Oral Answers to Questions
Peter Fortune Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
May I start by thanking my hon. Friend for her long record of campaigning against child poverty? Child poverty stifles opportunity, it makes it harder for kids to get on in life and we in this Government will not stand by. This is a moral mission for this Government. We will make sure that no child or family is left behind, through lifting the two-child cap, expanding free school meals and free breakfast clubs, and extending free childcare. More than 6,000 children in my hon. Friend’s constituency alone will benefit from the action that we are taking. And what would the Tories and Reform do? They would plunge those children straight back into poverty. That is a disgrace.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
Today, vigils are being held across Westminster for the 22 women who are diagnosed with lobular breast cancer every day, and I think we are privileged to say that some of those extraordinarily brave women are in the Gallery this afternoon. When I raised this issue with the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, she promised to take action and not just commit words, so will the Prime Minister today commit to the Lobular Moon Shot Project’s plan to fund lobular breast cancer?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing the attention of the House to the vigils and the campaign, and I acknowledge those who are here in the Gallery today. I will make sure that this is looked at to see what further we can do, and that any relevant meetings are set up.
Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment
Peter Fortune Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
In the immortal words of the famous film “A Few Good Men”:
“‘I want the truth.’
‘You can’t handle the truth!’”
The court goes quiet. That is the moment of realisation that things have moved from process to accountability and responsibility. If hon. Members have not seen the film, it is about two marines who are on trial for killing another. The real story that unravels, however, is whether command can deny any responsibility for the actions that it has set in motion. Here lies the parallel. When subordinates act on the understood direction of authority, where does responsibility ultimately sit? They acted because of someone; it belongs to that person.
Let us recount the facts that are not disputed in this House. Lord Mandelson was announced by the Prime Minister as the UK ambassador to the US in December 2024; UK Security Vetting recommended against developed vetting clearance in January 2025; the FCDO overruled that recommendation, enabling the appointment; the Prime Minister stated publicly that due process had been followed; and Sir Olly Robbins, the then permanent secretary, was later dismissed. However, what Robbins told us in the Committee in November 2025 is telling.
“By the time we are describing, it was clear the Prime Minister wanted to make his appointment himself. Therefore, I understand the FCDO was informed of his decision and acted on it, and, via the Foreign Secretary, sought and obtained the King’s approval for the appointment. In this case, as Chris explained, the Prime Minister took advice and formed a view himself, and we then acted on that view.”
The FCDO is clear: that was not drift; it was acting under direction. The Prime Minister formed that view and the FCDO acted on it—acting on instruction, acting on direction, acting on what the Prime Minister wanted. Yet since then, the Prime Minister has been trying to separate the decision and the consequence. There is the decision, there are the consequences, but we and the public know that we cannot separate the two. If an official acts in the shadow of a settled view, responsibility returns to the source, where the shadow was first cast.
Let us draw some more comparisons with the film, because it is quite telling. Colonel Jessep does not issue the written order; the Prime Minister does not personally do the vetting. Subordinates act on a clear command and intent; the FCDO acted on the political intent. The defence by the colonel was that he did not order that; the defence by the Prime Minister was he was not told. The court finds that authority cannot be passive; we in this House say, “Neither can the Prime Minister.” The blame lands on the subordinates, and the same has happened here. In both cases, the controversy does not turn on the mechanics but on where the moral and constitutional responsibility resides. Officials were acting on a settled prime ministerial preference.
The Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot have decisive authority on the way in and plausible deniability on the way out. That is not process; that is power without accountability. If the decision was his, is not the responsibility his? If not, why not, and whose is it then?
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
This is probably a useful speech to intervene on, due to my striking resemblance to Tom Cruise. [Laughter.] The key point in that scenario was about responsibility. Labour Members are probably lucky that Sadiq Khan has cancelled all the tubes today, otherwise they might be under another transport mechanism. Does this not show more widely that the Prime Minister is failing in his key role, which is to take responsibility for the decisions he is charged to take?
Dr Evans
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is the bottom line: the Prime Minister shaped the system by having a settled political decision—one with horrific consequences—despite all the warnings that we have talked about in this House, about Mandelson being fired twice and so on, and now tries to point to the process as the failing. The country is not buying it. The film teaches us this simple lesson: power cannot hide behind those who obey it.
Before I finish, I have a message for Labour MPs and will address them directly. To paraphrase Colonel Jessep’s famous speech, the PM neither has the time nor the inclination to explain himself to Back Benchers who rise and sleep under the blanket of the very majority that he provides and then question the manner in which the PM provides it. The PM would rather they say just “thank you” and went on their way. Otherwise, he suggests they pick up a weapon and stand at post. Either way, he does not give a damn about what they are entitled to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Peter Fortune Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her work. She is right to highlight the growing threat posed by dangerous synthetic drugs. Alongside deploying new detection methods at the border to seize drugs, we are investing in better mental health support and drug addiction treatment, with almost £26 million for Stoke-on-Trent. I will ask a Health Minister to discuss her important work with her.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
The Prime Minister
It is really important that nobody is left behind in a cashless society. The vast majority are moving online, but we need to remember that some do not want to, or cannot, and we must ensure that provision is in place for them as well. I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that issue.
Oral Answers to Questions
Peter Fortune Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
I am asking this question on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), the shadow Secretary of State, who cannot be here today, but wants the House to know how important this issue is to her. The lobular moon shot project is a plan to fund critical research into lobular breast cancer. It is a disease often missed by screening and with no targeted treatment. A total of 463 Members of this House, including the Leader of the Opposition, support this plan. The Health Secretary says that there is no political disagreement on this, yet nothing has materially happened. His Department now says that it is for DSIT and UK Research and Innovation to comment on budget allocations and spending research priorities. I ask the Secretary of State this: is the moon shot project a research priority for her, as it is for 463 of her parliamentary colleagues?
Liz Kendall
Anything that deeply affects the lives of thousands of people is a priority for me. I am more than happy to work with the hon. Gentleman and others to reach a resolution here. My understanding is that we need to get right the quality of bids, but I would of course be happy to meet to discuss this further.
Peter Fortune
I thank the Secretary of State for that response. She should know that, on 22 April, vigils will be held across Westminster for the 22 women diagnosed with this insidious disease every day. I thank her for that commitment to work with the Health Secretary between now and then so that we can highlight this issue. Will she agree to come back to the House and update us on the comments and discussions that she has had with the Secretary of State for Health?
Liz Kendall
Yes, because I always believe in action, not just words.
Digital ID
Peter Fortune Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Julia Lopez
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he spoke powerfully in his contribution. I am sure that today we will hear no answers from the Minister, because behind this policy sits no plan at all. No Minister has any idea how much it will cost—the OBR reckons it will be £1.8 billion.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree with me and the thousands of people across Bromley and Biggin Hill who signed the petition that at a time of rising taxation and spiralling debt, the fact that the Government cannot even tell us how much this wretched device will cost exemplifies their irresponsible approach to our economy?
Julia Lopez
I completely agree. On the one hand, the Government claim there is no money left. On the other hand, they can suddenly find billions for bizarre schemes or the Chagos islands, or create policies on the two-child benefit cap that they could not previously deliver. They are just so intellectually inconsistent.
The OBR, as I say, reckons the scheme will cost £1.8 billion. Privately, Ministers are briefing that that is completely inaccurate. We have not even begun scoping it yet. I am told the Treasury and the Cabinet Office are now in a stand-off with one another about who will pay for this dreadful thing. Neither wants it, particularly as the Cabinet Office will then have to make cuts to other, much more effective digital projects, the kinds that would actually deliver better services.
No one will answer straight questions about how secure the digital ID will be, or into which areas of our lives it will creep. The Prime Minister tells us that digital ID will be mandatory only for anyone who still wants to work in Labour’s welfare Britain. Yet in the next breath he suggests that childcare, welfare and wider service access will all require it. This is precisely how state overreach begins: with reassurance in one sentence and expansion in the next.
It was very interesting to hear hon. Members making points about the police being able to access digital ID, or even about people needing it to go to the cinema. There have been no answers on the robustness of the Government’s cyber-security. This Government could not even keep their own Budget secret, and now they want us to trust them with this new system. Ministers point to Estonia and India as models, yet Estonia has suffered repeated breaches. India’s system, the largest ID system in the world, led to the largest ever data breach in the world, with citizens’ data sold on the dark web for the equivalent of £5 or £6. AI is now giving cyber-attackers the upper hand.
We have been given no sense of the extent to which digital ID will stem illegal migration, which was the Prime Minister’s excuse for introducing the idea in the first place. Ministers cannot even give an estimate, and that is for a simple reason: because it will not reduce migration. Can Ministers explain why those who enter the country by dodging the rules will suddenly become models of civic compliance, or why European ID schemes have done so little to stem illegal migration on the continent?