Preparedness for National Emergencies

Matt Western Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Graeme Downie]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct: we need to ensure that we are preparing for all these eventualities, regardless of what causes them—I believe that individual case was caused by one driver shortage. The need to plan and have contingencies in place is vital.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Last year was monumental in terms of the number of events suffered in the UK and internationally; think about the economic damage to Jaguar Land Rover and Marks & Spencer, and there were power outages across Spain and Portugal for 10 hours. There is a real need for wider resilience. Certain other countries have made further progress on the issue, ensuring that each individual has, say, a “go bag” that will give them seven days’ provisions to ensure that they survive any natural catastrophe or other such event.

[Graeme Downie]

I am about to go on to that point; I will mention the need for resilience to be across Departments and involve the public.

The impact of these events is often not immediately dramatic but gradual, cumulative and enduring. One crisis flows into another, as I am sure Ministers feel every day. We must think of preparedness as being not just for an event but for a different type of world altogether. In that context, I refer to article 3 of the North Atlantic treaty, which is often overlooked but is highly relevant. It puts a duty on nations to maintain and develop their capacity to resist attack through continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid. Article 3 refers to an armed attack, but I believe that in the unstable world we live in we should read that in the broadest possible terms. Attacks no longer happen instantaneously, as they did when NATO was created, and neither do they come just from other states.

Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Any cases that are clearly a real risk to national security should alarm everyone around this House. I think back to some of the questions that I put to then Prime Minister Johnson, as you will recall, Mr Speaker, about his relationship with Alexander Lebedev, for example. We have heard about the case of Oleg Deripaska with George Osborne and Peter Mandelson, as well as other characters, which is deeply concerning.

Let me land on a point about the non-corporate communication channels and IT systems. I am delighted to hear that the Government are reviewing those, but this is a matter of urgency, because it has become the norm for civil servants and those in Government, including in previous Governments, to use the likes of WhatsApp as the normal operating system. When will that review be published?

[Darren Jones]

The first part of my hon. Friend’s question goes to the point I made in my statement about the importance of allowing the developed vetting interviews to be fully confidential. We need to ensure that when people join the Government and undertake a DV interview, they are fully transparent with the Government about any relationships they have with individuals. Turning to the review of non-corporate communications channels, I hope to be able to announce its terms of reference very shortly.

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

Matt Western Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

My first concern is about the number of WhatsApp and other channels that have been used for very informal but important communications between officials and Ministers—a practice that seems to have started very actively under the Johnson Government and continued thereafter. My second concern is about the use of low-level IT systems for quite serious documents of record. Can the Minister update the House on what is being done to tighten up those important channels?

[Darren Jones]

I share those concerns as well as similar concerns that have been raised by the Intelligence and Security Committee, not only about the extensive use of what we call non-corporate communications channels but about information that should have been on a higher level of classification that was shared at “official sensitive”. I have already announced to the House the imminent start of a review of the use of non-corporate communications channels, and I shall be taking further action to ensure that sensitive information is shared at the appropriate classification.

Debate on the Address

Matt Western Excerpts

Wednesday 13th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). I agree with the point he made about representing all our constituents, whether they vote for us or not.

I thank His Majesty for the Gracious Speech earlier, and I place on record my massive appreciation for the speech given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah). I think Members from all parts of the House would agree that it was a truly inspirational and uplifting speech. Likewise, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for his typically amusing but informative speech. May I say just how well he represents the good people of Harlow?

In the last parliamentary Session the Government passed 50 pieces of legislation, including the Employment Rights Act 2025 and the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. We banned no-fault evictions, and brought four rail companies into public ownership. While we were doing all that and introducing much more legislation, we increased the minimum wage above inflation, reduced the number of children in poverty by 450,000, and brought NHS waiting lists down by 500,000. So much has been done, but people would not realise that from reading the papers or listening to the media. Let me just add that we also launched 676 family hubs across England, which are hugely welcome following the loss of the children’s and family centres that we had before.

I welcome the King’s Speech. It recognises the dangerous world in which we live, and the necessity of building security and resilience throughout our lives. I welcome the emphasis on security—economic, national, energy and defence—as well as the reform and renewal of public services: the NHS, the police, justice, immigration systems and, indeed, water. It also proposes long-term investment in housing and to strengthen infrastructure. It mentions 37 Bills that will improve the country in the long term. I was encouraged by the Prime Minister’s announcement about British Steel in Scunthorpe and by the legislation to be introduced for its nationalisation, which shows real ambition on the Government’s part; I hope it is an indication of where we will go in the future.

The Prime Minister referred widely to the status quo today, so perhaps I can start with how I think we got here. Let us first think back to nearly 20 years ago, and the 2008 global financial crash. That was followed by austerity, which I believe was the wrong political decision, and subsequently by the EU referendum; and then, of course, we had the pandemic. All those elements have contributed to a stasis in the UK economy. Let us now think back to what we had in the run-up to 2010, when the economy was beginning to emerge from the global financial crash, before the move to austerity frustrated the nascent growth in our economy. Austerity meant that investment was cut while interest rates were at record lows. Any investor worth his or her salt would have been investing in this country, in infrastructure, when we had interest rates at 0.5%. If I had had the money I would have been investing it, and that is certainly what the Government of the time should have been doing. When we look at the infrastructure today, after 14 years of austerity, we can see the cracks, and they are not just in the roads or the schools and hospitals.

Let me now say something about what happened to the economy following Brexit. UK in a Changing Europe has said:

“By 2025, we estimate that UK GDP per capita was 6-8% lower than it would have been without Brexit. Investment was 12-18% lower, employment 3-4% lower, and productivity 3-4% lower.”

Between 2009-10 and 2024, incomes grew by just 0.5% a year on average, or 7% over the whole 14-year period. Income growth over the 14 years prior to 2009-10 was more than five times as strong, at 38%. We can see the huge loss in real earnings that was suffered by citizens—by our workforce—as a result of austerity and then Brexit. According to the Office for National Statistics, average UK real household income has remained broadly unchanged between 2007 and 2022.

This has left the UK woefully unprepared to deal with the crisis that we face in a more dangerous world. War is raging in Europe and the middle east. The Iran war is forecast to cause a decline in employment of 0.4%, with construction and manufacturing the worst hit. J.P. Morgan has predicted that the price of Brent crude will average $96 per barrel throughout 2026, so there is no respite on the horizon when it comes to oil prices and, of course, the contribution that they make to all our costs, to the cost of living and to the economy.

Despite all that, we saw growth return when the Labour party returned to government in 2024 and through to the beginning of this year, and there was optimism. Consumer confidence was returning and business investment was improving, but then we got hit by the Iran war. Given the constraints of what is going on globally, the Government’s push to build closer relationships with Europe is so important. As I understand it, the legislation that is being proposed will see the introduction of a dynamic alignment mechanism to reduce trade friction and the burdens on business.

As I said, because of Brexit, UK GDP is now 6% to 8% lower than it would have been by last year, and employment and productivity are both around 4% lower. What is essential is that the partnership Bill will aim to reduce costs for businesses, and to increase trade and co-operation, and it will ultimately be better for consumers. Given that the EU accounts for 42% of UK exports, with automotive accounting for £29 billion of exports, the EU is a massive market for my constituency of Warwick and Leamington, which has a very large automotive presence. We have to think about the Bill in the wider sense of partnership through broader legislation, international law and maritime law, but as others have said, we also need to recognise how important some of the proposals are, particularly on the Erasmus programme and the benefits that it will bring to young people.

The energy independence Bill will be important to our resilience. We need to move our economy away from fossil fuel dependency, and setting more ambition on energy infrastructure and generation will improve our resilience. That is important for my constituency, and not just because National Grid is headquartered there and we have a major Siemens Energy operation, although they will clearly be beneficiaries of the ambitions that the Government are setting out on increasing grid capacity and the adoption of clean energy technologies. It is vital that we reduce our dependency and avoid external shocks, as we have seen most recently with the Iran war and over the last four years or so as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. That is really important not just for wider society but for businesses, because we have traditionally had such high energy costs.

The Government are looking to introduce a small business protection Bill, which will have a particular emphasis on late payments. I commend the Federation of Small Businesses for the work that it has done for many years on this front. Late payments cost the UK economy £11 billion per year and cause 14,000 businesses to close annually. The introduction of the Bill is fantastic news, and I really welcome it.

I am also impressed by what I am hearing about the SEND reform Bill. I held a roundtable on 5 September last year, where I listened to practitioners and families talking about their lived experiences and what we needed to do. I am encouraged by the proposals, including on the delivery of integrated SEND partnerships and tiered support models. The critical thing is that we should reduce waiting times and improve the quality of service that families currently experience.

I want to talk about the impact of cyber-attacks and cyber-security on businesses, which we have heard about. In the last year, we have seen significant impacts. The attacks on Jaguar Land Rover cost around £2 billion. They hit not just Jaguar Land Rover, but the UK economy. A year ago, Marks & Spencer and the Co-op were hit too. As we have heard, the number of attacks that we are suffering is huge. We are the third most cyber-attacked nation in the world, and the most cyber-attacked in Europe, and it is really important that the Government get to grips with it. The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, on which I sit, has identified this as a really important area for the Government to address.

In a similar vein, on defence and security, I welcome the Government’s comments in the King’s Speech. It is vital that we get the defence investment plan. I hope that, through bonds or an investment bank, we can get this plan going and get it the funding it desperately needs. We need to improve our security and increase our spend, but we also need to develop our sovereign capacity, with the fantastic businesses and partnerships that this country offers, with others, in some of the new spheres of defence.

On the Representation of the People Bill, I think the legislation that has been put forward is really encouraging. I have tabled some amendments to it, and I hope that we can create a very comprehensive piece of legislation, because democracy—not just here in the UK, but of course across the world—is under threat. It is really vital that we tighten up the Bill and put in protections to ensure that our democracy, which is a fragile thing, is defended.

I welcome the water reforms that the Government have been talking about. In my constituency, the River Avon and the River Leam are badly polluted as a result of the discharges made by Severn Trent Water. Through some of the proposals being made, including for the new integrated water regulator, I hope we will see such changes and a tightening up of the regulations.

I want to talk about the Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Bill. I understand that the expected provisions will cap ground rents at £250, reform the commonhold system and bring an end to forfeiture. This is so important because, on so many of the new estates built in recent years, so many residents are angry about what they have been mis-sold, as they see it, in buying those new properties.

More widely, on digital ID, I disagree with the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). We should seize this huge opportunity, as so many other nations have done, because of the advantages that digital ID is bringing. Ultimately, it has to be a good thing. The Northern Powerhouse Rail Bill is so important for rebalancing our country. Yes, the tourist tax is a good thing, but I hope the Government will also look at introducing a VAT break for tourists in this country, because at the moment we are losing tourists to other countries where they do get VAT breaks, and that is impacting on our tourism sector. I welcome the ban on conversion therapy practices and the private hire legislation being considered.

As the Prime Minister said earlier, UK economy and society have not been adequately prepared and are not resilient enough. We cannot continue with the status quo. We have to reform our systems and structures. We need to address reform in the NHS, and in our energy systems and water utility infrastructure. We must also hold the cost of living as the fundamentally central issue of the time, because that is what is really hurting so many of our residents, but also our businesses.

Last week’s elections really showed that there is impatience across the country—people believe that the system is not working for them—and we need to show greater urgency in the work being done. Once more, we are in yet another global economic and political crisis, after so many of them, as I illustrated earlier in my speech. We have two wars, but we have the social and security challenges more widely, so we have to seize the moment. We have to demand boldness of the Government and a more radical approach if we are indeed to build a better society, and I stress that we must do so as a matter of urgency.

Ernest Bevin

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Ernest Bevin was a Bristol barrow boy who became our Foreign Secretary. In between, he became not just a trade union leader, but the head of the largest union in the country. He then went on to play a vital role in the wartime cabinet as Minister of Labour. A titan of the labour movement, some suggest that he was Labour’s Churchill.

In this debate, to mark the 75th anniversary of his death a fortnight ago, I will examine his achievements and their relevance today. Bevin’s accomplishments are made only more impressive by his humble beginnings. Born into great poverty in a remote Somerset village, he was orphaned at eight and began working as a labourer at 11, then as a delivery lad on the streets of Bristol. In his 20s, he attended lectures at the Bristol adult school and the Workers Educational Association, beginning his lifelong commitment to education. Soon after, he would become the national organiser for the Dock, Wharf, Riverside and General Labourers’ union.

That informal education, and his life experience, made Bevin a formidable political operator. In 1922, alongside 13 other unions, Bevin led the formation of the Transport and General Workers’ Union. The amalgamation conference was held in Leamington Spa.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

On the eve of International Workers’ Memorial Day, this debate is highly appropriate. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as trade unionists and parliamentarians, we should commemorate that day tomorrow?

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we should commemorate that day.

At the time of that amalgamation, the membership stood at 300,000 workers, but in just 15 years, Bevin would lead it to becoming the largest union in the country, with over 650,000 members. During that time as trade union leader, Bevin accelerated the rights, conditions and pay of the working class. His achievements included the introduction of a 40-hour working week, expanding holiday pay to 11 million workers and redefining the relationship between unions, Government and industry. Bevin truly was a visionary and a moderniser of industrial relations and left his mark on the UK’s political economy long after his tenure.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. My Strangford constituency has a very proud military and industrial heritage. I believe Bevin’s role in founding NATO and his unwavering support for a strategic nuclear deterrent are just as vital to his legacy. Does the hon. Member agree that Bevin’s common sense, patriotic approach is something that all of us, on both sides of this House, stand to learn from today, especially when it comes to supporting our veterans and of course our national defence?

[Matt Western]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Bevin was a really significant figure and one of the most underestimated by history in terms of what he achieved for this country. He once said:

“I’m going to be at the Ministry of Labour from 1940 until 1990”,

and he would be proved right. It was not until Margaret Thatcher that certain of these rights would be removed, and as a union leader he was ambitious for change and saw the opportunity to be an MP and would prove a staunch ally to Clem Attlee.

Bevin’s abilities caught the eye, too, of Winston Churchill. In 1940, under the coalition Government and despite their previous battles, Churchill insisted on appointing Bevin to Minister of Labour, saying:

“He is the Labour man I want.”

Bevin led the full-scale mobilisation and demobilisation of industry and the country while simultaneously advancing wages, conditions and the equality of the working class. He understood that compulsory work orders should only be used in exceptional circumstances, and his experience in the unions had taught him that workers with high morale would be more willing to contribute to the war effort.

In the early years of Bevin’s tenure, there was a serious debate regarding his voluntaryism, but by 1944 a third of the civilian population was engaged in war work, including over 7 million women, who played a crucial role in the war production.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Just nine days before Mr Churchill invited Ernie Bevin to become the Minister for Labour in his Government, Mr Bevin was stood in Hanley town hall in my constituency giving a public rally address on the importance of the working class towards the war effort, and it is believed that the coverage of that speech in The Times two days later is what caught Churchill’s eye and encouraged Mr Churchill to invite him into his Government, which is a testimony to the power of oratory that sometimes we miss in today’s debates—although obviously not this one—and also that, wherever we look, there is a Stoke-on-Trent connection to most parts of our social history.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That was a high-quality intervention.

[Matt Western]

I will try and raise my standards to the level of oratory that my hon. Friend would now expect.

The role of women in the war effort proved decisive, and the mobilisation proved decisive to the overall war effort and gave Britain an advantage over Nazi Germany. As striking was the effect of demobilisation on a peacetime economy. It was all this work that led Bevin’s Labour Ministry to be likened to Roosevelt’s new deal, a theme to which I will return.

Following Labour’s victory in the 1945 election, Bevin was appointed Foreign Secretary, a move that surprised many. Attlee’s justification was simple: he thought that affairs were going to be pretty difficult and that “a heavy tank” was going to be required “rather than a sniper.”

Bevin did not disappoint. His achievements were truly considerable. Bevin understood the threat of Stalin and his strategy sooner than any other leader, and Bevin’s intervention to secure Marshall aid in Europe, the recognition that western Europe needed political and economic unity, and his refusal to bow to Stalin’s demands must rate at the very top of all diplomatic successes.

Bevin and Attlee’s decision to allow US B-29 bombers to be stationed in the UK sent a clear message to Stalin that the UK and US were resolute in the defence of West Berlin and Europe. Although Bevin understood the importance of US support, he recognised the need to be independent and insisted on the UK securing its own atomic bomb with a

“Union Jack flying on top of it.”

However, perhaps his greatest achievement was the formation of NATO. It was largely his own initiative, as he drove forward the eventual signing of the treaty in 1949 through sheer determination.

I should take this moment to acknowledge that Bevin was a man, as well as a phenomenon, who had his faults and misjudgements: his staunch imperialism, manifesting itself in the rejection of Indian independence, his handling of Israel-Palestine or the Malayan uprising, and his antisemitic views were all wrong. I do not excuse him, but there is much to recognise in his vision of the wider world and its relevance to today. As he saw in the 1930s and in 1945, we now see order crumbling around us and certainties of the past no longer hold true.

What are the lessons to be learned from the great Bevin? He showed that Governments need to cajole, convince and collaborate, they cannot dictate and they must have dialogue with the public—let us call it a national conversation. They need to be honest about the reality of the threat, the necessity of public partnerships, both with industry and the workers, and the sacrifice that may be needed. That is why the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy has launched its inquiry into a national conversation on societal resilience that seeks to raise awareness and build a deeper understanding of a whole of society approach to our security and our resilience.

Secondly, Bevin’s approach to foreign policy was rooted in his ideals, but he understood that to be a player, not a spectator, the UK needed a grand strategy built on hard power, resources, strategic partnerships and ultimately based on the national interest. He grasped that reality in 1945 and it propelled western Europe to a stronger, more unified place. That is how important he was. He did not cling on to the dying world order—he built a new one.

All Bevin’s achievements were made possible only by his energy, ingenuity and his ability as an organiser. Take the Marshall plan: Bevin seized on a speech delivered by George Marshall on helping Europe. He would co-ordinate a joint European response by all those nations. Marshall aid was secured and western Europe got the lifeline it needed to survive. It was so significant, but without his drive, the grand strategy and the ideals would never have materialised.

To conclude, in 2024 the Prime Minister said:

“We must mobilise what Bevin called our ‘collective moral and material force’.”

He was right. As Ernest Bevin, labourer, trade unionist, Minister and world statesmen would say, we need “action this day.” Ernest Bevin was a colossus. His achievements have few parallels, and we should celebrate his life.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Minister to continue to elevate the quality of the debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Western Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the point she raised and the way she raised it, and I pay tribute to the service of her family members, as I am sure all hon. Members will do. This matter is one that we take incredibly seriously. I can tell her and the House that, following sanctions already imposed on 544 vessels, the Prime Minister has now agreed that the British military will be able to board shadow fleet vessels passing through UK waters, but I will look carefully at the hon. Lady’s points and discuss them with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Happy Warwickshire day and St George’s day, Mr Speaker. Clearly resilience is multifaceted and goes beyond subsea cables, which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) referred to. We are the third most attacked nation globally when it comes to cyber-attacks, as the Minister will know. What steps is the Department taking to raise public awareness generally?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work that he and the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy do in this area. I was at CYBERUK yesterday, in the great city of Glasgow, and I can give him an assurance that we take these threats very seriously. The National Cyber Security Centre and our intelligence agencies continually monitor such risks and work closely with industry and with our international partners to protect our networks. As I set out yesterday, we will continue to strengthen our defences and ensure that we remain resilient.

Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

Matt Western Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey). On the point he made latterly about the economic situation we find ourselves in, I would say that the Prime Minister is absolutely focused on that, and has been from day one. There are these distractions—it would be great to move on from them, but of course we are entitled to the debate—but I do believe that the Prime Minister wanted to bring order to our trade arrangements, and that was why he was persuaded into appointing Peter Mandelson. I am not a big fan of Peter Mandelson—I assure the House of that—but just a short year ago many people in the House and around the world were fêting him for the deal that he had managed to strike with the United States.

There are many questions about the deal struck by Peter Mandelson, but for the purpose of this debate I want to turn to some of the points made by the Leader of the Opposition. I did not intervene on her because I felt it was absolutely fine for her to continue, but yesterday she amply demonstrated that she was not capable of prosecuting an argument. She emphasised process, but if there is one thing I would say about this Prime Minister, it is that he is absolutely rock solid when it comes to process. [Laughter.] Conservative Members may laugh, but for those of them who backed Boris Johnson and accepted his lies in this place, or who accepted the word of Liz Truss and that catastrophic kamikaze budget, there is a question of judgment. On process, this Prime Minister is absolutely rock solid.

Secondly, the Prime Minister is a man of the utmost decency who would never, ever lie, because he knows that his credibility rests on that.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Matt Western]

In a moment—I am just beginning to make my speech. There is the point about some sort of conspiracy or cover-up at No. 10 on which I can disabuse the Leader of the Opposition. The point is to differentiate between the team around the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister himself.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

[Matt Western]

I want to allow others in.

The Prime Minister clearly delegated responsibilities to his chief of staff. It may be that the Leader of Opposition missed the fact that the Prime Minister sacked that—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Bernard, please, you are permanently standing in my line of vision. The hon. Member will give way when he wants to, not because you are standing up.

[Matt Western]

I will bring in the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) shortly to ease your patience, Mr Speaker.

When the Prime Minister sacked Morgan McSweeney, it was because he realised that there were problems within his team at No. 10. The Leader of the Opposition may claim that somehow the No. 10 leadership was the worst in living memory. I am not sure how far back living memory goes for her, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) said, we do not have to go back very far. I would say 2022, with a certain Liz Truss and her No. 10 operation, or that of Boris Johnson and the three years of his pathological lying that we endured in this place.

The Leader of the Opposition said that the biggest decision a Prime Minister can make is about the security of this country. Just a few short weeks ago, she was talking about how the United Kingdom should be drawn into the war in Iran, and in that she was proven absolutely wrong. I will give way to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whom I know as a friend across the House, as we have worked together positively on many things.

I served on the Privileges Committee that studied the Boris case and reached a conclusion upon it. If the hon. Gentleman wants to help the Prime Minister, I would be rather wary, if I were him, about drawing parallels between Boris Johnson and the present Prime Minister.

[Matt Western]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, my friend. I was simply addressing the point made by the Leader of the Opposition, who suggested that the operation at No. 10 was the worst in living memory. It is quite obvious that that is absolutely not the case. We have had two very recent examples, in 2019-22 and then 2022-23, under Johnson and Truss.

I want to make it quite clear that the way I see it, the mistake that may have been made by No. 10 is the clear delegation to the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, who was at the heart of an inner circle in No. 10 that no longer exists of Peter Mandelson, Morgan McSweeney and Matthew Doyle. As has come to light just this morning, Matthew Doyle was also part of the problem.

[Paul Holmes]

There must be a reshuffle coming, because no one would seriously make a speech like this at such serious times. The hon. Gentleman says that the Prime Minister was a stickler for process and claims that the Prime Minister somehow delegated responsibility for the appointment. Why did the former Cabinet Secretary—the chief adviser to the Prime Minister and chief civil servant—give that advice in the box note? Will the hon. Gentleman defend the Prime Minister’s decision not to follow that advice from the person who was making the decisions?

[Matt Western]

I am not close to those operations. I have never been a Minister—that is the honest truth—and to answer the hon. Gentleman’s point, I do not wish to be one either. I am not close enough to that, so I cannot answer that honestly, but what I can say is that I heard from Sir Olly Robbins this morning about how he was leant on and also what documents he may have had access to, including the vetting report.

What we have heard today is that the chief of staff leant on the Foreign Office, whether it was about Matthew Doyle or the appointment of Peter Mandelson. That is the issue. The Prime Minister, in my experience of having known him since 2017, is absolutely as straight as a die. He may have accepted the advice and maybe that advice has now proven to be wrong, but he has been let down by those around him. He made a mistake. He understands and has accepted that.

Middle East

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have been clear throughout, and I will be clear with the hon. Gentleman: this Government are guided by the principle that any action we take, anywhere in the world, must have a lawful basis. That is the principle that I have applied throughout this conflict and throughout the time this Government have been in power.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I commend the Prime Minister—and also the leadership from the Foreign Secretary and the National Security Adviser, I am sure—for the work that is being done. I welcome the news about trying to resolve the issues in the strait of Hormuz, but I share the concerns that have been voiced across the Chamber about the situation in Lebanon and the west bank. Closer to home, the Resolution Foundation has stated that median working-age households will be hit by a £480 additional cost this year, which in my constituency is being described as the cost of Trump. Will the Prime Minister explain more about what can be done to assist households here in the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

The single most important thing is to de-escalate and get the strait of Hormuz open. That is why we are working so hard with other countries to do so, because the impact that it is undoubtedly having on our economy is affected by how long the strait remains closed. That is why we have to focus on that.

China: Foreign Interference Arrests

Matt Western Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy.

[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.

Dawn Sturgess Inquiry

Matt Western Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his response and for the tone of it. I am very grateful. I think he will have noted, from my opening remarks, the gravity and seriousness I attach to the matter at hand. I know that he and other Opposition Members will have noted that in my opening statement I spoke seamlessly about the work done by the previous Government and this Government. I believe that standing against Russia and the threat it poses to our national security should be, and is, a shared endeavour across this House. I pay tribute to the work the previous Government did, in 2018 and beyond, in standing against the threat we face. Wherever possible, we should work closely together on it.

The shadow Home Secretary very accurately characterised the nature of the threat. I agree with what he said with regard to Russia and Putin. It is impossible to overstate the seriousness of this attack and the other activity he characterised.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke about Ukraine and I am grateful to him for doing so. Again, I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the previous Government for the commitment they made to defending Ukraine. It should be a matter of great pride across the House that, perhaps above almost everything else, it is something that binds this House together. There is a unity of purpose among us all in ensuring that we stand together to support Ukraine in its fight against Russia. I give him and the House an absolute commitment that we will continue the work of the previous Government.

Genuinely, I was really pleased that the right hon. Gentleman asked about cyber, because I am particularly keen to ensure that we co-ordinate our activity across Government as effectively as we possibly can. In truth, it was one reason why the Prime Minister made the machinery of government change back in September so that the Security Minister sits across both the Home Office and the Cabinet Office and can more effectively co-ordinate that work. He will know that the Government introduced the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill just a couple of weeks ago. From a Home Office perspective, we are working hard on the ransomware proposals that we consulted on earlier this year. He was right to make the important point about the work we do with regard to positively degrading the nature of the threats he described. He knows I am very limited in terms of what I can say about that, but I know he will join me in paying tribute to the very important work that the National Cyber Force does.

It did not come as a huge surprise that the shadow Home Secretary—in truth, I do not blame him for doing so—took the opportunity to raise the issue of China. I hope he has had the chance to look at what I said this morning at Cabinet Office oral questions and what I said in response to an urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) yesterday with regard to the Government’s position on China. I hope he has had the opportunity to look precisely at what I said about the embassy.

With regard to FIRS, I completely understand the points the shadow Home Secretary made. The Government continue to keep that under very close review and I hope we will have more to say about it in due course.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

My thoughts, too, are with the family of Dawn Sturgess.

In 2010, Putin said:

“Traitors will kick the bucket, believe me.”

Post-Litvinenko, how can it be that our country can afford protection for, say, a former Prime Minister such as Liz Truss, but not for an asset such as Sergei Skripal? Yesterday’s story in the i newspaper underlines the issue about Russian agents infiltrating our society, and the points the Minister makes across the board are so well put, but given that, as we have heard, Putin has no concern for life, least of all in his own country, can the Minister confirm that he is working with all Departments across Government to assure the British public of their safety and security?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution and the work he does in chairing the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. The quote he described is chilling. In response to the point he made yesterday about the coverage in the i newspaper, I can give him the assurances he seeks and tell him and the House that we take all national security threats incredibly seriously. The Government have acted decisively by introducing tougher legislation, enforcing sanctions and working closely with our international partners to make the UK one of the most challenging environments for our adversaries to operate in. That continues to be an absolute priority in terms of securing our national security. I am absolutely determined to ensure that the United Kingdom is the hardest possible target for our adversaries.