House of Lords Reform

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John.

First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this critical debate. He has been a champion in pursuing long overdue reform to the upper Chamber.

Let me start by saying, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, that I have had the privilege of working with a number of excellent peers who are deeply committed to legislative scrutiny and improving our legislation. There are many members of the Lords who perform a vital public service. But good people can still be trapped in a bad system, and the public can see that.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has said, why is it acceptable in this country for lawmakers in the upper House to work as lobbyists at the same time? How can the public be expected to trust the system when those shaping legislation can also be paid to influence it? In my old life as a compliance officer, that would not have passed the most basic conflict of interest test and it should not pass such a test in Parliament. Transparency International UK has gone so far as to call the House of Lords:

“a lobbying network for hire.”

If that does not set alarm bells ringing—Transparency International UK is the true expert—I do not know what will.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

Only a couple of individuals are involved, so my hon. Friend might not be aware that there are still Lords who sit on Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal and who can be paid up to £40,000 a month for doing so, despite the national security law effectively meaning that the courts in Hong Kong are kangaroo courts. Does he agree that nobody from this place—either from this House or the other place—should be involved in anything to do with implementing the national security law in Hong Kong?

[Phil Brickell]

I welcome that intervention from my hon. Friend, and he is absolutely right to talk about kangaroo courts in Hong Kong and to say that UK lawmakers should not be complicit in supporting them.

While we are asking difficult questions, here is another one: why is it possible to be appointed to the legislature of the United Kingdom and then barely show up? I can think of no other workplace where someone can disappear for months, sometimes even years, and still retain the right to walk back in and take part in making decisions that affect millions of people. An honour should come with responsibilities; membership of Parliament should not be a lifetime pass with no expectation of participation.

Then there is the size of the place. With about 800 peers— 800—the House of Lords is larger than almost every comparable second chamber in the democratic world. When people talk about a bloated state, perhaps they should start by walking through Westminster Hall and turning right at Central Lobby. Nobody seriously believes that adding more peers automatically leads to better scrutiny; what it does lead to is a system that looks increasingly detached from the public it serves.

Also, who gets to participate? The overwhelming majority of working peers are based in London and the south-east, and it is not right that, for example, the north-west— my region—is so under-represented. However, it is hardly surprising, given that the accommodation allowance is £125 a night. That sounds reasonable, but try finding somewhere to stay in central London at that rate. The result is obvious: those with substantial means, or those who live close enough to commute, have a built-in advantage. We should not have a legislature that prices out talents from the nations and regions.

Then there is the transparency. Why do peers not have to declare how much time they spend on outside employment compared with their parliamentary duties? Why do they not have to declare how much they are paid for those jobs? The public are entitled to know where lawmakers are earning their money, and who could be influencing them.

Elsewhere on standards, the new legislation on disgraced peers, announced in the last King’s Speech, is long overdue. Will the Minister reaffirm the Government’s commitment to that proposal? Elsewhere, what progress has been made on the Government’s three other manifesto commitments: first, introducing new participation requirements; secondly, delivering a national and regional balance for the upper Chamber; and finally, and most importantly, reforming the appointments process? Removing the worst offenders is not the same as fixing the system that allowed them through the door, which is why we need stronger suitability and propriety checks through the House of Lords Appointments Commission. The reforms should include putting HOLAC on a statutory footing and giving it an effective veto on demonstrably unsuitable appointments.

Let us tackle one final issue head-on: why should major party donors be rewarded with lifelong seats in the legislature? Public appointments should be earned through service and expertise, not purchased through cheque books. The House of Lords does important work, but many diligent and hard-working peers feel that they are having their reputations dragged through the mud by certain individuals who are exploiting, or who are sometimes actively enabled by, a broken system. We need a smaller House, a cleaner House and a more transparent House. That is not radical; surely it is just common sense.

EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Pete Wishart]

Most definitely. I thoroughly agree with the hon. Lady. It is hard to think of any sector that has not suffered as a result of our leaving the European Union. She is right to reference the steel sector, although it could be any sector. I am pretty certain that today we will hear quite a lot about how leaving the EU has disastrously impacted so many sectors throughout the United Kingdom.

I want to get on to immigration. How do we start to deal with the subject of immigration? It is perhaps the saddest but funniest part of the whole saga. Immigration was supposed to be the one thing that Brexit would fix. That seemed to be the whole point of it: it was about taking back control and stopping uncontrolled immigration. But what did we find? Immigration skyrocketed and reached the extraordinarily high level of 1.47 million in the year to March 2023.

Without a doubt, leaving the EU closed the door to EU immigration. Net migration from the EU has been negative since June 2022. The conveyor belt of talent that had been coming to the UK for the best part of the past two decades was stopped. After closing off Europe, we quickly discovered that we actually quite liked having EU people working in all our different sectors, from hospitals to farms, hotels, restaurants, universities, care services, businesses, the City and our creative sector. We all found that we actually needed people from the EU and people quite liked employing them.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

As secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on Germany I spend a lot of time meeting German businesses that want to invest in this country. One issue that comes up time and again is exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman has made about business mobility and persuading German boards to invest in British companies to grow the economy, and one constraint on that is the ability of German professionals to come here. Does he recognise that point, and will he join me in paying tribute to Ulrich Hoppe, the director general at the German-British Chamber of Industry and Commerce, who does formidable work trying to resolve some of these issues to support the British economy?

[Pete Wishart]

I join the hon. Gentleman overwhelmingly and enthusiastically. He is absolutely right. It is hard to think of a sector that has remained untouched by the fact that we cannot access European talent. It is a problem for hospitality and restaurant businesses in constituencies like mine, and in the City, where many dynamic figures helped build some of the success stories that we see just a few miles from where we are today.

Before Brexit, there was barely a small boat sighted in the channel, and now we are told that that is perhaps the single biggest issue that confronts this country. Various Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries have come up with a variety of different wheezes to try to stop those small boats coming to the UK, but all have been hampered because we left the one international agreement that might have dealt with returning some of those people to the European Union. When we left the European Union, we also left the Dublin III regulation—the one thing that might have achieved some of the ambition that people had about stopping small boats.

Then there is the irony that Brexit did not just make it harder for Europeans to come here; it made it harder for us to move around Europe, too. British citizens are now third country nationals in their own continent. We can still travel across Europe, of course, but there is now a 90-day limit in a rolling 180-day period. For ordinary holidaymakers who have been away enjoying the sun, that might mean nothing more than the huge queues that we have seen in some airports across Europe—a minor inconvenience, perhaps—but for businesses it means more red tape, more restrictions and more unnecessary difficulties.

For those in my former profession—musicians, performers and other creative professionals—it can mean a bewildering collection of different rules about work permits, visas, carnets and documentation. Brexit has been such a destructive and invidious political project that it has even managed to stop the music moving freely. This Labour Government gave a commitment that they would fix that. We are talking about ambitions, so come on, Minister: stop the Brexit imposition on music. Let the music move freely again. Let the current generation of musicians enjoy the opportunities that I had as a musician. Who knows, we might even have the Prime Minister on a European tour if he manages to get it fixed!

Oral Answers to Questions

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Matt Turmaine.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I take this opportunity to thank the Prime Minister for his many years—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I was calling Matt Turmaine—red card in action.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I have been careful not to tempt fate and jinx the result. I am a passionate Arsenal and England supporter and have watched many games with agonising moments; on the question of a bank holiday, the hon. Gentleman should ask again on Sunday.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister will not need reminding about Arsenal’s success in the premier league last season and my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will not want reminding that Everton, unfortunately for him, came 13th, but what neither of them might know is that the UK finished 20th in the corruption perceptions index, well within the relegation zone. At the Prime Minister’s request, last week the Ethics and Integrity Commission produced a comprehensive set of recommendations to tighten up rules around lobbying. In light of recent stories around the leader of Reform UK, does the Prime Minister agree—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call the Prime Minister.

MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing the debate and on his extremely powerful speech. Despite being members of the same party, we come from very different traditions within the labour movement, but I am pleased that on this issue—one that is critical to commanding public confidence in the mother of all Parliaments—we are in violent agreement. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, which builds on my experience at two FTSE 100 firms advising on, among other things, how to manage conflicts of interest.

Let us remind ourselves that only 4% of the public believe politicians do what is best for the country, according to YouGov, while polling from More in Common found that 87% of Britons have either not very much or no trust in politicians. Despite reforms made shortly after the last general election, despite our own registration and code of conduct requirements, which are independently policed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and despite an ongoing inquiry into outside employment being undertaken by the Committee on Standards, this institution is not moving swiftly enough or with enough ambition to satisfy me that I can look my constituents in the eye and tell them that the risks—perceived or actual—around outside employment are properly managed to my satisfaction.

I mentioned those measures taken or in train because I give credit where credit is due. It would be remiss of me to say that nothing has been done—clearly that is not the case. The Government’s decision to remove the exemption that allowed MPs to provide advice on current affairs and how Parliament works was very welcome, but the issue has not gone away. Before, it was Owen Paterson, Matt Hancock, Nadine Dorries and Scott Benton who caused significant damage to the reputation of individual Members of Parliament and our democratic institutions, but now we have other Members of this House racking up huge salaries elsewhere. They have been warned in advance that I intend to mention them today.

Take the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is conspicuous, as ever, by his absence. He has declared a total of 16 other jobs and around 800 hours worked alongside his role as a Member of this place. Just yesterday, the Financial Times reported that he is receiving £22,500 an hour for promoting a gold bullion dealer—not bad for someone who has also received what he has variously described as a “gift” or a “reward” from his billionaire crypto backer, Christopher Harborne. Mr Western, you know my views about money in politics from past conversations.

Meanwhile, the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) chalked up around 500 hours of outside employment in the last year. Indeed, the £60,000 paid out by a Luxembourg bank in May alone is one and a half times the average national salary. Do the people of Clacton or of Torridge and Tavistock not deserve a full-time MP?

On 6 November 2024, the Modernisation Committee invited the Committee on Standards to inquire into whether outside interests or employment should be reformed in the Members’ code of conduct. I think the Standards Committee is still hearing evidence; the last evidence was heard on 15 July 2025, and no report has yet been published. Regrettably, it feels like we are moving at a glacial speed, when outside these walls, business is going on at an increasingly fast-moving pace.

In my old line of work as an anti-bribery and corruption compliance specialist, it would be unheard of for an employee to be holding down two jobs, unless they held part-time elected office or were, for instance, an armed forces reservist. Why are second jobs permitted? In my view, they are a hangover from Victorian days. They do not reflect modern ways of working and do not account for modern demands on any hon. Member’s time, including 24/7 rolling news and constituents making contact by email or phone. I say yes to continuous professional development, but we are living in a wild-west scenario with no controls on how much time is spent, or how much income can be gained, on work outside Parliament.

Members can earn 10 times their parliamentary salary on what are supposedly second, third or even fourth jobs. That gives rise to a question that any member of the public would be within their right to ask: if a Member of this House is earning more outside the House than they are as a Member, is being an elected representative not in fact their second job and their lower priority? That matters because it gives the impression that Members’ obligations in this place are not at the forefront of our minds.

Mooted reforms to lobbying and civil service governance must sit alongside modernisation of how this place operates if we are to build a functional 21st century system that prevents inherent conflicts of interest from arising and encourages the right behaviours from all Members. If we expect the ministerial code to be updated, electoral law to be reformed and the revolving door to be policed more stridently, we should also expect demands on this place to be tightened.

I agree with the likes of Transparency International and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East that there should be a total proscription on all secondary employment, except in order to maintain a professional qualification, undertake political activity or provide an essential public service. I know that the people of Bolton West deserve every hour I can find in the day to do what I can to improve my constituency. Do the people of each and every constituency in this country not deserve the same?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood]

I thank the hon. Member for making the point that I was about to move on to.

Some of the jobs that I have mentioned are better remunerated, so it is incredibly difficult to know where a formal line should be drawn in explicit rules. If medical jobs are acceptable, why not the legal work that some Members have legally and properly been paid to do as Back-Bench MPs? If paid newspaper columns are allowed, which the Government’s current plans notably exempt, it becomes much harder to explain to the public why work advising a manufacturing business on global supply chains is completely unacceptable.

The point that the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) rightly made was that we must differentiate between work and influence. The real threat to public confidence has never been an MP spending a few hours a week doing genuine practical work in business, law or the media. The threat is and always has been paid advocacy and lobbying, which is why the rules were fundamentally overhauled. We have an absolute ban on paid advocacy and an explicit prohibition on MPs acting as paid parliamentary strategists, consultants or advisers. In July 2024, the new Opposition gladly supported the removal of exemptions regarding public policy advice.

[Phil Brickell]

The shadow Minister is making an important point about the distinction between outside employment and paid advocacy. Could he expand on what seems to be his view that Members of this House should be treated differently from serving members of the armed forces, members of the judiciary, civil servants and other public servants for whom there are restrictions on taking outside commercial jobs in addition to their core role? What does he think is different about Members of Parliament?

[Mike Wood]

Fundamentally, I think it comes down to the employment relationship. Obviously, as Members of Parliament, we are elected to represent constituents. It is then a question of judgment as to what activities conflict with that and prevent us doing that role as well as we need to. I think most people would agree that some of the cases highlighted today cross that line, but the question is whether a blanket ban is the most effective and proportionate way of dealing with what is clearly a genuine problem.

The independent Committee on Standards launched a comprehensive inquiry on the issue in January 2025 to look at the exact benefits, risks and regulatory effectiveness of outside employment. That inquiry is still under way, so it would seem the height of legislative impatience if we were to go down the road of threatening blanket bans while that independent review is still gathering evidence on how a more balanced approach could operate.

Trying to put together a rigid set of formal rules that allows the activities we happen to approve of while preventing those that we find unpalatable is a recipe for hypocrisy and administrative chaos. It risks leaving Parliament poorer rather than our constituents better served. Ultimately, the best people to judge whether an MP’s outside work prevents them from being an effective Member of Parliament are the voters in that MP’s constituency—if they have the full and proper information available.

Let us ensure absolute transparency. Let us publish every hour and every pound in the register for the world to see. Then let us trust the British public to look at that record, weigh it against the service they receive and render their unappealable verdict at the ballot box.

Cabinet Office

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Chowns]

I honestly do not recognise the caricature that the right hon. Gentleman paints. Technology exists to provide both heating and cooling in ecologically friendly ways, and that is absolutely what we need going forward. We need far better building standards so that we build buildings that adapt and are suitable, and we need homes that are fit for the future. That is essential.

The Committee on Climate Change—the Government’s independent adviser—has set out repeatedly that these solutions are available and has set out the things that we need to put forward. The Committee has also set out repeatedly, as have any number of people over any number of years, the fact that the costs of inaction far exceed those of action. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) made that point previously in relation to other security challenges, and it applies with knobs on to tackling the challenge of climate breakdown. Twenty years ago, Professor Nick Stern set out clearly that the costs of inaction far outweigh—many times over—the costs of action to address these risks. After 20 years of our heads collectively being in the sand as a country, we are reaping the whirlwind of that inaction.

I call on the Government and the Cabinet Office to recognise the reality that tackling climate resilience must be a central plank of any strategy to protect national security and resilience. We need a Minister in the Cabinet Office whose responsibility it is to put in place that work and to take a cross-Government approach. This is not a siloed issue and cannot be dealt with in one single Department; it needs a cross-Government approach.

We need a comprehensive strategy to prepare the NHS for new public health challenges. We need to invest in flood protection, because we face not just extreme heat but flooding incidents of increasing frequency and severity. We have all seen what a disastrous effect that has on the economy as well as on lives and livelihoods.

We need to develop a comprehensive extreme heat strategy, a national drought plan and a farmer-led transition to climate-resilient food production. Our farmers are crying out for that support, and they too are on the frontline of the security and resilience challenges that the reality of climate breakdown places on us. We need to strengthen our transport infrastructure, energy infrastructure and water infrastructure. Last week, we heard about nuclear power stations going offline in France. Train companies were saying that nobody should travel unless it was a matter of life and death. Water shortages are becoming more and more frequent. The collective, long-term and strategic approach to tackling climate resilience must be a core plank of national security.

Tackling climate breakdown is not just an environmental issue but a central plank of security and national resilience. The costs of inaction far outweigh the costs of taking action now. Will the Minister commit to putting in place a national strategy? Will there be an individual identified in the Cabinet Office who leads on it? Does she recognise that we must invest now or pay far worse costs later?

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Mr Brickell, I was not sure if you were going to swap seats again. Are you comfortable where you are?

[Phil Brickell]

I am indeed.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Marvellous. The Floor is yours.

[Phil Brickell]

I wish to confine my remarks to the responsible, resilient and transparent use of taxpayers’ money. I say that as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, a role which sees me engage with ministerial colleagues from across Government on a whole swathe of issues. I push Government constructively to increase transparency, improve controls and increase enforcement when those who seek to defraud the taxpayer are identified.

Public sector fraud and error is estimated to cost taxpayers between £55 billion and £81 billion annually. That is not sustainable when we are asking taxpayers to shoulder a large burden and when our public finances are already squeezed, at a time of increasingly turbulent geopolitical headwinds. That is why, back in December 2024, I was delighted to see the Government announce the introduction of Tom Hayhoe as the new covid fraud commissioner. He was tasked with identifying areas of reckless spend overseen by the previous Government and going as far as possible in claiming back moneys for the taxpayer.

Since then, Mr Hayhoe has identified £10.9 billion lost to fraud and error across the covid schemes, at a time when the Government’s resilience was pushed to the limit. Let us dwell on that £10.9 billion figure. Of that money, £324 million was lost in personal protective equipment fraud during the pandemic and £1.88 billion was lost in fraud on the bounce back loan scheme, issued by the Department for Business and Trade. We talk about more money for the defence investment plan or increased resilience at a time of increasing geopolitical instability, and those figures of taxpayers’ money lost to fraudsters by the last Government are truly astonishing.

Without straying into ongoing litigation, let us dwell on the PPE Medpro scandal for a second. It has become symbolic of the waste and poor oversight that occurred during some covid-19 procurement processes. As we know, the company was awarded Government contracts worth more than £200 million through the controversial VIP lane system. In 2025, the High Court ruled that PPE Medpro had breached a £122 million contract for surgical gowns, because the products supplied did not meet the required standards, and the company was ordered to repay that money to the Government.

That matters, because holding suppliers accountable when contracts are not fulfilled properly helps to protect public funds and reinforces the principle that those who benefit from Government contracts should meet their obligations. That is a vital premise, because we must ensure that Government procurement is resilient and delivering the best value. Ensuring that those who rip off the state—and, by default, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, me and every other person up and down the length of the country—are held to account is vital.

Alongside our debate on the Cabinet Office’s estimates, will the Minister articulate why the Government announced last week that they had chosen to only “partially accept” four of Tom Hayhoe’s recommendations? The first of those recommendations was that the Government should have a challenge champion in crisis situations—we talk a lot about resilience. The second recommendation was to ensure that small companies publish profit-and-loss accounts—remember that small companies were the engine of the bounce back loan scheme fraud.

The third recommendation was that there should be stronger measures when Ministers issue directions to override the civil service. That is crucial, given that ministerial directions included overriding an accounting officer’s concerns about fraud on bounce back loans. The fourth recommendation was to have clearer central oversight of the spending of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government through local bodies, including grants. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister may not have the answers to hand, but I would be very grateful if she could write to me after this debate.

Do not let my questions distract from the good work undertaken during this Parliament. I particularly commend the Cabinet Office for the work undertaken by the Public Sector Fraud Authority, including last week’s launch of the new public authorities fraud investigation and enforcement service. I had the benefit of meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur) only a few weeks ago to discuss the vital work of the PSFA. We both know how critical it is to drive up transparency, break down information silos, and drive cultural change via the tone from the top across Government. As such, we should be proud that the PSFA has reported savings to the taxpayer of £311 million in 2022-23, £373 million in 2023-24, and over £480 million in 2024-25. That is a trajectory I want to see continue—an increase of approximately 50% over the course of two financial years. In total, the Government reported £7.53 billion of taxpayer savings from counter-fraud activity in the last financial year, including almost £400 million linked to covid fraud that had been recovered. That is vital work that should not go unnoticed, and it is not small change; those are critical funds that need to be retained in the public sector, for the sake of our infrastructure, resilience and security.

The Minister may not be surprised to hear me say that we must not rest on our laurels. I therefore welcome the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Test on establishing a central Government database to strengthen the detection and prevention of fraud, alongside enhanced mitigation measures and greater transparency in how they are implemented. I also support a new offence of fraud against the public purse, coupled with meaningful incentives and protection for whistleblowers to help identify and expose wrongdoing, as recommended by the campaigning organisation Spotlight on Corruption.

My constituents—whether in Heaton or Horwich, Chew Moor or Chequerbent—need to know that the Government are on their side and that attempted public sector fraud will have consequences, no matter who you are or who you know. It is only by pursuing fraudsters tenaciously that we will be able to find the much-needed resources to support investment in critical infrastructure and ensure that we are as prepared as we can be, whether that is for the next pandemic, climate change, industrial sabotage or conflict.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We now come to the Front Benchers. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson—are we ready?

National Security

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, as I always am, for the points that she has made. She mentioned the Chinese embassy, so I hope she will forgive me if I seek to provide her with a word of reassurance on that matter, because I know it has been somewhat controversial in this House and elsewhere. Our intelligence agencies have been involved throughout the process, and an extensive range of measures has been developed to manage any risks. Following extensive negotiations, the Chinese Government have agreed to consolidate their current seven sites in London into one site. I hope she will acknowledge that that brings very clear national security advantages.

As for the timeframe, we are seeking to fast-track the legislation through Parliament, and it is a priority. I intend to bring it forward very soon and to do it in a way that I hope will be collegiate, with Members right across the House. We made a commitment that we would introduce this legislation; we need to get on and do it, and that is what I intend to do.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his careful and considered remarks and for setting out very clearly in his statement that the safety and security of Hongkongers in the UK is paramount. I also thank him for his remarks about new legislation announced in the King’s Speech to tackle hostile state threats and about the two convictions under the National Security Act last week, which regard the activities of two individuals on UK soil who leaked to the Chinese foreign intelligence service.

Hongkongers in my constituency live with the threat of transnational repression day in, day out, and they are petrified of the activities of Beijing and Hong Kong authorities on British soil. What assurances can the Minister give me that the activities of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office are being properly monitored and that the UK Government will not allow for that institution to be misused by Chinese or Hong Kong authorities to engage in that form of transnational repression?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point, and I can give him the assurances that he seeks. He will have heard in my introductory remarks that the Chinese ambassador has been summonsed, and he will have heard the determination of the Foreign Secretary to illustrate the completely unacceptable nature of the kind of activities that we have seen in recent times. I have personally been in touch with members of the Hongkonger community just this week to provide reassurances, but I want to work closely with my hon. Friend to ensure that those assurances are not only heard, but felt. If he thinks that we can and should be doing more, I would be very grateful to be able to discuss that with him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The Cabinet Office has been withholding milestone payments from Capita. We have a robust recovery plan, which says that full contractual service has to be restored by the end of June. I have been absolutely clear that I will consider all options at that moment, but I would be grateful if the hon. Member could write to me with the details of his constituent’s case.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Happy St George’s day to you, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister set out what progress the Government have made in cracking down on fraudsters who seek to defraud the public sector and what success they have had in clawing back money on behalf of hard-working taxpayers?

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Satvir Kaur)]

The Government have taken robust action through our Public Sector Fraud Authority. There is a huge amount of work being done. In fact, last year we saved the public purse more than £7.5 billion. A lot has been done, but there is lots more to do, and I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that further.

Security Vetting

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Anderson, you will have to leave.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

When Sir Olly Robbins came before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 3 November last year, he was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) whether, in the context of vetting, Lord Mandelson’s appointment was escalated. Citing a need to maintain the integrity of the vetting system, Sir Olly replied:

“I certainly cannot comment on that, I’m afraid”.

Does the Prime Minister not find it perverse that, when specifically asked by Members of this Parliament about Mandelson’s vetting, Sir Olly declined to discuss the very topic we are now debating in this House?

[The Prime Minister]

I have read that evidence, and it remains my strong view that the recommendation of UKSV could and should have been shared with me, and could and should have been shared with the Foreign Secretary and thus with the Select Committee—and it should have been.

Russian Influence on UK Politics and Democracy

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I declare an interest as an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on Russia and democracy, and as chair of the APPG on anti-corruption and responsible tax.

Let me say at the outset that the most important step at this juncture is to provide input into the ongoing Rycroft review of foreign interference in our democracy. I look forward to meeting Philip Rycroft later this week. If colleagues have yet to do so, I encourage them to submit their views to his team as soon as possible.

I would like to make the case for a wide range of reforms that we desperately need, including measures to address glaring weaknesses in our lobbying framework, improvements to controls in this House and the other place, and further measures to work closely with the private sector. However, as a considerable number of colleagues are keen to contribute to the debate, I will restrict my remarks to the changes that I would like to see in the Government’s forthcoming elections Bill. I will begin with the repeated red flags linking Reform UK, or individuals closely associated with it, to Russian money, Kremlin-aligned networks and their vehicle of choice for influence: cryptocurrency.

Vulnerability to foreign influence is a cross-party issue, but when it comes to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I notified him, Mr Pritchard, that I would mention him—and the people he chooses to surround himself with, the pattern is hard to ignore. Reform UK presents itself as the party of ordinary people, the party of patriotism and the party that claims to stand up for Britain, but the public deserve to know where its money comes from. Again and again, the individuals bankrolling, advising or orbiting Reform appear to sit far too close for comfort to networks that raise serious national security concerns.

Let me start with one of the most serious cases of all and, I suspect, the reason why six out of the top 10 constituencies by signatories to the petition are in Wales. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) mentioned, Nathan Gill, the former leader of Reform UK in Wales, was sentenced to more than 10 years in prison for accepting money in exchange for making pro-Russia statements in the European Parliament. Having dedicated my working life to tackling bribery and corruption in all its forms, I found the Gill conviction of profound concern. Yes, justice was done, but that case should have prompted a moment of deep reflection for Reform UK. Instead, we saw Reform attempt to brush it off and to distance itself from “one bad apple”. But the public are not fools. If Gill was one bad apple, let us take a look at the rest of the bushel.

Arron Banks’s links with Russia are well-documented, despite his attempts to silence journalists trying to report on his activities. Banks was allegedly offered financial incentives by Russian interests, including a stake in a gold mine, an offer he claims he refused. The New York Times reported that after Banks met President-elect Trump in Trump Tower in 2016, he returned to London and went straight to the Russian ambassador to discuss the visit. The point is not whether every allegation is proven beyond doubt; it is that the same names, the same networks and the same proximity to the Kremlin keep reappearing around the same political project. We cannot pretend that that is normal.

Let me also mention Chakrit Sakunkrit—sound familiar? I can see blank faces around the Chamber. I will use his old name: Christopher Harborne. Harborne donated £9 million to Reform UK—the largest single donation ever made to a British political party. He has lived in Thailand for more than 20 years, and he made his money from the cryptocurrency stablecoin tether. The National Crime Agency has explicitly warned that tether has been used for sanctions evasion and money laundering, including in relation to organised crime and Russia-linked networks.

That is not to say that Harborne himself is complicit in any wrongdoing, but the fact is that we now have a large political party bankrolled by an overseas billionaire whose wealth is tied to a cryptoasset that our own law enforcement agencies have flagged as a tool used in Russia-linked illicit finance. I used to work in anti-bribery and anti-corruption at two major UK banks. Let me summarise what I have just said in six short words: red flag, red flag, red flag.

That brings me to Reform UK and cryptocurrency, which is currently a permissible vehicle for donations into UK politics. The hon. Member for Clacton announced that his party would be taking crypto donations at the Bitcoin 2025 conference—a conference held not in Clacton, London or even Manchester, but in Las Vegas. We should ask ourselves: how many permissible donors were in the room at the time?

I find it profoundly disturbing that the leader of a British political party is being funded, promoted and platformed by the same international ecosystem of crypto money and political influence operations that have been repeatedly linked to Kremlin-aligned interests. This is how foreign interference works in the modern era. It is not George Smiley and Karla battling it out in trenchcoats, and newspapers with eyeholes, but money flows, opaque financing, crypto networks, conferences, and so-called influencers paid to shift political narratives.

Now let me speak about George Cottrell, a key Reform fixer. He has acted as a fundraiser for UKIP and the Brexit party and served as chief of staff to the hon. Member for Clacton, who described him as “like a son”. Cottrell served time in prison in the US after being accused of offering money laundering services on the dark web; he ultimately pleaded guilty to wire fraud. His mother, Fiona Watson, donated £750,000 to Reform, making her one of its biggest donors at the time. Cottrell has been linked to offshore crypto and gambling networks. He appears to be based primarily in Montenegro, where he has funded political campaigns and been accused by local police of running illegal crypto ATMs. Offshore finance, crypto, money laundering risk and Russian proximity—to my mind, there is only one reason why anyone would court crypto-linked individuals’ donations so aggressively: if they have something to hide.

I have sought to paint a picture of the current funding landscape and the egregious means by which certain individuals have sought to circumvent electoral law in order to pump money into our democracy. Let me turn to the principal legislative vehicle that can address these risks: the Government’s forthcoming elections Bill. First, I have to say that I was disappointed that the Government’s election strategy contained no concrete proposals to ban crypto donations to political parties. The Electoral Commission has recently issued some belated guidance, but its hands remain tied without Government action.

Cryptocurrency donations into our politics should be banned completely. I am no luddite. I recognise that there may be some value to cryptoassets in certain circumstances, but they are inherently high risk. In my opinion, neither the Electoral Commission nor political parties themselves will ever be able to keep up with that risk. Crypto is designed for anonymity, speed, cross-border movement and weak oversight, and Reform has chosen to host its cryptocurrency payment provider not in the UK, but in Poland, away from the prying eyes of the Financial Conduct Authority. Dare I ask why? Against that backdrop, we know that crypto is widely used for sanctions evasion, organised crime and illicit finance. As I have said, our NCA is concerned about tether’s role in Russia-linked laundering, so we cannot pretend that this is some sort of theoretical debate.

Secondly, no one person should be able to bankroll a political movement overnight. Chris Harborne’s £9 million donation is not democratic participation; it is political domination. The terrifying reality is that, under current rules, someone with that scale of wealth could make such donations again and again until a general election is called and the regulated period begins. That is not a level playing field. It is a plutocratic arms race—one set against an outdated concept of long and short campaign periods that has long been left behind in the modern world of 24/7 campaigning.

Finally, we must restore the independence of the Electoral Commission. If we want proper enforcement, proper scrutiny of permissibility and real deterrence, the Electoral Commission must be truly independent.

Reform may claim to be the party of patriotism, but patriotism is not surrounding yourself with people repeatedly accused of Russian proximity. Patriotism is not building a political machine that thrives in the shadows of opaque money. Patriotism is defending British democracy from foreign interference, whoever it comes from and whichever party benefits. I urge the Government, in the forthcoming elections Bill, to deliver three reforms that Britain urgently needs to protect our democracy from foreign interference: a cap on political donations, a ban on cryptocurrency and full independence for the Electoral Commission.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Young]

It is extremely concerning, and that is why we would ban cryptocurrency donations. Alongside the new elections Bill, we must address the issues that the previous Conservative Government created and restore the independence of the Electoral Commission, as it had pre-2022. We must also ensure that the commission has real enforcement powers and the resources it needs to deploy them. As others have mentioned, we must also reform our electoral system. We must take a robust stance towards hostile states, such as China and Russia, and recommit to international partnerships that promote democracy and stability, including working with European and other democratic allies to co-ordinate our response to Russian interference.

The Government hold a substantial majority in the House, so they can push through legislation rapidly when they choose to. Few things can be more urgent than protecting our democracy. We call for a wide-ranging and properly funded public inquiry into potential Russian interference, including in the 2016 EU referendum, with the report to be published as soon as possible. A public inquiry with the power to compel witnesses to appear and documents to be released is the only way to get to the bottom of these serious allegations. Transparency must be prioritised.

[Phil Brickell]

The hon. Lady is making a good point about foreign interference and money in politics. Could she confirm today whether she has submitted her thoughts to the Rycroft review, which is under way at this time?

[Claire Young]

I have not, but there is still time.

This issue is about more than the failures and corruption revealed in the Nathan Gill case; it is about a system that has long been unfit for purpose and establishments that want to keep things the way they are because that suits their interests. Foreign states are now looking to exploit the situation, with potentially catastrophic outcomes. There is a danger that citizens will stop believing that their vote matters at all. We should use the situation to drive the changes that our country needs, that trust in politics demands, and that all our constituents deserve. I urge the Minister to announce an inquiry today. The threat to British democracy from foreign interference is clear and present, and must be addressed urgently.

UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call “Christmas jumper” Phil Brickell.

[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?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I thank him for his kind words and indeed his two friends and former Erasmus colleagues. I will also, if I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, congratulate him on the Christmas jumper.