Lord Mandelson

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet). Actually, in writing my speech, I had people like her in mind: the Labour MPs who I know are genuinely passionate about tackling violence against women and girls. They use that passion to criticise us, and what we did or did not do in government—and I respect that—and sometimes to criticise their own Government. It is those MPs that the Prime Minister is trying to throw under the bus today. It is those MPs who I do not think would ever have agreed to the judgment the Prime Minister made, that it was “worth the risk”. This is not some hidden or secret position that the Government took; a Minister said on the record in an interview that the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson was “worth the risk”.

What does that mean? What are we talking about here? What was it worth? It was worth disrespecting, denigrating and betraying the victims of Jeffrey Epstein by appointing someone who chose to associate with a convicted paedophile. That is the risk that the Prime Minister chose to take. I do not think it is a risk that the hon. Member for Bolsover would have taken, or the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), or many of those other Members; they would have made a different judgment.

There is a pattern here, and those of us on the Opposition side of the House know what it is like. When Prime Ministers are weak and struggling to maintain their authority, they will go further and further in doing things that their own Members do not want them to do, in order to save their own skin. Members can come to regret supporting that.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

My hon. Friend talks about it being worth the risk, but this is not just about denigrating those victims; it is also about those Labour Back Benchers that the Prime Minister is marching up the hill. It is worth the risk for him to march them up the hill, then do a U-turn later and finally admit after many months that he knew all along?

--- Later in debate ---

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

It is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend, although I have to say that was one of his shortest speeches. We come here for a serious matter of the utmost gravity. I have heard a number of good speeches from all parts of the House, including Members on the Government Benches. I commend all those Members who have stood up and said that they are not happy with the Government’s position. That is not an easy thing to do. I am pleased that there is now a manuscript amendment that will force the Government’s hand and ensure that the ISC has a pivotal and critical role.

A number of observations have been made today, some of which I agreed with and some of which I did not. I did agree with a great many of them, but a couple of Members said that the Government had demonstrated leadership in getting to this point. They did not demonstrate leadership. They got here because they were dragged here; they got here because there had been a dump of documents by the Department of Justice, the Leader of the Opposition tabled a motion that forced their hand, and they finally had to confront the fact that Peter Mandelson had a relationship with Epstein for much longer than many of us knew—although certainly the Prime Minister knew, as we found out earlier today. The idea that the Government have demonstrated leadership is for the birds.

I have heard Members on both sides of the House talk about the victims of Epstein, but I say to Labour Members that those are just words if they are not followed up with action. Although the ISC amendment is important, it is not the end of the journey. For months the Conservatives have been pushing for clarity so that we can discover the truth about what was going on with Lord Mandelson’s appointment. This goes to the heart of our politics. What did we find out today when the Leader of the Opposition challenged the Prime Minister? He had run out of road and finally had to come clean about the fact that he knew about this relationship. As for the idea that we need to know the depth of the relationship, let me ask Labour Members this: how deep does a relationship with a paedophile need to be before it becomes eligible for declaration?

[Dr Mullan]

I think the fact that the Prime Minister resisted giving that answer for so long proves that he knows it is incredibly damaging to his Government that he did not want people to know that he had known and appointed Mandelson anyway.

[Saqib Bhatti]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We were sitting together earlier in the debate and reflecting on some of the speeches. I think it was the Health Secretary who talked about the “toxic culture” at No. 10. The amendment was a demonstration of that toxic culture. It was not tabled for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein; it was tabled to protect the Prime Minister.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that focusing on the angle of what Mandelson did as a Minister in releasing secrets and trying to make money from them is still deflecting from the fact that it was felt to be “worth the risk” to send to America as our ambassador a man who was associating with a convicted and, at that time, released paedophile?

[Saqib Bhatti]

We should all share anger about that, because it speaks to a rot that, as we are finding out, has infected our politics and Government—Labour Government—in this country for decades. I understand that people make mistakes, in all parts of the House, but this is of such gravity that it speaks to a corruption that we need to get to the heart of. What my right hon. Friend has just said is extremely important, because this is one issue involving corruption, but we cannot get away from the fact that Mandelson had a role at every echelon of the Labour party’s journey—whether it was new Labour before we came to power in 2010 or the “new new Labour” that is now in charge; whether it was helping in the selection of candidates, or—Members are shaking their heads. I am more than happy to take an intervention.

[Johanna Baxter]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way, because I would not want any Member of this House to inadvertently besmirch any other Member through misleading information. I served on Labour’s national executive committee for 10 years before entering this place, and Peter Mandelson had no role whatsoever in the selection of Labour candidates during that time. I make that point so that Members are aware of exactly what they are talking about.

[Saqib Bhatti]

I am glad to say that I did not mention any single Member of the House, so I am happy that the hon. Lady has put that on that record, but I do not trust Mandelson—[Interruption.] I am responding to the hon. Lady’s intervention. I do not trust Mandelson following what he has done, and I do not know how far his reach was in this Government or in that party. I do not trust him because we know he had a very close relationship—

[Johanna Baxter]

indicated dissent.

[Saqib Bhatti]

The hon. Member can shake her head all she wants; we know that Mandelson had a close relationship with Morgan McSweeney, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff. The Labour party has not even started to address that point about the chief of staff. I hope the hon. Lady is right, by the way, but if she is not and documents do come to the fore, I am sure we will come back to this House to scrutinise which Members he had a hand in appointing.

[Stuart Anderson]

On that point, it is being reported in the mainstream media that Mandelson had a hand in recruiting candidates for the Labour party. The mainstream media are reporting that; they will have evidence to back that up, so there will be candidate selections that he had a hand in. It is also rumoured that he has been involved in Cabinet reshuffles, so he has had a far greater reach than probably most of you realise, and any defence of that now is indefensible.

[Saqib Bhatti]

I could not have said it better myself—although I might not have used the word “you”. It is important to recognise the reach that Mandelson had, how he was enabled, and the fact that, at every step of the way, there was no regard for Jeffrey Epstein’s victims. That is a really important point, because there has been a lot of obfuscation today. We have had to drag the Government into tabling the new amendment so that they will now release the documents to the ISC.

Hon. Friends have made important points about the role of the ISC. I say again that this is not the end of the journey; Labour Members have a role to play in doing right by the victims. What we know is that Mandelson was an enabler, so anyone who has enabled Mandelson needs to take a long, hard look at themselves.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Is the wider point not that, if the Prime Minister had been duped, he would have released the papers back in September when we had the Standing Order No. 24 debate or put them out there now, rather than leaving it until this debate forced his hand? The only reason some papers are being released is that his hand has been forced by the Leader of the Opposition. Does my hon. Friend not think that is bizarre?

[Saqib Bhatti]

Well, it is not bizarre, because we have been here many times before. The Government have been dragged along time after time, scandal after scandal. I say to Government Back Benchers: this is a Prime Minister who is flailing. He has admitted, after months and months of pushing, that he knew—he knew about the relationship that Mandelson had with Epstein, and yet he thought it was a risk worth taking anyway.

I made this point earlier, but that “risk” was not just in denigrating the experience of the victims; it was in marching all those Labour Members up the hill and risking their careers. We are Members of Parliament; it is okay that we care about our careers, wherever they may end up, but the truth is that the Prime Minister did not care about them. That journey is not over yet, because he is going to use those people over and over again; he will throw other people under the bus before he throws his chief of staff under the bus—but that will happen too, I can almost guarantee it.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

Does my hon. Friend think that we will now start to understand how Mandelson had such a level of influence that, having had to resign from Government for not declaring six-figure-sum loans, having had to resign from Government for trying to flog passports, and having gone off to the EU and faced all the allegations about that, he was brought back into Government and put into the House of Lords? There must have been something that made people think it was a good idea to bring him back again and again and again.

[Saqib Bhatti]

My right hon. Friend’s exasperation is exactly the exasperation that the British public will be feeling as they read the headlines. That is how they have felt as the stories have unfolded over the last few days and months.

This speaks to a fundamental point: the toxicity at No. 10. The rot starts at the top. Labour Members have the authority and the power to do something about this. The relationship that Mandelson was obvious to all of us. It was obvious to us when the Prime Minister appointed him to one of the most important positions in our country—and to a position in one of the most important capitals in the world—but the Prime Minister did it anyway, because he thought it was a risk worth taking.

[Paul Holmes]

In response to the intervention from my right hon. Friend Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), there is a key difference between this Prime Minister and former Labour Prime Ministers, in that Gordon Brown and Tony Blair appointed Peter Mandelson without knowing some of the connections that he had. The key difference is that this Prime Minister knew and still did it. There is still a Labour Prime Minister with integrity, and that is Gordon Brown, who actually took things to the police. This Prime Minister did no such thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Saqib Bhatti]

My hon. Friend always makes excellent points. I was going to talk about Gordon Brown later, but I will do so now. He raised the question back in September. He wanted to know what had gone on, and he was batted away. Has the Minister asked the Cabinet Secretary why the former Prime Minister was batted away? Did that former Prime Minister not have enough respect in No. 10 to get a legitimate answer about what went down? The public deserve to know, and this House deserves to know.

I want to make another point about integrity, which was raised by a number of Members earlier, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith). The Prime Minister, by his own admission, has called into question the integrity of every Member of this House. We all know that trust in politicians is at an all-time low—we see it on the doorstep and in our inboxes. I was at a birthday party with my four-and-a-half-year-old son at the weekend. I was chatting to some parents, and the Mandelson headlines came up. I had to say, “Look, it’s not normal for a billionaire to fly politicians out. We have a pretty strict expenses regime following the expenses scandal.” We cannot move left or right, yet the British public do not trust us, because they think that we take them for granted. I had to explain to those parents that it is not normal to be invited to islands and to have luxuries thrown at you. This was not normal behaviour, yet the Prime Minister knew about this relationship and let it happen. That is a really important point.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend says, the Prime Minister knew, but he also stood at the Dispatch Box in September and said that he had “full confidence” in Peter Mandelson—Lord Mandelson—knowing what he knew. Does my hon. Friend not find that extraordinary?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I find it disgusting. What Epstein did was absolutely disgusting in its own right: he trafficked, he was a child sex offender, and in many ways he was a coward in how he left this world. I wish he had faced the full force of the law. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) talked about enablers and the role that powerful men played. I say to Labour Members that they are at a crossroads. If they really care about Epstein’s victims, they need to ask how this was allowed to happen.

By the way, it is not just about Mandelson and Epstein. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) made a point about Bill Gates. I watched the video of Melinda Gates yesterday, and I was talking to my wife about how horrible it must have been to see the emails and what he was up to. My hon. Friend also mentioned Richard Branson. The reality is that there is clearly a culture of men who thought they were above the law, and the DOJ is grappling with that issue over in America.

We have talked about some very important things in today’s debate, for which I commend hon. Members, but we have to be honest about the fact that this matter came on to our shores. It is possible that there are victims whom we still do not know about, and that criminal investigations still need to happen. I need an assurance from Ministers that if that comes to the fore, the Government will act quickly to make sure that criminal investigations are started. The public require that to help us on the journey towards rebuilding trust, and we should not underestimate the need for that.

[Joe Robertson]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful, wide-ranging speech, and I am sure that more details will come out. Does it not come down to the fact that the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US despite knowing that he had had a long-standing friendship with a prolific convicted paedophile, to the extent that he had stayed in that paedophile’s house while he was serving prison time? That in itself is sickening and shocking. Not only should people not be defending Peter Mandelson—and they are not—but nobody should be defending the Prime Minister for his sickening conduct.

[Saqib Bhatti]

The Prime Minister has brought his judgment into question. The Opposition have been saying that for a couple of years—Oppositions do that—but on this issue, he has marched everyone up the hill and Ministers have gone out to defend him on this issue time and again. His position really is now untenable. I guarantee Labour Members that when they go home and talk to their constituents, they will have to answer questions about why the Prime Minister allowed this to happen.

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend may have heard the powerful speech by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) earlier in the day about factionalism in the Labour party. The Prime Minister not only appointed Peter Mandelson to the post of ambassador knowing, as he declared today, what he knew, but he previously brought him in as a strategic adviser, advocate and planner in the 2024 Labour general election campaign. All Labour Members are tainted by that association with Mandelson, which was brought about by the leader of their party, now the Prime Minister, who knew about this matter at the time. That perhaps has not been picked up on as fully as it should have been in today’s debate.

[Saqib Bhatti]

I will leave Labour Members to reflect on that because many have spoken up today, but I say once again that they are just words if there is no action.

The judgment of the Prime Minister is deeply, deeply flawed. He alone is responsible for the culture at No. 10. I ran a business. If something was going wrong, the buck stopped with me. He alone is responsible for the culture at No. 10. It is not Morgan McSweeney. He enabled Morgan McSweeney. He needs to be held accountable for his relationship. We need to see the emails and we need to see what the conversations were—that is why this is important—but the buck stops with the Prime Minister.

[Esther McVey]

I am going to raise a very sensitive issue. My hon. Friend raised a point about vulnerable women being abused, about powerful men taking advantage, and about a friend who was appointed when he was known to be a friend of a convicted paedophile. We also have a Labour Government who ran away from investigating grooming gangs—again, vulnerable women being taken advantage of by powerful men. The Labour Government have said they stand up for women, women’s rights and vulnerable women. They have shown now that they do not, at any level—whether at the highest level or in respect of white working-class girls. Labour, I am afraid, has a lot of questions to answer about protecting women.

[Saqib Bhatti]

I will end with two responses to that intervention. First, my right hon. Friend is obviously absolutely right. I say to Labour Members, who were shaking their heads, that every decision—every decision—the Government have made is brought into question by the lack of judgment the Prime Minister has shown. I stood at the Dispatch Box and repeatedly called for a national grooming inquiry. I am a British-Pakistani Muslim male. I have two sons. I want them to grow up without aspersions being cast on them. One day, I hope to have a daughter—apologies to my wife—and I want her to grow up in a safe environment. We have to be honest and we have to be strong in making those calls. I say to the Minister, as he answers those questions, that the question about the ISC is really important. We need to know that under the amendment, it will have the full authority to deal with what comes in front of it, so that we and the public can make a judgment.

Secondly, why did Gordon Brown’s calls fall on deaf ears? Why was he not given the respect, as a former Prime Minister, of his calls being dealt with? Was Mandelson so strong that, despite his toxicity, he was protected and enabled?

Finally—I have made this point repeatedly—the judgment of the Prime Minister surely has to be in question. We will now find out what else was known. The Minister has the opportunity to share anything else that he might want to share at the Dispatch Box.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to disturb the debate in this way. I have tried to follow it as much as possible while I have been in and out of the Chamber with other duties. A manuscript amendment has been agreed, with, I take it, cross-party agreement. People will be making up their minds on how to vote on that amendment, and we therefore need clarity—those on the Front Bench could intervene now to clarify this for me. I want to get this absolutely clear. We are all going to vote for the material to be released; there is consensus on that. The difference is with regard to who interprets what is released. The manuscript amendment excepts elements of information that are prejudicial to national security and international relations,

“which shall instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.”

I agree with that, but I would like clarity on whether the Intelligence and Security Committee will make the decision about publication, or—[Interruption.] Please listen. Will it make the decision or will it simply advise the Government and the final decision will rest with the Government? It would be helpful to have that clarified before we vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was getting a bit carried away there.

The Prime Minister assured MPs that “full due process” was followed in his appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador. He appointed Peter Mandelson despite it already being in the public domain that Peter Mandelson had discussed issues relevant to his ministerial position with Jeffrey Epstein while Epstein was in jail. I could go on. Why did the Prime Minister choose to ignore all that, at a time when Members on both sides of the House know that the public are often scathing about politicians? They say that we are all the same, but I can assure them that we are not. They question our motives and our integrity. Some even refer to Members of this place as members of the establishment, which is something that I will always rail against. [Laughter.] No, no, I can absolutely see why they might say that. [Interruption.] Labour Members may mock, but the point is about integrity.

[Saqib Bhatti]

My right hon. Friend is making a serious and important point. She has talked about how she ended up in this place, and I do not think anyone should denigrate all the hard work she has done to achieve what she has.

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but you just get used to that sort of thing when you have been here for a while.

We should never forget the people outside. We should never forget the Nolan principles. Conservative Members have explained the Nolan principles and their importance, which was perhaps needed by certain Labour Members. I urge the Government to do the right thing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The Conservatives presided over a lost decade for our young people. I am determined to support every young person to reach their potential. That is why we are delivering the first national youth strategy for 15 years: to transform youth services, backed by over £500 million. That means more youth workers, more youth centres and a network of 50 Young Futures hubs, on top of our youth job guarantee and our plan to create 50,000 more apprenticeships. We are building a Britain for the next generation.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

Q2. Over the coming weeks, millions of people from across the country will be visiting their local church. Churches are custodians of our history and they do enormous good, but in January the Government announced a £19 million cut to the listed places of worship grant, and put a cap on repair costs. The cut put thousands of local churches at risk. If we lose our churches, we lose the very soul and essence of our communities. There are 10 at-risk churches in the Prime Minister’s constituency. As we go into Christmas, will he do the right thing and reconsider that policy so that we can save our churches?

[The Prime Minister]

We do support our churches and the work that those in our churches do, particularly in the lead-up to Christmas. I have a reception for them in Downing Street this afternoon.

Digital ID

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my right hon. Friend—sorry, my hon. Friend—the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on his excellent speech. I am sure he will be right honourable in no time.

Some 4,500 of my constituents signed the petition. I thank not only them, but the 3 million petitioners across the country who have made sure that their voices are heard today. Before I discuss the fundamental issue, I want to address a point made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) and other Government Members.

The reality is that no system in the world is secure enough to protect data; my constituency is the home of Jaguar Land Rover, and we have to be honest with our constituents about that. When I was the Minister for Tech and the Digital Economy, I looked at this issue, and I know that our current system is one in which we voluntarily give up our data. The fundamental issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley highlighted, is that consent is being taken away.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but are we not at risk of ignoring another threat: the Government themselves? It has not been that long since the Police Service of Northern Ireland published the data of every serving officer and member of staff, as a result of which people had to leave their homes. Once we allow the state to aggregate our data, is that sort of thing not inevitable?

[Saqib Bhatti]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point that we have to take into consideration. The Minister will not be able to give anyone the reassurance they deserve, which is why many of our constituents are so upset about this.

Let us be very clear about the reason we are here. The fundamental issue is that a beleaguered Prime Minister has rolled out this gimmick as nothing more than a way to stop the boats. The fact of the matter is that since Labour came into government, we have had 62,000 illegal crossings. The ID that we have in place already has not stopped them, and neither will digital ID. This gimmick has not fooled voters, and it did not fool the 3 million people who signed the petition. They can see clearly through it. First and foremost, our constituents require honesty. This will not stop the boats.

I also want to address a point made by the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) about shops selling illegal vapes. Mechanisms for IDs are already in place, but that is still happening, so digital ID will not stop it either. What he was arguing for, whether he knew it or not, was overarching powers of intervention for the police into the private accounts of private individuals. That is the only way in which they will be able to intervene. What they need to do is investigate, like they always do.

[Tony Vaughan]

My specific example was about where an individual has a £5 packet of cigarettes that is obviously unlawful. The police have no power at all to demand right-to-work checks in that situation. Why do the Opposition oppose that principle?

[Saqib Bhatti]

Let me address that point. The problem that the hon. Gentleman poses will not be solved by digital ID—I fundamentally disagree with him about that—because HMRC already has the powers to investigate people selling illegal cigarettes, as do the police. That is why the Government have lauded the fact that there were raids just a few months ago, and closures of some of these shops. He is creating a straw-man argument that is not solved by digital ID.

Let us be under no illusion about this proposal. It opens the door to tyranny, whether it is tyranny today or tyranny tomorrow. The Minister cannot confirm that a future Government—a future Labour Government, perhaps, if that is even possible—will not take advantage of digital ID.

[Martin Wrigley]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I am going to make some progress, if that is okay.

I and others have made the point that digital ID would fundamentally reframe the relationship between the individual and the state. It would turn us into a “papers, please” society. Responsibility for proving that someone was guilty would be shifted away from the state, and individuals would, in essence, be required to prove that they were innocent.

I visited Estonia when I was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Tech and the Digital Economy. I saw the system there, and I came away with a conclusion very different from the one that others have reached. The Estonians’ system works for them because they have the Russians on their border.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I will not take any more interventions.

If Estonia were invaded, the Estonians might have to pick up sticks and move all their records over. That is why digital ID works for them, even though they have one of the largest black economies in the world and have had quite significant data breaches. Our economy and society are much more complex than Estonia’s. Mandatory digital ID does not work for our economy and our society.

Time and again, I am asked what this Government stand for. The last few weeks and months have been telling, with the cutting of jury trials, the introduction of a mandatory digital ID and the arrest of comedians for errant tweets. I ask the Minister: why are this Government so afraid of British citizens living their lives freely and in liberty?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Bonavia]

I will not, I am afraid.

I am now convinced that it is necessary. Why is that? It is because today, identity checks are not a novelty; they are a necessity across all our lives. Why is it that a company such as Amazon can do far better handling our data than the national health service? My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), a respected doctor, explained how we cannot, as individuals, access the services that we need.

Why is this seen as so un-British? Is it not British to be ambitious for our people? If we think that other countries can do it, but we cannot because we are so rubbish at such things, why should we not discuss that?

[Saqib Bhatti]

Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

[Kevin Bonavia]

I am afraid I will not.

I welcome the Government giving us an opportunity for a national debate through this consultation. It is time that we have this debate. I am so pleased that so many Members are here today and that so many people have signed this petition. It is right to look at their concerns. There are legitimate concerns about whether ID should be mandatory and, if so, in what circumstances, and about those people who cannot access this system and whether the proposed scheme can really make the improvements that we hope it will.

Digital ID is not a panacea. I say to anybody who claims it will be a panacea for ending illegal immigration that it will not be. But will it be better? That is the question before us. We must not talk about a dystopian future when so many of our neighbours are already going through the process. Why do we not learn from our neighbours and think the best of our country, rather than talking it down—as we have heard so much in this debate? I ask the Minister to answer those questions today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Saqib Bhatti]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way; she is being ever so generous. It is not us scaremongering, or 3 million people being conspiracists; the fact is that the Prime Minister rolled out this scheme to deal with an issue that it will not solve, and everyone can see through that.

[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.

Ministerial Code

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Josh Simons]

I will not comment on speculation about the ongoing Budget process. The Chancellor will come to the House on Wednesday to deliver a Budget that will put money into the pockets of working people, tackle the cost of living crisis, protect the NHS and get debt down.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

The Minister said that the Government’s defining mission is to uphold the highest standards, but he is failing to answer simple questions about transparency. How much did the Prime Minister receive in donations from David Kogan, and did he adhere to the ministerial code in declaring those donations?

[Josh Simons]

Well, I will sound like a stuck record, but it is true that the Prime Minister wrote to the independent adviser on ministerial interests to set out his involvement in the process, and he acknowledged in retrospect that it would have been better had he not been given a note on the appointment or confirmed that he was content. He has expressed his sincere regret for what was an unfortunate error.

Oral Answers to Questions

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

I am a great believer in Britain being one of the greatest meritocracies in the world, where—at least in our party—people can rise to the very top, irrespective of race, religion or gender. The Government’s consultation on reforming equality law is a litany of activist demands and bureaucratic burdens, with no proof that any of the measures would reduce inequality. Why are the Government so determined to put people into boxes on the basis of race, instead of promoting equality of opportunity for all?

[Bridget Phillipson]

This Labour Government are determined to break the link between background and success, so that where someone is from does not determine what they can go on to achieve and so everyone has the chance to get as far as their hard work and talent will take them. It is important that we tackle the unacceptable gaps we see around access to employment and pay for people from minority ethnic communities and disabled people, too. That is why we are consulting on this, working with business, and we want to get this right.

Oral Answers to Questions

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

Parents up and down the country are anxious about the use of puberty blockers on under-18s, so I was disappointed to read that the Health Secretary has failed to intervene in an NHS puberty blocker trial, despite grave concerns about children’s safety. The landmark Cass review said that more evidence was needed, but will the Secretary of State show moral courage and common-sense leadership to ensure that these dangerous and irreversible drugs are never tested on our children?

[Bridget Phillipson]

The Government’s position on this issue has been clear. We have accepted all the recommendations brought forward by Dr Hilary Cass. I have met Dr Hilary Cass to discuss this issue. Given the question the shadow Minister has asked, he perhaps misunderstands the recommendations that Dr Cass brought forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Both my hon. Friend and the North East Mayor are dedicated campaigners on this issue. The Conservative party left us with a host of unfunded promises, and public transport is in dire condition. Expanding the Metro network has huge potential to drive growth and unlock new housing. I am pleased that progress is being made on the business case.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

Q10. Earlier this week we learned that the Prime Minister’s close friend, the Attorney General, has in the past advised Caribbean nations on seeking trillions of pounds in reparations. He has been a key player in the surrender of the Chagos islands and the related fiasco, which will cost taxpayers up to £18 billion, and he has even advised Gerry Adams, who is standing in line to get compensation from the British Government in Northern Ireland legacy payments, the quantum of which could cost up to £2.7 billion. Given the Attorney General’s track record, does the Prime Minister have faith in his motives, and does he have confidence that his best friend represents good value for the British taxpayer?

[The Prime Minister]

We have long had the principle in this country that everybody is entitled to legal representation, which means that lawyers do not necessarily agree with their clients. Conservative Members used to believe in that principle. If they now disagree, they should go to see the victims of very serious crime, including sexual crime, and tell them that, under their provisions, a lawyer who disagrees with a perpetrator would not be able to represent them, meaning that victims would be cross-examined by perpetrators. That has never been the Conservative party’s position. If it is now, it should say so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

Three weeks ago, the Government announced five local inquiries into rape gangs, which crucially cannot compel witnesses to give evidence. We still do not know where all the inquiries will be, and we do not know how the towns will be chosen.

As Charlie Peters from GB News originally reported, grooming gangs are suspected to have operated in 50 towns. Does the Minister recognise that the failure to announce a meaningful national statutory inquiry means that women and girls from across the country, who are not from the five selected towns, will be denied justice and a fair hearing? If the victims want a national statutory inquiry, why doesn’t the Minister?

[Jess Phillips]

I have spent time with the victims that the shadow Minister speaks about. In fact, I will be going to see more victims from across the country. I speak to these victims every single week—week in, week out—unlike many of those sitting on the Opposition Benches.

Previously, absolutely nothing was done to try to get to the truth in some of these towns. We will do whatever we can to root out this crisis, which is what everybody in this House wants to see, although some Members wish to use it for political ends. We have offered to open up cases, and we have set the taskforce to do exactly that with any victim who wishes to come forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

8. What steps her Department is taking to help tackle digital exclusion.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Saqib Bhatti)]

The Government have been absolutely clear that no one should be left behind in the digital age. Digital inclusion is a cross-cutting issue spanning many different areas. I chair the cross-Whitehall ministerial group for digital inclusion to drive progress and accountability across Government, and we have increased the frequency of our meetings—that is how important we see this issue as being. I regularly meet relevant organisations, including by attending the Centre for Social Justice’s digital exclusion roundtable and the upcoming meeting of the digital inclusion APPG.

[Richard Foord]

Digital inclusion works only when people trust website links. My constituent let me know that by clicking on a dodgy link, he was tricked into making an investment of over £108,000, which turned out to be a scam. The Government’s latest digital inclusion strategy was written 10 years ago. Does the Minister accept that there are good reasons why many older people want to be able to look somebody in the eye when making investments or doing their banking?

[Saqib Bhatti]

Choice is important, which is why our digital inclusion approach cuts across many Departments. I am sorry to hear the case of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. I am happy for him to write to me, and I can talk to him about our national fraud strategy as well.

[Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)]

The impact of the digital world on our lives is growing every day, but we do not yet know enough about the consequences for society, democracy or, indeed, our children, because the data held by tech companies is not visible to the Government, regulators, researchers or the public. Will my hon. Friend update the House on measures to open up access to this data, and will he commit Government support for the amendments to the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill tabled in the other place by Lord Bethell, which would introduce a “data for researchers” scheme?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I thank my hon. Friend for all her campaigning on this and other online safety-related issues; we have had a number of engagements. The Government said very clearly that we would explore the issue of data access for researchers into online safety during the passage of the Online Safety Act 2023. We are aware of the amendments tabled to the DPDI Bill, and I encourage my hon. Friend to watch this space, as we will be reporting in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

It is good to see the hon. Member for South Thanet back in his place.

Last year, the UK hosted the AI safety summit and set up the AI Safety Institute. However, since then, developers of frontier AI have refused to share information with the Safety Institute, leaving it toothless. Labour has repeatedly called for binding regulation to support safety. With the Secretary of State discussing the future of AI this week, is it not high time for the Government to finally agree to binding regulation?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Saqib Bhatti)]

I do not agree with that categorisation. The truth is that the Bletchley summit was a world-leading summit. We took a front-foot approach and we are co-hosting the Seoul summit, which is bringing together AI nations, AI companies and top experts in academia and civil society. We have always been clear that we will ensure that our regulators do the job that they need to do, and of course at some point we will legislate. We have a plan, and our plan is working. The Labour party cannot tell us what it would legislate for. It does not have a plan.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

T5. Does the Minister agree that the large sums of taxpayers’ money channelled to organisations such as the Arts and Humanities Research Council for woke-driven projects should be spent on other high-tech projects such as, for example, the tagging of illegal migrants in this country so that we can quickly locate and deport them, starting in Dudley?

Oral Answers to Questions

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

1. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on increasing the use of AI in the NHS.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Saqib Bhatti)]

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology closely engages with all Departments on the adoption of AI, including the Department of Health and Social Care, and we are committed to ensuring that the adoption of AI is done in an ethical, safe and responsible way. That includes using AI to improve public service outcomes and productivity in the NHS. Ahead of the AI Safety Summit last year, we announced a new AI in healthcare fund, backed by £100 million, to target areas where the rapid deployment of AI could create transformational breakthroughs.

[Maggie Throup]

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Without doubt, AI offers an opportunity to innovate regarding medical diagnostics. What discussions is he having with colleagues from the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that the next generation of clinical scientists, including radiologists and pathologists, gain the right skills to make full use of AI?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. Ensuring that the UK’s life sciences sector can grow and access the variety of skills it needs to support innovation, including the adoption of AI, is a key commitment of the life sciences vision. To deliver that we are working cross-Government, including with the Department for Education and DHSC, industry and academia, to ensure that our ecosystem can deliver and attract interdisciplinary talent. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and her Department are also working to ensure that the NHS can take advantage of the opportunity that AI represents for healthcare. In addition, DSIT is actively represented on NHS England’s radiology and pathology boards, where AI and skills are regularly discussed.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Health and Social Care Committee’s report into the digital technologies of the future clearly demonstrated the opportunities that sit before us if we get the basics right. AI is not only of use for increasing productivity in diagnostics, but also when setting treatment plans and in pharmacology. How is the Minister setting out a strategic plan for how AI can be invested in the NHS for the future, as Labour has done with our “Fit for the Future” plan?

[Saqib Bhatti]

The hon. Lady is right to say that AI can play a great role in improving the way we treat conditions, provided that it is implemented in an ethical, safe and responsible way. One great example of that is Brainomix, which is already being used in 37 NHS healthcare trusts. It means that the in/out time has been greatly reduced, and three times more people who previously would have not been able to live independently are now able to do so because of the use of AI. That is also being used in additional critical pathways, and lessons are learned. I know the NHS is working closely with DHSC to ensure that AI is used effectively.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

2. What steps the Government is taking to regulate AI.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

7. What assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of AI on democracy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Saqib Bhatti)]

The Government are clear that artificial intelligence is the defining technology of our time, with the potential to transform humanity positively. We also recognise the challenges that AI can pose. As has been said, we are working to ensure that we respond to the full range of threats to our democratic processes, including through the defending democracy taskforce. DSIT is engaging with social media platforms, civil society groups, academia and international partners to tackle the risks that AI can pose to democracy.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

In the longer term, I agree that AI has enormous potential to support participation in politics, and we should seek to harness that. But in the short term, disinformation and deepfakes, often put together by foreign actors, threaten to have the most immediate impact on democracy. What risk does the Minister believe AI poses to this year’s election in particular, and what steps is he taking to alleviate those risks?

[Saqib Bhatti]

Let me be very clear: the UK will not tolerate malicious cyber-activity that targets our democratic institutions. The Deputy Prime Minister has already come to this Dispatch Box and taken definitive action where that has happened. The defending democracy taskforce and Government teams are working collaboratively to ensure that we respond to threats to our democratic processes, including digitally manipulated content. The Online Safety Act will force companies to take proactive, preventive action against illegal, state-sponsored content online via the foreign interference offence, including deepfakes and other AI-generated content within the scope of the Act.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

In two short sentences, will the Minister reassure us that AI will not destroy not just democracy, but the human race?

[Saqib Bhatti]

Two sentences, Mr Speaker. I can confirm that the Government are taking a proactive approach to AI. The defending democracy taskforce is working very hard to protect our democratic processes.

[Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.