Oral Answers to Questions
Vikki Slade Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Kendall
The right hon. Gentleman is always helpful—well, not always, but on this occasion he has been very helpful. The cliff-edge argument has been made to me personally by the NSPCC, the Molly Rose Foundation, the Internet Watch Foundation and others, and it is one that we should take seriously. I have spoken to schools in my constituency about how best to handle it if we were to go ahead with the ban. There is a really important point about young people’s education and awareness, because life is online now and we have to prepare children for the future. That is at the heart of the issues we are debating in the consultation.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I recently visited Lytchett Minster school and Queen Elizabeth’s school, and I held a session asking the young people about their views. Overwhelmingly, the children in sixth form supported a ban and the children in the younger part of the school did not. How will the Government tailor the questions for younger children and older children, so that we get a true understanding of the problem?
Liz Kendall
I would love it if the hon. Lady sent me a report or a note on that, because alongside the consultation, which is specifically designed for children and young people, many of us in this House are talking to schools. I say to everybody: do send in those views, and I promise I will read them all.
Oral Answers to Questions
Vikki Slade Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this absolutely shocking case and for talking to me last night about the details. My thoughts are with the victim, who had a right to be safe and who was failed in the most appalling way. Travelodge must take serious action to ensure such an appalling incident can never happen again. I am concerned at reports that the company has not met Members of Parliament; it should do so. I should add that the Safeguarding Minister wants to meet the company as well, and it should do that too.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue. I know there are strong views, and I acknowledge her personal connection, which shows how serious the issues are. It is a matter of conscience. It is for Parliament to decide the passage of the legislation and any changes. Scrutiny is a matter for the other place. We have a responsibility to make sure any legislation is workable, effective and enforceable.
Digital ID: Public Consultation
Vikki Slade Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
The hon. Lady is wrong. I look forward to bringing provisions in the Bill later this year to prove that case.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Can the Chief Secretary tell us what happens if the 100-person panel concludes that the scheme will not have the trust, confidence and support of people? Can he confirm that digital efficiencies such as using emails, not letters, and automatically chasing up medicals in the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency will not be delayed for this project?
Darren Jones
The outcomes of the deliberative democracy process will form a legal part of the consultation, so it will feed into the consultation in the normal way. This is the first time that Government have done that. I recognise that it is a bit of an innovation and a risk, but I am so confident we will get members of the panel to a place where they think it is a perfectly sensible thing to do that I think it will be a useful process. Other colleagues may wish to consider it for other policy areas in the future. It will take some time over the next few years to legislate, build the login and integrate it into the app, so we will come back to the hon. Lady’s question on future services towards the back end of this Parliament.
Middle East
Vikki Slade Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the case of his constituents; I am sure they are very anxious about the situation. I assure them and him that we are working at pace with our allies to get a safe and swift route for them to come out of the region, which is what they all want.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I want to go back to the original attacks. Last year, Trump told us that he was attacking Iran to destroy any possibility of it getting a nuclear weapon, and told us afterwards that he had “obliterated” the threat for years to come. Given that was the justification for the attacks last week, and now that Israel has said that they had been planned for months, their urgency seems questionable. What can the Prime Minister tell us about determining the facts around the justification and around the presence of nuclear materials, so that the basis of any future action is clear?
The Prime Minister
As I said, I took two decisions over the weekend. The second was to allow the bases to be used because of the actions of Iran and the need to protect our citizens, our nationals.
Lord Mandelson
Vikki Slade Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Your Party)
This situation stinks. Peter Mandelson maintained a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein after he had been convicted. It was not before anyone knew about his grotesque crimes, not when it was being whispered about, but after his conviction, when the world knew exactly who and what Jeffrey Epstein was. Yet before Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the United States, senior Labour MPs—Members sitting on the Government Benches today—went on television and social media to praise him. They knew the facts, because by that point it was public knowledge that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s New York home while Epstein was serving time as a convicted paedophile.
When asked about this last September, the Prime Minister told the House he had “full confidence” in Peter Mandelson, despite knowing about his close relationship with Epstein. That’s right: the leader of the Labour party and Prime Minister had full confidence in a man who was besties with a convicted nonce. What a disgrace! What we are witnessing is not accountability but the Westminster club protecting its own.
This is not just about this Labour Government; large sections of the media also played their part. Mandelson did not simply drift back into public life. He was rehabilitated, rebranded and presented as respectable. He was welcomed on the BBC’s flagship programmes as a wise elder statesman. He was given deferential treatment by The Spectator, The Guardian and The Sunday Times. Those are the same outlets that lecture relentlessly about standards and morality when it is a trade unionist, a protestor or a working-class person who puts a foot wrong. But when it is one of their own, the tone changes. Suddenly it is about experience, pragmatism and “getting things done”. This is how power protects itself.
What about the victims—the girls and young women abused by Epstein? They received an apology from Mandelson only after sustained pressure. It was not freely given, not offered because it was the right thing to do. Until recently, he still enjoyed the zone 2 dinner party treatment, with magazine-style PR photos of Mandelson being published only this week.
Then there is the money. At least $75,000 was transferred from Epstein to Mandelson. He says that he cannot remember the transactions. If £75,000 landed in the bank account of almost anyone else in the country, they definitely would remember. To claim otherwise is contemptuous and goes to the heart of why trust in politics is collapsing. If those in power cannot remember vast sums of money flowing into their accounts, why should the public believe that they are acting in the public interest?
This only came to light because the American authorities released the Epstein files. We are told that the UK has no record of Mandelson’s emails. If those files had not been released, he would have settled back into public life, shielded by friendly journalists and wealthy backers. That is how broken our political culture has become. And now further emails have emerged, raising serious questions about whether market-sensitive information was leaked while he was at the heart of Government.
When ordinary people make mistakes, they pay the price. Nurses are disciplined, teachers are suspended and care workers lose their jobs, but if you belong to the Westminster club, you can be linked to one of the most notorious predators of our time and still reach the top.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that potentially every single working person, retired person and child in this country has paid the price for what Mandelson did? If he did indeed share information relating to the financial crash, it has cost everyone a fortune and he owes everyone in this country an apology.
Zarah Sultana
I absolutely agree. This is a systemic issue, and that is why I support the calls for an independent, judge-led public inquiry.
Yes, Peter Mandelson was eventually removed as ambassador to the US, but he remained in the House of Lords and as a Labour party member until three days ago. The Labour party cannot pretend that this was some distant mistake, quietly corrected a long time ago. This was a decision it defended until it was forced to abandon it, and he should never have been appointed in the first place. If this Labour Government believe that the appointment was proper, they should stop stonewalling and prove it by publishing all the documents: the vetting, the advice, the risk assessments, the correspondence and the contracts—including with Palantir. Instead, the Prime Minister tabled an amendment to withhold any papers deemed
“prejudicial to UK national security or international relations.”
We know that when Governments fear scrutiny, they wrap themselves up in the flag and hope that the public will look away. If there is nothing to hide, why carve out broad exemptions in advance? The Government’s last-minute manuscript amendment is a desperate attempt to control dissent on the Labour Back Benches. This is not accountability. It is not transparency. It is delay and damage control. The Government are kicking the can down the road in the hope that the outrage will fade and the questions will go away, but they will not. That is why I am supporting calls for an independent, judge-led public inquiry.
This is not just about Peter Mandelson; it is about a system that protects the powerful and disregards the public. The victims deserve better and the British public deserve better, so the Government must publish all the documents, end the corruption and the cover-up, and stop insulting the public with empty words when what we need is transparency. The Prime Minister said he had full confidence in Peter Mandelson, but the public have no confidence in the Prime Minister. He should do the honourable thing and resign.
US Department of Justice Release of Files
Vikki Slade Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
The Prime Minister’s judgment was made clear when, as soon as information that he had been misled by Peter Mandelson became available, he sacked him.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The actions of Peter Mandelson are a disgrace, and I support the proposals to remove him without delay, but he is not the only British person implicated in the appalling Epstein files. What are the Government doing to ensure that all those linked to Mandelson, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and any political, public or civic figure are fully investigated here? We should not just co-operate with US authorities but take action on all the crimes committed on our soil.
Darren Jones
The hon. Lady knows that it is not the Government who instigate criminal investigations. It is for the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to take those decisions independently of Ministers. Whether in respect of UK investigations or investigations in the United States, the Government have made it very clear that all individuals should comply with those investigations and make any information available, to ensure that the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s acts can see justice.
Oral Answers to Questions
Vikki Slade Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Speaker—what a lovely birthday present.
Last week I met my constituent Kevin, the programme lead for TESTBED Dorset. He told me that although life sciences is one of the key sectors in the modern industrial strategy, none of the seven projects is in the south-west, and there is not a single reference to Dorset. The living science park will create a vast area for academic research based in our landscapes, supported by landowners, universities from Bournemouth, Bristol and Southampton, the National Trust and Natural England, focused on a “one health” approach. Will the Secretary of State meet me and those lead organisations to hear more about the programme and consider it for the future?
Liz Kendall
I also wish the hon. Lady a happy birthday. I am happy for either me or Patrick Vallance—the life sciences Minister in the other place—to meet her and her colleagues. Later today, UKRI will set out future funding for the eight areas of our industrial strategy, which it—and I—will want to ensure is spread fairly across the country. I am more than happy to discuss that with her further.
Oral Answers to Questions
Vikki Slade Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has long campaigned on these issues. The central driving mission of this Labour Government is to ensure that background is no barrier to success. That is why we are expanding free school meals, lifting the two-child benefit limit, introducing a new youth guarantee and bringing in maintenance grants for disadvantaged students. Of course, we are also rolling out free breakfast clubs, and it was brilliant to visit Denbigh primary school with her to see one open.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Earlier this year, I attended an amazing event at the Dorset Museum called “In My Shoes” for care-experienced young people, who explained the importance of making care experience a protected characteristic, as we have done in many councils, including mine in Mid Dorset and North Poole. Will the Minister take the same step with Cabinet colleagues, and consider making care experience a protected characteristic?
Bridget Phillipson
The hon. Lady raises an important issue, and we are doing lots of work across Government to make sure we have better outcomes for care-experienced young people, who are sadly more likely than other young people to experience mental health difficulties or even end up in prison. I lead that work together with the Deputy Prime Minister to make sure that the voices of care leavers are heard. It is why, for example, with the introduction of new targeted maintenance grants and the wider reforms that we are bringing to the higher education system, we are working right across Government to make sure that all Departments are pulling together.
G20 and Ukraine
Vikki Slade Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I can give him that reassurance. That is why we are working as closely as we are with the Ukrainians, particularly with the President but at all levels.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as the host of a Ukrainian.
Given the growing instability around the world and the absence of the US President from both the G20 summit and COP30, how will the Prime Minister use the close relationship between the UK and America to ensure that Trump does not undermine the ability of global partnerships and agencies to keep us all safe from all types of problems in the future?
The Prime Minister
It is very important that we make the case for multilateral work across the globe, whether it is done by the G20 or by COP30. We will constantly make that case, because it is important for a rules-based system throughout the world—of which the United Nations is one part and the principles of war are another—but it is also in our own interests as the United Kingdom.
Oral Answers to Questions
Vikki Slade Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Kendall
In the few days that I have been in post, a number of MPs and other organisations have already raised this issue with me. I will always be driven by evidence. I want to protect people’s rights to privacy, but I want to make sure that nothing is done that will put people at risk. If the hon. Member has evidence and wants to send that to me, I am more than happy to look at it, because I want to take the action required.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I have been contacted by many constituents worried about the implementation of the Act. For example, Emily, who is home-schooled and has ME, struggles to access things that help with her learning and her rural isolation. Alexander says that he has accessed gambling sites, but cannot access suicide prevention content. As we mark World Suicide Prevention Day, how can we make sure that the Act is a little more nuanced?
Liz Kendall
I am glad that the hon. Lady has mentioned that today is World Suicide Prevention Day. Anyone who has experienced it in relation to their family or friends, or in their constituency, knows how devastating it can be.
The hon. Lady raises an important issue. From my constituency experience, children and young people want to benefit from all the opportunities and learning they can, but sometimes it is difficult to get it right. It is a complex issue. As a new Secretary of State, I need to get into the detail, but I will always listen. When the evidence is there, I hope to take the appropriate action.