(6 days, 22 hours ago)
Commons ChamberMy hon. Friend knows that the Government have committed to reducing violence against women and girls, and have recently brought forward a strategy, setting out how we will work across Government to do just that in the years ahead. Specifically on the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, we will continue to do all we can to support any investigations in order to ensure justice for those victims, and we encourage everybody with any information to do the same.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I asked the Prime Minister in this Chamber, on behalf of my constituents who were asking the same thing, why Peter Mandelson had been appointed our most senior ambassador at all, given the knowledge of his links with Epstein. By September, it was clear just how close that relationship had been, yet the PM did not immediately sack him, and there still was not a full investigation of Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein. Why is that investigation happening only now? The Prime Minister has stated his commitment to restoring trust in public life; how does the Minister square that promise to uphold standards with the delay in investigating this relationship?
I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Lady that there has been any undue delay in investigation. At the time of his appointment, Peter Mandelson gave the Prime Minister a commitment about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, but it became evident when documents were released that the reality was different. Within a matter of days of the extent and depth of the relationship becoming clear, the Prime Minister sacked Peter Mandelson from his post as ambassador to the United States. Now that even more information has become available, the Cabinet Secretary is reviewing what documents are available in the Government archive, and will of course comply with any investigation that may take place.
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberI thank my hon. Friend for her question on a topic that I know she has great expertise in. She will know that it is important that spending across Departments, whether on military, humanitarian or economic support, is aligned with our ODA spending. The multi-year spending review is under way, and we will confirm budgets in June for the years ahead. As I have confirmed, we will come back to the House every year to review and confirm the fiscal tests as they relate to 0.7% of GNI on ODA.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Given that the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that the fiscal test of returning to 0.7% will not be met in this Parliament, and that there has been no equivalent uplift to the £2.5 billion that the Conservatives put to spend on in-country refugee costs, are the Minister and this Labour Government content to have presided over a real-terms cut to the ODA budget compared with the previous Conservative Government?
One of the issues, to which the hon. Lady alludes, is that under the last Administration, when they lost control of the borders and the asylum system, the cost of hotels to house asylum seekers waiting for their decision was included in the ODA definition of spending. That is why the Home Secretary is working at pace to reduce that backlog as quickly as possible, and we are making much more significant progress than the previous Administration did in many years.
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons Chamber
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Water companies are commercial entities. It would therefore not be appropriate for me to comment on that. It is for the company and its investors to resolve their possible issues.