Hatzola Ambulance Attack
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
With permission, I will make a statement on the abhorrent arson attack in Golders Green, north London.
I will begin with the facts as they are currently known. At 1.45 this morning, the Metropolitan police and the London Fire Brigade were called to reports of a fire in Highfield Road, Golders Green. Officers attended the scene, where four ambulances from Hatzola, a volunteer-led ambulance service run by members of the Jewish community, were on fire. The attack occurred in the car park of a local synagogue, where Hatzola’s vehicles for the area are based. I can tell the House that the vital work of this organisation will continue uninterrupted, with its highly trained volunteers responding to calls as steadfastly as ever.
The Government are determined to deliver justice following this cowardly attack. We fully support the police in their efforts to bring the perpetrators to account, and we are equally committed to ensuring that Hatzola suffers no lasting impact. As the Secretary of State for Health has confirmed, four replacement ambulances will be in place by tomorrow morning, and the Government will fund permanent replacements to ensure that this essential service remains strong and fully equipped. Nearby houses were evacuated as a precaution, but residents were allowed to return quickly to their homes. Thankfully, no injuries occurred.
The House will be aware that the police are treating this arson attack as an antisemitic hate crime. The investigation is now being led by Counter Terrorism Policing, although I should emphasise that the attack has not been declared a terrorist incident at this stage. No arrests have been made, but I take this opportunity to urge anyone with information to contact the police. Officers are aware of an online claim from a group taking responsibility for the attack, and establishing the accuracy of that claim is a priority for the investigation team. As the Home Secretary told the House earlier, support for the Jewish community in London is being stepped up. The police have the unshakable backing of this Government—and, I am sure, the whole House—in their effort to find the perpetrators of this awful crime, who should be in no doubt whatsoever that they will be pursued and made to face the consequences. I also wish to echo the Home Secretary’s words in thanking the police and the fire and rescue service for the speed and professionalism of their response, which was vital in averting an even worse outcome.
Shocking though it was to wake to this morning’s developments, I know that for many this outrage, occurring as it has at a time of profound distress and vulnerability in our Jewish communities, will not have come as a surprise given the vicious torrent of antisemitism that was unleashed following the 7 October attacks, a dreadful manifestation of which we saw, to our horror, in Manchester last year when Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation synagogue was the subject of a sickening act of terrorism on Yom Kippur. Today, as at that profoundly difficult moment and as in the aftermath of the subsequent atrocity on Bondi Beach in Sydney, we declare once more that we stand with our Jewish friends, colleagues and neighbours, and with the oldest hatred on the rise, we assert our unwavering commitment to defeating it.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that this Government will lead the way, through, for instance, the relentless national security effort that is being mounted around the clock by MI5 and the police, who of course have our full backing in their work to detect and disrupt plots targeting the Jewish community in our country. While those activities must necessarily take place away from view, our willingness to take strong and decisive action when threats present themselves has been underscored again in recent weeks, with three men jailed over a foiled terrorist plot targeting the Jewish community in Greater Manchester and a separate investigation of suspected surveillance of locations and individuals linked to the Jewish community in the London area, which resulted in two men being charged last week under the National Security Act 2023.
While our country’s national security and law enforcement agencies retain a relentless focus on the threat, such is its perseverance and potency that we have a responsibility to do more. It is a terrible indictment that we should need to do this, but we must do it and we are doing it. The demand for extra measures and precautions, such as those provided so expertly by the Community Security Trust, is only intensifying. That is why, in the wake of the Manchester attack, we increased the funding available via the Jewish community protective security grant to a record £28 million, a level that we are maintaining in the next financial year. We are also strengthening police powers for dealing with repeat protests, which have been a source of concern for many in the Jewish community, and the Home Secretary has commissioned Lord Macdonald to undertake a review to consider how public order laws can be improved to keep hate and intimidation off our streets.
However, we can only prevent the manifestations of this evil if we address the cause by tackling the very existence of antisemitism in this country. That means adopting and enforcing a posture of zero tolerance in every part of our society. The Online Safety Act 2023 will compel tech platforms to protect UK users from illegal antisemitic material. Meanwhile, we are acting to drive antisemitism out of the NHS, with stronger mandatory training and an urgent review led by Lord Mann. In recognition of the importance of education in preventing young minds from being polluted, we have committed £7 million to combat antisemitism in schools, colleges and universities, and we have launched a review, led by Sir David Bell, into antisemitism in schools and colleges, which is expected to conclude in the autumn. We do all of this and more because it is right, because it is our responsibility and because, as the Home Secretary has repeatedly made clear, no one should have to live a smaller Jewish life in this country.
I will finish by addressing our Jewish community directly: whether you live here in London or in any other part of the United Kingdom, please know that we stand with you, we are here for you, and we will do everything in our power to keep you and your family safe—not just today, after this appalling incident, but every day. I commend this statement to the House.
Dan Jarvis
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and to other colleagues for the work they have done. It is at moments like this when we see the very worst of our country, but also the best: the brave men and women in the police, our intelligence services, and the fire and rescue service stepping forward to do everything they can to provide support. The police are engaged in a very significant operation to try to track down the perpetrators of this awful crime and bring them to justice. I know that they will have my hon. Friend’s support and the support of the whole House.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I, like so many Londoners, woke up this morning to the news of this cowardly attack. I felt that horrible pit of disgust in my stomach, and a deep concern for my Jewish friends and neighbours. I want to express my heartfelt sympathies to Jews across London and the country, and to affirm that hate like this will never be normalised. It is the opposite of everything our city stands for.
We welcome the Government’s commitment to replace the ambulances quickly, but will the Minister set out what immediate safety measures are being put in place for local residents and key Jewish sites across the country? I reiterate that our efforts in this place must be focused not just on responding after the fact, but on making meaningful interventions beforehand to stop distressing crimes like this happening in the first place. That means recognising that we have an antisemitism problem in this country and that, crucially, we must take action to tackle the root causes of it. Will the Minister set out what steps will be taken under the recently unveiled cohesion strategy to bring an end to the scourge that is antisemitism in this country?
Will the Minister finally listen to our calls to reverse the cuts to Metropolitan police officer numbers? Since May 2024, it is estimated that 2,508 officers have been lost, while the Met commissioner has warned of the increasing difficulty of keeping Londoners safe with a shrinking force. Visible policing plays a key role in deterring and investigating this kind of crime, and it reassures communities, such as our Jewish community, because no one should live in fear as a result of their religion. Will the Minister explain what the Government will do now to get more, not fewer, police officers on London’s streets to stop horrific incidents like this ever happening again?
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On an occasion like this, it is right that we should not apportion blame, but try to unite as the House of Commons and say that it is fine to be a critical friend of Israel, but it is not fine to go around fully masked up and call for the destruction of Israel and therefore the Jewish people. I think we should be even more positive and say that we love the Jewish people and think they are the most successful immigrant community we have ever had in this country. They are fantastic, they have our complete, utter and full support, and we will protect them at every opportunity.
Defending Democracy Taskforce
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, not least for the work she does on the Speaker’s steering group. She is right to raise her concerns in the way that she has. She will understand that the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has a very important role in relation to these matters. These are things that we discuss in the forum of the defending democracy taskforce on a very regular basis, but she is right to raise her concerns, which I know will be widely shared across this House.
Perhaps I might just say one other thing to my hon. Friend. I am in awe of the courage that she and other hon. Members bring to their public service. In the face of the extremely unpleasant abuse that she and other hon. Members have to tolerate on a very regular basis, the fact that she continues to step forward to represent her constituents and her country in the way she does is greatly to her credit.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I thank the Speaker’s Office for all that Mr Speaker and the Madam Deputy Speakers are doing on this issue. I must say, I was somewhat taken aback by the shadow Minister’s approach; I will try to be constructive, but where I veer away, I hope the Minister will take my points.
The Minister is right to highlight the importance of protecting politicians at every level of our democracy. We must ensure that the horror of what happened to Jo Cox and Sir David Amess never happens again, and that representatives at every level feel secure when they are discharging their democratic duties. Many Members, particularly women and those from minority backgrounds, have received death threats and harassment, and fear for their families. Having experienced threats myself—not from radical Islamists, but from right-wing extremists—I know how important these protections are. As the MP for Cheltenham, I also remember the bravery of Andrew Pennington, who died defending my late friend Nigel Jones in an attack on the Cheltenham Liberal Democrat office.
I welcome the steps that the Minister is taking to ensure that the elections in May are free and fair. Our democracy is precious, and it must be carefully protected by those in power. To that end, we welcome the existence of the taskforce, and the work it is doing. We worry, however, that the taskforce is perhaps not working fast enough to address the threat of foreign interference in our democracy. Hostile states are increasingly using social and traditional media to spread disinformation in order to undermine democracy and our elections, so what steps are Ministers taking to tackle that threat? As the Member of Parliament for Cheltenham, which is home to GCHQ, I know the vital work that our intelligence agencies do to counter those threats, but that work must be matched by political leadership from this House.
We will all remember with disgust the case of Nathan Gill, the Reform politician convicted of working for the Russian Government. That case received remarkably little attention, yet it shows the very real threat to our democracy from within. We are also all scarred by the revelation that there were agents of the Chinese Communist party working in this House for hon. Members, and we were rightly outraged that Peter Mandelson shared market-sensitive information with Epstein, and by many other elements of disgraceful conduct that pose a threat to our democracy. Is it not time for a dedicated crime and corruption unit in Whitehall, and does the Minister agree that it is time for legislation that ensures that all electoral candidates declare any donations or gifts from Russia?
Does the Minister also agree that it is time for rules to be introduced about donations made to political parties via cryptocurrencies? This method obscures the source of donations. That loophole must be closed before it is exploited more widely, to the detriment of our democracy. We will all have noted the recent endorsement of crypto by the leader of the Reform party, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who maintains that he does not “do computers”. There is much work to be done to protect our democracy, and the Minister and the Government have our support to speed up that work, because there is nothing more important for us in this House than protecting those values.
Dan Jarvis
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the important work she does on the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, and for the points she has raised. She is absolutely right about the threat that women elected representatives and candidates face around the country. I hope she sees the determination of the Government to work with her and colleagues across this House to put in place the protections and support that are required. That is why I referenced the creation of the new threat assessment, which will provide greater granularity on operational intelligence that we think will deliver real benefits at a local level.
My hon. Friend is also absolutely right to highlight concern about the threats, intimidation and harassment directed at those participating in public life, both online and in person—there have been some particularly egregious examples of that in recent times. We have to do everything we can to support those women who want to step forward. I am particularly concerned about the chilling effect that some of these threats and this intimidation have on extremely talented women who might want to step forward in public life, but will look at the circumstances that they might have to deal with and think, “Why would I want to expose myself to that?” We should all collectively be very concerned about that, and should redouble our efforts against this problem. That is precisely why I made the point—hopefully clearly—that wherever we encounter this kind of activity, we must report it.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I thank my friend the Minister for his kind words. I also extend praise to Lord Case, who was so important in setting this taskforce up as Cabinet Secretary. The Minister was absolutely right to mention Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, both of whom were in my mind at various different points when the taskforce was set up, and I am indeed extremely impressed with what he has done in taking forward the defending democracy taskforce.
However, may I—perhaps unfairly—challenge the Minister to go a little further, and to answer some of the questions that I did not answer when I was in his place? I hope he may be able to answer them, now that things have progressed a bit. The first is to do with foreign influence. When we look at what China has done in our democracy, not just in this House but online—at the threats that organisations like TikTok pose, through disinformation, and through the way that they actively promote stories that encourage division—we can see that the nature of the threat has changed. Yesterday, I had the good fortune to meet the director general of Taiwan’s Ministry of Justice investigation bureau. As the Minister knows, I was the first Cabinet Minister to meet a Cabinet Minister from Taiwan in a non-trade capacity. Taiwan has a lot to teach us about the way in which China tries to influence our democracy. Has the Minister considered any of those lessons yet?
Another area on which I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts—it is another area that I did not get to, when I was in his position, although I would have liked to—is the protection of journalists. It is of course important to protect the freedom to speak about elected members of any organisation, whether local or national, and to protect journalists’ freedom to speak. Recently, I was made aware of a very unpleasant threat against Konstantin Kisin relating to the attack on Charlie Kirk, who was murdered only a few months ago. This threat happened to come from a left-wing extremist, but as we know, there are extremists of various colours and creeds in our community, and of various political opinions. Has the Minister looked at how the need to protect journalists could be brought into the work of the defending democracy taskforce?
Points of Order
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Cabinet Office questions on 5 March, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister informed me that the appointment of the new director general of the propriety and ethics team was made on an interim basis and in line with the rules. However, I have now received a copy of the civil service recruitment framework, which states that a temporary promotion, managed move or the appointment of a single applicant within the senior civil service, must require ministerial authorisation either from the Prime Minister or the relevant Minister before an appointment can be made without an external competition. Given the importance of the transparency and confidence in this Government’s propriety and ethics system, can you please advise the House how Members can seek clarification when there appears to be a discrepancy between a Minister’s statement to the House and the provisions set out in the civil service recruitment framework 2022?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. He will know that, as Chair, I am not responsible for the answers given by Ministers—
Darren Jones
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not recognise the discrepancy. As I have said to the House previously, there was a temporary appointment to the role in question within the rules. Permanent appointments to that role will be subject to the normal recruitment processes, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me with more detail, I will happily respond to him in writing.
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—
Madam Deputy Speaker
But I can see that the Chief Secretary wishes to respond in person once again.
Darren Jones
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The issues raised in the Cabinet note that has, I understand, been leaked to journalists are important and the Government take them seriously. The Sewel convention is an important framework for the role in which the UK Government respect the devolved responsibilities of devolved Governments, one for which I am the responsible Minister, which is why I have repeated engagement with the First and Deputy First Ministers of the devolved Governments about our relationship working together. I just remind the House that devolved Governments are important but in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland there are two Governments—the UK Government and the devolved Government—and that is why we retain the right to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland as well as in England.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. First, I apologise that I have not been able to give you notice of this, but it is in reference to the earlier response and to the documents. I tabled a written parliamentary question about when Peter Mandelson left his employment on 4 February. The emails on 4 February show that officials knew the answer to that question on 16 October. Not only was it late coming back, and I had to table a second question, but no answer was forthcoming. We have a role and a job to hold this Government to account. They knew the answer to the question and they did not answer that question, and I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will take that extraordinarily seriously.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Although I did not get prior notice of the hon. Member’s question, I can appreciate how anxious he would be. It is incredibly important that Members, who are sent here by their constituents, have their questions answered quickly—
Madam Deputy Speaker
The Chief Secretary wishes to respond in person; that is very fast indeed.
Darren Jones
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can only apologise to Members of the House if answers to parliamentary questions have not been quick enough to meet their expectations. I just remind Members and the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) that all the documents that have been published today have had to be subject to checks with the Metropolitan police and the Intelligence and Security Committee so as not to prejudice criminal investigations, which, as I am sure he and all Members across the House will agree, we do not want to interfere with inappropriately.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am sure if responses to Members were forthcoming, the Chief Secretary might not have to respond at the Dispatch Box to points of order.
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister comes to the Dispatch Box to make the statement, it has been brought to attention of the Chair that it is possible that information has not been shared in due time. The requirement to provide a copy of the statement to the Opposition before it is made is set out in the ministerial code—in chapter 9, if the Minister wants to refresh himself. I am not responsible for policing the ministerial code, but it is clearly a discourtesy to the House not to make information available in good time. Those on the Treasury Bench, and no doubt the Ministers responsible, will have heard me and will ensure that this does not happen again.
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)
I apologise to the House if we were a few minutes short of the standard 45 minutes to an hour prior to the statement in publishing the documents, but I can confirm that they have now been laid before the House and are available on gov.uk.
With permission, I will make a statement to update the House on the Government’s response to the Humble Address of 4 February. The Government committed to responding to that Humble Address, and I can today confirm that we are releasing a first tranche of documents, which have been laid before the House in advance of this statement, and are now published on gov.uk for the public. There are further tranches of documents to come as officials work through the full scope of the Humble Address.
It is important to recognise the strength of feeling across the House—my own included—in our disgust and horror at the nature and extent of the relationship that Peter Mandelson maintained with Jeffrey Epstein despite Epstein’s criminal conviction for abusing a vulnerable young girl. This included encouraging Jeffrey Epstein to fight that conviction.
Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable criminal who committed the most horrifying and disgusting crimes that destroyed the lives of countless women and girls. What he did is, of course, unforgivable, and I know that his victims will be in the thoughts and prayers of all Members across the House as we debate these issues today. Those victims will always be our first priority. Peter Mandelson’s behaviour was an insult to them and their suffering, and I am sorry that these events leave them with no choice but to relive their horrors, with still too little justice being served. That is why there is cross-party consensus in this House for full transparency and accountability, why anybody with knowledge must co-operate with inquiries, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, and why the Government are therefore committed to publishing all documents relevant to the Humble Address.
The Prime Minister has taken responsibility for Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the United States. He has acknowledged that it was a mistake and has apologised, not least for believing Peter Mandelson’s lies. As the Government have said previously, there are specific documents that this Government would like to have been able to disclose today, but which the Metropolitan police has asked us not to publish yet in order to avoid prejudicing its ongoing criminal investigation into Peter Mandelson. We have agreed to that request and will therefore publish those documents in the future, as soon as the Metropolitan police has confirmed that they will no longer prejudice its investigation.
As the House already understands, the Government must also carefully assess the risk of prejudicing UK national security or international relations posed by the release of any official documents. Any such material will be, and is being, referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. I thank the Committee for its assistance in this matter and can confirm to the House that it has agreed with a limited redaction, requested by the Government, in relation to one document that we are publishing today. Outside of that arrangement, this process does not change the important and well-established constitutional principle that national security and international relations judgments are, ultimately, for the Government.
The documents released today relate specifically to the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States and the discussions that subsequently led to his dismissal. They include: the Cabinet Office due diligence report, which was passed to No. 10 prior to Peter Mandelson’s appointment; information provided to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as to whether full due process was followed during Peter Mandelson’s appointment; papers relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment as His Majesty’s ambassador to the United States and minutes of meetings relating to the decision to appoint him; and details of the severance payments made to Peter Mandelson after the Prime Minister instructed that he be withdrawn as ambassador, thereby terminating his employment by the civil service.
While the documents point to public reports of an ongoing relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, the advice did not expose the depth and extent of their relationship, which became apparent only after the release of further files by Bloomberg and then the United States Department of Justice. After the Prime Minister reviewed the Cabinet Office due diligence report, which noted public reporting on Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, questions were put to Peter Mandelson by advisers in No. 10, as right hon. and hon. Members can see referred to on pages 8 and 94 of the bundle, and Peter Mandelson responded. These are matters that are currently the subject of an ongoing police investigation, and we will publish this document when the investigation allows. When we do, Members will be able to see Peter Mandelson’s answers for themselves, which the Prime Minister regrets believing. Peter Mandelson should never have been afforded the privilege of representing this country, and I reiterate to the House that the Prime Minister deeply regrets taking him at his word. It was a mistake to do so.
I can, however, confirm to the House—as agreed with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker—that we have shared the documents that are with the Metropolitan police with the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on terms agreed by the Metropolitan police, to ensure as much transparency to this House as possible.
As soon as the truth became apparent, following reporting by Bloomberg, the Prime Minister acted to withdraw Peter Mandelson from his role. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members across the House will also read in these documents with interest how Peter Mandelson conducted himself after his withdrawal as ambassador. As the documents show, Peter Mandelson initially requested a sum for his severance payment that was substantially larger than the final payment—not just two or even three times, but more than six times the final amount, despite the fact that he was withdrawn from Washington because he had lost the confidence of the Prime Minister.
The Government obviously found that to be inappropriate and unacceptable. The settlement that was agreed was to avoid even higher further costs involving a drawn-out legal claim at the employment tribunal, given Peter Mandelson’s employment as a civil servant, rather than a Minister. As the House will know, Ministers can be dismissed without recourse to the employment tribunal, but civil servants are treated differently.
The Government are committed to complying with the Humble Address, and further work is ongoing to compile the rest of the information in its scope. The Government recognise the urgency with which this work must be completed and will keep Members updated as that work progresses.
We know that these documents also reveal that the due diligence process fell short of what is required. We have already taken steps to address weaknesses in the system and to ensure that when standards of behaviour fall short of the high standards expected, there will be more serious consequences. We have launched the Ethics and Integrity Commission to promote the highest standards in public life and we are changing the process for direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles, so that where the role requires access to highly classified material, the candidate must have passed national security vetting before such appointments are announced or confirmed.
Ministers will now be expected to forgo severance payments following a serious breach of the ministerial code, and we have given the independent adviser the power to initiate investigations into ministerial misconduct without the need to seek the Prime Minister’s permission first. The Prime Minister has also strengthened the ministerial code, with stricter rules on gifts and hospitality, and we have asked the Conduct Committee in the Lords to review the code of conduct to consider what changes are required to ensure that peers can be removed when they have brought the House into disrepute in the other place. We are also exploring whether the Committee can tighten rules on lobbying and paid advocacy to bring the Lords in line with Commons procedures.
I want to note that the vast majority of individuals who apply to public service do so with the best of intentions. However, it is right that following the Peter Mandelson case, we have asked questions about how we can further strengthen the rules and processes that underpin the operation of government. We have appointed Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent in the upper House to support this work on standards and constitutional reform as a new Minister in the Cabinet Office. I can also announce that the Prime Minister has asked the Ethics and Integrity Commission to conduct a review of the current arrangements relating to financial disclosures for Ministers and senior officials, transparency around lobbying and the business appointment rules, and we are conducting a review of the national security vetting system to ensure that we learn the lessons from the policy and process weaknesses related to Peter Mandelson’s case.
Let me conclude by reiterating that the whole House will agree that Jeffrey Epstein was a disgusting individual, and that Peter Mandelson’s decision to put their relationship before his victims and the vulnerable was reprehensible. As the Prime Minister has said,
“the victims of Epstein have lived with trauma that most of us can barely comprehend. They have had to relive it again and again. And they have had to see accountability delayed and too often denied.”
We must all learn this hard lesson and end a culture that dismisses women’s experiences far too often and too easily. Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed, and the Government will comply with the Humble Address. I will update the House further in due course. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend will see from the documents that are being published today that those commercial interests were raised by the Cabinet Office, and that established processes were in place that meant that new members of the civil service had to remove such commercial interests before taking office. There is some commentary in the bundle about the conversation that was had with Peter Mandelson in advance of his appointment as ambassador to the United States, specifically about that question. Having said all that, part of the review that we are taking forward is another look at the business appointment rules, to make sure that the processes that were applied were robust enough in the situation that we are discussing. If we need to further strengthen them, we stand ready to do so.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. It is a stain on our nation that we are even having to go through this. It is right that we keep Epstein’s victims, survivors and families at the front of our mind.
Today marks the first day of Britain’s own Epstein files. For a close friend of Epstein to have been made Britain’s ambassador to the United States is a shameful part of this affair; that is the Prime Minister’s responsibility. It is disappointing that the Prime Minister is not here to answer for that, and for his catastrophic failure of judgment with respect to Mandelson.
Peter Mandelson’s close relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, and the fact that it continued long after long after Epstein’s conviction for child sex trafficking, had been reported by both Channel 4’s “Dispatches” in 2019 and the Financial Times in 2023. Has the Prime Minister told the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister personally how those reports made him feel, and why he still felt it was right to appoint Mandelson anyway? Mandelson’s £75,000 payout is an insult to Epstein’s victims—if he had a shred of decency left he would donate it to charity—but the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister’s explanation of why the Government made that payout simply will not wash.
With a very limited number of documents being released today, the wait goes on for the rest of Britain’s Epstein files. That includes the documents relating to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor required by the Liberal Democrats’ Humble Address, which was passed a fortnight ago. I very much hope that the Government will get those documents out as quickly as possible. It has taken five weeks from the Mandelson Humble Address to publication today. Will the Chief Secretary guarantee that the first Andrew papers will be published within the same timeframe, and by 31 March at the latest?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend and the House will see from the bundle of documents published today that the Government acted on the basis of legal advice in awarding that settlement payment, but I agree wholeheartedly, and repeat from the Dispatch Box that the honourable thing for Peter Mandelson to do would be to donate the payment to an appropriate charity.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I acknowledge what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said with regards to my role as Chair of the Committee looking at documents pro tem on behalf of the House. As he knows, that will be done properly.
Following the point made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is right that under the civil service rules, Mandelson could have made a claim to a tribunal, but the hon. Gentleman is also right that anybody doing so who has secured a position by deception would find themselves on the thinnest of thin ice; they would have no chance at all. Mandelson’s original claim just underscores the shamelessness of the individual in question.
As the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has admitted that the Prime Minister was lied to—that is deception—was legal advice sought as to the likely outcome of any employment tribunal case brought by Mandelson? If it was, what was that advice? If it was not, why not?
Points of Order
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to clarify the record in response to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) on Monday, following the statement on Iran, in which she claimed that the reputation of the Green party deputy leader, Mothin Ali, had been “incorrectly attacked” by the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke). In fact, the right hon. Gentleman was entirely correct in stating that the Green party deputy leader had attended a pro-Iranian regime rally. That is evidenced by the fact that the poster promoting the rally included the regime’s flag, but more importantly showed that the organisers of that event were not only the CND and the “stop some wars” coalition, but groups such as the Islamic human rights commission, which the Shawcross review named as an “Islamist group”, with links to the Iranian regime. There are also photos and video evidence of pro-regime flags, placards and chants, including chants of “death to Israel”. Finally, despite public comments made by the leader of the Green party and its other deputy leader, I wish to state my belief that there was nothing remotely offensive, racist or Islamophobic in either the question from the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold or the Prime Minister’s response. I therefore seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how the record may be corrected.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I assume that he informed the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) and the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) about his intention to refer to them.
Madam Deputy Speaker
He is nodding affirmatively. As was made clear from the Chair when this matter was raised during a point of order on Monday, there is a mechanism for correcting the record for any Member who wishes to do so, but that is a matter for individual Members themselves. The hon. Member has now placed his own view substantially on the record.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to put the Chair in the position of having to give an immediate answer, but as others have said, there are rumours online that the individuals arrested for spying include the partner of a Labour MP. I do not know any suggestion that that Labour MP has done anything wrong—it could have been any of us, potentially. However, we all know that MPs work with MPs from their own party and with those from other parties, sharing information and campaigning together, so we may well have been subjected to activities and we could volunteer information about them to the House authorities and others. Unless we have confirmation about who that individual is, that is not an easy position to be in. Will the House give consideration to letting us know who the individual is, so that we might reflect on whether we can offer any helpful information?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I appreciate the hon. Member’s concern, but the Chair is not responsible for the content of the statements made by Ministers. Ministers will no doubt update the House when and if appropriate.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I see the Ministers are nodding positively. It is not a matter for the Chair. I will leave it there, because I do not want to continue the debate any further.
Lord Mandelson
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I appreciate my right hon. Friend’s explanation of the process, because many people outside it wonder what information is shared and what process is gone through. It is hard to believe that the information held by the Department of Justice in the US was not shared with our security services or disclosed in the process, given the security clearance that is required for a post of this nature. On that basis, and to eliminate any accusations of cover-up or conspiracy, is it not the right path to have the Intelligence and Security Committee look at this and thin the evidence that comes forward?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the right hon. Member responds, let me say that we have a very healthy number of Members wishing to contribute, so can we make sure that interventions are short? I assume that you will be coming to your conclusion shortly, Dame Emily Thornberry.
Storm Goretti
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We have to get through this business quite quickly as we have the Finance (No. 2) Bill later, so I urge the Minister to make his responses as brief as possible. We are focused on calling Members from incredibly close to where the storm was, so if it was nowhere near you, please do not bob.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I place on record my thanks to the Met Office, which is based in my constituency, for its sterling work throughout Storm Goretti and all year round. It has international expertise and is a real asset to our country.
One of the main issues that comes up when we have big storms such as Goretti is rail in the south-west. Our main line from Paddington was cut off, and many constituents from across the south-west were unable to get home. There are practical solutions to put in place, such as a passing loop on the Waterloo line. I have raised that directly with the Rail Minister and the Prime Minister, and although I get warm words, no action seems to be taken. From a Cabinet Office perspective, what more can be done to add resilience to our train infrastructure?
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on securing the urgent question and showing leadership on this crisis in the absence of a Government response. There has been no Cobra meeting and no declaration of a national emergency, and many of my North Cornwall constituents did not even receive the emergency alert. I have great respect for the Minister, but he does not even seem to have the correct number for households currently without power.
The Bellwin scheme, which is activated in emergencies such as this, reimburses local authorities for the extra costs incurred, but the scheme is unfair for larger authorities such Cornwall council, which can apply only once it has spent 0.2% of its budget—£1.6 million. If the storm had hit South Hams, for instance, the district council would need to spend only £260,000. Now that Cornwall council faces a real-terms cut in funding over the next three years, will the Government commit to emergency financial support for it to assist those who have been drastically affected by this storm?
Dan Jarvis
I have to say that I am disappointed with the point that the hon. Gentleman made at the beginning of his question, which I do not think is in keeping with the spirit of the debate. I could not have been clearer about the seriousness that the Government attach to these matters, or about the urgency and the pace with which we have worked, all through last week and weekend, and into this week. We take these matters very seriously. We want to work with Members right across the House to ensure the best possible response. Where there are lessons to be identified and learnt, we will of course take them on board, but the Government took this situation very seriously and I think that, in the main, the response was a good one.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right about the important role that councils play during challenging circumstances. From work I have done recently with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, I know there is a process of review—what I described earlier as the hot review and the cold review—to look closely at what has happened in a particular set of circumstances. I am sure that there will be opportunities for him, as a local Member, to feed into that process, but I have heard the points he has made and I am very happy to discuss them with him further.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I was very grateful to receive a phone call from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), on Friday afternoon warning that, because of Storm Goretti, Haywards Heath in my constituency might lose its water supply. In the event it was East Grinstead, which is not getting its water back until tomorrow. What are the Government doing to address the evident frailty in the resilience of our water treatment systems?
Jim Shannon
It certainly is, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last night you asked me whether I got home okay last Thursday—and I did, but by the skin of my teeth, because the winds were blowing the tail end of the plane. Although I got home from London City airport, many of my constituents did not get home from Heathrow, because all the flights were cancelled at about 6.30 pm. They had made it to the airport, but unfortunately they did not get home.
Is it not time for British Airways and other airline companies to ensure that there is pre-warning so that people do not journey to the airport only to find that they are unable to travel? Given all the lessons we can learn from Storm Goretti, is it not time to have a co-ordinated plan from Westminster for the regions of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? The Minister said earlier that we can co-ordinate and learn lessons from Storm Goretti. Perhaps it is time to ensure that we all learn those lessons.
UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s strategic partnership with the EU.
The Government were elected with a manifesto commitment to reset relations with our European partners; to tear down unnecessary barriers to trade and cut costs and red tape for British producers and retailers; to increase national security through strong borders and greater co-operation with our closest allies; and to support jobs here in the UK and opportunities abroad.
In May this year, the Government agreed a new strategic partnership with the EU, which the Prime Minister announced at the historic UK-EU summit—the first of its kind. It is a landmark deal that is good for bills, good for our borders and good for jobs. We took that decision, exercising our sovereignty, to strike a deal in the national interest. We had to fix a bad deal passed on to us by the previous Government—the first trade deal in history that made it harder to trade. Just as we have done with the US and India, this Labour Government are striking deals to bring down bills for British people and open new opportunities for British businesses.
Since that summit, I have led negotiations with the European Commission to implement the commitments we made. I am therefore pleased to inform the House that, earlier today, the UK and the European Commission concluded negotiations for the UK’s association to Erasmus+ from 2027. This will open up world-class opportunities for students, teachers, youth workers, sports sector professionals and communities of all ages in our education, training, sport and youth sectors—both for the professionals who work in those sectors and, crucially, for our young people.
For students, this means more chances to study, train, work or volunteer abroad, gaining language skills and experience that will make them attractive to employers; for our teachers, youth workers and those who work in the sports sector, it means greater opportunities for professional development; and for our schools, colleges, universities and providers, it means access to networks and partnerships that will drive quality, encourage research links, and enhance the reputation of the UK’s world-leading education system. This morning, I met students at New City College in Hackney to see the range of benefits there are going to be, including playing basketball.
As part of Erasmus+, participants can travel to any European Union member state, as well as to several countries outside the European Union. It will go further than schemes that have come before, offering a broader scope of activity and a specific focus on unlocking opportunities for all. It is an investment in opportunity for young people from all backgrounds, for our workforce, and for our future. It will open doors for tens of thousands more young people across the UK, renewing our ties with Europe and beyond. This Labour Government have always been clear that we want young people to have access to the best opportunities in life, no matter what their background or where in this country they live. That is what we have consistently delivered, and it is what we are delivering through today’s announcement.
We are pleased that the EU has agreed financial terms that represent a fair balance between the UK’s contribution and the benefits the programme offers. The 30% discount in 2027, compared with the default terms in the trade and co-operation agreement, has paved the way for UK participation in the programme.
We also agreed that there will be a review of the UK’s participation in the programme 10 months after our association, so that we can look at the actual data concerning the demand for funding in the UK. Going forward, any continued participation in Erasmus+ under the next multi-annual financial framework will be informed by that data and our experience of association in 2027. We have always said that we will not sign deals unless they are in the national interest, and in this case I am happy to say that the agreement passed that test.
The Government will now work to maximise take-up across all sectors so that the benefits of Erasmus+ association can be fully realised. We will work closely with institutions and our young people to support this, particularly among disadvantaged groups. A UK national agency will be appointed to administer the programme in due course.
In addition, I am pleased to inform the House that the UK and the European Commission have concluded exploratory talks on the UK’s participation in the EU’s internal electricity market. The details of this will be set out in an exchange of letters between me and Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, to be published next week. Closer co-operation on electricity will bring real benefits to businesses and consumers across Europe. It will drive down energy costs and protect consumers against volatile fossil fuel markets. It will also drive up investment in the North sea and strengthen energy security. The UK and the EU will now proceed swiftly with negotiations on a UK-EU electricity agreement.
But that is not all. I welcome the clarification from the European Commission today that, in practice, there should be no carbon border adjustment mechanism costs levied on UK electricity exports—a welcome development that reflects our extensive use of renewables. Negotiations to link our carbon markets are also under way, which will cut costs, make it cheaper for UK companies to move to greener energy and, once agreed, save £7 billion-worth of UK goods exports from EU CBAM charges.
Negotiations on the food and drink agreement are also under way, which will enable food and agriculture businesses to trade more cheaply and easily by slashing the red tape and costly paperwork introduced by the last Government, which result in businesses facing £200 for export health certificates on every single shipment, or small businesses choosing not to trade with the EU altogether. Our new agreement will put this right, boosting our exports, cutting costs for importers, and bringing down prices on supermarket shelves.
The UK and the EU are committed to implementing the commitments of the May 2025 summit in a timely manner. We are working swiftly to conclude negotiations on the food and drink deal and on linking our carbon markets by the time of the next UK-EU summit in 2026. Across all these areas, the UK is clear that there will be no return to the single market, the customs union or freedom of movement. We will agree deals that are in our national interest. The Government are exercising our sovereignty to deliver for the British people.
We are committed to building this new strategic partnership with the European Union. Indeed, last week I spoke with my counterpart in the Commission, Maroš Šefčovič, and we underlined our shared commitment to implementing the common understanding that the Prime Minister and the Commission President agreed at the UK- EU summit in May. Whether it is through boosting opportunities for young people and educators across the country, cutting energy bills or agreeing a food and drink deal that slashes red tape and cuts costs, I will always negotiate in the interests of this country and our people.
I will continue to lead negotiations with the Commission. I look forward to the next annual UK-EU summit, where the Government will continue to build that new strategic partnership. That is what a grown-up, pragmatic relationship looks like. We work together under shared aims for mutually beneficial solutions to our shared problems. That is the approach the Government are taking and that is the approach that is delivering results. I commend this statement to the House.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is quite right about the wonderful opportunities that this presents, and not just for self-confidence; the young people I spoke to only this morning at a further education college told me that going overseas had helped them to grow as people. However, the House should not just take my word for it: the Association of Colleges says that this is “brilliant news” for further education colleges. Universities UK says that it is
“fantastic news for the UK”.
The Russell Group of universities is “delighted” about this reassociation. But who is opposed to it? The Conservative party.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
We welcome the Minister’s announcement. As a recovering academic—a distinction that I think I share with him—I have witnessed at first hand the impact of our exiting the Erasmus scheme on university student intake. Welcoming students from across the EU into our education institutions and giving our own students opportunities to study abroad have undeniably strengthened our education system, so after years of campaigning, the Liberal Democrats welcome the news that the UK is finally set to rejoin the Erasmus scheme in 2027. However—I am sure the Minister expected there to be a “however”—while this represents an important first step towards building a closer relationship with Europe, I urge him to go further and faster.
Beyond this fixed-term experience of Erasmus+, will the Government commit to a proper youth mobility scheme for the benefit of the next generation, and can he update the House on what progress has been made in such negotiations? How confident is he that our food, drink and sanitary and phytosanitary scheme will be agreed by 2026, and how long thereafter will it take to fully implement the scheme? Agrifood and horticultural businesses cannot afford any further delays.
Finally, on the subject of unnecessary barriers to trade—which is where the Minister began his statement—will his Department commit itself at the very least to conducting a transparent assessment of the potential economic growth benefits of a UK-EU customs deal of the kind that the House voted for last week?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is quite right. Tens of thousands more people, many of them young people, will benefit from the accession to Erasmus+, although I seriously think, on the basis of what the shadow Minister said, that the Conservatives will go into the next election opposing those additional opportunities for people. As for my hon. Friend’s second point about reducing trade barriers, since Brexit 16,000 businesses have stopped trading with the EU altogether, and as for the food and drink agreement, she can be assured that work is ongoing to seek to complete those negotiations by the time of the next summit.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
In his white shirt and red tie, the Minister is doing a very good impression of Santa making an early visit. The announcements that he has made this afternoon are—I think—to be warmly welcomed, and he is to be personally congratulated on the good faith and patience that he has shown in his conversations with Maroš Šefčovič and others. That is clearly paying dividends.
Does the Minister agree that those of us on the Opposition Benches who last week voted against the idiotic proposal from the Liberal Democrats for a customs union have been proved right and then wrong, because the evolution of the relationship within the guardrails of the existing arrangement are the way to go, preserving those new free trade deals and seeing them extended while encouraging businesses to trade with Europe?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We have less than 45 minutes for this statement, so questions must be short.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his announcement on Erasmus+, which is hugely welcome news for students and for my youngest constituents in Stratford and Bow. Before I came to this place I worked with the Mayor of London in calling for an Erasmus scheme, and the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, of which I am a member, has called for it constantly, alongside our European partners. We want students to have the same chances of opportunity that we had, so that they do not suffer the consequences of a Brexit that they had no say in. Can the Minister outline the next steps in the UK’s participation?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work she does co-chairing the PPA. In 2026, it is critical that we have both the national agency and the simplest possible process for people to access a very wide range of benefits. I hope that was short enough, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I have only 20 minutes remaining, so Members must keep their questions short and answers just as short.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Could the Minister just spell out for the House’s benefit how much taxpayers’ money he has signed up to spending next year and in every year of this Parliament? On where Members of Parliament can read about value for money, which line item of the Budget has this money come out of?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I can update the hon. Gentleman and will write to him on the three specific countries he has mentioned, but I also say that the announcement I have made today on Erasmus+ clearly opens up even more opportunities for schools, which I am sure will be widely welcomed.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
As a former Erasmus student, I congratulate the Paymaster General on the steely resolve, the pragmatism and the significant progress he has been able to achieve. Only a few weeks ago, two fellow Erasmus students from the UK who I studied with in Germany were in this place. I was with them for the first time in 13 years, and they have messaged me today to congratulate the Government. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is most important to deliver on the concrete commitments agreed with our EU partners at the May summit, as opposed to heeding Lib Dem Members’ siren calls about a supposedly bespoke customs union?
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I refer colleagues to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Minister for his statement, although I am trying hard to visualise him playing basketball at Hackney college this morning. Perhaps photographs are available to confirm that it actually happened—apologies for that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Some 73% of university-age young people voted against Brexit—they voted to remain in the EU—so Erasmus always felt like a spiteful act, and I am really pleased that we are able to correct that injustice today. I worked in the university sector for almost 30 years before being elected to this place—hard to believe, I know—so I understand the benefits of Erasmus, but I do agree with the Minister that it was not a completely democratic process, and that it was middle-class students who tended to take part. How will he ensure that that changes? Will there be monitoring, perhaps, or will he consider targets?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. A tip for other questioners: the question does not require a preamble.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I may have been putting it a bit high when I said that I was playing basketball, but I did contribute in my own way.
On my hon. Friend’s second point, obviously the Erasmus+ programme has changed so that a wider range of activities is available, from youth work and adult education to sports, but there is also additional support in Erasmus for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. My hon. Friend is right about monitoring it, but my priority for the next few months will be driving that participation in the first place.
Dawn Sturgess Inquiry
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the Dawn Sturgess inquiry, which has today published its report.
I start with Dawn Sturgess. The untimely and sudden death of a much-missed mother, partner, daughter, sister and friend is a deeply personal tragedy, and today we keep her and her loved ones in our thoughts and prayers.
On 4 March 2018, Sergei and Yulia Skripal were targeted by the GRU, the Russian military intelligence service. Three GRU agents flew to the UK intent on killing Sergei Skripal. Two agents, known as Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, travelled to Salisbury and contaminated the door handle of Sergei’s house with the nerve agent Novichok, with callous and despicable disregard for others who might enter or leave that address. Sergei and Yulia were poisoned, and spent weeks in a critical condition. Others, including Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, were harmed as they responded to the incident.
On 30 June 2018, Charlie Rowley gave his partner Dawn Sturgess a gift of a Nina Ricci perfume bottle. She sprayed her wrists with the contents. Tragically, the bottle contained Novichok and had been recklessly thrown away by Petrov and Boshirov as they left Salisbury four months earlier. Dawn died at Salisbury hospital on 8 July 2018. An inquest was opened, but it was clear that a proper examination of Dawn Sturgess’s death would require a statutory public inquiry, which has been chaired by Lord Hughes.
Today, after an extensive and painstaking process, the inquiry has published its report. The inquiry has found that those who were involved in the assassination attempt against Sergei Skripal were “morally responsible” for Dawn’s death, and that
“deploying a highly toxic nerve agent in a busy city was an astonishingly reckless act.”
The chair concludes that the operation must have been signed off at the highest level of the Russian state, including by President Putin.
In respect of the emergency services’ treatment of Dawn, the inquiry found that she received “entirely appropriate medical care” but that, tragically, her condition was “unsurvivable”. On preventability, the chair has concluded that the Government’s public health advice following the attack on the Skripals was reasonable. He also found that although there were failings in the management of Sergei Skripal, the risk of assassination by Russian personnel was reasonably assessed and, based on that assessment, he did not need a new identity.
The inquiry has been clear in its findings of responsibility, and we must respond equally unequivocally. I have previously described to hon. Members the acute threat that Russia poses to the UK and our national security. Its recent acts have ranged from murdering Alexander Litvinenko and using a deadly nerve agent in Salisbury to espionage, arson, cyber-attacks and the targeting of UK parliamentarians for interference operations.
Since 2018, the UK has been at the forefront of the response against Russia. In direct response to the poisonings, the then Government expelled 23 undeclared Russian intelligence officers. This triggered the expulsion of over 150 Russian diplomats by 28 countries, including NATO allies. The UK has subsequently committed to prevent the rebuild of Russian intelligence and to remove Russian dirty money in the UK, developed legislative powers to harden the UK’s defences against state threats, and delivered new port and border powers, increased security checks on goods from Russia, and banned Russian-owned or linked aircraft from entering the UK.
The invasion of Ukraine introduced a stark new reality and demonstrated Russia’s intent to undermine European and global security. The UK has led the way in standing by Ukraine and providing unprecedented military, humanitarian and diplomatic support. In total, the UK has committed £21.8 billion for Ukraine and sanctioned over 2,900 individuals, entities and ships. This Government are proud to be at the forefront of the coalition of the willing to support Ukraine in defending its sovereignty and security. This has inevitably made the UK a target for increased hostile activity by Russia. Following an arson attack in east London in May 2024, the then Home Secretary warned of a pattern of Russian malign activities across Europe that had reached UK soil. In response, the UK expelled the Russian defence attaché and removed diplomatic status from Russian properties believed to have been used for intelligence purposes.
We are determined that the UK remains a hard operating environment for the Russian intelligence services. In October last year, we sanctioned three Russian agencies and three senior figures who were attempting to undermine and destabilise Ukraine and its democracy. In July, the UK sanctioned and exposed three GRU units and 18 of its military intelligence officers for the targeting of Yulia Skripal and cyber-operations in support of Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine. Yet we are now grappling with an increasingly reckless methodology. The director general of MI5 recently highlighted Russian state actors turning to proxies “for their dirty work”, and
“recruiting proxies on social media platforms, instructing them via encrypted apps, and offering payment in cryptocurrencies.”
UK law enforcement has secured convictions in several significant cases just this year: six individuals spying for Russia; six men involved in an arson attack on a warehouse supplying Ukraine; an individual who attempted to offer services to Russian intelligence; and a former MEP who accepted bribes to promote pro-Russian narratives in the EU Parliament. These cases serve as a strong reminder for anyone—anyone—seeking to facilitate or undertake hostile activity for Russia on UK soil.
This Government remain committed to providing our law enforcement partners with the tools they need to tackle these threats. We have specified Russia on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme to make it even more challenging to conceal relationships with the Russian state. I can now announce that the Government are going further. Today, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has imposed a further cost on the Russian regime by sanctioning the GRU under the Russia sanctions regime, along with several associated individuals. These sanctions recognise the continued reckless and destabilising activity of the GRU, which seeks to undermine Ukraine, European security and the safety of the United Kingdom. They will include sanctions against eight GRU officers under the cyber sanctions regime and three GRU officers under the Russia sanctions regime who have been implicated in hostile activity across Europe. We are also summoning the Russian ambassador to hold Russia to account for its responsibility for the tragic death of a British citizen.
There has been extensive misinformation and disinformation relating to these horrific and barbaric poisonings. This inquiry has categorically rejected those falsehoods, and this Government continue to reject the lies spread by Russia through its propaganda and paid mouthpieces. I wish—I am sure on behalf of the whole House—to wholeheartedly thank Lord Hughes and his team. This was a considerable task of great importance, and they have collectively approached it with diligence, care and sensitivity. I also want to take this opportunity—I am again sure on behalf of the whole House—to thank the first responders, military personnel, scientists, medical practitioners and all those who responded to the attack. They are the very best of us, and I know that Members right across the House will join me in paying tribute to them for the important work they do to keep us safe.
Dawn Sturgess was the victim of an utterly reckless and dangerous act—a chemical weapons attack perpetrated by Russia on British soil—and the pain and suffering it has caused can never be undone, but we must honour Dawn Sturgess’s memory, uphold truth and justice, and keep everyone in our country safe. I commend this statement to the House.
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.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I thank the Security Minister for speaking for the whole House when he gave our sincere condolences to Dawn Sturgess’s family, paid tribute to the emergency and security services, and conveyed his thoughts to those affected in the Novichok attack.
Government’s primary role is to keep our country safe. The report into the tragic killing of Dawn Sturgess on the streets of the UK by Russian agents in their attempt to assassinate Sergei Skripal, is damning. The report found Vladimir Putin to be responsible for the death of an innocent British citizen on our shores.
Basic protections were not in place. Sergei was a clear target for Russian state assassins. The inquiry states that he was resettled in the UK under his own name. Russia used that to track him down and MI5 failed to rename him. Can the Minister confirm to the House why the security services left him in an “alarmingly accessible” situation, despite clearly being an identified target of Russian state assassination, including residing in Salisbury in his own name? How have the security services justified to the Minister their apparent failure to implement even basic protective measures, such as CCTV, alarms or secure accommodation? Worryingly for UK security, Putin’s assassins had no trouble locating him. That failure put him at risk, but also exposed the wider public in Salisbury and across the country. That contributed to the death of Dawn, an entirely innocent member of the public.
Last year, the Sturgess family’s legal team described the Skripals as sitting ducks due to failings that should have been foreseen by MI5. Given the preventable deaths and public risk, what accountability measures will the Government take to ensure MI5 protects both vulnerable individuals and the wider public? Considering the threat Russia poses to world security, especially security at home, will the Government finally seize the £30 billion in frozen Russian assets across the UK, including Sutton Place in my constituency?
Finally, the Government need to see the report as a turning point for the threat Russia poses to the UK. Will they launch an investigation into Russian interference in British politics to ensure no more UK politicians, like the former leader of the Reform party in Wales, are bribed with Russian money?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the threat. It is not a distant matter; it quite literally impacts the lives of our citizens every single day. I give him an assurance of how seriously we take these matters. He is also right to raise the issue of misinformation and disinformation. Again, through the defending democracy taskforce, these are matters that we keep under very close review. He is right to mention the important contribution that is required of DSIT. We work very closely with DSIT and other Government Departments on these matters. We keep a constant vigilance. I think that, in truth, there is more that we need to do, and I will have further conversations with ministerial colleagues about that particular matter.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I thank the Security Minister for early sight of his statement, and I thank him most warmly for the way in which he has presented the Government’s response this afternoon. As someone who spent a previous life in Salisbury and south Wiltshire, he has served the people of my constituency very well. I am also very pleased with the remarks of the shadow Home Secretary.
Today’s report was written as a consequence of the need to bring clarity and to understand unequivocally who was responsible for what happened in 2018, but it is important to remember the huge impact it had on Salisbury, and the tragedy that befell Dawn Sturgess, Charlie Rowley, Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, and Yulia and Sergei Skripal. The report is very clear about where culpability lies: it lies with President Putin. Russia was responsible, and Putin as an individual was responsible. He personally ordered what happened in Salisbury, and we should never forget it.
Putin is a ruthless dictator, not someone with whom deals can be done. Contrary to one of the candidates in the general election last year in Salisbury who said that he admired him as a political operator, I do not. I never will. I welcome what the Minister said on additional sanctions, and I encourage him and his successors always to pursue energetically, and with continued vigilance, further such measures as required. I welcome what he said about more sophisticated threats emerging on cyber, and I urge him to extend that to look at what happens with our cloud infrastructure.
I have just one question. Paragraph 6.25 of the report refers to the issue of regular written assessments, which were lacking in terms of the ongoing care of Sergei Skripal. I think that is the only element that needs serious review for individuals like him in future, but I thank the Minister again for the way he has spoken today, which will give huge comfort to my constituents in Salisbury and to the families of those so tragically affected.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsMonday 3rd November 2025
(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 View all Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I really think that, with the Hillsborough families here in the House with us—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I was trying to pay close attention, but I may have missed it; we do not accuse each other of giving misleading information at the Dispatch Box. One should be mindful of the language that one is uses.
The Prime Minister
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also think that we owe the families a better debate than this descending into party political point scoring. I hope we can continue the debate in that way.
This Bill will tackle that injustice so that when tragedy strikes and the state is called to account, in inquiries, inquests and other investigations, public officials—from police officers to the highest offices in the land—will be subject to that duty. That means that an injustice like this can never again hide in some dark corner of the state. Failure to comply—failure, therefore, to act with candour, transparency and frankness—will now carry criminal penalties, including being sent to prison.
The Prime Minister
I think there may have been meetings. If not, we will get meetings set up. [Interruption.] I am being told that there will be one, but I take on board what the hon. Lady says. I will make sure that there are the appropriate meetings, and will update her on exactly what form they will take and when they will take place.
The rebalancing of legal representation is a fundamental change in the balance of power in our justice system, and I genuinely hope that the whole House will support it.
Taken together, the measures in the Bill can be a landmark piece of legislation. I am determined—as I said in an intervention, having given my word to the Hillsborough families and having worked in partnership with them on this legislation—that the Bill will not be watered down. When it is in statute, it will rank as one of the great Acts of this Labour Government, a moment when the tireless campaigning of working people to right a historic wrong was finally recognised in this place and made our country better. That is all the campaigners have ever wanted. This has never been just about Hillsborough and those families; it has always been about everyone.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if they were to come down to this Dispatch Box—I won’t extend the invitation, because I suspect they readily would—I know, because I have heard them many times before, what they would say. They would say, “You must keep going. This is not done until it is done.” I want to therefore put on record in this House my deep gratitude to everyone who has worked with us on the journey to this point: Hillsborough Law Now; my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool West Derby, for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) and for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who were all at the game; so many hon. Members from across Merseyside, past and present, as well, of course, as the Mayors of Liverpool and Manchester, all of whom have never stopped fighting for this Bill; Inquest, which facilitated so much of the engagement so we could be a Government who listened; Bishop James Jones, who chaired that crucial Hillsborough independent panel; the countless other campaigns that this issue touches on, many represented in the Gallery today; and, most of all, Margaret, Steve, Charlotte, Sue, Jenni, Hilda and every single member of the families affected by Hillsborough. I know that what they really want is not thanks or acclaim; they want change and they have waited 36 long years for change.
It is my honour, as Prime Minister, to bring the Hillsborough law before the House and to open today’s debate. It should never have taken this long, but we are here now and we must get it over the line: a legacy of justice, change and national renewal for the 97. That is what we are here to deliver today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Members can see that the debate is heavily subscribed, so when I get to Back Benchers, speeches will be limited to six minutes. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.