Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The answer is that they are blank now because they were blank then. The formal decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as the ambassador was conveyed by the Prime Minister’s then principal private secretary in a letter to the Foreign Office. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the empty box notes, and the reason that they are empty is that there was nothing to redact. I hope that is a sufficiently clear answer.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I want to ask about the process of the appointment, rather than the process of the release of the papers, which I think he is about to move on to.

I have previously spoken in this House about the process in the future, and I think the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), has made not-dissimilar comments. Whether we have a future Conservative Government—hopefully—or another Government, we should have pre-appointment scrutiny of senior posts, both ambassadorial appointments and, I would argue, permanent secretaries of Departments. That would be a safer way of doing things.

On senior appointments to the ISC—there are lots of current ISC members present in the Chamber, as well as former members such as myself—the Paymaster General will know that the appointment is made by the Prime Minister, but the double-lock mechanism ensures that the House has a say and can veto appointments if necessary. I am not necessarily asking for that mechanism, but certainly the relevant Select Committee should carry out pre-scrutiny for senior appointments of ambassadors and other senior officials, whether they are political appointees or not. I think that would help the whole House, whatever our politics.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am not hiding from the fact that we have to make changes to the appointments process. Indeed, the Government have changed the process for all direct ministerial appointments to make sure that due diligence and national security vetting have to take place prior to appointment. It is absolutely right that that change was made.

Let me turn to the process. The process that was followed was obviously a significant one in order to publish such a large volume of material. When I was at the Dispatch Box on 4 February, I committed to publishing material in scope of the motion—bar that which the Intelligence and Security Committee agreed would be prejudicial to national security and international relations.

At this point, I want to put on record my thanks to the Committee. Members who were in the House that day might recall that even as I was speaking in the Chamber I was making the case for the involvement of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I know that it was not a small undertaking for the Committee. A huge amount of time has been spent on this, and I am very grateful to the Committee’s members for their very careful and—it looks to me—painstaking work in going through the volume of documentation.

On 4 February, and indeed since, Members have raised a range of issues, and it is absolutely right that the Government are held to account on those. As Members will have seen from the material that was published on Monday, the Government have acted on the House’s request for transparency to an extraordinary extent.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

Yes, I do agree. We have legislated, and we are prepared to go further. I have already made strangulation and suffocation in porn a priority offence under the Online Safety Act. We are determined to ensure that rules about what happens in online pornography are the same as the rules for what happens offline, and we are coming forward with proposals on that. This is something that deeply worries parents across the country. The question is not whether we act but how, and I am determined to use all possible levers to protect children online.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Big tech is a force for good, but so often it is used for bad. Is there not a fundamental conflict of interest for this Government, and even the previous Government, in that big tech companies are so embedded in Government Departments and agencies that the Government are not prepared to take the tough action necessary to protect children and the most vulnerable? Is it not the case that big tech companies are not paying taxes to this country and are avoiding substantive regulation, and that the Government now believe that big tech is too big to fail?

[Liz Kendall]

Not for the first time, and not for the last time, the right hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important issue. He may not be aware that we have made the decisive move to back more British tech companies, because we believe that as artificial intelligence and tech become the engine of economic and hard power, we need more sovereign control.

There are many wonderful examples of technology provided by big tech companies. I have seen that in my own constituency, with AI tutors to help poor kids catch up. We want to make sure that the benefits of technology are felt by everybody in this country, not just a powerful few, and that we shape this powerful technology, so that it works for all. I say to the right hon. Gentleman: watch this space, because there will be more to come.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jo Stevens]

My hon. Friend is right to say that this Labour Government’s more than half-a-billion-pound local growth fund will fuel economic growth in every corner of Wales. It will support people to start and grow their businesses, it will help people to secure new skills and jobs, it will revitalise Welsh communities, and it is a great example of what can be achieved with two Labour Governments working together.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

One way to support growth in Wales, and indeed in Shropshire, is to support the Wrexham, Shropshire & Midland Railway’s open access application to the Office of Rail and Road. Will the Secretary of State make a commitment, similar to that of the Transport Secretary, that the Government will not get in the way of this application and will allow growth in Shropshire, Wales and the border market towns?

[Jo Stevens]

I have to apologise to the right hon. Member. I did not hear the first part of his question, but I am very happy to chat to him afterwards. If he writes to me, I will give him a full answer.

Hatzola Ambulance Attack

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I can give my hon. Friend the reassurances that he seeks, and hopefully the words I have spoken will reassure those in his community about how seriously the Government take these kinds of threats. It is important to say that this must involve a range of different organisations. That is precisely why, in my earlier remarks, I detailed the work taking place in academia, the NHS and local government. We will ensure that wherever there are challenges in this regard, our response is joined up and properly resourced, and that we are clear across Government and across society that this kind of antisemitic behaviour is not acceptable.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The United Kingdom remains one of the most tolerant nations in the world, but social cohesion can never be taken for granted, as the Minister knows. As well as the welcome work to increase security around faith schools and places of worship, what more can the Government do through the Secretary of State for Education to teach all communities that tolerance and respect for all is a fundamental tenet of being British?

The Minister mentions the Bell review. I welcome the £7 million of funding, but the review is looking at schools and colleges, not at universities. A recent report showed that 49% of Jewish students have witnessed glorification of Hamas and Hezbollah on campus. What more can the Minister do to work with universities, not just schools and colleges, to root out antisemitism?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who made important points about social cohesion and, more widely, about the importance of activity that takes place in academia and education. I referenced the £7 million that the Government have previously invested, and I know that the Union of Jewish Students attended the meeting with the Prime Minister earlier today.

I would to like to take this opportunity to commend the extraordinary work of the Holocaust Education Trust—an organisation that many hon. Members will know and will have worked closely with. Let me further reflect on the right hon. Gentleman’s important points.

Middle East

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Can I please urge Members to make their questions significantly shorter? There is still a huge number of Members seeking to catch my eye. I know we are going to have an exemplary performance from Mark Pritchard, with a very short question, please.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

When British children are being bombed in Dubai, and the British military are being attacked in Cyprus, Qatar and Bahrain, why does it seem like the Prime Minister—I hope he will forgive me—is frozen with indecision, entangled in his own legalise, and fretting about his Back Benchers? He is looking to the left in his party as much as to the middle east. He will know that I have supported him time and again on what he has said about foreign policy decisions at the Dispatch Box, but I have to say to him that this is not his finest hour. He is looking very weak, and that is not in our national interest.

[The Prime Minister]

I have been absolutely focused only on British nationals this weekend. That has been the total focus of my attention, and the right hon. Gentleman does himself a disservice by suggesting otherwise.

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address Motion

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Ward]

The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend’s question is that I have no idea. On the second part of her question, and as I have promised the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) twice, we will give a full written reply about the Palantir contract, which concerns the Cabinet Office, as soon as possible.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Public confidence in this process is absolutely vital. Although the Intelligence and Security Committee is fiercely independent, is it not a matter of fact that it is dominated by Labour peers and Labour MPs, and that the Chair is appointed by a Labour Prime Minister? On a point of detail on the Cabinet Office involvement, how will this inquiry avoid a conflict of interests between the Cabinet Office employees who staff the ISC and the Cabinet Office itself? On the legal advice from the Cabinet Office, would that not conflict with the Cabinet’s legal advisers to the ISC? Is it not the case that the Intelligence and Security Committee should have its own budget to recruit its own independent legal advisers, separate from the Cabinet Office?

[Chris Ward]

As I said in the House last week in response to a question from the former Attorney General, full resourcing will be given to the ISC to do that. I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about how we work that through between the two teams. That is being worked out with the ISC and the Cabinet Office at the moment, and I am confident that it can be resolved. He pointed to the political composition of the ISC. I think it is fair to say that no Members of this House would want to imply that the ISC is not impartial, responsible and entirely qualified to do this. It was important that the ISC was included in last week’s motion, and it is important to have that on the record.

Russian Influence on UK Politics and Democracy

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Joe Powell]

I thank my hon. Friend for providing another rich example of the level of infiltration and influence that malign actors have had, including capturing Government contracts and not delivering on their intention. I am sure that Front-Bench Members will have heard her plea for clarity.

Roman Abramovich was sanctioned in March 2022 and had his assets frozen. I am pleased that the Government have extended those sanctions, with 900 new sanctions against individuals, entities and ships under the Russian sanctions regime. In May 2022, Abramovich sold Chelsea football club under an explicit agreement that the sale proceeds would be used for humanitarian need for Ukraine. It is shameful that, after four years, that money has still not been released.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership in issuing a licence in December to release the money within 90 days and a commitment to legal action if necessary. This is not only a case of profound national and international importance, but a test of whether our sanctions have the bite that they should. The Minister has worked closely on that issue and I am keen to hear what plans are in place for 17 March. What legal action can be taken if the money has not been released? Obviously, I hope that all options are kept on the table.

Abramovich’s influence in public life in Britain extends beyond the Chelsea FC money. He is accused by the BBC of avoiding up to £1 billion of tax after a botched attempt to avoid tax on hedge fund investments via shell companies in a British overseas territory, the British Virgin Islands. He deployed some of the best lawyers in the land to attack the journalist Catherine Belton’s book, “Putin’s People”. Specifically, he did so to try to distance his relationship with Vladimir Putin, an egregious example of a strategic lawsuit against public participation —a practice that I hope will be outlawed in this Parliament.

Abramovich is, of course, fighting a legal case in Jersey—a British Crown dependency—where his legal team includes the Conservative shadow Attorney General, Lord Wolfson. Having raised that issue many times in the House in recent weeks, I find the inconsistencies and double standards in the defence of Lord Wolfson astonishing. On the one hand, Conservative shadow Ministers have attacked the Prime Minister and the Attorney General for their former clients, including at Prime Minister’s questions last week. Yet when people have raised the Lord Wolfson case, including at the Solicitor General’s questions last week, Conservative shadow Ministers claimed disgrace. There is a critical difference: those clients represented by the Prime Minister and the Attorney General were not taken on when they were serving in this Parliament.

I agree that everyone, even a sanctioned Russian oligarch, is entitled to legal representation, but it is surely a massive conflict of interest for a sitting peer—the top legal adviser to the Conservative party—to think that it is compatible to do both of those jobs at the same time. Sir Bill Browder himself, the man who spearheaded the global campaign for Magnitsky sanctions, which are named after his lawyer who was killed by Putin’s henchmen, asked how the shadow Attorney General can

“moonlight as the attorney for a Russian oligarch who is trying to wiggle out of a £2.5 billion deal to aid victims of the war in Ukraine that he made with the UK government? Back in the day that was called a ‘conflict of interest’.”

Sir Bill is absolutely correct.

The Conservative position is that Lord Wolfson has recused himself from advising the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), and shadow Ministers on Russia and Ukraine, but on the day that the Conservative spokesperson made those comments to the lobby—not in the House, but to the lobby—Lord Wolfson published a letter that made no mention of such recusal. Is that not strange? Could we hypothesise that on that day, things were just being made up as they went along? A man of Lord Wolfson’s experience surely knows that a formal recusal must be more detailed than a Conservative spokesperson’s lobby briefing. I ask again, as I have done in the House: does the recusal include efforts to tackle the Russian shadow fleet, including the action taken with allies recently? Does it include sanctions policy? Does it include sanctions enforcement? Does it include tax policy? Does it include NATO policy? Does it include policies on money in politics?

The point is that the shadow Attorney General is representing someone with extremely close ties to Vladimir Putin at a time when Russia is attacking our country through hybrid warfare. I do not think that an unspecified recusal of which we have no detail is anywhere near sufficient to satisfy this House. I urge Lord Wolfson to reflect and make a choice, given that it appears that the Leader of the Opposition has proven too weak to do so. He can either continue to be shadow Attorney General or continue his representation of Abramovich. Doing both is simply indefensible.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I am sure everybody is aware, but I remind colleagues that if they are to mention another Member of Parliament, that Member has to be notified in advance. With respect to the House of Lords and peers, Members should refrain from direct criticism. I do not think I have heard that yet, and I have taken advice, but I remind colleagues to be aware of that.

Storm Goretti

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the points she raises. I am concerned to hear about the situation in her constituency. To ensure that she gets the best response and support from the Government, let me confirm whether it is a matter for DEFRA or for the Cabinet Office. I will then ensure that she gets a meeting with the most appropriate Minister.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Will the Minister join me in putting on record my thanks to West Mercia police, Shropshire Fire and Rescue Service, West Midlands ambulance service and all the local government officers at Telford and Wrekin council and Shropshire council who helped? At its peak, 10,000 homes were without power. Currently, there are 200 homes throughout the county of Shropshire, some in my constituency, still without power. Will he urge his officials to press National Grid to do far more, and to ensure that it is part of the generator scheme? He will know that many trees have fallen in many storms over many years, but this time there was a particular issue with trees falling throughout Shropshire. In high winds and heavy snow, they blocked the M54 for a large part of the storm and they blocked the main railway line into Birmingham. This might seem a minor point, but could we have a review of the number of chainsaws and the number of people available to operate them at Network Rail, Highways England and National Grid?

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman made a significant number of very good and constructive points, including one about chainsaws. I am told that work has taken place to look at the number of chainsaws, so the Government are looking at that, working with partners. Let me join him in paying tribute to the organisations he listed, including West Mercia police, the fire and rescue services, and other local services that have been involved in the recovery effort. They do sterling work, they are the best of us, and I join him in paying tribute to them. He always takes the opportunity to raise a number of good and considered points. I will look very carefully at them and, as he knows, I am always very happy to discuss them with him, as is the Minister for Energy, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), who was also listening intently to what he had to say.

Dawn Sturgess Inquiry

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for the very sensible and constructive nature of his remarks. I recognise his service as a Wiltshire MP and his obvious constituency interest in this matter. I also genuinely welcome his condemnation of the treachery that we have seen recently, and I am glad that he made that point. He raises a sensible and constructive point with regard to the NHS, and I can give him the assurances that he seeks regarding the Government’s attention to these matters. One of the reasons why the Prime Minister took the machinery of Government change back in September to ensure that I, as Security Minister, sit across both the Home Office and the Cabinet Office was to maximise the leverage and co-ordination across Government with regard not only to national security policy, but to our resilience, and we have recently undertaken the largest ever resilience exercise across Government. He is right to raise that point. I give him an assurance of the seriousness with which we take these matters. We will, of course, look very carefully at the report’s recommendations in that regard. I am grateful to him for his comments today.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The number of Russian spies operating in the UK is the highest it has been since the cold war—not my words but those of the head of Counter Terrorism Policing. I welcome the sanctions today on the GRU, but the Security Minister will know that the United Kingdom is probably regarded as Russia’s No. 1 enemy—not the United States but the United Kingdom. He will also know that there are other agencies that are operating internationally and have an international footprint, such as the FSB and SVR. While noting and recognising the importance of, shall we say, diplomatic reciprocity, what more can be done, to quote him, to have a “hard operating environment” for both those agencies? Are other Russian political dissidents safe here in the United Kingdom?

Finally, on the proliferation of chemical weapons, we know that a chemical agent and a nuclear agent were used in some of the cases outlined today, so given the breakdown in many countries and the security around chemical weapons in those countries—whether in Africa or other parts of the world—how confident is the Minister that the security services are aware of where those chemical weapons might be and where they might be tempted to be deployed?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am, as always, grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the expertise and experience that he brings to these matters, not least given his very long-standing service on two relevant Committees in this place. He mentioned Counter Terrorism Policing. Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work that they do. I have a very good and close working relationship with CTP. They do extraordinary work and it is a privilege to stand alongside them. They are exceptional in the work that they do.

It is in part a symptom of the work that the previous Government and this Government have done to make the UK the hardest possible operating environment that increasingly Russia and other malign states are seeking to use criminal proxies to do their bidding and business in the United Kingdom. There is a lot of work taking place, not only across Government but with our allies in Europe, who we are working very closely with, and further afield to ensure that we are best placed to target malign states that are using criminal proxies. The director general of MI5 referenced that in his recent annual lecture on the threats we face.

On the right hon. Member’s point about the UK being a hard target, he will understand better than most that I am very limited in what I can say about that, and that it would be unwise to give detail that would be helpful to our adversaries. However, I can give him an assurance of the seriousness with which we take these matters. He raised an important point about dissidents. It is an issue that I keep under very close review. We make sure that we have the right mechanisms in place to provide security.

The right hon. Member’s point about chemical weapons was well made. We work very closely with our international allies to ensure that we are doing everything that we can to minimise the risk and threat. It is not easy work, and there are no guarantees of its success, but I give an assurance of the seriousness with which we take it. Our approach is to work closely with our allies.

Official Secrets Act and Espionage

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s assessment of the work of the Joint Committee. She is right to say it is a great example of the work of a Select Committee that has constructively contributed a very significant amount of useful information that the Government will now consider in great detail.

My hon. Friend’s second point is about the creation of another Select Committee, and she will understand that that is above my pay grade. I gently point to the fact that the Government want to have a very good, close and constructive relationship with the ISC. It will be for the ISC to take a view, but that may provide a forum for further parliamentary scrutiny of those matters.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Although I have huge respect for the Security Minister and, indeed, for the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) and the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy Committee—I sat on that Committee for five years—is it not the case that this statement actually raises more questions? It is not case closed, as there are questions that are still outstanding. That is because the weakness here is that the Joint Committee does not have access to classified material; only the Intelligence and Security Committee does. Having sat on both Committees, I know there is a stark contrast between the types of witnesses who can be called and what the witnesses can actually say. Given the earlier question, will the Minister now commit to review the memorandum of understanding with the Intelligence and Security Committee to ensure that the right questions can be asked of the right Committee at the right time, so that we can have some definitive conclusions on this whole saga?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the experience that he brings to this House, not least because he has sat on both the Committees to which we have been referring. I slightly take issue with his assessment of what the report does, because the Government are very clear that it emphasises the key arguments that we have been bringing forward over the last couple of weeks.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, he has raised the MOU previously. It is an entirely reasonable point for him to raise, both publicly and privately. Let me take it away and come back to him.