but he will know—as you know, Mr Speaker—that Revelation in the Holy Bible refers to the mark of the beast and 666. Is it the mark of the beast that we are looking at, or is it George Orwell’s 1984? I ask that question because 1.5 million people in Northern Ireland—74% of its population—have said that they do not want digital ID. If we do not want it and the people of the United Kingdom do not want it, for goodness’ sake do away with it.
Mr Speaker
Mr Shannon, you kept saying “you”. Am I the devil, or is it the Chief Secretary? [Laughter.]
Darren Jones
May I suggest some of the gospels that might be a little more uplifting for the hon. Gentleman to read, as opposed to the section on Armageddon at the end? I reassure him that the gov.uk app and the digital ID login will be optional. Members of the public can choose to use it if they wish to; if they do not want to, that is entirely up to them. As I have said repeatedly to this House, I am very confident that we will build public services that are quick, easy and simple to use. That will be welcomed by people across the whole of the United Kingdom.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Satvir Kaur)
The issues and delays facing a number of civil servants and pension scheme members in accessing their pensions after a lifetime of service is completely unacceptable. The Government are overseeing a robust recovery plan for the service and are ensuring that support is available to help those impacted. My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has met the chief executive of Capita to set out what the Government expect, and we will do all we can to hold Capita to account to deliver the high standards that people deserve.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
At this year’s summit, the EU and the UK agreed commitments over a wide range of areas, from trade and youth opportunities to security and defence co-operation. We are making good progress on all those areas, but as my hon. Friend says, there is now a forward programme. This Government will not be restricted by ideology. We take a ruthlessly pragmatic approach across different sectors to what is in our national economic interest.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
After at least 15 major U-turns, it is helpful to check which promises the Government still intend to keep. On 22 July 2024, when I asked the Prime Minister whether he could promise that he would not accept the automatic application of EU rules unless they had been specifically approved by this Parliament, he answered simply, “Yes.” Can the Minister say that it is still the Government’s position that we will not be required to adopt new European Union legislation?
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
On his visit to Washington in February last year, the Prime Minister and Peter Mandelson had an undisclosed meeting with US data company Palantir. Palantir at the time was a client of Global Counsel, the company in which Peter Mandelson retained a commanding share. Later that year, Palantir received a direct award for £240 million from this Government. Given the apparent conflict of interests, will the Minister agree to publish full details of that meeting in February last year, and explain why it was not disclosed at the time?
Darren Jones
The Humble Address deals with the matters in question, but I remind the hon. Member that he is asking about the extension of a contract that was awarded under the previous Government. To suggest that it was a new contract that had been in any way related to the meeting is incorrect.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The creation of the Government post of special representative for trade and investment, and the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten- Windsor to that post, raises deeply alarming questions about how previous Governments treated powerful men who abuse their positions. Liberal Democrat Members are proud to have secured the release of all relevant files around that appointment. The Government have told us repeatedly that they support such transparency, so will the Minister set out what deadline has been set for the files to be assembled in accordance with the Humble Address, in order that they be released as soon as police investigations allow, and will he confirm the number of civil servants the Government have allocated to that task?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
My hon. Friend refers to the A127, and I could mention that the A259 in sunny Brighton has the same hold-ups, but we will not dwell on that. He is right that we need to do more to support SME growth and productivity, and to free up opportunity across the country. We have recently changed procurement rules to make sure that more money—and more power as well—is kept in local communities. We will publish further plans soon. I hope that Transport Ministers have heard his point about a new link road.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Yesterday, in the light of the new China spy case, I asked the Security Minister to place China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. He told us that FIRS is “a relatively new tool”, and that the Government
“are seeking to ensure that we can derive the maximum operational capability from it.”—[Official Report, 4 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 817.]
That is wonderful Whitehall language, but will he please tell us what it means?
Alex Burghart
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to return to this subject. It is very clear that the Government do not wish to have an investigation into what happened at the meeting between Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister and Palantir, and everything that occurred between that meeting and the direct award given to Palantir later in the year. This is clearly a possible conflict of interest. Given that the Government do not wish to investigate the matter, what options are at the disposal of the House to force such an investigation?
Mr Speaker
I think you already know. I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. As we all know, he is a very experienced Member of the House, and I know that he has already tabled a written parliamentary question on this matter. I expect Ministers to give a full and frank answer. If he requires further advice on the options available to him, I am happy to pursue this matter with the Clerks and the Table Office, and I am always happy to meet him to see how we can move things forward. I believe the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question will be honest and open. The only other thing I would expect is for it to be an early answer, and for it not to get lost in the system.
China: Foreign Interference Arrests
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks 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.