National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. From Saturday, councillors across England will lose powers—powers to bring planning applications before elected committees. For communities like mine in Aldridge-Brownhills, which are already facing huge speculative development, this is a serious loss of accountability. My residents have faced an onslaught of applications in relation to green-belt sites, including York’s Bridge for 330 houses, Queslett Road East for 850, Barns Lane for 77, Longwood Lane for 78 and Bosty Lane for 550. Those are just some of them. These applications have brought the debate about the future of our countryside very close to people’s doors. These green spaces help to give our communities their identity. Residents want to know what development will mean for their already busy roads, school places and GP access. They are right to expect those questions to be properly considered before Ministers introduce sweeping changes, yet here we are, just days before the new rules take effect, still looking for answers.

It seems that of the outstanding applications for 2,350 homes across my constituency, 80% will be determined under the new rules and behind closed doors. Residents and councillors will not easily be able to ask questions of the developers or raise issues in open committee. Of course, we agree on the need for homes that local people can afford. I want brownfield sites brought back into use, with supporting infrastructure. As I have said time and again in this place and will probably keep saying, once agricultural land is built on, it is gone, and it is gone forever. I want to see planning consents built, not banked. That brings me to the current consultation on Walsall borough’s local plan.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Lady. I spoke to her beforehand, and I always look to be helpful by talking about what we do back home. In Northern Ireland, under section 31 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, each of our 11 district councils is legally mandated to operate its own bespoke scheme of delegation. Although that gives local authorities excellent democratic autonomy over local developments, it has at times led to the exact regional inconsistencies in application processing times that the new English model explicitly seeks to correct. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the learnings from Northern Ireland’s process should be shared to achieve best practice in planning and hopefully address some of the very issues that she is highlighting?

[Wendy Morton]

I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he always makes useful contributions in Westminster Hall that allow us to reflect on and share our different experiences. To me, the fundamental thing is making sure that our communities feel that their councillors have a voice, rather than the democratic deficit that we are faced with. I thank him for his intervention.

Our local plan consultation closes on Monday, and over the last six weeks I have been encouraging residents to respond. I have been holding public meetings, helping with objections and making it clear to them that their views, whatever they are, matter, including when the plan goes before an independent inspector. But what message are the new regulations sending? Residents take the time to go through the documents, attend the meetings and help shape their area’s future, while the Government restrict their councillors’ ability to secure full and public scrutiny when an application arrives. That is not democracy in action—it is neither scrutiny nor accountability—so what is the point of asking communities to invest their time in a local plan if contentious decisions about its application are then to be taken behind closed doors?

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

I suspect I am doing neither the right hon. Lady nor myself any favours by saying I absolutely agree with her. It is our duty as MPs to robustly defend local democracy. Does she agree that, when the communities we represent and their directly elected councillors oppose speculative development, the answer is not to silence their voices but to secure genuine public consent with a higher standard of development that meets local needs and hopes for the future?

[Wendy Morton]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he is not upsetting me with those comments—far from it. His point, that local democracy and local accountability matter, is exactly the one I am making. It is so important that we include local voices, because it is local voices that have local knowledge that can help to shape the community. If we want truly cohesive communities that work together, we need to make sure that their voices are heard—and that they do not have targets and housing imposed upon them.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Wendy Morton]

I am spoiled for choice.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her important speech. Recently, a development in my constituency for 8,500 homes that was due to go to the local planning committee was suddenly taken away from it, having been called in by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna). The decision now sits with the Secretary of State, taking this important decision, which will have a huge impact on the area, out of local hands.

This is clearly denying local democracy, given that we have locally elected councillors who know the impact this development will have on my constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is completely wrong to take those powers to influence local planning decisions away from local councillors, and that it is absurd that a Government who talk about increasing devolution are the ones taking these powers away from local councillors?

[Wendy Morton]

That is spot on. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate. She mentioned accountability and democracy. As she knows, the Government are currently taking the Representation of the People Bill through Parliament. The Bill rightly tries to encourage increased participation and accountability in our electoral system. Does she share my concern that the role of councillors is undermined by these planning changes, that local people will lose confidence in the democratic checks and balances of local government, and that we therefore may see turnout and participation go down?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend is right. For a long time, it has concerned me that turnout at elections, particularly local elections, has been falling, and I do not believe the answer is simply to lower the voting age. Rather, we should be seeking to engage with people and communities on a cross-party basis. What we are seeing now is a Government who impose top-down targets, say it is all about devolution and go through the mayors, but when it comes to accountability and scrutiny, I cannot scrutinise the Mayor of the West Midlands. He does not even reply to my letters, yet he is getting more powers.

These planning measures come down to local councils, and once again, local councillors are losing their voice—our communities are losing their voices. How can we say that we want to engage with communities? How do we shape the future of our country and our communities if we are taking away transparency and accountability, which are the very foundations of good, strong democracy?

Delegation is a familiar concept. In fact, the Government’s own paper said that officers made 96% of planning decisions in the second quarter of 2024, but that cannot become how every application is determined. Where is the evidence about delays as a result of planning committee call-ins? How much delay arises from waiting for the committee, and how much from staffing shortages, outstanding technical advice or the complexity of the process?

Under the new rules, ordinary applications for up to nine houses on sites smaller than half a hectare must be decided by officers. Larger applications are not guaranteed a hearing either. Referral requires that the nominated officer and the chair of the planning committee agree and that a test of significance is met; if they disagree, the decision stays with officers.

Even reserved matters for a purely residential scheme of several hundred homes can be subject to mandatory delegation, so why exclude councillors from details that materially change the make-up of their own community? A ward councillor will know exactly why a proposal matters locally, but under the new rules they cannot make sure it is heard at committee. It would be helpful if the Minister could outline how the Government will ensure that the significance test is applied consistently. What can a councillor do when a well-founded referral request is rejected? How can it be that an application concerning a protected tree can still be eligible for committee consideration while an application for nine houses can be excluded? What principle explains that distinction? Why should councils be able to consider the future of a single tree—I am not saying that trees are not important—but not the circumstances of a housing development?

We then come to the issue of transparency. Will reasons for refusing to refer an application to committee be published before the application is decided, allowing time to raise an error? Reporting afterwards will give no comfort to concerned residents if permission has already been granted. As the Minister is undoubtedly aware—and I appreciate this topic is not entirely in her brief—some councils are seeking to preserve democratic oversight through informal councillor panels advising on planning applications. What assessment has the Department made of the risk of developers alleging predetermination when councillors express a view through those panels and subsequently participate in the gateway decision or determine the application at committee? Could the resulting legal challenges and delays undermine the very house building targets that the regulations are intended to support? I would be grateful if the Department published clear guidance so that councils can retain meaningful elected involvement without creating further uncertainty.

There is also the question of neighbourhood plans. One council leader told me their council has called for applications that conflict with an adopted neighbourhood plan policy to be eligible for committee consideration. Communities spend years and thousands of pounds preparing these plans before residents endorse them in a referendum. They deserve a route to elected scrutiny when an application conflicts with those policies. Will the Minister provide that safeguard, including for applications otherwise subject to mandatory delegation?

There is a similar concern about houses in multiple occupation, which are used all too often to house those decanted from asylum hotels. Councils introduced article 4 directions because they identified a need for greater control over conversions in particular neighbourhoods, yet applications brought into the planning system by those directions can fall within schedule 1 to the Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026, preventing elected members from determining them. Will the Minister clarify exactly which HMO applications must be delegated, and explain why an article 4 direction provides no exception? Where an application raises significant concerns about the concentration of HMOs, such as about parking or the loss of family housing, will the Government allow councillors to secure a committee hearing?

Let us not forget planning officers. They also deserve protection. They undertake difficult professional work, often with very limited resources. Moving contentious decisions away from committees has a real risk of leaving officers personally exposed. Councils are rightly asking what safeguards will protect officers from undue influence or pressure from developers, applicants and other interested parties. Will there be requirements to record substantive discussions, declare conflicts of interest and obtain a second opinion in contentious cases? What independent route will officers have to report improper pressure? Officers must act impartially, so how will the Minister prevent them from becoming a lightning rod for political criticism when elected council members have lost their decision-making role? The Royal Town Planning Institute has warned of the risk of increased abuse and public pressure. What support will be funded to protect staff and to help councils retain those important experienced planners?

Transparency protects officers and residents alike. People should be able to follow the evidence and understand who decided and why. Accessibility matters, too. Developers often have a planning consultant and a legal team, whereas residents concerned about an application only have the option to open the planning portal for the very first time. They should not need professional help to find out whether an application will reach committee, how to ask for scrutiny or whether their concerns have been considered. Will Ministers engage in a publicity campaign to update people on those changes and ensure that each authority has an easily understandable explanation of the new process on its website, including how residents can put their case where there is no committee meeting?

The Planning Inspectorate also has an important role. An inspector will examine whether the proposed local plan in my constituency meets legal requirements and is sound. Separately, inspectors determine many planning appeals, but how will local evidence about infrastructure and cumulative green-belt loss be considered through these processes? On another point of fairness, or rather the lack of it, applicants can appeal refusals, but objecting residents have no equivalent appeal on planning merits. Given that imbalance, why weaken scrutiny before the decision? What affordable option will residents realistically have if an application is wrongly kept away from the committee?

A separate part of this new scheme requires councils to consult the Secretary of State before refusing applications for 150 or more homes. How will that operate transparently? How can residents make representations? Ministers are creating an additional opportunity for Whitehall interference and involvement while restricting elected local councillors. That undoubtedly creates a democratic deficit. How does that sit with the Prime Minister’s promises on devolution and community empowerment? I do not see how it does. The Local Government Association’s Conservative group has organised a letter from more than 1,500 Conservative councillors calling for this scheme of delegation to be repealed; I put on record my thanks to them for that. Let us hope that the Prime Minister gives it his urgent attention when it is delivered to him at No. 10 tomorrow.

We all know that councils must comply with the law, but we must remember that agreeing to update their constitutions does not mean that they consent to these regulations or believe that they serve their communities. A Government talking about devolution should trust local representatives and communities. I hope that the Minister will reconsider these regulations. At the very least, the Government should restore an effective route to committee for contentious applications to protect neighbourhood plans and article 4 directions and provide clear safeguards for officers.

Before the scheme takes effect on Saturday, will the Minister commit to those changes and to publishing an assessment of the scheme’s impact ahead of the statutory review in 2028? My constituents are being asked to engage with their local plan by Monday. I want to be able to tell them that doing so will make a difference and that their elected councillors will still have a meaningful role when decisions are taken. That is the assurance that I am seeking.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for setting out her case so well. As their starting point, the Government need to be clear about what problem and which causes of that problem they are trying to solve. The vast majority of this House would agree that we need more house building, ideally with a particular focus on affordable and social housing, but there are many reasons why we are not hitting the Government’s housing targets, and they should not be lazily reduced to blaming the planning system or planning committees. The solutions that the Government seek to deal with that house building shortage should be based on evidence, not ideology. I fear that sometimes ideology dominates.

Removing local scrutiny in the way that has been described will not address the underlying causes of delay, which include capacity constraints in planning departments and the wider construction supply chain. We need a planning system that is simpler, more effective and capable of delivering homes that are well built, warm and cheap to heat, and that is accountable to local people and their representatives.

In South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse district councils, the two district councils that cover my Oxfordshire constituency, the planning committees work well and there is no evidence that they are slowing development down. Some 95% of planning applications are decided by officers already. The majority of applications debated by the planning committees are also passed, but having complex and more contentious planning decisions made in public aids transparency and scrutiny over how planning policies are being applied. Vale of White Horse council has an excellent record on planning appeals: only 4.3% of appeals were allowed over the past two years, demonstrating that the decisions being made under the existing system are working well and are of a high quality.

In my constituency, we have seen huge rates of housing growth over the past 15 years. The key frustration for local people is that the infrastructure has not kept pace. A lot of the time, the local councils are not the ones able to dictate what we need in respect of housing, new railway stations or health infrastructure. Significant infrastructure is not something over which they have direct control.

Reducing the input of local communities and removing the ability of local ward councillors to call planning decisions to a committee could reduce the opportunity for those who understand our communities best to influence the infrastructure that developers provide alongside new homes. Over the past few years, there have been signs that house building is slowing down—the build rate of homes on some of the larger developments in my part of Oxfordshire has slowed—but the Government have misdiagnosed the cause of slower build rates. Planning committees are not the cause; there are wider economic causes and wider system causes. Developers will only build the homes that they are confident of selling. More expensive mortgages and potential buyers not feeling confident about investing in buying a home are significant factors.

I had the pleasure of serving on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee, alongside the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), who is in this Chamber. We both have very fond memories of it—a very rewarding and fulfilling experience it was. Indeed, the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), also served on the Committee. It was on topics such as the one we are debating where there were common amendments among Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Green party Members. How often does that happen? If I were the Government, I would be very worried about uniting three such different parties.

The wider philosophical problem that we are failing to address as a Parliament and as a country is the tension between national need versus local concern. We need to start approaching that question intelligently. It is yet another debate that has become polarised, with two tribes shouting at each other and not really engaging in dialogue. Maybe we need more Ministers coming to areas affected by significant planning issues—I am not talking about a little cul-de-sac of new houses, but maybe significant infrastructure projects. If Ministers were more willing to come to our constituencies, they could make their case directly and debate and could challenge local opponents.

[Wendy Morton]

I would be delighted if the Minister came to Aldridge-Brownhills to see the impact that 20,000 homes will have across the borough, where we have a lack of infrastructure. I am still waiting for the funding for Aldridge railway station.

[Olly Glover]

I was amazed that the right hon. Lady did not mention that station campaign in her opening speech, but she has now rectified that omission. Ministers coming and engaging directly in that way could be part of a campaign of national persuasion to tackle the causes for resentment of development in a given area, but too often that is left to large corporate interests to do, which fuels mistrust. Indeed, in my constituency, the main advocate of what would be the second-biggest reservoir in the country is Thames Water, and of course that really does not help to persuade people of the case. It is one of the major reasons why there is significant local opposition.

As a result, I agree with the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and the hon. Member for Hamble Valley that these changes being made by the Government run the risk of further eroding trust in local politics and local democracy. That is in none of our interests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

On that point about local leaders making decisions and showing leadership, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we actually see that? In areas such as Walsall, what we do not see from the new leadership there—the Reform council—is strong leadership on this. One area that needs more pushback is the duty to co-operate with other areas. In our area, Birmingham’s housing target has gone down and ours has gone up. There are some towns and cities in neighbouring counties that actually want more housing and have more brownfield sites.

[Lewis Cocking]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. She is right to mention the duty to co-operate. Local leaders must step up to the plate. That is what they are elected to do, and that is what their residents expect.

Residents expect their local councillors to represent them, not to hide behind the duty to co-operate. They must co-operate across borders. They do not need powers taken away from them and given to unaccountable bureaucrats in distant council headquarters. Under the national scheme of delegation, proposals for under 10 properties will only be looked at by planning officers. This means that only in very limited circumstances will there be a way for local councillors to bring those decisions before a planning committee. Planning officers are not elected and are not accountable to voters.

Everyone knows that sometimes planning officers get things wrong and the decisions need to be overturned. I have seen it. I have served on a planning committee and the trouble is that, once a planning application gets approval and gets built, it is there for a very long time. It is very difficult to rectify it once it goes wrong. Do the Government really think that unelected officials are better placed to make decisions on local issues than elected councillors? People vote for their councillors to represent them on planning issues and can hold their councillors accountable at the ballot box. However, it is not just planning that is at stake, but trust in politics as a whole. Removing powers from elected representatives is an attack on British democracy, and the British people can see right through it.

Local action groups such as Goffs Oak Community Association are already fighting tooth and nail to stop their towns and villages being wrecked by inappropriate developments, which are often proposed without any sort of adequate infrastructure. The Government clearly do not care about their views, otherwise they would not be bringing in this national scheme of delegation. These changes also ignore the fact that planning committees are not just there to approve or deny applications. Councillors talk with local people and can address their concerns by putting conditions on development.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Sally Jameson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. As hon. Members have identified, I am not the Minister for Housing. He is in another Committee as we speak, but I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Government and I will make sure that the strength of feeling and the questions that have been raised today are fed back.

[Wendy Morton]

I can assure the Minister that I will not persistently intervene. But on her last point, can she reassure me that if she is unable to answer questions that were asked today—I appreciate that this is not in her portfolio—she will ensure that the Minister for Housing and Planning responds to Members in this Chamber and the public in writing before the regulations come into force on Saturday? It is absolutely critical that Members here, and councillors across the country, fully understand their implications.

[Sally Jameson]

I will ensure that that request is fed back to the Minister for Housing, as well as the strength of feeling behind it. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing today’s important debate, as well as hon. Members for their contributions on the subject.

The modernisation of planning committees, as many will know, is a big part of the housing and infrastructure delivery that the Government intend. Our reforms are about creating a level playing field across the country to give certainty to communities and developers about the process their applications will follow. We recognise the vital role that planning committees play in providing local democratic oversight for important development decisions in their area. Our reforms were a key measure in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 and are intended to support planning committees in this crucial role so that they can be effective as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

I thank all Members across the House for their contributions. It is clear that there is a lot of cross-party support, but it is noticeable that some of those who protesteth about saving the green belt—namely, our Reform colleagues—are nowhere to be seen in Westminster Hall. I know who is fighting for residents and standing up to protect the green belt.

Civil Service Pensions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sally Jameson]

I agree with my hon. Friend that Capita’s performance has been absolutely abysmal. There are no excuses for it, and I will make no excuses for it and its terrible performance. I have more confidence in the rectification plan I outlined today, purely because of the involvement that Cabinet Office officials and experts have had in it, and because they now have access to the Capita systems and data, which they did not have before. That will allow us to properly hold it to account. On bringing the scheme in house, it is a manifesto commitment that we will have the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation. I am committed to that, as is everyone on the Labour Benches. I will continue to update the House on progress made on this policy.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I recognise the Minister’s efforts to resolve this issue, and I am grateful to her for meeting me recently, but far too often, Capita remains completely unresponsive. Sadly, trying to get an appointment at the MPs’ surgeries is proving very difficult. Last week, I wrote to her about four outstanding cases in my constituency. Will she commit personally to reviewing those cases and securing me a detailed update, so that my constituents know what to expect and when to expect it, and when they will get the money that they are owed?

[Sally Jameson]

I thank the right hon. Member for meeting me recently and raising her constituency cases. I will ensure that I identify those four cases, follow them up personally, and get back to her as soon as possible. I am sorry to hear that she struggled to get an appointment at the surgeries. I will work with my officials to see if there is any way that we can increase capacity, so that everyone can get the appointment that they need.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend on his many years of campaigning on this terrible issue. He will know about the Prime Minister’s personal involvement in and commitment to this issue, about his personal experience of campaigning alongside the victims, and how important he and the Department consider the matter. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority has now paid out over £2.2 billion in final compensation payments, but we are very aware that there is much more to do. The Minister in the other place will be happy to meet my hon. Friend’s APPG.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

T5. One of my constituents served His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for 43 years, yet more than five months on from taking partial retirement she is still waiting for her pension and lump sum. My office has attended two casework surgeries with Capita and the Cabinet Office, neither of which has secured a resolution. My constituent is now paying additional mortgage interest because of the delays. Will the Minister meet me urgently to resolve this case, secure a payment date and ensure that my constituent is compensated for the financial losses incurred?

[Sally Jameson]

I am sorry to hear of the experience that the right hon. Member’s constituent has had with Capita. As I have said, its performance has been abysmal, and we will hold it to account every single day until service levels are brought back to a good standard. I would be happy to meet her to discuss the case, and I will personally ensure that it is escalated.

Direction of Government

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As I said before, and I am pleased to give my hon. Friend this assurance, I want to ensure that we do not have a two-tier England in which rural and coastal areas feel in some way shut out or left behind. There is a devolution deal that can be done for everywhere; he has my commitment on that. I encourage him to look at the letter from the First Secretary of State about No. 10 North; it is about providing for practical areas. I also encourage Members on all sides to start being practical about agreeing a combined authority, where that can be brought through. That, in our experience, is the best way to secure a building block for economic growth and to sustain important services. I want rural areas to benefit from exactly the same.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Over the summer, the Prime Minister opposed development on green spaces in his constituency, saying:

“It offers no benefit to the local community and will place huge strain on local infrastructure.”

My constituents face the same pressures, so will he commit to new and meaningful green-belt protections, to protect those green spaces in both our constituencies; make sure that houses are built only when there has been meaningful consultation with communities, when communities are being listened to, and when infrastructure is in place; and please, scrap the ridiculous “grey belt” definition?

[The Prime Minister]

My new constituency—in fact, it includes a good chunk of my old Leigh constituency, so I know it well—has been hugely developed over the years, and we have brought through significant new housing. Anyone who visited during the by-election will know that the infrastructure is struggling to cope with the number of houses that have been built in the constituency. All I am saying to the right hon. Lady is that I support taking a balanced approach where there has been significant development, but I do not think that it is sustainable to turn our back on all development completely. It is about a balance, and I will work in this role to find that balance with the right hon. Lady.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I join my hon. Friend in marking Windrush Day and thank her for raising it, because it gives me the opportunity to thank a community who made an extraordinary contribution to our country, and to remember the injustice that they faced. I am proud that we have overhauled the compensation scheme to deliver faster access to compensation and justice, providing £1.5 million for organisations supporting claimants, and we have appointed the first ever Windrush commissioner to rebuild trust and deliver justice. I am incredibly proud to lead a country that is built on dignity and respect, where everyone is seen and everyone is valued.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Q15. From slashing winter fuel payments to surrendering the Chagos Islands, this Prime Minister has got every major decision wrong. It is no wonder that even his own MPs are now looking elsewhere for the answers. As this may be one of his final appearances at the Dispatch Box, will he make one final U-turn? Will he scrap Labour’s disastrous grey-belt policy and help protect the precious green-belt spaces and green areas across Aldridge-Brownhills? If not, his legacy will be that he was the Prime Minister who destroyed so many of our local communities.

[The Prime Minister]

I do like the right hon. Lady. When she talks about destroying legacies, I remember that she was the Chief Whip to Liz Truss. I am very proud that we are building the houses that we need so that everyone has a base camp for their opportunity and aspiration—something the last Government failed on and we are succeeding on.

Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I would first say to the hon. Member that the disclosure of information from Bloomberg and subsequently from the United States Department of Justice showed a depth and extent of relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein that nobody was aware of—nobody was aware of that until that information became public—but that does not excuse the point he makes in his question. He is right that, as I have said at the start of every statement from the Dispatch Box on this issue, while we debate all these procedural issues about WhatsApp, security vetting or who was given a job on what basis, at the heart of this are the most atrocious crimes—unimaginable to all of us—by Jeffrey Epstein in relation to many young women and girls. We know that this is not just confined to Jeffrey Epstein; sadly, violence against women and girls is a more widespread issue. The Government are working hard in trying to tackle that issue, in line with our commitment to halve it over the course of this Parliament.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

The central figure in this entire saga is someone who enjoyed a cosy relationship with Ministers at the heart of this Government, yet he has refused to hand over his mobile phone and Ministers, many of whom he had as close friends, seem simply to have accepted that refusal. Does the Minister really expect this House to believe that full transparency has been achieved when Mandelson continues to be able to pick and choose what evidence he allows us to see?

[Darren Jones]

I share the right hon. Lady’s sentiment, but the Government do not have the legal power to require the disclosure of Peter Mandelson’s device. As I have said in earlier statements, other powers are available—for example, to the Metropolitan police and others, should the CPS proceed to put a criminal investigation before the courts—so that may become clearer in the future. However, the Government have done everything we can to ensure we have provided full disclosure in compliance with the Humble Address.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 18 March.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Our deepest condolences are with the families and friends of the two young people who have died following the outbreak of meningitis B in Kent. Others are seriously ill, and this will be a deeply difficult time for their loved ones. Health experts are working to identify close contacts and distribute antibiotics, and we will begin a targeted vaccination programme in the coming days. Can I take this opportunity to ask anyone who attended Club Chemistry on 5, 6 or 7 March to please come forward to receive antibiotics?

Yesterday President Zelensky addressed parliamentarians, including many Members. I had the opportunity to reaffirm to him that no matter what other international events, the UK’s support for Ukraine will not waver. I also welcomed Prime Minister Carney and NATO Secretary-General Rutte to Downing Street for further discussions on international security.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Wendy Morton]

May I associate myself with the comments and condolences of the Prime Minister in relation to those affected by the meningitis outbreak?

New data today shows that nearly 60% of hospices are considering cutting frontline services. In the west midlands, St Giles hospice has already reduced beds and staff due to financial pressures. With services being cut, can the Prime Minister explain why hospices are being told to wait until autumn for the new framework, and will he commit today to proper long-term, sustainable funding to secure this vital lifeline for the future?

[The Prime Minister]

It is important that the funding and framework are put in place. We support the work of hospices and are doing everything we can to support them.

Standards in Public Life

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be wishing for more chaos in our country. The public voted to end that at the last general election, and that is why this Government are getting on with delivering change for people across this country.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Today’s statement is little more than a smokescreen, and a chance to distract from the key issue, which is about Peter Mandelson and our Prime Minister. More questions are being asked, but there are still no answers, so may I take the Minister back to the central point? How much was the golden goodbye for Peter Mandelson?

[Darren Jones]

I refer the right hon. Lady to my previous answer.

Lord Mandelson

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. Yes, I have read the letter—I am afraid I did not have it at my fingertips—but I think it is important to put all this information before the House.

The next question is, what does “vetting” mean? I appreciate that there are other processes that we cannot go into here, and it would not be appropriate to do so, but I hope it will be of help to the House to share another answer from the Foreign Affairs Committee session. In question 269, I said:

“The foundation of it seems to be that they have a form to fill in, you take it in good faith that they are filling that in correctly, and then you check what it is that they have said, so if they have omitted anything, no one is looking outside what is on the form.”

Sir Oliver Robbins then said:

“That is broadly correct, yes.”

That is vetting.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I will touch on vetting in my contribution later, but as someone who was vetted by the Foreign Office many years ago, I would like to seek clarity as to whether Peter Mandelson went through the full vetting process that a normal member of the diplomatic service would undergo ahead of taking up such a post, or did he simply undergo what is known in political terms—in Chief Whip terms—as the “pet process” undertaken by the Cabinet Office, because full vetting takes a long time?

[Emily Thornberry]

I understand what the right hon. Lady is saying. Obviously, I do not know. All I can do to help the House is point out that when it was announced in mid-December that Lord Mandelson would be the ambassador, pressure was being applied to make sure that we were all clear that he was going to be the ambassador in time for the swearing in of the President a month later. The Committee did everything that we could to try to get to the bottom of how many questions were asked and what the questions were, and we all did our utmost to try to get to the truth of this. If Members read the transcript, they will see that we were not “mandarined”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

I think some Labour Members do get it, which is why we are seeing furious activity with the usual channels at the moment. I think there is a whole movement of those Members who are not going to be willing to support the Government in voting for their own amendment today. I think some of them get it, and the rest of them need to catch up quickly. Those first movers who spoke out and were clear that they were not going to support it will be able to hold their heads up high.

Let us also be clear about Mandelson’s disrespect for this House. We have heard from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). She has now left the Chamber, but I will refer to her remarks. She gave a pretty poor account of why she wholeheartedly endorsed his appointment. As Chair of that Committee, she is supposed to be independent and to act on behalf of the House. She was happy to explain all the reasons why she felt that the vetting was not complete and the processes were not up to scratch. Why, then, did she not say at the time that this person should not have been appointed? We know that other members of the Committee said the same thing, and they were similarly thrown under the bus by the Chair of the Committee, who endorsed the appointment. I think that is also a disrespect to this House.

[Wendy Morton]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this boils down to judgment, whether it is the Prime Minister’s or that of others on the Government Benches? So much was known about Peter Mandelson even before he was appointed. Surely someone should have got their head out of the sand and said, “Hang on, folks. This isn’t right.”

[Dr Mullan]

As I said, both the Prime Minister and, as we understand it, his chief of staff decided that it was worth the risk. There was lots of distraction today at Prime Minister’s questions from a Prime Minister who did not want to accept that it was his judgment on the line, including on further police investigations, and on other things that Mandelson had done and things we did not know about. What we all knew, and what the Prime Minister knew, is that Peter Mandelson continued a friendship with a convicted paedophile when he made him the ambassador to the United States of America.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Arthur]

Can we just reflect for a second? The original Humble Address was reckless. It was going to put information in the public domain that would have damaged our country. It could be argued that the original amendment was an overreaction to that, but we are getting to a good place now; we are reaching consensus.

[Wendy Morton]

All things being equal, would the hon. Gentleman have gone through the Aye Lobby or the No Lobby if a Division was called on the motion?

[Dr Arthur]

I had complete confidence that the Minister would reach consensus in the House today. Seriously though, would Opposition Members have voted for their own motion, which would have put sensitive information into the public domain? I really doubt it. I think better of them than that.

[Wendy Morton]

I think our motion was and is very clear, and we know how evidence and information are brought forward when it comes to the ISC. My question was very clear: would the hon. Gentleman have voted with us on the motion, or against it?

[Dr Arthur]

Mr Speaker, I am trying to sit down. I will do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

At the start of this afternoon, I sat through Prime Minister’s questions and did not really have any intention of taking part in this Opposition day debate. I quite often take part in what we call Oppo day debates, but I had other commitments in the diary. [Interruption.] This is not a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was asked to speak, was I not? Officials are looking at me rather perplexed.

I had no intention of speaking in this debate. I sat through Prime Minister’s questions and listened to the Leader of the Opposition asking the Prime Minister direct questions. With each question that went by, it became clear that there were many questions that were not being answered and that the Government were attempting simply to sweep this issue to the side, and to deflect to other matters around the periphery.

First, let me come to the Humble Address. I have not been in this place as long as some of my vintage colleagues—I say that in a very kind way—but I have a few scars to bear from my time as Chief Whip. [Interruption.] I never lost a vote, mind. The reason that I make that point is that I, like others in this place, know the significance of a Humble Address. A Humble Address is not used on a normal Opposition day debate. It is not used regularly and it is not used lightly. It is used to indicate that this is a very serious matter that we have brought to this House today. Initially, there were to be two debates, but because of the demand from those on the Opposition Benches to have the issue debated and discussed, the usual channels agreed to allow the debate to take all afternoon. Most scrutiny has come from Conservative Members, but I pay tribute to those on the Government Benches who have had the decency to explain to their Front-Bench team how they feel about this important matter.

We heard earlier about the issue of national security. In opposition, when the Prime Minister was shadow Brexit Secretary back in 2018—I remember those days well—he proposed three separate Humble Addresses, and none of them included exemptions for national security. There was a suggestion that we got this wrong, but that is just not the case at all.

I am pleased that the Government have listened, yet again, to their Back Benchers and brought forward a manuscript amendment, but were it not for Members on both the Opposition and Government Benches pushing them to do so, I do not think we would be in this position now.

[Joe Robertson]

Is it not shocking that the Prime Minister not only appointed Peter Mandelson knowing his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, but today has sought to deflect, cover up and table an amendment so as not to have to answer questions that he must now answer?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend is just so right, and I will come to that point a little later.

The core of this debate is the fact that we want answers. There are huge questions about the judgment of the Prime Minister and his appointment of Mandelson. Members from both sides of the House have talked a lot about the victims, and it is right that they have, but if we are to stand up for the victims and for the people who put us here—we should never forget that we were sent to this place—we need to ask the questions, and we deserve the answers. Opposition Members will continue to keep asking those questions, because that is what the public and the victims deserve. They deserve transparency and accountability.

Earlier I made an intervention about the vetting process. I am not an expert on this at all, but it does seem strange to me that, arguably, Peter Mandelson did not appear to have been fully vetted—instead going through some strange checking process involving one piece of paper.

[Bradley Thomas]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the public are sick and tired of people who appear to fail upwards in public life, simply for the reason that they appear to move in the right circles?

[Wendy Morton]

Absolutely.

I will share something with the House today. I never set out to be a politician. I never in a million years expected to sit on these green Benches, but I did it to stand up for my local community, because I felt that they needed a voice. I might not get everything right—none of us do—but one thing I will do is strive to be a voice for those who put me in this place, and let us never forget that we were put here by others.

Turning back to vetting, I would like the Minister to explain to us whether Peter Mandelson went through the exact same vetting process that a normal diplomat would have gone through if they were to take up the post in Washington. The role of UK ambassador to the US is one of the most important roles in our Foreign Office.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

To my right hon. Friend’s question about vetting, can she foresee a circumstance where a professional diplomat would be given clearance if they had sold passports and taken undeclared loans?

[Wendy Morton]

My right hon. Friend makes a really important. This is about probity and evidence and making sure, for the reputation of this country, that we are appointing the right people. I should declare that I once was a member of the diplomatic service, and I know that the people who serve our country as diplomats are of the highest integrity, and they have my trust. When it comes to making political appointments, as today’s debate has shown, there are still questions that need to be asked.

The other thing that is rather strange is that everyone seemed to know that there were questions around Peter Mandelson. There were questions about the sort of person he was—I think he was once featured on “Spitting Image” as the Prince of Darkness—but where was the Prime Minister, and where was his judgment? Was his head stuck in the sand? We Conservative Members are aware that the Prime Minister had been glowing about the talents of Peter Mandelson. Only in February, he said at the British embassy in Washington:

“Peter is the right person to help us work with President Trump and to take the special relationship from strength to strength”.

We are aware that Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, pushed for Mandelson to become ambassador, sidelining long-serving experienced diplomats. We are aware that Keir Starmer assured MPs that “full due process” was followed—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Will the hon. Lady make sure that she refers to the Prime Minister as the Prime Minister, please?

[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.

[Harriet Cross]

My right hon. Friend rightly talks about trust in politics and in politicians, but the issue is that the Prime Minister put so much blind trust in a proven liar that he was willing to forgo process and judgment when appointing him to one of the top diplomatic roles in the country. Why does my right hon. Friend think that the Prime Minister showed such a lack of judgment and such misplaced trust that it has caused this country to be a laughing stock on the international stage?

[Wendy Morton]

That is exactly the point. I do not think it is for me to answer those questions; it is for the Prime Minister to do so, but I will continue to question his judgment. How on earth did he come to appoint Peter Mandelson to this role? It is not just Conservative Members who are asking that; today, we have heard Labour Members asking questions. The Government Benches are quite full now, but the Conservatives led the charge on this topic. In Opposition day debates, I expect to see the Government Benches full, and I expect Labour Members to take points up, debate with us, and defend the position of their Government. How much have we seen of that today? Very little indeed.

[Bradley Thomas]

Aside from the evident, persistent and consistent failures in the Prime Minister’s integrity, does this issue not raise massive questions about the hold over the Government and those at the top of the Labour party by someone whose name has been a byword for sleaze for the last two or three decades?

[Wendy Morton]

It absolutely beggars belief. If we want to clean up politics, this sort of thing should not be allowed to happen. We know that politics are difficult, but this was down to the judgment of one person—or was it the judgment of others around that person? I urge Labour Members to do the right thing this evening and stand up for democracy, Parliament and decency.

Digital ID

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. As you may have noticed, there are huge numbers of Members trying to speak. I will have to impose a three-minute speech limit. We will try and get everybody in, but the more interventions there are, the more people simply will not get in. Perhaps you could all bear that in mind, please.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I will keep my intervention very short, Sir Edward. An unheard-of 4,400 of my constituents signed this petition. They are very clear that they do not want the imposition—which is what it will be—of digital ID. As we heard from my hon. Friend’s history lesson, time and again it has been the Conservatives who have said, “No, we do not want this. The British people do not want it.” Is it not time that this Government sat up and listened to the public for a change?

[Robbie Moore]

That is exactly why this Conservative party is saying no to digital ID once again. The latest guesstimate of how much this is going to cost us all is a whopping £1.8 billion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Niblett]

I will not give way, I am sorry. I am rattling through my speech.

Many fear that digital ID could pave the way, however unintentionally, to increased Government surveillance or the type of social credit-style monitoring that understandably alarms people. Others raise cyber-security concerns. One constituent said:

“If it can be hacked, it will be—and then what happens to our data?”

I am sure lots of tech companies would be delighted to get hold of our NHS data.

South Derbyshire is a rural constituency, and there are significant particularities when it comes to digital access and inclusion. Many older residents have raised concerns about their confidence in getting online and using smartphones. However, on this occasion, digital ID would thankfully be mandatory only for people accessing work.

There are also concerns about costs and priorities. Many people are asking why, at a time of stretched public services, the Government would invest in a new ID system that is mandatory for workers when we already have passports, licences, national insurance numbers and so on for that purpose.

[Wendy Morton]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Samantha Niblett]

I will not.

The public need to feel confident that digital ID is secure, inclusive and underpinned by strong, transparent safeguards, so I look forward to hearing more from the Government about how they intend to build trust, engage openly with the public and guarantee that no one will be left behind as this technology evolves. It must also have a brilliant user experience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Vaughan]

Not at the moment.

Six per cent of the population do not have access to smartphones. Pensioners, the disabled and the homeless could be particularly affected. I believe it is vital that the Minister and the Government listen carefully to those concerns and that they be heard during the public consultation, which will begin in the new year. I will be making my representations; I urge my constituents to do so too.

I want to make two points about why, in principle, I support the idea of digital identification. First, I believe that a digital credential has the potential to make an individual citizen’s day-to-day life easier and more convenient. In a world where we already pay, bank and travel digitally, book and manage GP appointments digitally, file our tax returns digitally and access many public services digitally, the argument for secure, universal digital credentials to replace multiple forms of verification is highly appealing. It would be more secure than many citizens’ existing password systems. My dad would remember his early attempts at passwords, such as “password123”, later improved to “Sausages123” —with a capital S for added security.

The most important point is that I believe that digital ID will strengthen right-to-work checks. One reason why that is important is to fight back against the epidemic of organised crime across our country. I was in one high street in my constituency a couple of weeks ago where three vape and tobacco shops have sprung up over the last few months selling £5 packs of cigarettes, which are obviously illegal. I was told that it takes His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, trading standards and the police to shut one of them down, and that even when they do, it reopens in a few hours.

We should be making it easier for the state immediately to verify a person’s right to work. If the police need to probe someone’s right to work, they have no ability to do so on the spot. We need to make it easier for the state to check someone’s right to work.

[Wendy Morton]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that mandatory ID would realistically stop these problem shops on the high street?

[Tony Vaughan]

If it is possible for the police to verify, in that moment, whether a person has a right to work, that will assist. The details are not there, but I am making the point that it is open to consultation. I am not here to defend the position of the Government; I am here to say that, in principle, the position has not been set out, because they are consulting on it.

Let me come back to the point, because it is really important, and the Conservative party is not engaging with it at all. If the police do not have access to right-to-work data in the moment, it makes it harder to close down these entities. No one is explaining that there is a power, because there simply is not.