Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment
Tulip Siddiq Excerpts(2 days, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
I have been listening to the description of this entire saga and it is confusing even to someone who is a Westminster insider, in the Westminster bubble. May I ask a question about process? My right hon. Friend mentioned 14 April, when the Prime Minister was notified that there had been a breach in the security vetting and that it had failed on one aspect. Will he explain to me the process at that point and what the Prime Minister would have had to do to gather all the information before coming to the House? Who would he have to speak to, what legal advice would he have to take, who would he have to consult and what permissions would he have to have? [Interruption.] This is important. What information did he need to have before he came back to the House? I want to know and my constituents want to know.
Darren Jones
As the Prime Minister has made clear to the House and via the publication of a minute of the meeting in which he was informed of this information, the Prime Minister made it immediately clear to his officials that he intended to come to this House to inform Members of Parliament of the situation about which he had just been told, but that he urgently needed a set of information about who had made what decision and when, in order to be able to provide the full facts to Parliament.
On Tuesday 14 April, the Prime Minister instructed officials to establish the facts urgently. I agree with the Prime Minister that he should have been informed of this a long time ago, as should this House. There were multiple opportunities for this issue to have been raised, not just when the decision to grant Peter Mandelson developed vetting status was initially made, but subsequently when the Prime Minister asked the former Cabinet Secretary to assure him that all due process had been followed—and he had been assured of that—and then subsequently again when the Foreign Secretary and the then permanent secretary to the Foreign Office provided a signed statement to the Foreign Affairs Committee confirming:
“Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was conducted to the usual standard set for developed vetting in line with established Cabinet Office policy.”
Antisemitic Attacks
Tulip Siddiq Excerpts(3 days, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for a series of entirely sensible and constructive points. He is absolutely right to raise both the abhorrent nature of the threat and the spectre of what happened in Manchester. Those of us with the privilege of serving in government to ensure our national security and keep our public safe have spent a lot of time looking very closely at what happened in Manchester. I give the hon. Gentleman and the House an absolute assurance that we work around the clock to try to ensure that these terrible attacks cannot happen and that we ensure that our intelligence services and police have the resources they need to do the important job that we ask of them.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the Community Security Trust—I suspect that every Member of the House knows about it—which does incredibly important work and is held in the very highest regard. I am proud of the resources that this Government have put into that work. He is also right to make the point that we need to tackle this threat via the root causes; walls and cameras and defences are an important part of our response, but they are not the only part. That is why I spoke a moment ago about the need to tackle extremism.
The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about international engagement, and he is right to do so. I can give him an assurance that we work very closely with our international partners—particularly in Europe, but also in the middle east and further afield—and that there is a lot of activity alongside our partners to identify the particular nature of the threat we are facing collectively. I assure him that whatever tools and whatever legislative arrangement is required, we will bring it forward.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that I have a thriving Jewish community in my constituency—a community that I grew up in and which I feel very protective of. I want to share with the Minister an email from my constituent Richard, who said that
“many in the community are fearful”.
He said that some are not attending synagogue and communal events, and that Sunday schools for children are taking place behind thick security cordons. Richard’s niece attends a Jewish primary school, which had two police officers at the gate this morning. He went on to say:
“Instead of action, we are receiving platitudes from those in power. Why hasn’t your government proscribed the IRGC, who are directly involved in terror against Britain’s Jewish community and against British interests.”
I ask the Minister, who recently visited my constituency and had a conversation with community leaders, what shall I reply to my constituent Richard—why have the Government not proscribed the IRGC?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has raised her concerns diligently with me on a number of occasions. I had the privilege recently of visiting JW3, in her constituency, which is a truly inspiring place. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Raymond, the chief executive officer, and to all the staff and volunteers for the incredibly important work that they do. I know it is hugely appreciated in my hon. Friend’s community.
The threat that my hon. Friend describes is totally unacceptable, and I can give her an absolute assurance to take back to her constituents of how seriously we take that threat. I also assure her that we will bring forward and use all the tools at our disposal. There has been a lot of commentary about proscribing the IRGC, and I completely understand why. She will understand that the Government have made a commitment to bring forward a legislative tool that was recommended by Jonathan Hall. It was this Government’s view that we did not have the appropriate legislative mechanism to proscribe a state-backed entity, which is why we have made a commitment to bring forward that particular tool. However, she should be assured that we will not wait for that particular legislative tool to do everything necessary to combat and counter the work of the IRGC. I set out the work we are doing to counter the threat from Iran a moment ago, and I hope that provides some assurance to her and to her constituents.
US Department of Justice Release of Files
Tulip Siddiq Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
For the sake of clarity, can I just make it clear that neither I nor the Government are here to defend Peter Mandelson? We are here to defend the integrity of this House and the other place and to ensure that where processes need updating, they are updated. On the question of legislation regarding individual Members of the other place, the fact—if I might say so—is that there is a queue. That is why the process needs to be updated to apply to all peers: to remove the need to bring forward individual legislation, whether for Peter Mandelson or Michelle Mone.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
Like the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, I am a parent of young children, and I know that he will have found it very difficult to stomach some of the details that came out over the weekend. The conversation here has so far rightly been dominated by the actions of the men. I ask the Chief Secretary seriously what he is doing to ensure that the victims—mostly children—of sexual violence and sexual assault will be heard by those in power, including the Prime Minister.
Official Secrets Act and Espionage
Tulip Siddiq Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the experience that he brings to this House, not least because he has sat on both the Committees to which we have been referring. I slightly take issue with his assessment of what the report does, because the Government are very clear that it emphasises the key arguments that we have been bringing forward over the last couple of weeks.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, he has raised the MOU previously. It is an entirely reasonable point for him to raise, both publicly and privately. Let me take it away and come back to him.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
The Security Minister knows very well the case of my constituent, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who is accused of espionage by the Iranian state. In case he needs a reminder, her horrifying ordeal is being dramatised on BBC iPlayer at the moment. The one thing that Nazanin has said to me constantly is that a hostage envoy would have really helped when dealing with her situation. I know this is about dealing with espionage cases from the other side, but for the sake of national security, has the Minister considered having a hostage envoy, as the Ratcliffe family keep raising with me?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the contribution that she has made and for the work that she has done previously. I am joined on the Treasury Bench by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), who listened very carefully to her comments, and has indicated that he would be very happy to discuss them further with her.
EU-UK Summit
Tulip Siddiq Excerpts(11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the EU-UK summit.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey, for a debate on such an important issue. Let me start with what I believe is a truism in British politics: we can learn a lot from Disney and the films of our childhood. In this debate, the words of Elsa from “Frozen” are particularly apposite for those people who are still obsessed with the debates of 2016 and 2019: it is time to let it go. I suspect that many Members across the House would agree with that, because 2016 was a long time ago, and time has moved on.
It was 2016 when President Trump was elected for the first time. It was the year that, sadly, David Bowie passed away. It really is that long ago. Russia was involved in a war in the Donbas, but no further. TikTok did not even exist—that was not until 2019, which is also now a very long time ago and was when we finally actually left the European Union with the deal struck under the trade and co-operation agreement. It was also, of course, the year of “Frozen II” and that famous song “Into the Unknown”, and it was the year that Greggs gave us a vegan sausage roll, Notre-Dame burned down, Boris Johnson was elected as Prime Minister and “Game of Thrones” finally finished—not the Conservative leadership challenges, but the television series.
My point is that so much has happened in our history since the tired old debates were first rehearsed. Let us not do that today, because we have left the European Union. I stand here as chair of the Labour Movement for Europe, seeking not to prosecute an argument to rejoin but to look at the summit and the deal that was struck on Monday. Frankly, I do not believe this country has time to engage in the discussion around rejoining. We need a salvage operation, and I see Monday’s deal as the start of that operation to salvage a future following the impact of Brexit.
Even if we disagree on that salvage operation, I hope we can convince the Minister that there needs to be more scrutiny of our relationship with Europe. We might disagree about the direction of travel, but we are bound together by a recognition that taking back control means that this place needs to have discussions about the deals and the opportunities and what they mean for our constituents. Perhaps, like Banquo’s ghost, the former Member for Stone still lives with us; but actually, we can all show today that were we to have European scrutiny formats in the House, it would be a positive and constructive contribution to the deal-making process.
That is what is on offer today: the opportunity to take us forward, not back. We can now see the impact of the Brexit deal on our constituents. Our constituents need us to ask questions about what will happen next—about the 1.8 million jobs that we are missing as a result of the deal that was struck, the stagnation in the growth of exports and the 16,000 businesses that gave up trading as a direct result of the “benefit” of Brexit, which was paperwork.
The EU is our biggest trading partner: it accounts for 41% of our exports and 51% of our imports. In comparison, the US accounts for just 22% of our exports and 13% of our imports. Clearly, this is a fundamental relationship for the future of British business and British jobs. The summit on Monday was an opportunity not just to look at the trade and co-operation agreement—what was written into the very details of the deal, five years on—but to do something that the public want. Two thirds of the public tell us that Brexit has been detrimental to the cost of living, 65% say it has had a negative impact on our economy, 64% think it has been bad for British business, and 60% think that a closer relationship with Europe is in our interests.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will know my views on Brexit—I represent a constituency in which 87% of people voted to remain and I represent 22,000 EU nationals, who are part of the fabric of our community—but I want to ask her about young people, who she will probably mention at some point. The statistics show that there has been a 30% drop in the number of schoolchildren going to Europe on school trips, and that disadvantaged areas have been hit the hardest—
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that an intervention is an intervention and not a small speech. Others have put in to speak, so can we get to the question please?
Tulip Siddiq
The UK is not part of the list of travellers scheme, which is why it is so hard for schoolchildren to go on trips. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should have better access to Europe, like we had when we were growing up?
Ms Creasy
As somebody who still remembers a powerful school trip to Ypres to look at the first world war sites, I know that the dramatic decline in school trips to Europe is harming our children’s education. I am sure the Minister will want to refer to that.
The public are living in the world we are in now, which is why they want us to look at the deal. They recognise that Europe now has the highest employment rate since 2005, whereas elsewhere the second-term Trump Administration have brought tariffs and turmoil, just 121 days in; Putin has now invaded Ukraine itself; there is a horrific conflict in the middle east; and China and Iran now figure in our national security concerns, too. And as ever, technology overruns us all. There are now 159 million TikTok users in Europe, and it is predicted that within three years some 15% of our day-to-day decisions will be made by artificial intelligence. All of us will probably become redundant; I shall leave it to Conservative Members to decide whether that is a good or bad thing. Everybody else has moved on. It is time that we in this House do, too.
In that spirit, let me fail to heed my own words and turn to perhaps one of the most damaging aspects of the Brexit debate. I welcome the Minister’s hard work and the deal that has been struck as a testament to the ambitions of the previous Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, and the concept of cakeism. It is truly incredible to see that, far from it being impossible to be pro cake and pro eating it, the new bespoke deal delivers for the UK in many ways that many people had suggested were not possible.
I put on the record my support for the formal security and defence partnership, with the promise of exploring participation in a new defence fund while retaining our red line about not participating in the single market. I will, of course, take an intervention from any Conservative Member who wishes to apologise for the deliberate refusal of the previous Government to put anything about foreign policy or defence co-operation into the previous deal—a decision that has left us uniquely exposed.
Richard Tice
It is on the basis of experience and history over the last 19 years. Since 2004, and the transition of eight countries, I think, Boston and Skegness has seen a huge inflow of tens of thousands—thousands and thousands—of eastern Europeans.
Moving on to the fifth surrender, which relates to the much-vaunted emissions trading scheme, the reality is that it is, as we speak, driving up the price of carbon tariffs towards the EU’s carbon tariff. Why do we want these tariffs? I know: it is because of net stupid zero.
Tulip Siddiq
Will the hon. Member clarify whether he said that tens of thousands of Europeans were coming in? Is that an accurate figure?
Richard Tice
Yes, I did use that figure. Within my constituency, it is probably more than 10,000—a very sizeable number. It is probably one of the greatest recipients of any UK constituency, so I stand by that number.
The fifth surrender is on the EU emissions trading scheme, which will drive up prices. If we do not subscribe to net zero, however, we do not need any of these carbon tariffs, so that would drive down prices. What will happen now that we have linked and handcuffed ourselves to this EU carbon trading scheme is that the bureaucrats in Brussels will say, “In all these other areas to do with trading, they will have to comply with this, that and the other.” Every time there is something that they do not like, they will say, “No. Under the EU net zero trading scheme, you’re going to have to comply.” That is the thin end of the wedge that we are so concerned about.
UK-EU Summit
Tulip Siddiq Excerpts(11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I have set out how the costs will be approached, but what we are not going to do is make those budgetary payments that other EU members make. We will look at proportionate payments into schemes, as is currently the case in relation to Horizon, which was negotiated by the previous Government. But the cost of the Tories to the country has been absolutely incalculable.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
May I congratulate the Prime Minister on securing a landmark deal with our European neighbours? The Prime Minister will know that my constituency has been a leading light in the creative industries for a long time—and not just because my predecessor was a double Oscar-winning actress. Local actors have been coming to me expressing their frustration about securing work in Europe because of delays with work visas, and also because of the limit of 90 days for UK nationals. Can the Prime Minister reassure my local performers that they will not just be waiting in the wings while the rest of Europe takes centre stage?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter, as it is of great importance to her constituents and to many others. Our creative sector is incredible. Whether people voted leave or remain, I honestly do not think that anybody really wanted or intended that our creatives should have difficulties getting on with their trade, and we will work at pace to try to resolve that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Tulip Siddiq Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and I completely agree with him. Indeed, I also attended a wonderful interfaith iftar in Hounslow on Friday. Islamophobia is completely abhorrent and has no place in our society. No one should ever be the victim of hatred because of their religion or belief. The Government have established a new working group to provide the Government with a definition of anti-Muslim hatred and Islamophobia, and advise the Government and other bodies on how best to understand, quantify and define prejudice, discrimination and hate crime targeted against Muslims.
Tulip Siddiq
I thank the Minister for her commitment to mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting. However, I was disappointed to learn that the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority are rowing back on their proposals to boost diversity in financial services. I feel that risks pushing away the very best talent from the sector. Only 4% of financial services firms disclose their ethnicity pay gap. The announcement will only slow the pace of change that is needed to tackle inequalities. Does the Minister agree that initiatives that aim to reduce the ethnicity pay gap are not anti-growth, but pro-talent and pro-growth?
Seema Malhotra
Fair and equal treatment at work is a right, not a privilege. Companies like Deloitte, which I visited recently, are reporting voluntarily on their ethnicity pay gaps, and I have attended roundtables chaired by organisations such as Change the Race Ratio and ShareAction, which promote the benefits of ethnicity pay gap reporting. There has been progress; last week, the Parker review showed that there is an increasing number of ethnic minority board members in our FTSE companies. I agree with my hon. Friend that pay gap reporting can help employers to identify and remove barriers to progression for their workforces, and unleash talent from all our communities, thereby supporting economic growth, and I thank her for her work on this.
Oral Answers to Questions
Tulip Siddiq Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Everyone should be equal before the law, and that is why the Lord Chancellor has taken up the issue with the Sentencing Council, but the hon. Gentleman needs to do his homework. The proposal that he complains about was drafted in 2024, and the last Government were consulted. When they were consulted, what did they say? They said they welcomed the proposal. I understand that the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), is taking the Sentencing Council to court. Perhaps he should add himself as a second defendant, so that he can get to the bottom of all this.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the subject of those deeply concerning reports. It is completely unacceptable for anyone to experience racism, discrimination or prejudice in the health service, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary takes such reports extremely seriously, because it is a fundamental principle that the NHS provides care and treatment for everyone, regardless of race, faith or background.
Ukraine
Tulip Siddiq Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I do understand the right hon. Lady’s concern. As I explained to the House last week, the decision on defence was not one I wanted to take, but the defence and security of Europe required us to take it. On the fiscal rules, economic stability is vital. If we lose that, we will lose far more out of all our budgets. I will work across the House, in whatever ways we can, to increase development aid, notwithstanding the budgetary constraints. I spoke to the president of the World Bank on Friday to have that very discussion. Those discussions are to be had with other countries and institutions, and innovation and discussion across the House would be a valuable part of that exercise. The principle behind her question is the right one: we must support international development and aid.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
My constituency has welcomed hundreds of Ukrainian refugees into the community. I pass on their thanks to the Prime Minister for the strong leadership that he has shown over the past few weeks. The majority of these Ukrainians want to go back to their country when it is safe to do so, but a small minority of young Ukrainian refugees have approached me to say that they have laid down roots, built careers and started relationships here, but have no route to settled status. What consideration has the Prime Minister given to the lives of these young Ukrainians who want to make London their permanent home?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is my MP neighbour, and I remember that together, we saw some of the first Ukrainian refugees arrive in her constituency in the very early days. Obviously, we need to take this step by step, dealing with the conflict that it is. Many will want to return; some may not, but we are not, unfortunately, at the happy place where those who want to return can return. That has to be the first priority.
Storm Éowyn
Tulip Siddiq Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pat McFadden
Let me echo what the hon. Gentleman says about different parts of the community who opened their doors to help their neighbours—he is absolutely right about that. On the Northern Ireland Executive, I actually want to pay tribute to the role played by the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Executive in recent days. As I said, we believe it was the worst storm to affect Northern Ireland since 1998 or thereabouts. This is an emergency and a time when people in different parts of the country should pull together. I was very happy to chair a Cobra meeting and do whatever else—other calls over the weekend—to make sure that we got as much help to Northern Ireland as quickly as we could to where it was needed. I will continue to do that over the next few days.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
Whether our constituencies are rural or urban, the destruction that we saw last week should remind us of the need for urgent climate action. In the summer of 2021, my constituency experienced an extreme rainstorm, and homes in south Hampstead were invaded by water and raw sewage. One of my constituents, a recovering stroke victim, was left on the street with nothing but a small bag of belongings, and is now homeless. The same area was flooded in 2002 and in 1975, but no drainage improvements have been made. Can my right hon. Friend, who knows my constituency well, confirm that drainage infrastructure will be included in the Government’s resilience review?
Pat McFadden
I can certainly confirm that the risk of flooding and extreme weather events will be covered in the review. It is important that we publish a national risk register that is updated constantly: we published our latest version just 10 days ago. As climate changes—and, indeed, as terrorism and other threats change—it is especially important, when we are considering resilience and how we should prepare and protect the country, that we are not caught in the past but look to the way in which the world is changing.