Oral Answers to Questions

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jo Stevens]

I am really surprised that the hon. Member has raised the expansion of the Senedd, because the accepted rationale of those who support the expansion is that it was necessary to improve scrutiny of the Welsh Government. What a terrible indictment that is of the inadequate performance of her party, whose job it has been, as the Opposition in the Senedd for the past 27 years, to carry out that scrutiny.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Families in Wales under Labour are struggling, with inflation in bills, wages flatlining and childcare costs higher than anywhere else in the UK. Plaid Cymru’s universal childcare offer would be a game changer. With full roll-out, that universal offer will be worth more than £30,000 a child, and it has been independently assessed as affordable and deliverable. Does the Secretary of State recognise how Labour’s chronic lack of ambition is keeping families in Wales in poverty?

[Jo Stevens]

Plaid’s manifesto, and specifically the childcare policy to which the right hon. Lady refers, exposes the fact that Plaid is not on the side of working people in Wales and is not serious about tackling the cost of living. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has been clear that Plaid would have to make spending cuts or raise taxes to pay for its unfunded manifesto pledges. When families are dealing with the cost of living, Plaid will be hiking taxes and slashing spending on child poverty, which will make families worse off. Families in Wales deserve better than a manifesto of economic fiction.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

The Secretary of State’s tight-lipped quibbling is just an excuse—a shadow of an apology for what her party has failed to do, having been in power for the past 27 years. It is no surprise to anybody that voters are ready for a change. Last night’s YouGov poll shows that Plaid Cymru and Reform UK are neck and neck in Wales, with Labour trailing far behind. Will she accept that a vote for Labour on 7 May risks handing power to Reform UK, which will wreck our NHS? Will she recognise that only Plaid Cymru can stop that?

[Jo Stevens]

The answer to that question is no.

Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Ballinger]

Sir Olly Robbins will have an opportunity to account for himself, but he gave a very good account of himself at the Committee this morning, and it is not for me to make that judgment.

I can think of several good reasons why the FCDO and the MOD might need to use that discretion in the future. I am also really concerned that details about Peter Mandelson’s vetting were leaked to the press in September. Even considering Peter Mandelson’s misconduct, the integrity of that process is really important, and Sir Olly also raised concerns about that issue.

I hope that the reviews announced by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister the other day will look at the leaks to the press, because it is unacceptable that such vital personal information about the vetting process has been released in that way. Most importantly, Sir Olly’s evidence rubbishes some of the accusations that Members made in the House and, indeed, in the media yesterday that questioned the Prime Minister’s honesty about the situation, because he categorically ruled out any suggestion that the Prime Minister knew anything about it, for good reason. The Members who made those accusations and were rightly thrown out of the House should correct the record and apologise.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Alex Ballinger]

I will take one more intervention, and then I will finish.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is important that the hon. Member winds up, because I said seven minutes, and he has now taken 10 minutes.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Does the hon. Member realise that to people outside, this argument—these fine details of process—morphs into a defence of ignorance and then into a defence of incompetency? That is actually doing the Prime Minister as much harm as all these arguments about his honesty.

[Alex Ballinger]

We have heard real concerns about the process, and I am glad that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has announced reviews into that process, because we really need to make sure we get it right in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Yesterday the Prime Minister apologised to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, but where was that sense of responsibility when he made the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson? Where was that sense of responsibility when he actively chose to ignore information that was already in the public domain?

This morning, the Energy Secretary said,

“Prime Ministers make errors. Prime Ministers are fallible. Prime Ministers are human”,

but I am struggling to understand how the gravity of the misjudgment in this political appointment can be explained away by simple human error. This was not a split-second judgment or a decision made of urgent necessity under pressure in the heat of the moment; instead, it was a deliberate, considered political appointment made in full knowledge of the political priorities involved. Morgan McSweeney even swore it through.

What is more, Government Members were given lines to take yesterday, prompting them to quote a victim of Epstein in defence of the Prime Minister. The suffering of Epstein’s victims was of no consequence to the Government when Mandelson was appointed; they weighed it in the scales and found which side they wanted to come down on.

In truth, it is thanks to the bravery of victims such as Virginia Giuffre that Epstein’s crimes are even in the public domain. Her sister-in-law, Amanda Roberts, said this of Mandelson’s sacking last year:

“Our governments have allowed these people to hold their status and their title without shame…It’s unfair we continuously pull these skeletons out, that survivors have to continuously point the finger for us to do the right thing.”

These were women and children who were trafficked and abused by a network of men who acted with the confidence that they were untouchable—too powerful to be challenged and too protected ever to be brought down. It truly raises the uncomfortable question of whether Peter Mandelson’s familiarity with that world was treated as a skillset rather than a red flag. Was he chosen precisely because he was comfortable rubbing shoulders with the sort of men who shared private jets with Epstein, rather than in spite of it? How can the Prime Minister now express sympathy for the victims of crimes committed by a man whose closest associate he chose to elevate? How can he claim to share their pain when he made the very decision that caused them such distress?

Just this morning, Sir Olly Robbins told the Foreign Affairs Committee that Downing Street asked the Foreign Office to find a senior diplomatic role for the Prime Minister’s then communications chief, Matt Doyle, even though Doyle had campaigned for a friend charged with possessing indecent images of children. This is the Government who promised to turn the page on Tory sleaze and restore trust and integrity to British politics; instead, the Prime Minister pressured the civil service not once but twice to appoint friends of known sex offenders to senior diplomatic roles.

In closing, the facts were known, the associations were known and the public record was clear. This was a public decision. It was a wrong decision of such magnitude that the only conclusion will be to end the Starmer Administration, and that will happen when the Labour party decides to do so, because it is the Labour party’s responsibility.

Security Vetting

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I do agree with that. That is why this information could and should have been shared with me at the first opportunity—and that was before Peter Mandelson took up his post as ambassador.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The Prime Minister is hiding behind a thicket of legalese and procedure, but he has a track record of appointing Labour’s most favoured sons and daughters to plum Government jobs and into the House of Lords. In Wales, we know all about Labour’s crony culture—who could forget UK Labour’s favourite First Minister, Vaughan Gething, who was propped up by No. 10 in spite of dodgy donations and is now tipped for a peerage? On the timing, how will the Prime Minister explain to his party his role in bringing down Labour’s century of dominance in Wales in the forthcoming elections?

[The Prime Minister]

I am addressing the question about the process in relation to Peter Mandelson. I have set that out in some detail to the House and answered a number of questions.

Hatzola Ambulance Attack

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I completely understand that many members of the Jewish community are living their lives under the threat of the kind of activities that we saw this morning, but I hope that nobody here thinks that that is remotely acceptable. That is why we all have a responsibility to redouble our efforts and ensure that not only are we seeking to provide that reassurance, but more practically, we are putting in place the right laws and powers and ensuring that we have the right resource to take on that threat.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

My thoughts are with the Jewish community in north London. There is something particularly abhorrent about the destruction of ambulances, and actions motivated by extreme hatred must be condemned. No one anywhere should be made to feel at risk because of their race or religion. How are risks to the wider Jewish community, particularly those communities that are perhaps scattered or individual families or even individuals, being assessed at present—this is of course relevant to Wales—because so many people feel at risk?

[Dan Jarvis]

I completely agree with the right hon. Member. It is beyond abhorrent that anyone would seek to target ambulances providing an extremely important and valuable public service in the way that we have seen this morning. She is also right to make the wider point about ensuring that no community is left behind. While the attack this morning has taken place in London, as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, we saw a terrible terrorist attack take place in Greater Manchester last October. Wherever we have Jewish communities in our country, we need to ensure that the police and the range of other organisations provide the support that is obviously now required.

Points of Order

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I hope that satisfies the hon. Member, otherwise he can obviously pursue this further.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Has the Speaker received any notice of a statement from the Government following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) to the Prime Minister this morning regarding the contents of a memo from the Prime Minister to Cabinet members advising them to disregard opposition from devolved Governments to direct interventions by Westminster Ministers. Can you advise me how the long-standing Sewel convention, which enshrines the protocol that Westminster Governments do not intervene in devolved matters in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, has been respected in this matter, and can you direct me to which bin this has been filed by the Government?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. I have received no such indication from the Government—

Oral Answers to Questions

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue. I know there are strong views, and I acknowledge her personal connection, which shows how serious the issues are. It is a matter of conscience. It is for Parliament to decide the passage of the legislation and any changes. Scrutiny is a matter for the other place. We have a responsibility to make sure any legislation is workable, effective and enforceable.

[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.

China: Foreign Interference Arrests

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

It is a source of concern that two of the three men were arrested in Wales, and that they have close associations with the Labour party. Given that the Senedd goes to the polls in just over two months—in the shadow, of course, of the Nathan Gill scandal—what support will be given to the Electoral Commission to ensure that there are sufficient resources to safeguard those elections against the growing threat of foreign interference?

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Member is right to raise the importance of the work done by the Electoral Commission. It is a key member of the defending democracy taskforce, and we work closely to ensure that it has the powers it needs to do the difficult job asked of it. She will obviously understand that the Rycroft review and the Representation of the People Bill will not provide legislative change in advance of elections that are taking place in May. That is precisely why we are working closely with the devolved institutions, and we will be having further contact with them over the coming weeks, to ensure that the important elections that are taking place around the country in May do so in a fair and free environment. That is what we all want to see.

Middle East

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

No one here is an apologist for the cruel Iranian regime, but the escalation initiated by the US Administration and the Israeli Government is illegal, and I am certain that the Prime Minister knows this. Hundreds of thousands of UK citizens are directly affected and at risk, and they include people from Dwyfor Meirionnydd. While there must be questions anon about a vote in this House as we fear that these defensive actions will slide into offensive ones, but we do not know how we will track that process. None the less, the question for today that people want us to ask is this: when will people be coming home, especially from Doha and Dubai?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that the right hon. Lady’s constituents, and all our constituents, will be very concerned, particularly since there are 300,000 British nationals in the region. We want to make sure that the answer to her question is that we will get them home as quickly and as safely as we can, and we are working with our regional allies on this as we speak.

Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

The investigation that the Government are conducting in relation to the Minister is independent. The ethics adviser is independent, as I have alluded to a number of times. The independent ethics adviser is able to look at the ministerial code as well as the circumstances in relation to the questions put to him, and his advice will make reference to that when he comes to advise the Prime Minister. I know that the hon. Member will be disappointed by this, but the Government cannot instigate an investigation into a private organisation unless there is a legal basis to do so. It is a question for the board of Labour Together whether they wish to undertake any work on the allegations that have been made in the media.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

There are real concerns that non-state actors, such as the commercial public relations organisation APCO and possibly Palantir Technologies, are selling services to carry out surveillance with the purpose of smearing journalists in the United Kingdom. If the Government are not just uttering polite, meaningless words about protecting journalists, surely we now need an independent investigation so that we can move beyond process and look at how to regulate such non-state actors?

[Darren Jones]

I am afraid that I do not know the veracity of the right hon. Lady’s allegations, but I share her concern. If that were to be true, it would clearly be unwelcome in the United Kingdom. If laws and regulations need to be updated to prevent that from happening, then of course this House should consider them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue, and confirm that we are looking at how we can strengthen the support in place for these children, so that no child falls between the cracks. Free breakfast clubs mean that every child is fed and ready to learn. I am delighted to see that there are three more in her constituency, as she says. I also want to mention Rushbrook primary academy, Oasis Academy Aspinal, Longsight community primary and St Bernard’s Roman Catholic primary school, Manchester. All will soon be operating free breakfast clubs in Gorton and Denton.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The victims and survivors of Epstein and his circle of the over-privileged elite are at the forefront of my mind here and now. Mandelson, we now know, described Epstein’s release from prison after he was sentenced for child sex offences as “Liberation day”. This man’s association with Epstein was known when the Prime Minister personally appointed him as the UK’s ambassador to the USA. How can we trust the Prime Minister’s judgment, and if we question that, how can we trust him enough for him to remain Prime Minister?

[The Prime Minister]

Can I join in the right hon. Lady’s disgust at the comments she just read out? To be absolutely clear, the scale and the extent of the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein was not disclosed—on the contrary. It was not just not disclosed; Mandelson lied throughout the process and beyond the process. He lied, he lied, and he lied again to my team.