Commons Chamber

Tuesday 21st April 2026

(began 1 day, 22 hours ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:33
11:34
None Portrait Q1. What steps she is taking to help ensure the Illicit Finance Summit 2026 will tackle international economic crime. (908754)
-

longest serving monarch this country has known. Her reign saw
11:34
11:34
11:34
None Portrait Q1. What steps she is taking to help ensure the Illicit Finance Summit 2026 will tackle international economic crime. (908754)
-

Majesty? The Illicit Finance Summit will convene a coalition of international partners to scale up global enforcement against illicit
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
None Portrait Q3. What diplomatic steps her Department is taking to help prevent the expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank. (908757)
-

21 together. UN Ocha reports over 2500 Palestinians have been
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:01
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:07
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:12
12:12
12:13
Stephen Doughty Portrait Stephen Doughty MP, Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour )
-
-
Minister Mr Speaker. With the exception of when I broke my ankle exception of when I broke my ankle before Christmas, I have never limped to this house on any occasion, and I came here with occasion, and I came here with confidence to set out the reasons why this treaty was needed for our national security. Our officials engage regularly with not only Mauritius, but the United States and other partners. And of course, this deal was welcomed by our allies, including our Five Eyes partners.

So I simply don't accept what he said at all.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Peter Fortune. Number ten. Mr Speaker Minister. Mr. speaker, I appeared

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. speaker, I appeared yesterday before the Foreign Affairs Committee. I know the chair is in the in the House after the Chief Minister of Gibraltar to set out the process and engage in the very important scrutiny this House very important scrutiny this House provides on this matter. We are all committed to fully implementing and ratifying the treaty as soon as possible to realise its benefits for the people of Gibraltar. There's obviously a complex process. However, my understanding is that provisional application of the treaty will be possible from the 15th of July, which will secure the key benefits of the treaty for the people of Gibraltar, including the fluid border, allowing businesses and working people more certainty and prosperity.
12:14
12:15
12:15
12:16
12:16
12:17
12:17
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:20
12:21
12:22
12:22
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:38
12:38
12:39
12:39
12:39
12:40
12:41
12:41
12:42
12:42
12:42
12:43
12:43
12:43
12:44
12:44
12:44
12:45
12:45
12:46
12:46
12:46
Rachel Reeves Portrait Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Mr. speaker, we did not start this war. We did not join this war. But since the war in the Middle East since the war in the Middle East broke out, I have been clear eyed about my duty to be responsive to a about my duty to be responsive to a changing world and responsible in the national interest. The best the national interest. The best economic policy today is our diplomatic policy. Negotiation, diplomatic policy. Negotiation, de-escalation and the permanent reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

Last week in Washington, I held talks with world finance Ministers, including the US Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent. I struck a joint agreement with ten other major economies calling for a swift and lasting negotiating negotiated resolution to the conflict and agreeing to avoid unnecessary trade restrictions to support energy and food security. We agreed to maintain maximum economic pressure to ensure that Russia cannot profit from this war, and I was proud to announce the UK's third tranche of the extraordinary revenue acceleration funding for Ukraine's defences, as well as continuing to work with the US administration to increase economic pressure on Iran.

The Prime Minister has also led global action, convening a summit of nations with the president of France to work together to support freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. The UK will continue to play its part, including engagement with the insurance industry to support shipping when conditions allow. We are continuing to plan for every eventuality, but we must deal with the economic costs that are already being felt. I reject the demands for a knee jerk response to this crisis that would put household finances at risk through higher inflation and higher interest rates.

Every choice that I make will be about keeping costs down for families and for businesses. That's why I have extended the 5% cut for fuel duty twice since the election, saving the average motorist £90 a year compared with the plans that I inherited. It is why I have frozen prescription charges for two years in a row. Frozen rail fares for the first time in 30 years, and why I am taking £150 off energy bills with additional help. For those struggling with the cost of heating oil, and it is why I have expanded the British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme to over 10,000 manufacturers, addressing long term competitiveness and cutting electricity costs from this year.

During the last energy shock, the previous government's package of unfunded untargeted support saw more than a third of the Direct Energy bill support go to the wealthiest households. That meant higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher taxes. I will not repeat those mistakes. Last week, the IMF said that my plan is the appropriate response to the conflict, and I led a joint statement with ten other major economies, agreeing to coordinate our domestic responses to ensure that they are both responsive and responsible.

Mr. speaker, this government has the right plan for our economy. At the spring forecast, we saw how the action that we have taken since the election has prepared Britain to better weather this conflict. Inflation was at 3% and set to fall to target a lower base than at the outset of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, when inflation was high and rising, borrowing was set to fall more over this parliament than in any other in the G7. We are set to reduce the deficit by £20 billion, from 5.2% to 4.3 4.3% of GDP this year, and I increased our financial buffers with headroom against our stability room of £23.6 billion so that we can weather shocks and keep borrowing costs down.

Last week, the IMF welcomed the UK's notable improvement in our public finances. I am clear that the best way that we can build a stronger, more resilient economy is through economic growth. I welcome the recent figures showing that the economy grew by 0.5% in the three months to February, and upgraded growth for the three months to January to 0.3%. I also welcome this morning's labour market figures for February showing unemployment coming down and real wages continuing to rise as they as they have in every month since I became Chancellor.

Adding to the evidence that the government has set the right economic plan to steer our economy through the uncertainty ahead. But as I have said, the war in Iran will come at a cost. Last week, the IMF published their updated forecasts for the global economy in response to the war. They reduced their expectations for GDP growth in the United Kingdom and increased their expectations for inflation. This builds on their judgement that the UK is more exposed to energy price shocks than our counterparts, a problem that the previous government failed to address in 14 years.

And on the IMF's observation that since the last energy crisis, the UK has had higher inflation than other countries. With the aftermath of Liz Truss's disastrous mini Budget and the previous government's untargeted unfunded support package contributed to a more persistent rise in inflation and in interest rates than in other countries around the world. The IMF forecasts are a stark reminder of why we must stick to our economic plan and go further and faster on delivering our economic security. Since the election, we have invested in cleaner, home grown energy, in renewables and in nuclear power.

In 2025, we imported 17% less gas than we did in 2021, and gas generation now sets the wholesale price for electricity around a third less frequently than it did in the early 2020s, meaning that our energy system is now more secure and less exposed to volatile global energy prices. Today, we are going further with a package of changes to reduce our reliance on imported oil and gas, boost the use of renewables and smooth the impact of energy price shocks.

First, oil and gas production from the North Sea is an important and valuable resource, and its workforce is a vital asset for our country. That is why we are harnessing our domestic supply by managing existing fields for their entire lifetimes, including by allowing Tiebacks for those fields to ensure that they remain viable. Today, in advance of legislation, we are publishing further details on Tiebacks, which I first announced in the Budget, which external analysis has predicted could result in tens of more tens of millions more barrels of oil and gas being available for UK supply.

Today's announcement gives industry greater clarity to support investment in these projects and maximise supply from our existing sites to support our energy security. Second, we are sweeping away the barriers to new renewables investment, accelerating vital grid infrastructure, reforming land access rules and extending permitted development rights, as well as making more public lands available for renewable infrastructure, which could unlock up to ten gigawatts of new capacity, and helping households and businesses to switch to clean, cheaper renewable electricity through plug in solar panels and better EV charging.

And thirdly, we are reforming our energy system. Currently, households and businesses pay more for their electricity when the price of gas is high. The electricity generator levy already recoups some of the excess returns made by generators due to high gas prices. And today I am announcing that I will extend the electricity generator levy past its scheduled conclusion in 2028. And ahead of that, I am increasing the rate of the electricity generators levy from 45% to 55%. This ensures that a larger proportion of any exceptional revenues from high gas prices are passed back to government, providing a vital revenue stream so that money is available for government to support businesses and families.

With the impacts of the conflict in the Middle East. But crucially, it will encourage older low carbon electricity generators, which supply about a third of our power to move from market pricing to fixed price contracts for difference. Under new proposals set out by the Energy Secretary today. Further, and that will further weaken the link between high gas prices and the price paid for our electricity and limiting the spikes in energy prices from driving up inflation and costs for households and for businesses.

Mr. speaker, this government has the right economic plan, a plan that was right before the conflict in the Middle East started and is now essential to weather the impact of that conflict, a plan that is backed by the IMF, a plan to keep costs down for everyone and to support those who need it most. And in a world that is more uncertain, a plan, I wish it was more certain. In a world that is more uncertain, a plan to build a Britain that is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stronger and more secure. And I commend this statement to the House. Shadow Chancellor, Sir Mel

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Stride. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the right hon. Lady for thank the right hon. Lady for advance sight of her statement. Mr. speaker, the UK has some of the highest energy prices in the world highest energy prices in the world that is crippling our economy, pushing up the cost of living and
12:57
Mel Stride Portrait Rt Hon Sir Mel Stride MP (Central Devon, Conservative)
-
-
leaves us particularly exposed to energy shocks like the one we are experiencing right now. And yet, the government seems totally unwilling to accept the scale of the problem and totally unwilling to shift in their dogmatic commitment to a net zero agenda, which is making us poorer. Last year, we on this side of the House came forward with our cheap power plan. We said the government needed to scrap carbon taxes, scrap the renewable subsidies which are pushing up bills and reverse the nonsensical decision to rely on imported oil and gas, instead of pursuing the common sense approach of extracting our own resources from right here in the North Sea.

Under pressure from this conservative opposition. We have seen some progress, at least, but at a snail's pace with the energy sector. The Energy Secretary dragged with oh so much reluctance in the direction we have set out, Mr. Speaker. The action taken goes nowhere near far enough and is not fast enough. At the Budget, the government announced they would take 75% of the cost of renewables off bills, but they didn't abolish the subsidies as we called for.

They are still being paid, maybe not out of people's energy bills, but out of the hard working pockets of hard working taxpayers. And when it comes to the vast majority of businesses in our country, this government has done nothing for them. Madam Deputy Speaker, the proposals announced today risk locking in the costs of those subsidies by including them in the new contracts for difference, which the government is hoping that energy producers will sign up to. So can the Chancellor confirm that this is indeed the case? That under these arrangements, these subsidies will not only persist but will be guaranteed? The new contracts being announced today are, of course, voluntary.

So on what basis does the government think these changes will lead to an overall reduction in energy bills? Presumably, Madam Deputy Speaker, generators will only sign up to these arrangements if they are in their own commercial interest. So how is the government going to ensure that companies do not simply gain the system and end up being guaranteed for a higher prices? How much will these announcements reduce energy bills by. Has the Energy Secretary even provided the Chancellor with an estimate of the impact on bills? And if there is no estimate, Madam Deputy Speaker, how can the Chancellor be confident that bills will indeed be reduced, not increased? And on that point, Madam Deputy Speaker, we can put a number on our plan.

It would mean £200 off household bills. Why can't the Chancellor do the same with this latest announcement? The government have also said they will get rid of carbon price support. That is welcome, but they are not doing it until next year, and the CPS is only part of the carbon tax which we on this side of the House are clear, needs to be scrapped completely. It costs both households and businesses and it needs to go. Why will the Chancellor not commit to removing these charges, these taxes completely.

And on taxes, Madam Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Lady noted the importance of keeping fuel duty down, but once again, she had nothing to say about the onerous increase in fuel duty. She still plans to bring forward in September. Exactly. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have had no meaningful action today on the issue of North Sea oil and gas. The Chancellor says she wants to reduce our exposure to global energy, yet the government is choosing to leave us more resilient on imported hydrocarbons.

We all know that she is in a completely different place to the Energy Secretary. He is committed to the gradual smothering of our oil and gas sector, regardless of the cost to our economy and the loss of those jobs and tax revenues. So why does the Chancellor not urge the Prime Minister to overrule the Energy Secretary on these matters? The revenues from new oil and gas extraction are vital, given the state of our public finances, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The current price crisis shows how exposed we are and how damaging the government's net zero obsession has been to our economy, to households and to businesses. The government is right to want to reduce that exposure, but is doing too little, too late. We need an urgent change. In course not. Dither and delay. We need a proper cheap power plan to get bills down and we need it now. Sure.
13:03
Rachel Reeves Portrait Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I mean, that response exposes a I mean, that response exposes a shadow Chancellor who is out of credible ideas. Yeah. Now, I thought I was I thought I was sad to read in the weekend's newspapers that once again, the shadow Chancellor is being lined up for Chancellor is being lined up for the sack by the Leader of the Opposition. But to be honest, after his performance today, I can understand her choice. Now the Shadow Chancellor talks about the IMF.

Yes, the IMF did downgrade the forecast. Why? Because of a war that was started which his party unquestioningly backed, and because of our high exposure to global energy markets, which his party allowed, we are taking the right choices. We did not back this war, nor did we follow the calls of the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of reform to join in. And we are investing in and we are reforming our energy market so that we can take back control of our energy security.

The shadow Chancellor talks about the economy. Well, let's talk about the economy. Before this war broke out, our economy grew by 0.5% in the three months to February and 0.3% in the three months to to, to January in inflation was expected by the Bank of England and the OBR to return to target. And interest rates have been cut by their fastest rate in 17 years, compared to hitting 5.25% under the Conservatives. Which mortgage costs going through the roof.

He says it's the Bank of England's job to address inflation. But we had the same Bank of England when they were in government than when we were in government. They have cut interest rates when we have been in government because we got control of the public finances, they lost control of the public finances. Now, the shadow Chancellor says that the response to fossil fuels fossil fuel crisis is to to, to rely more on fossil fuels and to reduce investment in clean, home grown energy.

And he's ignoring the fundamental lesson of both Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the conflict now in the Middle East. The shadow Chancellor opposed new solar energy, opposed onshore wind power, and did not invest either in Sizewell C or in small modular reactors like this. Labour government is doing and and just today, the CEO of renewables UK has said that the De-linking results in reducing the link between volatile gas and electricity prices to help protect households and businesses against unpredictable fossil fuel costs, strengthening UK energy security and on the issue of tie backs, the right hon.

Gentleman says it makes no difference. Yet. Offshore energy UK says that developing fields as tie backs, addresses costs lower emissions and extends the life of existing critical infrastructure, which is exactly why we are doing it on Delinking, the shadow Chancellor says that it would lead to higher prices. Well, the exact opposite. The whole aim here is to move to fixed prices and by increasing the electricity generators levy, which we do not know whether the party opposite support or oppose.

By increasing the electricity generators levy, we incentivise those energy companies to come off the levy and come onto contracts for difference, and we are now beginning the negotiations with industry so that we can reduce that volatility in prices. And as the CEO of E.ON has said today, for too long, the value in our energy system has flowed to the top of the chain. Today moves to start to turn that around because instead of the volatility and the spikes that are so damaging both for family finances and business finances, we can take out of the system.

But the shadow Chancellor had nothing to say on that. And on fuel duty. Fuel duty was never lower in 14 years under the Conservatives than it is today. And of course we are keeping all scenarios under review. But it is quite clear that the best way to bring down fuel prices is to de-escalate this conflict, not ramp it up like the Conservatives want to do. The shadow Chancellor has got nothing to say on international cooperation, nothing to say on global negotiations to keep the Strait of Hormuz open.

Nothing to say on reform of our energy market, nothing to say on investment in our infrastructure. Why? Because he has no plan. Why? Because he doesn't have any ideas. Why? Because his party has no economic credibility. Labour has the right plan for our country. The Conservatives would take us right back to the bad days of high inflation, high interest rates and the mess they made of our economy. Yeah.
13:08
13:09
13:10
Daisy Cooper Portrait Daisy Cooper MP (St Albans, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson Daisy Cooper. >> Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. I'd like to thank the Chancellor for advance sight of her statement. Madam Deputy Speaker, The Chancellor should have come here Chancellor should have come here today to explain how she was going to use the £20 million extra that to use the £20 million extra that the Treasury is pulling in every single day through higher VAT, higher energy profits levy and other taxes to tackle the immediate cost of fuel crisis that is facing families and businesses today.

I believe the Chancellor is just fundamentally wrong when she says that a knee jerk response would have put household finances at risk through high inflation and higher interest rates. Just look at what other countries are doing instead, the government could have used this £20 million to drive down prices, the price of petrol on the pump, the price of train fares, the price of bus fares and the price of home charging electric vehicles. By slashing those prices, it could have helped the Chancellor to control inflation and higher interest rates.

It's what other countries are doing. It's what the Liberal Democrats are calling for. Madam Deputy Speaker, we Liberal Democrats were the only political party to have in our manifesto a commitment to break the link between gas and electricity prices. So we are glad that, 18 months on, this government has finally listened. In addition to the measures outlined today, can I ask the Chancellor about two specific things? First of all, has the Chancellor spoken to any of the banks about rolling out low interest loans for householders who want to do the right thing, adopt energy saving measures, but are struggling with the upfront costs? And secondly, madam, Madam Deputy Speaker, I met with the Competition and Markets Authority on Monday.

The CMA and Ofgem both agree that there is a case to answer about the broken energy market and why hospitality and small businesses are being blocked. So would the Secretary of State join with me in writing to Ofgem and asking them to finally investigate without any further delay, a broken energy market that is blocking out hospitality and small businesses hospitality and small businesses from accessing the best deals.
13:12
Rachel Reeves Portrait Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
I welcome the fact that the hon. >> I welcome the fact that the hon. Lady and her party opposed this war and didn't want the UK to become involved, unlike the Conservatives involved, unlike the Conservatives and reform. But I do find what the hon. Lady has just set out as being a fundamentally economically illiterate. I mean, the idea that a great fiscal policy is to close the Strait of Hormuz. I mean, why didn't we think of it when we came to office? If we close the Strait of Hormuz, all of our problems will be over because we can get in all of this money.

And yet that is what the hon. Lady is suggesting, that we're going to get some great windfall from tax. The truth is, the IMF and every other forecaster is clear that tax revenues are going to be lower, not higher, because of this conflict in the Middle East. And so the money that the hon. Lady wants us to spend simply does not exist. And I'm afraid she's falling into the failed economic policies of the Conservatives who wanted untouchable, who delivered untargeted, untargeted, unfunded support, which resulted in higher interest rates, higher inflation, and higher taxes.

It is not targeted. She is suggesting an untargeted approach, and that is what has got us into the mess that we are in today. Now I welcome the fact that she supports us on the coupling. That is the right thing to do with our gas and electricity prices. I regret the fact that the hon. Lady and her party did not support the Planning Act, which enables us to build the infrastructure that we need to get the homes built and the energy infrastructure built as well.

And on the specific issue about working with banks. Yes, as a government, the Department for energy is working with every high street lender and every energy company to help people who are struggling with their bills.
13:14
13:15
13:15
13:16
13:17
13:18
13:18
13:19
13:20
13:20
13:21
13:22
Rachel Reeves Portrait Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
Yeah, yeah, yeah. >> I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. People in Scotland and right across the UK benefited from the money or for their energy bills. We're one of the few countries in the world where energy bills for households went down in bills for households went down in April, rather than going up because of the changes that I made in the Budget. And of course, that benefits households in Scotland as well. Today, we, myself and the Energy Secretary have announced changes around Tiebacks.

That's something that previous government could have done but didn't do. And Offshore Energy UK has said that developing fields as tiebacks reduces costs, lowers emissions and extends the life of existing critical infrastructure. Of course, this policy will help create more and support more jobs in Scotland in this vital sector. But if the SNP are so concerned about jobs, why don't they back nuclear in Scotland like this? Labour

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government is backing nuclear in England and in Wales. Luke Murphy thank you, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Luke Murphy thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I welcome the Chancellor's statement today and the announcement of both her and the announcement of both her and the Energy Secretary? We've seen two fossil fuel shocks just in the last five years, which have done last five years, which have done untold damage to our economy. Half of the recession since the 1970s have been caused by similar fossil
13:23
13:24
13:25
13:25
13:26
13:26
13:27
13:28
13:29
13:30
13:31
13:31
13:32
13:32
13:33
13:34
13:35
13:36
13:37
13:37
13:38
13:38
13:39
13:39
13:40
13:41
13:42
13:42
Rachel Reeves Portrait Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)
-
-
You. >> Thank you. >> I thank the hon. Lady for that question. In Northern Ireland and question. In Northern Ireland and across the country, people got £150 off their energy bills in April. And of course, Northern Ireland was And of course, Northern Ireland was the biggest in Northern Ireland was the biggest beneficiary for the support in heating oil, which went disproportionately to Northern Ireland. Given the reliance on heating oil in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the country.

The Business Industrial Competitiveness Scheme will reduce business energy costs for 10,000 manufacturing firms from this year, taking up to 25% off their electricity costs, and decoupling will reduce prices for electricity for both businesses and also for households. And when those contracts for difference come in, that will have a direct impact. But in the meantime, the higher electricity Generators levy, which is coming in this year, will provide revenue so that the government can help cushion this shock for both businesses and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

families. I'm only going to plan to run the statement until 2:00. There are many members still standing, so short questions and perhaps short answers would be very helpful to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

get as many as possible in Andrew Pakes. Thank you. Deputy Speaker. The Chancellor is right. This

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Chancellor is right. This was not our war, but its impacts are being felt by businesses and families. In my constituency of families. In my constituency of Peterborough. What's almost as shocking is the recent price hike is how exposed our country is
13:44
13:45
13:45
13:46
13:47
13:47
13:48
13:49
13:49
13:50
13:51
13:52
13:53
13:53
13:54
13:55
13:56
13:56
13:57
13:57
13:58
13:58
13:59
14:00
14:00
14:01
14:01
14:02
14:02
14:03
14:04
14:05
14:06
14:07
14:07
14:08
None Portrait Ten Minute Rule Motion: Road surfaces (maximum noise levels)
-

Thank you. >> Very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move that leave be given to bring in a bill to prohibit the use of road surfacing materials which generate in-vehicle noise levels above a specified maximum to require the resurfacing of existing roads. I thought people were very keen on my road resurfacing their existing roads, which generate in-vehicle noise above that maximum, and for connected purposes. In Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, everybody knows the A180. It's the road that carries people to work, to school, to hospital appointments, to our courts and back home again.

It's a road that all visitors, loved ones and hopeful away fans have to take on their way into our towns. It is a road of huge economic importance. It supports industry, freight and trade and it connects our communities to the rest of the country. Sadly, this main artery that supports life in our town is known locally for an entirely different reason, and that is noise. And it's not a minor irritation. It's not a bit of a background hum that drivers should simply learn to live with.

It's a serious quality of life issue, a road safety issue, a public health concern, and increasingly a question of whether we're prepared to accept outdated standards on roads that thousands of people rely on. The A180 opened in 1983 as an extension to the M180. At the time, it was described as the noisiest road in the United Kingdom, and more than 40 years on, the same continues to be true. The problem has not gone away. Large sections of England's strategic road network were built with concrete in the 1960s and the 1970s, and according to National Highways England, there are around 400 miles of concrete roads on the network, which is about 4% of England's motorways and major A roads.

Those roads are now nearing the end of their working lives. National highways have themselves accepted that replacing them with modern road surfaces improves ride quality and reduces noise, and I welcome its concrete roads programme as a long term plan to replace existing concrete roads with modern roads built to current standards, the A180 is exactly the kind of road that demonstrates why this programme must be delivered at top speed, and why noise must be treated as a core design standard and not as an afterthought.

For well over a decade, my hon. Friend for Brigg and Immingham and I have presented the issues of the A180 to a variety of transport Ministers issues I believe they only truly understand following a trip on the road itself. Indeed, through conversation, it often becomes apparent that those Ministers have been on the road in order to go to the football at Blundell Park or to visit family. And they remember that road, they recall the conversations that they had, or at least that they tried to have at the time about just how noisy it was.

I'm pleased that we are now beginning to see the fruits of our labours, and I welcome the steps that Ministers have taken since the general election to address some of the issues, because last month we saw the announcement of a £27 billion investment to fix England's ageing roads, including a full reconstruction of parts of the A180
14:11
Melanie Onn Portrait Melanie Onn MP (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, Labour)
-
-
and the M180. The works, funded through the S3 allocation round, will entail a full reconstruction will entail a full reconstruction of the A180 from Brocklesby Interchange to Barnetby interchange. And while this is long overdue and And while this is long overdue and welcomed as an intervention, the case of the A180 shows that investment alone is not enough investment alone is not enough unless noise is explicitly part of the standard we expect our roads to the standard we expect our roads to meet.

In July 2025, following conversations I had with National Highways to push this issue, a close Proximity Road surface noise survey was carried out on the A180 between Stallingborough and Grimsby. That survey found tyre road noise levels on the concrete sections, generally in the range of 106 to 108dB. While this is an external road surface measurement rather than a measurement taken inside the vehicle, I'd encourage National Highways to carry out a comparable in-vehicle study. It gives us a very clear sense of what motorists are up against, and to make that tangible 106 to 108dB is in the same broad range as very loud machinery, a nightclub or a chainsaw.

In the United Kingdom, the Health and Safety Executive says that employers must assess risk at 80 80dB, provide hearing protection at 85dB, and that exposure above 87dB must not be exceeded after hearing protection is taken into account, drivers on the A180 for up to an hour a day are sitting in an enclosed environment, the equivalent of a pneumatic drill. It's so loud that you can no longer hear anything within the vehicle, causing people then to unwittingly add to it by turning up their radio, or drivers and passengers having to shout to be heard.

Despite sitting right next to each other. We have clear rules and protections for prolonged noise exposure in many workplaces because we understand that repeated

**** Possible New Speaker ****

exposure can damage hearing. Hon. Members have turned up in their droves to listen to the hon. Lady's ten minute rule bill. They might have the courtesy to listen might have the courtesy to listen quietly whilst we're hearing about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

road noise on the A180 Melanie Onn. I appreciate it. Thank you. I think maybe we all need some ear think maybe we all need some ear defenders in this place. Once in a while. We have clear rules and protections for prolonged noise exposure in many workplaces, because we understand that repeated exposure can damage hearing and affect health. Yet for people who drive for a living, delivery drivers, HGV logistics drivers, for road workers, for those who use this route day in and day out, we still do not properly factor road surface noise into the basic fitness of the road itself.

The outcomes of repeated and prolonged exposure to loud noise are things like tinnitus, a continuous tonal ringing in the ears, ranges of hearing loss or increased sensitivity to noise known as hyperacusis. The damage is almost always irreversible and cumulative. The HSE does recommend that employers seek to mitigate noise exposure where possible, and if it's not possible to provide ear protection, of course it's not possible inside a vehicle when all senses are required to be fully functioning in order to drive safely, with no mitigations that individuals or employers can take.

The solution lies in the appropriate surfacing of the road. Clearly, the Government and Highways England recognise that these outdated concrete surfaces are not fit for purpose and have a range of other problems. Addressing the remaining concrete surface roads must not be allowed to slip down the priority list. Additionally, the experiences of hundreds of thousands of drivers using the A180 over the years should serve as a case study in all future road planning to ensure that noise levels not just for the surrounding area but for the journey maker too, is part of the assessment of suitability.

Because the basic principle behind my bill is very simple. Road surfaces should be judged not only on whether they remain structurally passable, but on whether they are fit for modern use. That means safer, that means smoother, and yes, that means quieter, too. This bill would create a framework for setting a maximum acceptable noise level for road surfaces. It would prevent the continued use of surfacing materials that breach that standard, and it would require existing roads that exceed it to be resurfaced.

And in doing so, it would finally put road noise where it belongs. At the heart of how we define a fit for purpose. Road communities that contribute so much to our economy through our ports, our energy sector and our industry should not have to put up with a road that is famous not for being a gateway for growth, but for the deafening racket it creates every time people drive on it. I say to all relevant stakeholders, I welcome the direction of travel and the investment already being made.

But on the a180 and on roads like it, there is still a long road ahead. I hope the government will work with national highways, with me and with affected communities to address the issues this bill presents and to ensure that the roads people depend on are not only open but safe, modern and quiet enough to meet the standards

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motorists deserve. And I commend this bill to the House here. The question is that the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the hon. Member have leave to bring in the Bill, as many as are of that opinion, say I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. Who will prepare and bring in the bill? Sarah Russell Lee Pitcher, Martin Vickers. Jo Platt and myself.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Road Surfaces (Maximum Noise Levels) Bill Second Reading. What day?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday the 1st of May.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday the 1st of May.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is changing over. Before we come to today's emergency debate, I remind the emergency debate, I remind the House, as I did yesterday, of the rules relating to accusations rules relating to accusations against individual members. While certain criticisms may be made about government collectively, as
14:18
14:19
14:19
Kemi Badenoch Portrait Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP (North West Essex, Conservative)
-
-
Minister personally decided to appoint a serious, known national security risk to our most sensitive diplomatic post. Peter Mandelson was not just a man who had already been sacked twice from government for lying, not just a man who had a public relationship with a convicted paedophile, but a man with links to the Kremlin and China links so close that they were raised as red flags with the Prime Minister before his appointment yesterday, the Prime Minister did not deny that he knew about these links before he appointed Mandelson.

He could not deny this because, by his own admission, he had seen the documents that proved the links. I cannot overstate how serious a matter this is. The Prime Minister sent a known security risk to Washington to a position where he would see our most important allies top secret intelligence. What if he had seen something and leaked it to one of our enemies? How much would that have damaged our security partnership? We cannot even be sure that didn't happen. What is most extraordinary is the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson before vetting was complete.

He did this despite a letter from the then Cabinet secretary, Lord case, clearly expressing to the Prime Minister that the process required security vetting to be done before the appointments. So how can he then have claimed on the floor of this House that the process was followed when he knew that it had not been. He mentioned the word process Mr Speaker more than 100 times in Parliament yesterday, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he was the one who didn't follow that process. Yes. This morning we have heard the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This morning we have heard the bombshell testimony of the former Permanent Secretary of the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins. Sir Olly Office, Sir Olly Robbins. Sir Olly Robbins had a long and distinguished career serving Ministers. He is not the sort of Ministers. He is not the sort of person to give us a frank, personal account of how things played out last January. So when he told us last January. So when he told us today that Downing Street put the Foreign Office under constant pressure to clear Peter Mandelson, that number ten showed a dismissive approach to Mandelson's vetting process.

When he told us that it would have been very difficult indeed to deny clearance, and that doing so would have damaged US UK relationships. We know he is giving us the slightest indication of how bad things were, that there was actually overwhelming an overwhelming drive from the Prime Minister's office to ensure Peter Mandelson was installed as ambassador. He has told us that number ten showed no interest in the vetting, no desire to wait and ensure due process was followed. In fact, the Cabinet Office even questioned the need for Peter Mandelson to be vetted at all.

The same Cabinet Office that had discovered Mandelson's links to Epstein, China and Russia in its due diligence. The Cabinet Office, which the Minister is in charge of right now. Instead, Mr. Speaker, according to Robbins, the focus was on getting Mandelson out to Washington quickly and before the vetting even started, Peter Mandelson had already been granted access to, and I quote, highly classified briefing on a case by case basis. This is what the Prime

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister calls full due process. Now. Yes, yes, I will give way. Also in the testimony today, did

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Also in the testimony today, did she not find it astonishing that that the ex leader of the of the that the ex leader of the of the Foreign Office said that he was made to understand that before they had completed their clearances, had completed their clearances, that Mandelson already had strapped clearance, which gives him access to the most secure and most

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the most secure and most dangerous information held by government. Can I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention? He is absolutely right. It is extraordinary. It is shocking. Now, the Prime Minister might have refused to answer my question about his knowledge of Mandelson's links to the Russian defence company Sistema yesterday, but that is only because he knows we know the answer. It was there in the due diligence, his choice of ambassador retaining an interest in a Russian company linked to Vladimir Putin after the invasion of Crimea, and the prime minister's response to seeing that information.

According to Robbins, constant pressure on the Foreign Office to get the appointment done. The Prime Minister, as my right hon. Friend has just mentioned, placed top secret intelligence in the hands of a man he knew to be a national security risk. He did so before the official security vetting, not just knowingly, but deliberately and to an extent that left a senior civil servant with a distinguished career under the clear and obvious impression that the vetting must return only one possible outcome the Peter Mandelson was appointed.

None of this was following full due process by the letter or the spirit of that phrase. This is no longer just about what the Prime Minister was or wasn't told. This is about what he did before the vetting process had even started. Yes, and we now know that Mandelson wasn't a one off. According to Sir Olly Robbins, number ten also asked for the disgraced Matthew Doyle, the Prime Minister's then director of communications, to be made an ambassador. Astonishingly, the Prime Minister's office even told Robbins to keep this request a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

secret from the Foreign Secretary. Outrageous. The idea that it is number ten

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The idea that it is number ten who are the victims of others not following due process is, quite following due process is, quite frankly, laughable, the Prime Minister told Parliament yesterday Minister told Parliament yesterday that it was staggering that Olly Robbins had not shared the recommendations of the UK security recommendations of the UK security vetting with the then Cabinet secretary, Chris Wormald. But today we learned from Robbins that he had never seen the original vetting file.

So if the Prime Minister is furious that Sir Olly Robbins did not share the vetting details with him or the former Cabinet secretary, why is he not furious with the Cabinet Office for not sharing it? Put simply, why exactly did he sack Olly Robbins?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. It is no surprise the Prime Minister is not here today. These Minister is not here today. These are difficult questions. He cannot claim not to have known about the risk Mandelson posed, because he risk Mandelson posed, because he saw the due diligence that disclosed it. As he said yesterday, I still find it inconceivable that I still find it inconceivable that despite that failure of vetting being a front page news story, no one in number ten was aware of it.

He cannot deny that his decision puts Britain at risk, and the British public deserve to know how this failure happened, and they deserve to hear it from the Prime Minister himself. Yesterday he had the chance to set the record straight, but members on all sides and no doubt the public were left wholly unsatisfied with the answers he gave. I am sure they will share my deep disappointment that the Prime Minister has chosen not to be here today. There remain serious questions about the decisions he took over the appointment of Peter Mandelson, but the Prime Minister does not want to answer any more questions today.

And so, in typical fashion, he has thrown someone else under the bus. So I feel for the Minister sent out as a human shield for the Prime Minister. It's not this Minister who made the Mandelson appointment that was above his pay grade. He cannot tell us what the Prime Minister was thinking when he made those decisions, and he will not be able to provide this House with the answers it deserves to hear. But this is simply what the Prime Minister does.

Sue grey, Matthew Doyle, Morgan McSweeney, Chris Wormald, Olly Robbins Peter Mandelson these appointments were the Prime Minister's decision people the Prime Minister chose to appoint and all people he then chose to sack. Are we meant to believe that all these people are the problem, rather than the Prime Minister's judgement? As usual, his explanations yesterday left us with even more questions than answers. He says that he was justified in appointing Mandelson before vetting because of advice he received from the then Cabinet secretary, Chris Wormald.

But how can this make sense when that advice only came after the scandal had erupted? Post hoc advice is pointless. Soon after this, he then sacked Chris Wormald. So why is the Prime Minister now relying on the evidence of the very man he told us was doing so badly in the job that he sacked him? But let's move on to the Prime Minister's claim that no one in number ten was aware that Mandelson had failed his vetting because enough people in Whitehall knew.

Enough people knew. For journalists from the Independent, the mail and Sky news to find out. Journalists have released texts with the Prime Minister's director of communications, where they made number ten aware of this fact. He did not deny the story was true. Why not? Something simply doesn't add up. Despite this, the Prime Minister went on to assure this House to assure the public that Mandelson's appointment was down to a failure of vetting. I cannot fathom how the Prime Minister can still claim not to have misled the House on this point.

It is telling that when given the opportunity to apologise for misleading the House, even inadvertently, by my hon. Friend for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk yesterday, he chose not to. I suspect that he chose not to because he knows that if he did, he would be bound by his own words, bound by the standards to which he held previous Prime Ministers. From this very Dispatch Box in 2022 he said that if the Prime Minister misleads the House, he must resign. Either he is a man of his word or he thinks there is one rule for him

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and another for everyone else. Cheers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Speaker, unbelievably, half of the permanent secretaries who were in post when Labour took office less than two years ago have gone. The sacking of senior senior civil servants, the sacking of civil servants, the sacking of senior civil servants to carry the can for the Prime Minister's can for the Prime Minister's failures has already cost taxpayers more than £1.5 million in payouts. This is before Sir Olly Robbins. It is quite something for the former Cabinet secretary, Lord O'Donnell, to warn that the Prime Minister has created one of the worst crises in relations between Ministers and mandarins of modern times.

He said that the sacking of Sir Olly Robbins risks having a serious and sustained chilling effect on serving and prospective civil servants. Another former Cabinet secretary, Lord Butler, has said the Prime Minister puts Crawley in an impossible position. These are serious people who are calling out the Prime Minister's behaviour. The former head of propriety and ethics and deputy to the Cabinet Secretary, Helen MacNamara, has called the decision to sack Robbins unacceptable. She said that if they had published the papers that Parliament demanded back in February, that's the government.

If they published that, this argument would be so much easier for everyone because we would all be operating on the same basis, the same facts. She's right. The delay in publishing the information required by the Humble Address is shocking. Where are the key annotations? Where are the decisions in meeting records? The box returns as they are called in Downing Street. Why are crucial forms left blank? These missing documents add to the mystery. Why is the government still trying to cover this up?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. way. My right hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right hon. Friend for giving way. She will. Remember I asked the Prime Minister yesterday in the box note of the 11th of November, where Simon Case 11th of November, where Simon Case recommended that a recommended that vetting went through before the appointment was made. The Prime appointment was made. The Prime Minister's decision note did not include the Prime Minister's decision, and it's been redacted decision, and it's been redacted from the conditions of the Humble Address. Does she think that the answer that has been redacted would show what the Prime Minister was trying to achieve by appointing Peter Mandelson without the appropriate vetting?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. And can I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention? He is absolutely right. Why were the absolutely right. Why were the Prime Minister's words redacted? These are key pieces of information that will help solve this mystery. Much easier for us to see and understand that the words which he was giving at the despatch box. I was giving at the despatch box. I note that no Labour MPs have intervened on me. This is very unusual. Normally when I'm standing here in a debate, they're all here in a debate, they're all bobbing left, right and centre.

Yeah, Mr. Speaker, I'm raising these concerns because of the seriousness of the situation the country is now in with war in Europe, war in the Middle East, a cost of living crisis and a global energy shock. We need a Prime Minister who has a grip on national security. Yet last week, the former Labour defence secretary and former NATO secretary general Lord Robertson, warned that the Prime Minister had a corrosive complacency when it comes to defence. This is the same man who wrote the Prime Minister's strategic defence review.

He is ringing the alarm bell, warning us of the grave consequences of the government refusing to take the tough choices needed to increase defence spending. This matters because if we cannot trust our Prime Minister to tell the truth about this ambassadorial appointment, the whole full truth, a key appointment in Britain's national security architecture, it calls into question the assurances he gives us on everything else his promises to control taxes, which he has broken. His promise is not to raise borrowing, which he has broken promises to back business, protect our veterans, defend our farmers and prioritise growth.

All of which he has broken. And he has broken them because at his core, he is a man with no idea what he believes. Worse still, he appears to have no interest in doing the job of Prime Minister Justin being the Prime Minister. Curiosity is what drives serious leadership. Without curiosity, problems are neither fully understood nor solved. And this whole affair just goes to show why this country is heading in such a woeful direction. Under the Prime Minister's incurious regime.

His defence yesterday summed it up. He says that no one told him that he never thought to ask. This is, in his own words, incredible. But even if we take the Prime Minister at his word, even if we believe the unbelievable, it is no better. He appointed Mandelson despite knowing that he was a threat to our national security. He said due process was followed, having failed to follow that process himself, and he pressured the Foreign Office into signing off on this appointment in 2022, the Prime Minister said I believe that if you're the leader, the buck stops with you.

He said. I will always stand up for my team, but I will also take responsibility for everything they do. That is what leadership is. How has he taken responsibility? It is clear that the Prime Minister has no intention of facing up to his mistakes. It's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clear now that he is not a leader and he has no intention of doing the honourable thing. On that point, although.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On that point, although. Yes, I will give way. I congratulate her on securing this debate and indeed on eviscerating the Prime Minister in her speech. Does she not believe, her speech. Does she not believe, however, that the sorry souls opposite us should have to put their money where their mouth is, their money where their mouth is, and that there should be a vote of no confidence in this Prime Minister in due course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I think he is right, because I don't believe the Prime Minister has the intention of Prime Minister has the intention of doing the honourable thing himself, even though that's the standard to which he held everyone else. The which he held everyone else. The decision, as I said, about whether he will ultimately take responsibility for his actions, is responsibility for his actions, is now up to Labour MPs. We heard many powerful statements from that side of the House yesterday.

Labour MPs know that the Prime Minister has let the country down, he's let Parliament down and he's also let the Labour Party down. It is clear to everyone except the Prime Minister himself that he has failed on his own terms. It is clear to the public that he is failing at the job. It is clear to civil servants that he is throwing them under the bus, and it is clear to members across this House that he is not fit to lead. This cannot go on.

This House deserves better. The country deserves better. The Prime Minister is not fit for office. The first duty Mr Speaker of any Prime Minister is to keep this country safe. This Prime Minister has put the country's national security at risk. He must take responsibility. It is time for him to go.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper Jon Trickett. Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. And there are many ways of developing a culture how to run the government. In number ten, I was a witness in the years from the financial crash through to the defeat of the Labour government defeat of the Labour government between two I and 210, and I saw a Prime Minister who would never have Prime Minister who would never have come to Parliament or said privately that there were some facts of which he was unaware, because he was a man of detail.

He was a man of large vision, and he's
14:38
Jon Trickett Portrait Jon Trickett MP (Normanton and Hemsworth, Labour)
-
-
a man who drove the state forward. Now, we may disagree, and I do personally with some of the decisions he took, but that is a decisions he took, but that is a different culture than than than the one which the two previous the one which the two previous prime Ministers, Truss and our friend, who, with his blonde hair used to offer a culture of. In used to offer a culture of. In number ten of the exotic. And we went from the exotic to the toxic.

And the fact of the matter is, I did not hear members on the opposite side asking questions about the culture of those two Prime Ministers that are here today in great, in great numbers, they contributed to the mess which this country.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Turner, the money speak. You just walked right in front. Sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

just walked right in front. Sorry. Jon Trickett Mr. Speaker, so they those two Prime Ministers, in particular, the chaotic and the particular, the chaotic and the exotic, left this country in a disastrous situation. But I do think that a Prime Minister comes think that a Prime Minister comes to the House and relies or implies that he relies on a culture of. that he relies on a culture of. Simply. Process is mistaken. I think the the Gordon Brown model, flawed as it was, will be far better than the one which we've heard of from the Prime Minister.

I'm sorry to say that because I want to support a Labour government that's effective, but that is the case. I saw it with my own eyes. I saw the I saw the vetting. I saw the decisions. I saw the pressure, I saw the tumult. And I saw Prime Minister struggling with their party to deliver a different kind of society, a different kind of economy. Now, let me just turn to the present events. What did we learn from Sir Oli today? I think there are four things which matter.

First, that the Security Department had tended to be wanting to refuse the vetting of of Mandelson when? When Sir Oli first arrived, although others had said we didn't need a vetting of any kind. And then whilst the vetting process was going on, the government proceeded with the. Or appear to proceed with the appointment of Mandelson and even the King and the United States administration were told that he would be the ambassador. The British state then conspired to deliver a positive vetting because that is what they believe the government wanted.

And that was expressed in repeated phone calls from the private office in number ten, which I was very familiar, familiar with in those years, too, to all his private office. The pressure, according to the witness we saw this morning, who looked credible, made a very serious case that he was under pressure to proceed. And no, I'm going to make progress. There are many people standing on all sides, and I'm going to. They may well be pleased with some of the things I'm going to say, because I'm going to develop an argument and I want to proceed with it.

The question, which I haven't heard answered is, why was it that a group of people in number ten, and possibly the Prime Minister as well, felt that that level of pressure should be placed on the Foreign Office in favour of appointing Mandelson. And I think there are two possible answers. But let me focus on one. I think that the political unit in number ten, and possibly the Prime Minister too, wanted Mandelson because he was their close political ally and because he was plugged into a vast international network of what we might call the billionaire class.

The truth is that much of the nexus of wealth, which Mandelson was plugging into, was and so was the president, by the way, were centred around Epstein. And let me just pause in minority for a second. None of this debate, none of these facts would emerge were it not for the courage and bravery and resistance of the women who had been treated so appallingly on Epstein Island. But getting Mandelson into Washington as part of that network was the highest priority.

A political network of highly reimbursed billionaires. Frankly, all of this leaves a bad taste. The government had promised change to the people, but the change which they saw in the end was further to accelerate the integration of the British state and government into the networks of the richest people. But people in our country, certainly in my constituency, didn't vote for that. They wanted a change for their ordinary lives, a better NHS, cost of living improvements and so on and so forth.

Well, we've got a long way to go to deliver that, but we did deliver a disaster with the appointment of Mandelson. I've raised the question of unemployment four times in recent months, growing unemployment in our area. It's hard to see how the time which was spent by the government ingratiating ourselves to Washington, would really help the unemployed and the poor. And just think about Mandelson's business involvement with Russia and China. So obnoxious is China supposed to be? I think I'm right in saying that this building has banned all Chinese based networks.

So the. These are the agencies of an enemy state. How could it be that mandelson's links were seen to be of such a low risk? And when it comes to Russia, this House has spent literally hours discussing the appalling behaviour of Putin and Russia in relation to the. To the east of Europe. All of these should have counted against Mandelson. But there were weighed in the balance, and they counted less than the opportunity which Mandelson presumably offered as his access to a network of people which included the president.

So let me just I want to be very quick. I've made I've made a case and I'm going to I'm going to just make one final point. Mandelson had played a key role in a faction which sought to change the strategic direction of our party, the Labour Party and of the government. The truth is, they wanted to change the Labour Party

**** Possible New Speaker ****

into something it never was. I will do, but very briefly. I thank the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the. Member for giving way. I thank the Member for giving way, and he's making an excellent and very making an excellent and very important speech. On the point about Labour Together. Is he aware about Labour Together. Is he aware that the most of the supporters, and indeed, as I understand it, the bankrollers of Labour Together had bankrollers of Labour Together had nothing whatsoever to do with the traditions of the Labour movement. It was merely using a name in order to try and change the nature of the Labour Party away from its traditional socialist objectives.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I have I have had a debate previously on Labour Together, so I'll leave the comments which my I'll leave the comments which my friend has made to stand for themselves. This was a faction which sought to change the Labour which sought to change the Labour Party in something it never was. And if we continue down the path And if we continue down the path which has been chosen, I fear that we are in a downward spiral from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which we will not escape. But leader of the Liberal Democrats are Ed Davey.
14:45
Ed Davey Portrait Rt Hon Ed Davey MP (Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thank you. >> I'm. >> Sure many members across. >> The House. >> Feel and what our constituents certainly feel, and that is how certainly feel, and that is how utterly depressing it is that we're having to have this debate at all. Just a few years after we went through all this under Boris Johnson and the Conservatives, and less than two years after the British people voted them out of office for indulging in this sort of chaos and distraction, here we are again.

Vladimir Putin is waging war on our continent. Donald Trump is waging war with Iran. We desperately need to strengthen our own national defences. Families and businesses are struggling against the cost of living crisis. Petrol prices have soared and people are really worried about what Trump's war will mean for their holidays this summer and their energy and food bills this winter. And our NHS is still in crisis. We all have constituents who are waiting weeks to see a GP, people who are dying on corridors in our hospitals, loved ones who aren't getting the care they need.

We should be talking about them today. Theirs are the problem. The government should be focussed on every single day. This is what they promised. After all. In their manifesto they said that the problems in our country are, and I quote, a direct result of a governing party that time and again puts its own interests above the issues that affect families. They promised to change that. But here we are again. Instead of fixing the NHS and social care, instead of properly funding our defence, instead of cutting prices at the pump, here we are having to ask why the Prime Minister appointed the close friend of a notorious paedophile sex trafficker to one of the most important and sensitive jobs in this government, Peter Mandelson, whose relationship with Jeffrey Epstein had been well reported and highlighted to the Prime Minister, who had already been forced to resign in disgrace twice from the previous Labour governments and who we now know was deemed a national security risk by the government's vetting agency.

And so we do sadly have to ask why did the Prime Minister do this? Why did he appoint Mandelson? Why did he announce the appointment before the national security had been done, despite the then Cabinet secretary, Simon Case, having told him that should happen first? And why was he so determined to get Mandelson in post that he created, as Olly Robbins described it this morning, an atmosphere of pressure and a certain dismissiveness about the developed vetting process, a vetting process the Prime Minister had since blamed for his mistakes.

And even after all this, even after yesterday's statement, the Prime Minister still hasn't told us why he appointed Mandelson. He admitted that appointing Mandelson was a mistake and he's apologised for it. He's tried to make the rest about process and officials, but he still hasn't answered the fundamental question why? But I think we know a big part of the answer, don't we? Donald Trump? This all comes back the way the Prime Minister decided to approach his relationship with the president.

When he came back to office last year, our party urged the Prime Minister to stand up to Trump, to stand together with our allies, to approach him from a position of strength, not weakness, but he chose the opposite course. He decided to try and appease Trump, to flatter Trump, to stroke Trump's ego, and hope he'd be nice to us in return. And clearly he thought Peter Mandelson was the man for that job. So that is it. The decision to try and curry favour with Trump instead of standing up to him? That is the original sin that has landed the Prime Minister and his government in the mess they are in today.

And has it worked?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely not. I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Yesterday I asked.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yesterday I asked. The Prime. Minister about. Peter Mandelson security.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Vetting condition and his visiting of previous clients, which required him to be. Accompanied required him to be. Accompanied when he visited previous clients. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that we need to find out whether this lack of having accompaniment to visiting Palantir in Washington with the Prime Minister was a one off or simply Mandelson continuing business as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

usual? Well, my hon. Friend was right to ask that question yesterday, and I thought the Prime Minister's I thought the Prime Minister's response to him was totally inadequate. But those types of inadequate. But those types of meetings had not been recorded. But if I can go back to President Trump. Mr. speaker, despite all the flattering, Trump has still caused enormous damage to our economy and to the livelihoods of the British people. With his tariffs and his war with Iran, Trump still undermines NATO, makes threats against our country and our allies, and insults Britain's armed forces.

And just look at what Trump said last night, that Mandelson was a really bad pick. Now, I won't dwell on the hypocrisy of Trump's words from a man who was close friends with Epstein, who partied with him and has so far taken no responsibility for that from a president who still has, as his commerce secretary. A neighbour of Epstein who visited Epstein's island and who lied about his relationship with him. All that is for another debate. But Trump's post Mr Speaker hypocritical as it is, does show the futility of trying to appease him.

It shows how pointless it is to make a decision like who to appoint as US ambassador. Based on what Trump would like most. It doesn't work. It hasn't worked. And I hope that on top of everything else, the Prime Minister and the party opposite will reflect on that point. The approach to Trump has failed. It is time to change course and stand up to him. Stand with our European and Commonwealth allies in defence of our national interest. Yeah, so, Mr.

Speaker, this is a mess of the government's own making. A mess born out of a futile attempt to appease Donald Trump and a mess that just keeps getting worse. With today's revelations uncovered by my honourable, hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, that the Prime Minister pushed for the appointment as ambassador of another Labour crony with ties to a sex offender. Catastrophically bad judgements that have created a mess that has distracted and consumed this government and stopped it from focusing on what the British people actually need, because the people out there don't want more Westminster drama.

They're thinking about the hospital appointment that keeps getting pushed back, the mortgage payments that just seem to keep going up, the loved ones who need care but is stuck on a waiting list. The threats to our national security from an ever more dangerous world. Those are the things that keep people up at night, and they deserve a Prime Minister and a government that is focussed on them. Our party will never stop making that case. We will never stop holding this government to account, not for the sake of political point scoring, but on behalf of the British people who deserve better than this.

Mr. speaker, the last conservative government failed our country by getting stuck in a cycle of chaos and scandal and refusing to move on. The question for the Labour Party is whether they will repeat that mistake or finally deliver the change our country needs.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To Matt Western. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a pleasure to follow the right hon. pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton and the point he was making, lastly, and the point he was making, lastly, really about the economy and the situation we find ourselves in, I would say the Prime Minister is absolutely focussed on that and has absolutely focussed on that and has been from day one. There are these distractions and it would be great to move on from them.

But of course to move on from them. But of course we are entitled to this debate. But I do believe that he wanted to bring order to our trade arrangements, and that was why he was persuaded into appointing Peter Mandelson and not I am not a big fan of. I'm not a big fan of Peter Mandelson, I can assure you of that. But what I would say is, just a
14:54
Matt Western Portrait Matt Western MP (Warwick and Leamington, Labour)
-
-
short year ago, many people in this House were facing him and around the world for the deal that the world for the deal that Mandelson managed to strike with the United States. Now there are many questions about that. That many questions about that. That deal that was struck by Peter Mandelson. But for the purposes of this debate, I just want to come this debate, I just want to come back to some of the points that the Leader of the Opposition made. And I didn't intervene on her because I I didn't intervene on her because I felt it was absolutely fine for her to continue.

But just to pick up on some of the points that she made yesterday, because she because she amply demonstrated that she was very capable of not prosecuting an argument. She emphasised about process. And there is one thing I would say about this Prime Minister is that he is absolutely rock solid when it comes to process. You may laugh, you may laugh, but for those of you, those of you in this place, those those members, Mr. Speaker, who backed Boris Johnson, who accepted his lies in this place or accepted the word of Liz Truss, and that catastrophic kamikaze Budget, that would be the question of judgement on process.

This Prime Minister is absolutely rock solid. And the second point I would make about him, Mr. Speaker, is he is a man of of utmost decency and would never, ever lie because he knows that his credibility rests on that. There is a point. I will come in a moment. I am just beginning to make my speech. There is a point here about some sort of conspiracy, some sort of cover up that is being. And when the Leader of the Opposition speaks of number ten, I think she may be.

If I could disabuse her. The point is between the Prime Minister and the team around him. At that point. And the point is, I will come. There's others I want to allow in. The point is to differentiate between the team around him and the Prime Minister himself. The Prime Minister clearly delegated responsibilities to his chief of staff. Now, it may be the case that the Leader of Opposition missed the fact, missed the fact

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that the Prime Minister sacked that. Burnley police, you're, in my view, will be permanently stood up

**** Possible New Speaker ****

if give way when he wants to, not because you're stood up obviously. Matt Western I will bring in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Matt Western I will bring in the right hon. Gentleman. Short, short shortly just to to to ease your shortly just to to to ease your your your your patience, Mr. Speaker. But the point being that Speaker. But the point being that when he sacked Morgan McSweeney, he realised that there were problems within his team at number ten. Now, she may claim, she may claim that somehow number ten was the leadership or number ten was the worst in living memory.

Now the living memory. I'm not sure how far back that goes for her, but as my hon. Friend for Normanton and Hemsworth was saying that we don't have to go back very far, I would say to 2022, with a certain Liz Truss and her number ten operation, or that of Boris Johnson, and the three years we endured of his lying, his pathological, his pathological lying in this in this place. But look, the Leader of the Opposition. And I will come to him in just a moment.

The Leader of the Opposition was talking about the biggest decision that a Prime Minister can make is about the security of this country. Just a few short weeks ago, she was talking about that the United Kingdom should be drawn into the war in Iran, and it was proven

**** Possible New Speaker ****

absolutely wrong. I will allow my right hon. I'm most grateful. I'm most grateful to the right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman who I know as a friend across this House, and we worked together positively on many worked together positively on many things. But as I served on the privileges committee that studied privileges committee that studied the Boris case and reached a conclusion upon it, if he wants to help the Prime Minister, I would be help the Prime Minister, I would be rather wary of making parallels between Boris Johnson and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

present Prime Minister. I thank my right hon. Friend. I mean, the point I was making was mean, the point I was making was simply to address that from the Leader of the Opposition, who was suggesting the operation at number ten was the worst in living memory. ten was the worst in living memory. I think it's quite obvious that that is absolutely not the case. We that is absolutely not the case. We have just had two very recent examples in 19 to 22, and then in examples in 19 to 22, and then in 22, 23 under Johnson and and Truss.

I want to make it quite clear that the way I see the mistake that may have been made by number ten is the clear delegation, a clear delegation to his chief of staff, and that that chief of staff was at the heart of what I would say is an inner circle within number ten, which no longer exists, of Peter Mandelson, of Morgan McSweeney and Matthew Dalton, as has come to light just this morning, that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Matthew Doyle was also part of that problem. Yes. Gentleman for giving way. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gentleman for giving way. And there must be a reshuffle coming, Mr. Speaker, because no one would seriously make a speech like this at such serious times. He says the at such serious times. He says the Prime Minister was a stickler for process, and he has claimed that the Prime Minister has somehow the Prime Minister has somehow delegated responsibility for the appointment. Therefore, can I ask him with the box note from the him with the box note from the Cabinet Secretary, the chief advisor to the Prime Minister and chief civil servant, why he advised and can the hon.

Gentleman defend the Prime Minister's decision not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to follow that advice? If he was making the decisions? This is look, I am not a very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is look, I am not a very close to these operations. I've never been a Minister, but that's the honest. That is the honest truth. I have never been a Minister. And to answer his point, I do not wish to be a Minister either. But. wish to be a Minister either. But. But I am not close enough to that. So I cannot answer that honestly. But what I can say is what I heard from Ollie Olly Robbins Sir Olly Robbins this morning about how he was leant on, and also what documents he may have had access to, and also the vetting, vetting report.

But look, what I would say, what we've heard today is that there were the chief of Staff leant on the Foreign Office, whether it was on Matthew Doyle or whether it was the appointment of Peter Mandelson. And that is the issue. What I would say is the Prime Minister, in my experience of having known him since 2017, is that he is absolutely straight as a die. He may have accepted the advice and maybe that advice has now proven to be wrong.

But you know, he's been let down by those around him. He made a mistake. He understands he's and he's accepted that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Doctor Luke Evans. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want the truth. You can't handle the the truth. You can't handle the truth. And the court case goes quiet. Those are the immortal words quiet. Those are the immortal words in the famous film A Few Good Men. That's the realisation in that That's the realisation in that court case that things have moved
15:02
Luke Evans Portrait Dr Luke Evans MP (Hinckley and Bosworth, Conservative)
-
-
from process to accountability and responsibility. If you haven't seen responsibility. If you haven't seen the film, it's about two Marines who are on trial for killing another. But the real story that unravels is whether command can unravels is whether command can deny any responsibility of the actions that it's set in motion. Here lies the parallel. When subordinates act on the understood direction of authority, where does responsibility ultimately sit? They acted because of you. It belongs to you.

Let's recount the facts that we do, though, that aren't disputed in this House. Lord Mandelson was announced as the Prime Minister to be the US ambassador from the UK in December 24th. UK security vetting recommended against develop vetting clearance in January 2025. The FCDO overruled that recommendation, enabling the appointment and the Prime Minister stated publicly due process had been followed. Sir Olly Robbins, then permanent secretary, was later dismissed. But what Robbins told us in the committee in November 2025 is telling, quote, by the time we are describing, it was clear the Prime Minister wanted to make his appointment himself.

Therefore, I understand the FCDO was informed of his decision, acted on it and via the Foreign Secretary, sought and obtained the King's approval for the appointment. In this case, as Chris explained, the Prime Minister took advice and formed a view himself and we then acted on that view. The FCDO is clear. This wasn't drift, it was acting under direction. The Prime Minister formed that view. They acted on it, acting on instruction, acting on direction, acting on what the Prime Minister wanted.

Yet since then, the Prime Minister's been trying to separate the decision and the consequence. There's the decision, there are the consequences. But we and this public know you can't separate the two. If an official acts in the shadow of a second view, responsibility returns to that source. Where the shadow was first cast. And let's draw some more comparisons in the film because it's quite telling. Colonel Jessup does not issue the written order. Prime Minister does not personally do the vetting.

Subordinates act on a clear command and intent. The FCDO acted on the political intent. The defence by the Colonel was. I didn't order that the defence by the Prime Minister was. I wasn't told, the court finds, though the authority can't be passive. We in this House say neither can the Prime Minister be. The blame lands on the subordinates and the same again has happened here. In both cases, the controversy is not on the mechanics, but where the moral and constitutional responsibility resides.

Officials were acting on a settled prime ministerial preference. The Prime Minister can't have it both ways. He can't have decisive authority on the way in and plausible deniability on the way out. That's not process. That's power without accountability. If the decision was his, isn't the responsibility his? And if not, why

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not? And whose is it then? Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I will give way. I think this is. Probably a. Useful speech to intervene on due to my striking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

intervene on due to my striking resemblance to Tom cruise. But the key. Point in that scenario.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Point in that scenario. Was about responsibility, and I think members opposite can probably. I probably lucky that Sadiq Khan I probably lucky that Sadiq Khan has cancelled all the tubes today. Otherwise there may be another transport mechanism they may be under. But does this not show wider that the Prime Minister is failing in his key role, which is to take responsibility for the decisions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he's charged to take? Yeah. Yeah, it's absolutely right. Mr Speaker and the bottom line, it really is here. The Prime Minister has shaped the system by having a settled political decision, one that's had horrific consequences. Despite all the warnings that we've talked about in this House, about talked about in this House, about Mandelson being fired twice and etc. and is now trying to point to etc. and is now trying to point to the process as the failings, but the country isn't buying it.

The film teaches us this simple lesson power cannot hide behind those who obey it. And just before I finish, I have a message for the Labour MPs and would like to address them directly and to paraphrase directly from that famous speech from Colonel Jessup, he says the PM neither has the time nor inclination to explain himself to backbenchers who rise and sleep under the blanket of the very majority that he provides, and then questions the manner in which the PM provides it.

The PM would rather you say just thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, he suggests

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, he doesn't give a about what you're entitled to. Well my honourable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend, I will give way. Following the revelations at the Foreign Affairs Select Committee Foreign Affairs Select Committee today by Oliver Robbins, who said how the Prime Minister had pushed how the Prime Minister had pushed for Peter Mandelson to be appointed and also was pushing for his former and also was pushing for his former director of communications, Matthew Doyle, to be appointed as well. Unqualified for the post. Would my hon. Friend agree? These are not the actions of a Prime Minister concerned about the national interest, rather his personal interest.

Nor is it the actions of Prime Minister concerned about national security, merely his job security, particularly pushing for Peter Mandelson, who is a known

**** Possible New Speaker ****

national security risk. The man is very senior, makes an absolute erudite point. The question is, we still don't know question is, we still don't know why the Prime Minister chose Mandelson. He's never said exactly the reasons why he did. We can all see the reasons why he shouldn't have done, but I will take.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have done, but I will take. Can I just ask my hon. Friend that there surely can be no situation that he thinks where officials do not flag concerns with Ministers or prime Ministers, because fundamentally it is them that are accountable to this House and the British public. And what we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are talking about is accountability here. Accountability starts from the top. Absolutely. We've heard in the FCDO today, the message from number ten was get this thing done. Yeah, that was the political directive and everything else follows suit. And that's exactly what Olly And that's exactly what Olly Robbins has said. And here is where I conclude, Mr. Speaker, because I conclude, Mr. Speaker, because this side of the House knows the truth. The public want the truth. The only question that remains is can the Labour benches, the backbenchers, handle the truth? Because surely if they can't, they must do something about it.
15:10
15:10
David Davis Portrait Rt Hon David Davis MP (Goole and Pocklington, Conservative)
-
-
Sir David Davis. >> Our ambassador in Washington stands at the nexus of the Five Eyes with more classified intelligence crossing his desk than across the desks of most Cabinet Ministers. It's obviously one of the most important appointments the Prime Minister makes, but it's also one of the most sensitive. A security failure in the post could seriously jeopardise the Five Eyes relationship. The Americans are notoriously twitchy about security, so the appointees conduct before the appointment must be beyond reproach, and their trustworthiness must be impeccable.

Now we have one of our best. We had one of our best ambassadors. Karen Pierce was already in place. She was highly regarded by the State Department and the White House. And contrary to what the Lib Dem leader said, so much so that President Trump called the Prime Minister to urge him to keep Pierce. While expressing concern about Mandelson one of three calls from the White House on her behalf and against him. She was a high class, high performance, zero risk choice.

Against that, we had the London establishment view that somehow Mandelson's amoral dark arts would make him a good ambassador, typically espoused by people with no idea what makes a good ambassador. One of the questions before us in assessing the Prime Minister's judgement, is whether Mandelson was a better appointment than Karen Pierce, and, if so, was the benefit of that appointment sufficient to outweigh the clear risks of that appointment? And of course, the answer to both of those questions is an emphatic no.

It was abundantly clear to anyone taking a decision that he was a significant security risk, married twice, been forced to resign from government with known links to a paedophile closely associated with Russian oligarch Deripaska, a man who'd been responsible for the deaths of 100 people personally responsible for for murders and extortion. And with whom are Mr. Mandelson? Lord Mandelson, as he was then, spent weekends in his Dhaka and in Moscow weekends, of course, because the EU doesn't record where you are the weekend as a as a Commissioner, that the sort of background we're talking about.

And as we heard from my right hon. Friend, the leader of my party, he was also a non-executive director of Systema, a Russian arms dealing company led by a Putin ally, and Mandelson's role as sustainer when he stood down. He then took a large shareholding for some time as well. All of this is in the public domain and was in the public domain before he was appointed. China too. I can list them over and over again. TikTok, owned by the Chinese state shine based on Wigan forced labour, labour and of course, he always calls time and time again for at the time he called it time and time again for closer Anglo-Chinese relationship.

Now when you make appointments like this, it's not an appointment and not a judgement beyond reasonable doubt. It's not even a judgement on the balance of probabilities. It's a judgement on significant risk. Are you going to take a significant risk with a Five Eyes relationship? Of course you're not. And it should be clear on public data alone that this man is a significant was a significant risk. And indeed, the propriety and ethics team in Cabinet Office flagged most of the issues I've just described to number ten before this process started.

And we should remember, and, Mr. Speaker, forgive me for being so direct, but Peter Mandelson is a man who has proven he's greedy for money, greedy for glamour, greedy for status, greedy for power, and willing to break the rules to get them. That's the key point. Willing to break the rules to get such a man is a classic security risk in the face of Russian or Chinese compromise. That's not to mention the risk posed by our courses. Known involvement with Epstein number ten

**** Possible New Speaker ****

chose. I'll give way very quickly. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, and I do thank him

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Speaker, and I do thank him for for giving way. I have to say, I'm not an Peter Mandelson fan club. I'm old enough to remember is a is I'm old enough to remember is a is his first life in in this government. But this morning we government. But this morning we heard that the UK visas judged him to be a borderline risk, and we heard how officials thought that that risk could be managed. This is that risk could be managed. This is quite different from what you outlined, what the hon.

Gentleman is outlining.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is the public information. If he wants to get into the argument on UK visas between UK visas, who were UK visas between UK visas, who were now told was a marginal and number ten, who says it's a red the strike ten, who says it's a red the strike off, he can argue between. Now I'm talking about public data. What you should know before you start this should know before you start this process and number ten. No no no. He's had his number.

Sit down. He's had his number. Sit down. Number ten. Number ten has chosen to ignore these things. And that's critical because we've heard already about the pressure put on the Foreign Office over and over again. And forgive me again, Mr Speaker, but for the direct quote, because it's obscene. But the chairman actually recounted how Morgan Sweeney told called his predecessor and told him quotes. Just prove it. Now, speaking to the committee, he made clear he's under constant pressure and there's an atmosphere of constant chasing.

Why? Well, we already know. It's not because Mandelson was materially better candidate than Karen Pierce, a brilliant, well established, highly regarded incumbent with excellent connections to the White House. It was because Mandelson was a leading member of the New Labour aristocracy, full stop, not talent connection. It wasn't even I mean, it's not in the national interest. Plainly, it wasn't even the Labour interest. It was in the interest of a Labour clique. Now, Mandel's appointment was a decision in complete disregard of the risks, known risks, which explains the Prime Minister's lack of curiosity about the vetting.

It wasn't lack

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of curiosity. He did not ask because he did not want to. Know. The former Cabinet secretary

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The former Cabinet secretary warned the Prime Minister he should secure Mandelson security clearance before the appointment. He was before the appointment. He was warned on the 11th of December by the Cabinet Office about his about his past, his public past and on his past, his public past and on the 11th of September last year, number ten was asked by a journalist whether males have failed their developed vetting. Number ten knew it's as plain as a pikestaff. So where do we go from here? We have a Prime Minister and a government in power who are making decisions in the interests of their own clique, within their own party, and in making their interests at the explicit risk of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister should resign. Yeah. And, Bob.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And, Bob. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Peter Mandelson once spoke of the Labour left being sealed in a the Labour left being sealed in a tomb. Today it is the toxic politics he came to represent that should be buried politics that should be buried politics that repels millions and drifts far from the values on which our party was founded. If we are serious about
15:18
Ian Byrne Portrait Ian Byrne MP (Liverpool West Derby, Labour)
-
-
founded. If we are serious about being serious about learning the lessons of this troubling episode, then we must confront that culture. What enabled it? That means looking at figures such as the Prime Minister's former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, I Mandelson and of the network of influence around him. Mandelson appointments did not happen in isolation. As we learn today, it reflects a wider direction under the Prime Minister, where those behind the Labour Together project will. The significant influence in developing this toxic culture, which has been allowed to take hold of number ten in the governing of our country? It points to a political culture that lacks candour, exists to promote wealth and power, and ignores all else in pursuit of this.

It's a culture where proximity to power outweighs principle, where access counts far more than accountability, and where the suffering of victims is overshadowed by connections, where decisions are driven by patronage and power is concentrated in a narrow circle. It is not only our internal party democracy that suffers, but the integrity of our public institutions and our country. And too often it is our civil servants, those who serve with professionalism and integrity, who are left to carry the consequences. I want to commend Olly Robbins for giving evidence today its professionalism and dedication.

After a week where he has already been very publicly hounded by some governments, was commendable and it was good to see his trade union backing him steadfastly at the committee today. Robbins will be a loss to the FCDO and the country, all brought about by a series of catastrophic political decisions by number ten. That is not right, not fair. And it's not what the public expects of elected officials. And because of this, the public will rightly demand accountability and cultural change.

This must begin with a thorough review of the political operation which brought the Prime Ministers to power, and with clearly continues to carry undue influence over this government. So I once again, as I have asked on multiple occasions now in both letters to the Prime Minister and speeches in this place call for the full, transparent and independent investigation into the activities and practices of labour together, both prior to and after the election of this government. Only then will we fully understand how this exclusive political network has been able to undermine our democracy and institutions right at the heart of government.
15:21
Calum Miller Portrait Calum Miller MP (Bicester and Woodstock, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yes. the weekend door knocking in my constituency. People in Bicester and Woodstock are frustrated by and Woodstock are frustrated by delays to medical appointments, fed up with rising prices and fearful about the war in the Middle East. Yet a number of them raised the Prime Minister's handling of the Peter Mandelson saga. Their overwhelming emotion was disappointment that a Prime Minister who promised change has delivered so little, and anger that a Prime Minister who said he would be better than the Tories had failed so badly.

The Prime Minister set out yesterday to defend himself. Mr. speaker, he set out that case like a barrister. He Take the narrow view that the charge was misleading the house, and he tried to claim that Sir Olly Robbins had repeatedly misled him. And so it was only natural that he should have misled us. He failed first by misjudging the seriousness of his failure. It was as though he was charged with petty larceny when the actual was gross misconduct, decapitation. Yet the crucial weakness in his argument was one of chronology.

He cited statements and reports between September 2025 and April 2026, but the crime he sought to defend was committed between December 2024 and January 2025. He had no answer to why he ignored the advice of the Cabinet secretary to seek security clearance before appointing Lee Anderson. He could not explain why he announced Mandelson's appointment without conditions, nor why the offer letter to Mandelson, dated before Sir Oli started work, said that Mandelson had cleared security clearance. Mr Speaker the damning evidence given today by Sir Olly Robbins confirms what the Prime Minister failed to dispel yesterday.

There was a complacent culture in Downing Street. Indeed there may still be, which had a dismissive approach to vetting. Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister, wants us now to believe he would have sacked Mendelssohn if he had failed vetting. Yet all the evidence then, is that he and his team did not care about vetting and even believed it had already been granted. We further learnt this morning that officials in number ten asked the FCDO to find an ambassadorial role for Matthew Doyle, another man who was friends with a convicted sex offender.

What is worse, they told FCDO officials not to tell the Foreign Secretary. The unavoidable conclusion is that under the Prime Minister and Morgan McSweeney, number ten, believed it could fix plum jobs for the boys and they were all boys. Mr Speaker with casual disregard for process, propriety or national security. So we come to the consequences of this sorry episode. First, a distinguished civil servant has lost his position as the fall guy for the Prime Minister. I was proud to work with Sir Oli, and I know the regard held for him by Ministers and civil servants, so I am frankly furious to use a word of the day to learn that.

A number ten spokesman has just said that Sir Oli was, and I quote, a man of integrity and professionalism who made an error of judgement. Mr. speaker, it is extraordinary that when political appointees like Peter Mandelson or the former deputy Prime Minister are accused of errors of judgement or worse, the Prime Minister has come to that Dispatch Box and defended them for days. Yet when the Prime Minister's error of judgement was highlighted again, he took a few short hours to dismiss Sir Oli.

In the last five days, the Prime Minister has gone further and directed the full power of the state against one man. The Government Legal Service reinterpreted the Crag Act on Sunday. The Government Communication Service briefed hard against Robbins and Cabinet Office officials, sought to prime the Foreign Affairs Committee before it heard from Sir Oli today. This state led assault on one man is unprecedented and it is unacceptable here. If the point of committing an error of judgement is to resign, why is the Prime Minister still in post? Second, this whole episode has done grave damage to relations between Ministers and civil servants.

The Prime Minister once said, and I quote, when staff make mistakes, I carry the can. I never turn on my staff. No one believes that now. His cowardly reaction has shown civil servants that they should be fearful of future treatment by the Prime Minister, number ten and Ministers. As a former Permanent Secretary, I believed that the Prime Minister understood and valued the relationship between trust, candour and loyalty that governs the best relationship in ministries today. Those relationships are shattered and our country will be the poorer for it.

And so thirdly, Mr. Speaker, my constituents and people up and down the country worried about waiting lists, rising prices and threats to security can have no confidence that this Prime Minister can change our country for the better. When something went wrong in government, the Prime Minister did not take responsibility. He took the easy way out when called on to defend himself. He failed abjectly. This sorry tale points to a corrupted culture at the heart of number ten, and there is now only one man left to carry the can.

He must complete

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the clear out and resign. His post badge. Thank you, you, Mr. Speaker. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, you, Mr. Speaker. I came this morning from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, where we had the opportunity to speak to Sir Olly Robbins as our witness. So I Olly Robbins as our witness. So I wanted to use this debate to pull out some of the pertinent points that we heard there, which I think that we heard there, which I think are relevant. But before I start, I absolutely agree with members across the House that are saying that Lord Mandelson was a that Lord Mandelson was a completely inappropriate and terrible choice for our ambassador, and that has clearly been a failure in the process that ended up with his appointment and vetting.

But it's important that we look at what subtly said in the in the witness statement today, because some of that contradicts what has been said through some of the statements in the House. The first thing that Salih said, which I think was important, is that he said to the committee this morning that no Ministers, not the Prime Minister, not the Foreign Secretary, nor any other Minister or official in number ten was given any site that CSV had declined Mandelson's security vetting.

They had no sight at all of any details of that vetting. And he said that and he justified that. And he defended that because no officials and no Ministers should have sight of that vetting, because it is extremely personal and sensitive information. I mean, I'm someone that's gone through that process myself when I was working at the Foreign Office. What you do not want to create is any sort of conditions where people are afraid of sharing sensitive information in a vetting process that some period in the future
15:27
Alex Ballinger Portrait Alex Ballinger MP (Halesowen, Labour)
-
-
might be leaked, and whether that's to politicians, whether that's to other people in your line management chain or, as we've seen management chain or, as we've seen later on, has been leaked to the press, because that undermines the integrity of the process as a whole. So I think that firstly, that reinforces what the Prime Minister said yesterday. The second thing he said yesterday. The second thing he said was he disputed the characterisation that the UK CSV characterisation that the UK CSV had failed, that Peter Mandelson's vetting, that it was some way a binary choice inside the inside the Foreign Office.

And it's important that we we explain or I try and justify what Sir Oli was saying, because the FCDO. They do have a slightly different process to other parts of parts of government, and that is because as an overseas department, a bit like the MoD and other places, there are people that come into those roles with seriously long careers in all sorts of different interests. And I'm not suggesting that Peter Mandelson should have passed the vetting. Not not at all, but the fact that a borderline case was coming to FCDO and the FCDO was making that decision, rather than CSV, was not unusual.

That was quite a normal process to to happen according to Oli's evidence. And it's the sort of thing that is important that we hold in the future. And I think it's important for us to say that as well. Thirdly, I think that is really important, is not only did. Please give way, Sir Julian.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm really surprised that his swallowing this guff about it being a borderline case, it was quite a borderline case, it was quite clear that security vetting put clear that security vetting put this in the red box, which meant fail. So Olly is being lauded to fail. So Olly is being lauded to the skies now because he's the victim of ruthless prime ministerial politics. But he also ministerial politics. But he also has an angle on this, and the angle is that he, shall we say, massaged his own judgement because he knew the pressure that was on him from the government.

There was nothing borderline about this. The only reason he's saying it was borderline was because he needs an excuse for having overridden it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

when he shouldn't have done. Yes. Please speak to what the witness told us in the inquiry this morning. And he was very clear. And many And he was very clear. And many members made the same case that you're making now that it was a red you're making now that it was a red box, as we've seen in that evidence that was submitted. But he was very clear that it was borderline. This was very unusual for the Foreign Office to to conduct these types of cases.

And I, I think you can make your own mind about whether you believe him or believe other people.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What he actually said. I came in to watch what he actually said was the advice he was given by his director of intelligence, I think director of intelligence, I think was borderline. One of the issues which were not clear was whether the pressure from number ten was the pressure from number ten was simply on him or on all members of the of the channel, if you like,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

down to lower levels. Yes. I had a different interpretation. So Sir Ollie also said you can look back at the transcript that yes, there was pressure from number ten to get the appointment done quickly. It could be interpreted that they wanted to get that appointment done. Before the inauguration of President Trump. There was an important timeline that that needed to be done by, because there was a risk that any new ambassadorial appointments after that might be interfered. Again, this this was the words of Sir Ollie.

I'm not, I'm not I'm not bringing this up from nowhere. And let me let me finish the other important point. It wasn't just the UK security vetting system that put a borderline process through, and then the FCDO approved it. It was also the intelligence agencies. So I think it's equally concerning that Peter Mandelson was given strap clearance and I asked Sir Ollie directly, were there any concerns raised by the intelligence agencies on the process of obtaining clearance, which is a higher level of security, which allows him to have access to the highest, most classified secrets that the country has.

And there was no one from the intelligence agencies that raised any concerns during that process either. So I think these are serious control, serious concerns in the process.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. I'm very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I gently Friend for giving way, and I gently say to him and to others who seek to make this argument he's pursuing. At the heart of this is a toxic and dismissive culture at number ten. That's a point we cannot get away That's a point we cannot get away from. That dismissiveness has led us to this place. This is not a small administration breach. It's a matter of national security.

The British public is not buying it. Surely we should be saying there needs to be a full, transparent, independent inquiry into this whole situation to uncover the truth. That's what the British public want,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with consequences for including the Prime Minister. That is not my experience of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is not my experience of number ten, and I am pleased to see that there is a a review looking at that there is a a review looking at the vetting system, because I think there are serious problems with the vetting system that this process vetting system that this process has has uncovered. So indeed, I mean, my takeaways from the evidence that I heard this morning evidence that I heard this morning are a number of them. I agree with with members that Peter Mandelson was a terrible pick for our ambassador, even without knowing the things that came out later, I think it was the wrong decision that he should have been.

He should have been picked. But also there has clearly been failures in the vetting process, both with the DV vetting, both with the process of the FCDO and with the the process of the vetting. So I'm pleased that the government has announced two reviews, one to be led by Sir Adrian Fulford and a separate Cabinet Office review to look at those vetting processes and ensure that both for Peter Mandelson's vetting and for the UK vetting system more generally, that such mistakes do not happen again, I'm slightly concerned that in the short term, the government has suspended the ability of overseas departments to operate their discretion in granting develop vetting.

I know that that's that's a sensible response in the short term, but I hope as the reviews go through, that the Minister will consider consider the reasons why these departments have that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

discretion in the future. I thank him for giving way, and I'm very grateful for him to do so. And I've listened quite carefully to his speech, given what he heard at the committee this morning and his background experience, does he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

his background experience, does he regret Olly Robbins sacking? I feel very sympathetic to Olly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I feel very sympathetic to Olly Robbins. Olly Robbins will have an opportunity to account for Sir Olly Robbins. We'll have an opportunity Robbins. We'll have an opportunity to to account for himself. But he gave a very good account of himself at the committee this morning, and it's not for me to to to make that judgement. I can think of several good reasons why the FCDO and the MoD might need to use that discretion in the future. I'm also really concerned that details about Peter Mandelson's vetting were leaked to the press in September, even considering Peter Mandelson's misconduct.

The integrity of that process is is really important and Sarah Olney also raised concerns about this this issue. So I hope that the reviews that the Minister announced the other day will also look at the the leaks to the press, because it is really unacceptable that such vital personal information about the vetting process has been released in that way. But but most importantly, I think sauli's evidence it rubbishes some of the accusations that members yesterday were making in the House and indeed in the media that were questioning the Prime Minister's honesty about the situation, because he did categorically rule out any suggestion that the Prime Minister knew anything about that for good reason.

So I think those members that made those accusations and were rightly thrown out of the House, they should come forward and correct the record and apologise on that point. I will take one more intervention and then I'll finish up.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does he fully realise that for those of us. Who did say seven minutes, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Who did say seven minutes, I think, you know, on ten. Don't worry, Liz Saville-Roberts. Does he surely rise to people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does he surely rise to people outside that this argument, these fine details over process, it morphs into a defence of ignorance, morphs into a defence of ignorance, and then it morphs into a defence of incompetency. And that actually of incompetency. And that actually is doing the Prime Minister as much harm as all these arguments about his honesty. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think we've heard real concerns about the process here, and I'm glad that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has Secretary to the Prime Minister has announced reviews into that process, because we really need to make sure we get it right in the future. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Bradley Thomas thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, this is a particularly sorry saga, and this is corrosive, not just for is corrosive, not just for certainly this government and the Labour Party. It's corrosive for the entire political class and politicians as a collective body, and it is certainly corrosive for the country. And that's because there is a particular theme that's emerged from this and from other episodes under this government around competency, or what the public would probably look at as a general theme of incompetency.

Mr. Speaker, you know, we've got this situation here where it's frankly ludicrous and laughable that we've got to this point, that Peter
15:37
Bradley Thomas Portrait Bradley Thomas MP (Bromsgrove, Conservative)
-
-
Mandelson, a man who has for the best part of two decades, his name has been synonymous. It's been a has been synonymous. It's been a byword for sleaze and incompetence. That's before we knew about the That's before we knew about the risks that he posed and or could continue to pose if he were given a position to our national security position to our national security and the corrosiveness of this and the corrosiveness of this government, and the question of incompetence is borne out through all of the decisions that we've seen that the government has U-turned over.

I think we're up to around 18 in 2 years. We've seen the corrosive effects of government policy across the board, whether it's on the economy, whether it's the price that businesses are paying as a result of questions that the government haven't asked. And that begs the question around the Prime Minister's general incuriosity around seemingly everything, at least of all this, the most serious of issues. Now, Peter Mandelson was known to be a paedophile adjacent character at the time that the Prime Minister took this decision, seemingly at any cost, to appoint him as ambassador to the United States.

And I think so many of us in this House have alluded to it, that it seems that that happened because you were seen as a particularly slick operator at the top of the Labour Party, and he was seemingly untouchable to so many. And it's a great shame it's got to this point, this sort of ongoing debacle and scandal, the evasion from the Prime Minister to have sort of, you know, cause the downfall of Peter Mandelson. But there are unanswered questions remaining Mr Speaker, including a really simple one that has been asked many times.

We haven't had an answer to this, but I would love to know my constituents would love to know. Many in this House would love to know what were the seemingly virtuous qualities of Peter Mandelson that did warrant the on balance risk on balance, very serious risk that the government took in pursuing his appointment. The pressure placed on the Foreign Office into clearing and appointing Mandelson has become apparent over the last few weeks, and particularly this morning, following the testimony of Olly Robbins.

And I mean, it's frankly, representative, representative, reprehensible. Mr. speaker, we've heard that Olly Robbins was told, you know, to get this done at any cost, you know, to ride effectively roughshod over good moral conduct to deliver the will of the Prime Minister. And we're starting to hear sort of glimmers that certain people at the top of government, perhaps those in the Cabinet, had advised the Prime Minister or the Cabinet Office that they weren't comfortable with this, but the Prime Minister was just completely ignorant of this.

Mr. speaker, throughout the whole process, and we now know that Peter Mandelson was effectively appointed and given access to very sensitive security information before his security clearance was granted. So a direct question for the Minister. Can the Minister tell the House whether he is aware that Peter Mandelson had access to sensitive information prior to the security clearance recommendation coming through? If the Minister is not aware of that, what review is being put in place to ascertain the level of that information and what risk management will be put in place to mitigate the effects of the exposure of any sensitive information that Peter Mandelson may have obtained during that period.

Before the security clearance came through. And then, Mr. Speaker, there's another question around accountability and many of us in this House, but particularly the country at large, would love to know why is the bar of personal accountability so low for everyone else, yet impossibly high for the Prime Minister himself? Now, if I'd had the chance yesterday and lots of members wanted to speak, and I understand why I did not get an opportunity, but I would have loved to have asked Prime Minister at any point.

Has he had he considered or has he considered resigning? And if not, why not? And how many more have to be blamed or scapegoated before this becomes a situation where the Prime Minister does the decent thing and resigns? How many more twists and turns does this saga have to follow, Mr. Speaker, before the Prime Minister does the right thing? Because I can tell the Minister, who is looking somewhat uncomfortable, and I commend him for coming to the front bench today. I can tell him on behalf of my constituents, they are sick and tired of the evasiveness of this Prime Minister.

They wanted to do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the decent thing and to resign. So thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to address three aspects in my want to address three aspects in my remarks. Firstly, the appointment of Peter Mandelson in the first instance. Secondly, the approach taken by the Prime Minister, as taken by the Prime Minister, as details have emerged over the last few months. And finally, the vetting process overall. But first, vetting process overall. But first, just to reflect on the debate so far. I mean, it's been characterised by a collective amnesia on those benches, some amateur dramatic theatrics.

We've seen, we've seen the honourable leader of the Liberal Democrat demonstrate why he's such a risk to trade and industry with one of our largest partners, trading partners. We've seen a member who sits over
15:43
Gurinder Singh Josan Portrait Gurinder Singh Josan MP (Smethwick, Labour)
-
-
there choosing to lecture this side about about the traditions in the Labour Party, and we've even seen some of my hon. Friend who I suspect their experience of number suspect their experience of number ten has been purely in attacking number ten and in a disciplinary number ten and in a disciplinary capacity, lecturing us about claiming to have, have, have, have real insight into the culture in real insight into the culture in number ten. So at the core of the current debate is the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as UK's ambassador to the USA.

Clearly, Peter Mandelson background of resigning twice from the ministerial office has been in the public record and whilst there are other allegations about his conduct, not all of them were in the public domain at that time and many recent revelations have led to his dismissal from the his dismissal from the ambassadorial post action in relation to his referral to the police and an ongoing process there. It's clear to all that Peter Mandel should never have been appointed to this role.

And whilst this is the case, the apology offered by the Prime Minister on repeated occasions in this House and outside had been full, wholesome and without equivocation. And most importantly, the Prime Minister has repeatedly and rightly apologised to the victim of Jeffrey Epstein for making this appointment in the first instance. So whilst the. Whilst the initial appointment has, and I suspect will continue to be a matter of debate, the Prime Minister's apology cannot be faulted. I want to in a bit.

I want to address the wider approach taken by the Prime Minister in this case and other allegations against senior figures in this administration, and I think this is relevant. I think this is relevant. I'll come back to you in a second. I'll take you in a minute. It's the case that this Prime Minister promised to change in approach to dealing with such matters, an approach that embraces transparency, that is robust and that is timely, is essential in maintaining public trust and confidence in the government, in politicians and in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this House. I'm very grateful to my hon. Friend, and he knows full well, you Friend, and he knows full well, you know, this is not any personal vendetta against number ten. He of vendetta against number ten. He of all people knows the culture that exists in number ten and the toxicity of that culture. The question I want to ask him, and I say this in all sincerity, does he really expect the British public to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

taken? I have I think I have a better understanding of the culture in number ten than you do. And I absolutely expect that the British, the British public, understand that the apology put forward by the by the Prime Minister has been full. It's been wholesome, it's been unequivocal and that he hasn't missed that. If you if you come missed that. If you if you come back to me, if you come back, I'll take in a few minutes. And so maintaining.

So dealing with allegations in a timely fashion, in a matter that in a manner that is robust and, and is that ensures full transparency is essential to maintaining trust and confidence in the government and politicians and in this House and every occasion there has been an allegation levelled the approach of this Prime Minister and this government, and where there has been an Peter Mandelson, whether it's been in relation to, you know, previous Deputy Prime Minister, is the approach of this Prime Minister.

Government has been in marked contrast to the previous successive Tory prime Ministers. We saw we saw then a real refusal to accept allegations were valid. We saw a refusal to address allegations in a timely fashion by referring for investigation of investigations being dragged out and a refusal to accept the findings of investigations. The. In the case of Peter Mandelson, it can be seen that the allegation and information as an allegation, information being forthcoming, the Prime Minister come to the despatch box again and again and he has sacked him.

He's taken action again and again, and that that action has been robust, speedy and the ongoing commitment to the Humble Address will ensure full transparency in this. And this is in marked contrast to how the previous government has handled

**** Possible New Speaker ****

such matters. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is talking about the point of full transparency, and it is in the ministerial code that Ministers must be open and transparent. When the Prime transparent. When the Prime Minister came to this House in February and said that the reason he'd sacked Mandelson was because he'd sacked Mandelson was because he had lied to him about his relationship with Epstein. I think that was a full and transparent account of the reasons why

**** Possible New Speaker ****

account of the reasons why Mandelson should not have had the job. The Prime Minister, the Prime Minister, set out why the information he presented to this House at different times, based on the information he had at the time, and I think further questions to that should be directed to the Prime Minister. But I think fundamentally, fundamentally, though, this side, this side will not take any lessons from that side who over a number of years presided over trampling trust and confidence in politicians and in this House, into the ground again and again and again, whilst I suspect, whilst I suspect this House has not seen the last of Peter Mandelson issue, I am hopeful that the change in approach towards allegations by this Prime Minister and this government of transparency, timeliness and robust action is one that will continue in the future unless there's a lesson there for all of us.

The final point I want to address is the vetting process. I believe strongly that the vetting process, followed by government and department should be robust, should have the confidence of those subjective vetting, as well as the government departments employing them, their colleagues and the wider public. And clearly, to maintain that confidence requires a high degree of anonymity and confidence in that process. It's also the case that any information thrown off as part of that vetting process is acted on appropriately by government or by department in a timely fashion.

But there is a fundamental dilemma in expecting the government or the Prime Minister in this case to act on information that was never made available to government or Ministers, and that's the fundamental issue here. So we need to ensure that the vetting system is fit for purpose and a balance between confidentiality on the one hand, and response at the appropriate level is essential. Clearly, the current balance is not correct, and I welcome the steps being taken by the Chief Secretary to Prime Minister in this regard.

I will end by saying that, you know, this whole episode has exposed issues of judgement and process, and I suspect the debate will continue long in relation to both. But there is much to commend the judgement and protection by the administration in relation to information. As information became available and and whatever the merits of the case or whatever people feel about what's being discussed, some of those approaches in relation to transparency, timeliness, and robust action is something I hope will continue.
15:50
John Whittingdale Portrait Rt Hon Sir John Whittingdale MP (Maldon, Conservative)
-
-
So. John Whittingdale. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This morning's Foreign Affairs Select Committee session lasted 2.5 hours Committee session lasted 2.5 hours and was certainly one of the more remarkable that I've attended. And I have been involved in a number of quite controversial Select quite controversial Select Committee hearings over the years. I do think that it showed the Select Committee system at its best, and members across the House work together, and it's a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Halesowen, her fellow member of the committee who spoke earlier, and I also share his view that Sir Olly Robbins, who gave us evidence, put in an impressive performance.

He is clearly angry at the way he has been treated, and he does have a distinguished career which has been brought to a premature end. And clearly he is very upset by that. But in his evidence, he did make some extraordinary revelations. He, of course, had given evidence to the committee last year in November when, as the chair of the committee suggested in our introduction, we may have heard the truth and nothing but the truth, but probably not the whole truth.

This morning we heard a lot more of the whole truth and what became absolutely clear and had already been suggested at the previous hearing was that number ten, Downing Street was absolutely determined that Lord Mandelson should become the ambassador of his country to the United States. So Ollie told us that his predecessor, Philip Barton, had strongly advised that this should not happen until after the developed vetting process had been completed. But despite that, advice from the senior permanent Under-Secretary of the Foreign Office, it was ignored and indeed the Cabinet Office, we are told, then went on to suggest that developed vetting might not even be necessary.

And yet this was this was not just a routine appointment. It was not routine for two reasons. Firstly, it was the appointment of probably the most important ambassadorial post that this country has. And secondly, very, very unusually, it was a direct ministerial appointment. Most of the time, ambassadorial appointments are made from within the civil service, and people have already had that vetting procedure. This was somebody who was being brought in from the outside, who had not been vetted and already had a track record of having twice had

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to resign from government. I'll give way. Carla Lockhart. I thank Great Honourable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank Great Honourable. Member for giving way, and the role of the Prime Minister is the highest honour of UK politics and demands sound judgement. And the demands sound judgement. And the reality is there was no sound judgement when he did appoint him a judgement when he did appoint him a disgraced individual who had two resignations and well documented associations with a sex offender. associations with a sex offender. And what we hear from the Labour benches today is lambs to the slaughter.

They are defending the indefensible and the general public are hearing that today and are hearing how disgraced this place is by the decision of the Prime Minister to appoint Peter Mandelson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I completely agree with the hon. Lady and it's somehow being suggested from the other side, but suggested from the other side, but it was people advising the Prime Minister. I think one speaker earlier said the Prime Minister had earlier said the Prime Minister had been persuaded to appoint him. Well, I worked for the Prime Minister and she coined a phrase officials advise Ministers decide. And in this case it was the decision, as this case it was the decision, as she says, of the Prime Minister.

But Olly Robbins also pointed out that actually, by the time he took up his position, essentially he was presented with a fait accompli. He actually set out to us. He said, I took over as p o s on the 20th of January. He then said already due diligence had been completed. And we know that that process, which included interview with Morgan McSweeney, had revealed the ongoing relationship between Lord Mandelson and Peter Epstein, but that was ignored. We were told that approval of the appointment had already been given by the King.

It had been announced publicly to the press. Agreement had been given from the United States, which is. And. And Sir Oliver Olly Robbins made this clear. But that is not just a formality. That is a very significant development. He'd also been given to the FCDO building and it. Access. And finally, he was being granted access to highly classified briefing on a case by case basis. All of that had happened. And so I asked Sir Olly Robbins if given all of that was already in place, if now he were to have the appointment withdrawn, would that not damage our relationship with the United States of America? To which he replied very clearly, yes, it would.

My my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole has already set out. But actually we already had a very good ambassador in Washington. But nevertheless, Downing Street had said to the US administration that they wanted Lord Mandelson to be appointed and the White House had given their agreement through the agreement procedure. So for Olly Robbins then to withdraw the appointment would have been a real damage to our foreign policy. Now, you can argue that if Sir Olly Robbins were told that the UK s v process had resulted in a clear recommendation denial, then he might or perhaps even should still have done so.

But he also told us this morning that he wasn't told that. We were told that he didn't see the UK's report. We were told that he didn't even see it. In fact, he didn't even know about the fact that the report has a red box with a tick in it saying deny. He said he'd never seen the those documents before and that that would be normal because it is a very restricted access for reasons actually, my the hon. Gentleman for Halesowen Salford.

And so all he was told that was that there had been leaning towards refusal and it was a borderline case. Now, whether or not that was an accurate reflection of what the report actually said is another matter. And we can perhaps debate at what stage or how far the message from Downing Street we want this person to be appointed had been transmitted to try and make it as possible as it was. But what we are told is that after Sir Olly Robbins had arrived as Permanent Secretary, he was subjected to regular calls from number ten saying get it done.

And he also told us that it wasn't get it done subject to security clearance, which in his view, it should have been that the press release put out announcing the appointment of Lord Mandelson didn't say subject to security clearance, subject to security clearance was never mentioned. This was announced as a decision that had already been taken. Why? That is a matter that we can is open to conjecture. There is the view of the some on the other side that it was somehow a reward for services given in getting the Prime Minister the job, or the leader of the Liberal Party has said.

It may all be to do with the. Trying to cosy up to President Trump, although, as my hon. Friend pointed out, actually our previous ambassador had done a really good job in representing his country to President Trump. We may never know. What we do know is that the Prime Minister was absolutely determined that that appointment should be made, and even after the appointment had been made and when all of the these things began to become revealed, in particular, the relationship, the ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, which the Prime Minister said that he was unaware of the closeness of.

And he was very angry when he was told that we had already been. Inquiries being made. Journalists have been ringing up number ten and saying, but we've been told he failed his security vetting and number ten put out a denial. Now, number ten, you would expect if journalists were calling up saying, is it true that actually he didn't pass the UK ESP assessment and they recommended denial of security vetting that before just saying, no, that's complete rubbish. They might actually begin to ask questions.

They might say to the Prime Minister, you should be aware we've had an inquiry about this. But no, apparently none of that happened. Or if it did happen again, it was simply swept under the carpet. The end result of this process is that for over a year, this country had representing it at the most senior level at the in the in the America which is our closest ally, somehow someone who the security agencies have concluded is a security risk. We do not know the full extent of the damage that may have been done during that time.

I'm. The Deputy Speaker, I'm afraid is coughing at me, so I won't give way. But I fear that there is still more to come. And I can say, I hope on behalf of the Select Committee, that we will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

continue to pursue this. Doctor Allison Gardner thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will. Reiterate my hon. Friend from Halesowen point that I wish I'd never heard the name Peter never heard the name Peter Mandelson. He should not have been appointed. It is right that he would have been sacked, and I will would have been sacked, and I will acknowledge his experience and expertise on the issue which I. I will admit I don't have, Madam will admit I don't have, Madam Deputy Speaker in. Yesterday, in my response to the Prime Minister's statement focussed on Jeffrey Epstein's victims, I briefly mentioned the issue of parties opposite seeking to gain political capital and much to the chagrin to the reasonable, quiet people of this country, asked for the Prime Minister's resignation yet again, causing chaos to the governance of this country that the opposition is so addicted to.

The opposition grumbled at this as they are doing so now. So I want to take this opportunity to clarify. I will repeat, if we ignore the social media trolls and bots and ignore the self-interest of billionaire owned right wing press, the quiet, reasonable majority of people do not want a change of Prime Minister. As one lifelong Tory said to me yesterday, I see the Prime Minister is still here. That is a good thing. They are grateful that this Prime Minister, I was a teacher.

I can outtalk you all. They are grateful that this Prime Minister has not drawn our country into a mad, dangerous conflict, a conflict the opposition would have immediately joined. People value a stable government, a government that
16:01
Allison Gardner Portrait Dr Allison Gardner MP (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)
-
-
focuses on matters people really care about. They want to stabilise care about. They want to stabilise the economy. They want reform to stand and support for schools. They want our NHS rebuilt and waiting want our NHS rebuilt and waiting lists to drop. They want our roads fixed. They want their wages to fixed. They want their wages to increase. They want affordable homes. They want their communities to be safe and welcoming, and they want violence against women and want violence against women and girls tackled.

People are fed up of politicians and fed up of this navel gazing over process. They are fed up of more politicians politicking and point scoring. They are tired of it. And why? I will come to you in a minute. I'm in the flow and I promise you I will come to you. Because after 14 years of the previous government chopping and changing, prime Ministers and Secretaries of State and the blonde bumbler and the loopy letters, this country was on its knees, its people exhausted.

The people do not want more of the same. And despite the opposition's constant efforts, we will not let them manufacture more chaos. And I will kindly give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. To the point that she's just made. Is she familiar with the YouGov poll that regularly asks the UK population how well they think Keir Starmer is doing as Prime Keir Starmer is doing as Prime Minister? And is she aware that the latest data shows that 70% of the UK population think he is doing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

UK population think he is doing badly? He's here. I thank the hon. Lady for her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I will say that polls can generate answers depending on how they form their questions. And I will say, if you look at other polls, if you like them, he is still a lot more popular than certain other members in present in this House. And in reference to their chaos, I will speak up for the Civil service and I will express empathy to Sir Ollie Robinson in the role of Prime Ministers and Ministers of the previous government.

Among the Covid partying and and profiteering and the party opposite has never apologised. And I will never forgive. The Civil Service clearly did their best to strip to. To stop this country from sinking into the mire in such chaotic conditions. It is no wonder that the culture developed that decisions will be made without fully informing Ministers or prime Ministers, partially because under the party opposite, they probably couldn't be sure who would be the Prime Minister or Minister that month.

I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the remaining people who want to remain Prime Minister are those people who are worried who the Labour Party may pick to have instead. But I wonder, I wonder if the hon. Lady would make a comment the hon. Lady would make a comment on. She seems to be saying all sorts of other whataboutery sort of information. But has she considered that this is not manufactured? This that this is not manufactured? This is huge national security concern that we had an ambassador who had access to security information at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

access to security information at the highest level, who was a security risk to this country. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I do apologise, I struggle with my hearing. I didn't struggle with my hearing. I didn't quite pick up everything that she said, but I will come to the policy about the vetting and security in a about the vetting and security in a second. In my speech. I hope that might deliver an answer to her. Do might deliver an answer to her. Do apologise. And I remind the parties opposite that the process, they are quibbling about that.

This is a quibbling about that. This is a policy. I think this might give you the answer. This policy of organisation being able to grant vetting. Contrary to advice of the UK, SSEP has been running for many years under successive governments. It is this Prime Minister, this government that is now reviewing this process, and I will reiterate the key points. Mandelson should never have been appointed as our ambassador. The Prime Minister has repeatedly acknowledged this and repeatedly apologised.

I'm conscious of time. We have a seven minute guideline, so I will carry on. It is clear that Foreign Office officials grant to develop vetting security clearance to Mandelson, and never told Ministers they'd done so against the recommendations from the vetting agency. This is shocking, and any reasonable person would have assumed that this information would have been proffered without asking. The policy is wrong. It should change. And as a result of the review, hopefully it will change. This government, less than two years old, still will not let such a policy continue.

I am pleased the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has immediately suspended the ability of the Foreign Office to grant security clearances, but again, he's not in his seat now. But the hon. Member for Halesowen, I understand that he asked for that to be a short term for other security reasons, and I acknowledge his point. Madam Deputy Speaker, Thanks to the previous government and the cryptocurrency fuelled damage of reform and of course, the economic suicide of Brexit, both are responsible for people are fed up and trust in politics is at an all time low.

And indeed the Prime Minister recognises this and he understands the recent revelations has further damaged that trust and I acknowledge that too. But I stress politics can be a force for good. Politics focussed on people, not political process. Politics focussed on the decent, hard working people of our country, thankfully still at peace due to the strength of this Prime Minister can be a force for good. The opposition is still addicted to chaos and game playing, seeking scraps of political capital where they can.

I suggest they have flogged this issue as much as they can. They need to focus on rebuilding their dying party and apologise to the people. This Prime Minister and this government is focussed on rebuilding this country, the country they broke and still won't apologise for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Danny Kruger. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister came to this House only yesterday, saying in his own words, I will now set out the full timetable and later insisting he'd come to give the insisting he'd come to give the full account to the House. And that followed Downing Street's acceptance earlier in the day that his previous account had, at the his previous account had, at the very least, inadvertently misled members. So yesterday was meant to be the great clean up, the day of be the great clean up, the day of the full facts, full candour and full accountability.

But today it's Olly Robbins gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee and published a letter that blows a hole straight through the Prime Minister's version of events, and many hon. Members have made the points already exposing this. Obviously, the lack of curiosity on behalf of the Prime Minister's inexplicable and reprehensible the evasions, the obfuscation, the blame shifting that we've seen and the blatant contradictions. I want to just point out one that I don't think has been particularly surfaced so far this afternoon.

The Prime Minister said that he was astonished. He said it was incredible that information like this could have been withheld from him. But it is significant that in his letter, Olly Robbins said that the position that was conveyed to the committee in September 2025 that I quote, Ministers are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome was agreed with the Cabinet Office and with number ten. So, in other words, the Prime Minister is now trying to dump the
16:09
Danny Kruger Portrait Danny Kruger MP (East Wiltshire, Reform UK)
-
-
entire scandal on one official for acting within a position at Downing Street itself had signed off. That is not accountability. That is a stitch up. And worse still, we also learned today that before Sir Oli learned today that before Sir Oli even took over due diligence on his appointment had been completed, approval had been given by His approval had been given by His Majesty, the appointment had been announced. Agreement had been secured from the United States. Mandelson had building an I.t Mandelson had building an I.t access and he was already receiving highly classified briefing on a case by case basis.

We've even learned the Cabinet Office itself raised whether developed vetting was necessary and the FCDO had to insist on it. So let us drop the pretence that this was some neutral, pristine process derailed by one Mandarin miss conducting himself. The appointment was politically driven from the top and forced through in an atmosphere of pressure. Now, of course, the Prime Minister's position is untenable, as many members have said. But if it is possible, the Prime Minister's honesty or position isn't the most important thing about this saga.

What matters even more is our system of government, for which the Minister is partly responsible. And if the Prime Minister has been surprised to find that the civil service acts within processes that screen Ministers from information and from the power to make decisions. No one else is surprised about this. I think the Prime Minister has spent so long as a civil servant and then as a politician, behaving like a civil servant. Then when he finds that the system doesn't work, he has a sort of professional breakdown and starts spluttering about process and reviews and reviews of the processes.

Yes, we need process. But the fact is that appointments, like everything else that the government does, are political decisions. Politics is simply the management of the common life of the community, the management of trade offs between different ideas and interests. And we in this country have developed over many years a model of doing things, of doing politics that is or was the best in the world. Civil servants, accountable to Ministers, accountable to parliament, accountable to the public. Break those links of accountability.

And instead of a hierarchy with the public at the top, ultimately in charge through the ballot box and civil servants at the bottom, genuinely the servants, the democratically elected masters. Instead of that, you have the civil servants at the top, unaccountable. You have Ministers floundering around like this lot are. Parliament is pointless and the public is outraged. So that's what's got to change. The great restoration of the principle that the civil service serves the public. And it does this by respecting the ultimate responsibility of Ministers as decision makers.

It is absurd to have rules that shield the decision makers from the information they need to make a decision. No other organisation would do this. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is why we need to restore the Armstrong principles set out by Robert Armstrong in 1985. As he said, the civil service has no constitutional personality or responsibility separate from the duly constituted government of the day. So, yes, I want to see the back of this Prime Minister, but most of all, I want to dismantle the cabal of permanent secretaries that run this country and restore the proper authority of Parliament.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Sir. I am going to try and get

**** Possible New Speaker ****

more members in to speak, so I'm reducing the informal time limit to four minutes. Richard Burgon. Yeah, thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I want to start with a point of inquiry that I hope that the Chief inquiry that I hope that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will be able to answer in his response later. So he's got time to response later. So he's got time to look into it if he doesn't know the answer already, because yesterday I asked the Prime Minister whether his former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, passed all his security vetting and whether he ever handled documents for which he had anything other than the appropriate level of clearance.

I'm not sure that the House thinks that we got a clear answer from the Prime Minister yesterday to my question. But even if at some point Morgan McSweeney did get clearance, I'm sure that the House would be horrified if this happened long after he started working in Downing Street and after he was involved in the Mandelson appointment. So it would be good to get a date as to when Morgan McSweeney got his security clearance and to confirm whether he handled any materials prior to this, for which he didn't have appropriate clearance.

If the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister can't find an answer to that question by the time he responds, then perhaps he could answer that in writing by the end of the week, given the urgency of this matter, the situation we're in, of course, raises questions about process, and process is important. But let's not mistake that this is fundamentally political. Politics drove this something that was unusual about the import, the about the appointment of Mandelson was that it was a political appointment.

It isn't standard for the ambassador to the United States to be a political appointment. Whatever Peter Mandelson is and was, and how my own opinions on that. He wasn't a career civil servant and he'd been up to other things. And so the security vetting was clearly very important indeed. But the fact that this was fundamentally political, a political decision by the Prime Minister, driven as well by Morgan McSweeney, is evidenced by the fact that everyone in here knows that the Prime Minister wouldn't have signed off someone with Peter Mandelson's record to stand as a Labour candidate for a town council.

Yet he was eased into the incredibly important position of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ambassador to the United States of America. And I will give way. The hon. Member, for giving way. And I think he's getting to the nub And I think he's getting to the nub of the issue here. This is about fairness, fairness in society, and we tell everybody else outside of we tell everybody else outside of here who we make the rules for, play by the rules. But when you're in here yourself, when you're the in here yourself, when you're the chief man, you can do what you want.

And that is what's flying in the face of the vast majority of public.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

face of the vast majority of public. Would you agree? I totally agree with my with the hon. Member. And she makes a very powerful point. And that's why the public are so outraged. And it was a political appointment. And the reason the Prime Minister was so grateful to Mandelson was because the role that he and Morgan McSweeney played in getting him to be leader of the Labour Party. Through that organisation, Labour Together. And what was it that made them think that Peter Mandelson was such a wise political appointment? It was because of what Peter Mandelson represented.

Peter
16:16
Richard Burgon Portrait Richard Burgon MP (Leeds East, Labour)
-
-
Mandelson epitomised the idea that the role of the Labour Party isn't what it was set up to do, which is to be a voice for working class to be a voice for working class people and the trade union movement, speaking truth to power and changing society in the interests changing society in the interests of the many, not the few. But it is in fact an organisation that should in fact an organisation that should be closer and closer to the super rich and powerful. It is because of Mandelson's proximity to the super Mandelson's proximity to the super rich and to the powerful that he was appointed to that role.

And that's what led to decisions. And I'll come to the end. That's what led to decisions which has made the Prime Minister and the government unpopular. That's what's led to decisions like the cuts to the winter fuel payments, the cuts to disability benefits, because the idea, the vision that Mandelson put forward is one which is polluted our party, and that's why we need a full and independent investigation into Labour. Together, the organisation favoured by Mandelson, by McSweeney and which has dragged this party through the gutter.

And when we saw certain nefarious practices tested in our party, in opposition, now brought into government, that needs to change because otherwise where are we going to end up with? Is despair leading to the election of a Trump style government in this country led by reform, something which no decent person in this House should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

want to see happen? David Simmonds. Thank you, thank you, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I first crossed paths with the Prime Minister when he and I were both working to he and I were both working to improve the way our country deals with cases of child sexual exploitation, and one of the exploitation, and one of the principles which was enshrined in law across our society as a result of that was accountability. The golden thread between the leaders, managerial and political, and those who follow their instructions. And it was very clear that if you led an organisation where mistakes were made, if you ignored the warnings, you were accountable, or you created a culture in which those warnings were not properly shared, you were accountable.

And it is not at all clear why the Prime Minister, since all he learnt and all he did in those days, has decided to
16:18
16:18
16:18
David Simmonds Portrait David Simmonds MP (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, Conservative)
-
-
report. He was angry because he did not know. He wondered why the escalation process did not permit escalation process did not permit the case to be referred up to his office. Those words do not refer to office. Those words do not refer to anything to do with Peter Mandelson. They date to the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service not to proceed against Jimmy Saville, but those words in the Guardian could refer exactly to the matter that we are debating today. So I gently say to the members opposite, whilst past performance is not a guide to the future, this is a Prime Minister who has got form in deploying exactly this defence when caught out.

But, Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot let this debate pass without raising an issue which is of great concern to my many constituents who are workers at HMS warrior, the base in Northwood, just on the edge of my constituency. As my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition, has set out as a result of the Prime Minister's dismissive attitude to vetting the pressure he placed on officials. An individual was given access to intelligence. Intelligence on which my constituents rely to keep them safe when they are undertaking operations at a very high level of personal risk for the benefit and the long term interests of this country.

And the Prime Minister refuses to accept any accountability for the risks that his decision may have placed my constituents and their loved ones and so many other people who serve our country at. So I hope this Minister will be able, on behalf of the Prime Minister, to give the House an unambiguous assurance that whatever was shared with the Prime Minister, whatever was shared with Ministers, that the necessary minimum risk mitigations were put in place so that we can be confident at least that this government thought to try and keep my constituents and those who serve

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our country safe here. Liz Saville-Roberts yesterday, the Prime Minister apologised to the Prime Minister apologised to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. But where was that sense of responsibility when he made the decision regarding Peter Mandelson? decision regarding Peter Mandelson? And where was that sense of responsibility when he actively chose to ignore information that was already in the public domain? This morning, the energy secretary said Prime Ministers make errors. Prime Ministers are fallible, Prime Ministers are human. But I am struggling to understand how the gravity of misjudgement in this political appointment can be explained away by a simple human error.

This is not a split second judgement. This is not a decision made of urgent necessity under pressure in the heat of the moment.
16:21
Liz Saville Roberts Portrait Rt Hon Liz Saville Roberts MP (Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Plaid Cymru)
-
-
This was a deliberate, considered political appointment made in full knowledge of the political priorities involved. Morgan McSweeney even swore it through. What is more is that members on the opposite benches were given lines to take yesterday, prompted to quote a victim of Epstein in quote a victim of Epstein in defence of the Prime Minister. When Mandelson was appointed last year, their suffering was of no their suffering was of no consequence to the government. When they waded in the scales and found which side they wanted to come down on.

In truth, it is thanks to the bravery of victims like Virginia Giuffre that Epstein's crimes are even in the public domain. Her sister in law, Amanda Roberts, said this about Mandelson sacking last year. Our governments have allowed these people to hold their status and their title without shame. It is unfair. We continuously pull these skeletons out that survivors have to continuously point the finger for us to do the right thing. These were women and children who were trafficked and abused by a network of men who acted with confidence that they were untouchable, too powerful to challenge, and too protected ever to be brought down.

And truly, it raises the uncomfortable question of whether Peter Mandelson's familiarity with that world was treated as a skill set rather than a red flag. Was he chosen precisely because he was comfortable rubbing shoulders with the sort of men who shared private jets with Epstein, rather than in spite of it? So how can the Prime Minister now express sympathy for victims of crimes committed by a man whose closest associates he chose to elevate? How can he claim to share their pain when he made himself the very decision that caused such distress for them? And just this morning, Sir Olly Robbins told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that Downing Street asked the Foreign Office to find a senior diplomatic role for the Prime Minister's then communications chief, Matt Doyle.

Even though Doyle had campaigned for a friend charged with possessing indecent images of children. This is the government that promised to turn the page on Tory sleaze and restore trust and integrity to British politics instead, not once, but twice, the Prime Minister pressured the civil service to appoint friends of known sex offenders to senior diplomatic roles to close Madam Deputy Speaker the facts were known, the associations were known. The public record was clear. This was a public decision. It was a wrong decision of such magnitude that the only conclusion will will be to end the Starmer administration, and that is when the Labour Party, of course, decides to do it, because that is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Labour Party's responsibility. Katie Lam thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday my right Deputy Speaker. Yesterday my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition and I both asked the Prime Minister whether he knew Prime Minister whether he knew about Peter Mandelson's role as a director at Sistema when he appointed him to be the ambassador to the United States. Given that to the United States. Given that the Prime Minister didn't answer our question, then I will repeat the facts of that case and ask the the facts of that case and ask the Minister to clarify from 2013 until at least 2017, Peter Mandelson served as a director for Sistema, a Russian conglomerate which invests heavily in Russia's military industrial complex.

This means that Mandelson remained a director at Sistema after Russia's annexation of Crimea. It also means that he would have maintained close contacts with figures linked to the Russian government, including Sistema's former chairman Vladimir Yevtushenkov, who is currently subject to sanctions as a result of his links to Vladimir Putin. Any sensible Prime Minister would want
16:25
Katie Lam Portrait Katie Lam MP (Weald of Kent, Conservative)
-
-
to consider these facts carefully before appointing somebody to a sensitive diplomatic post, and would give proper consideration to would give proper consideration to whether those relationships would leave that person exposed to Russian influence. This is Russian influence. This is particularly true in the case of Peter Mandelson, who has a long history of improper financial history of improper financial conduct. In November 2024, the Cabinet Secretary advised the Prime Minister to conduct security Minister to conduct security vetting on prospective candidates before appointing anybody to the ambassador's post in Washington in December 2024.

The Prime Minister ignored that guidance and appointed Peter Mandelson anyway. In January 2025, the Prime Minister repeatedly insisted before the press and the public that Peter Mandelson had passed security vetting, despite the fact that was not the case. And when asked yesterday, he twice refused to confirm that he knew about Peter Mandelson's links to Sistema, despite the fact that the advice that he received in December 2024 explicitly pointed it out. That advice included the following quote. Mandelson served as a non-executive director of the Russian conglomerate Sistema, which is itself the majority shareholder of RTI, a defence technology company.

Mandelson remained on the board until June 2017, long after Putin's annexation of Crimea in 2014. So either the Prime Minister is still reluctant to share with us all the information we deserve, or he didn't read the advice that he was given. Despite insisting repeatedly that his decision to appoint Mandelson was based on that advice. So in light of this, could the Minister tell us definitively this afternoon whether the Prime Minister considered these facts about Peter Mandelson's role at systemic when appointing him yes or no? If he did not read his brief, and if he did, why did he not consider them sufficiently concerning to abandon or at the very least, pause, to reconsider the appointment of Peter Mandelson to arguably our most important and most security sensitive ambassadorial role? The Prime Minister has spoken extensively about what he did not know, but we and the British public are incredulous that he did not ask.

Yes, we do know that Prime Minister knew about these Russian links. So what questions did he ask about these facts? What questions did he ask officials? What questions did he ask Mandelson? Or did he simply not want to know?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, sir. Iain Duncan Smith Madam Deputy Speaker. Everybody said pretty much everything, but I'm going to say some of it again, as is my wont in this chamber. But I have to say, first of all, my congratulations to my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition, who laid out a powerful case against the government and particularly against government and particularly against the Prime Minister and his excuses in all of this. But today I thought we had something really very we had something really very intriguing take place, which is we had the person that had just been sacked, brought to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee to give testimony about what this was all about.

And what we really learned was how much that this government had wanted. For some reason, Peter Mandelson, to take over that job of being ambassador, that they drove everything aside in the pursuit of this bullying civil servants, essentially sacking one of them
16:28
Iain Duncan Smith Portrait Rt Hon Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP (Chingford and Woodford Green, Conservative)
-
-
because he didn't give the answers. It appears that they wanted and excusing themselves on the basis excusing themselves on the basis that everybody else was wrong. And they were right. Well, they weren't, and this has now come home to roost. and this has now come home to roost. And so the essential fact of this is, you know, many of us knew about Mandelson's activities. I have literally here a dossier on him about his links with China, about his links with China, hundreds of names to do with the people he had met and who he had been giving details of all sorts of things to.

We know now that he lobbied the government. He lobbied them over electric vehicles and the tariff. Outrageous. Really continue to put pressure on them. Even when he was given the job. That is the nature of the man still repaying his links back to China. And we've heard from my hon. Friend about his links with Sistema in Russia. But there is copious evidence even on those alone, why Peter Mandelson should never have been allowed in any government post whatsoever before.

Before there was any attempt to inspect that, it was in the public domain, and there is no way on earth that the right hon. Gentleman is going to get up here and talk about faults within the system and not getting clarity. Nonsense. Everybody that wanted to know knew we knew about it in the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance for China. We had all the details. They were published. There is no excuse for the government to say. We waited for the for the Foreign Office to deliver this great thing.

And they didn't tell us. Yeah, they knew, number one, they knew. And the second point about this is the way they manipulated this, which is shocking, absolutely shocking. The outgoing Cabinet secretary, after what he saw in the Cabinet Office's review of this, the due diligence, which, by the way, is not the same as what the Foreign Office was doing. This was a search through to have a look and recommendations to government. They showed just how tainted this man was, this corrupt man and corrupting man, how tainted he was and what he had been up to.

And seeing that he made the advice, the government, which is the job of a Cabinet secretary, that you shouldn't go ahead to a point. You should wait for this full review to take place and one way or the other for him to be cleared or not cleared. But the government didn't do that. And that's the other question. In what world would they go ahead despite that advice, sensible, reasonable advice, why do they press on? Not only do they press on, but at such speed.

And they put the king in the His Majesty, the King in the firing line on this. You know it's here. They approved the appointment, and it goes to the King because they now declared it, even though they haven't had clearance, the. The agreement has been given to the US partners. What in heaven's name could have happened later on? And none of the stuff to do with Epstein was even in the middle of this argument, which it would become. So the man is utterly corrupt and they want him as our ambassador, and he's given highly.

And this is the other bit about today that I found astonishing. The. The admission by the X Permanent Secretary Olly Robbins that he understood that despite the fact that he wasn't cleared, he had been given clearance to see documents of such importance that they could have brought the government and the country down. And I'm going to end on this. Madam Deputy Speaker because you've been most tolerant, I simply say this the Prime Minister is in the firing line on this one for very good reasons.

He's in charge and he knew what was going on. The people he sat are still in the firing line because they cannot weasel out of this. They committed an offence in the books of anybody in this single chamber. And the right hon. Gentleman will be in the firing line, because he's been put here to to literally try and tell some story about how this was none of the Prime Minister's fault. He is being economical with the actualité and terminally inexact, and all I can say is no more terminal there.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Dispatch Box doctor Ellie Chowns. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker And before I begin my remarks on the appointment of Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to the US, I just as UK ambassador to the US, I just want to stress my profound respect for the victims and survivors of for the victims and survivors of the disgusting child sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein. I very much hope
16:33
Ellie Chowns Portrait Dr Ellie Chowns MP (North Herefordshire, Green Party)
-
-
Jeffrey Epstein. I very much hope that they are in the minds of all of us in this chamber today as we debate this, and because we should remain mindful that the chain of events that has led us to this point, that has brought us here, actually stems from their bravery in standing up and speaking out to expose Epstein's crimes. Now, what's at stake here is actually the future of the Prime Minister. Certainly, questions of the Prime Minister's judgement, the Prime Minister's sole defence appears to be that he just wasn't told.

But it's clear that the Prime Minister, first of all, didn't understand the security vetting process and actually didn't want to understand that he didn't want to do the security vetting process in the first place. He created a culture of political pressure that overrode that process. And finally, he's thrown a civil servant under the bus for failures that should be placed very clearly at his own door. He didn't clearly understand the process. There was a process of UK SSEP doing the developed vetting, and then the Foreign Office, considering that now we've had Sir Olly Robbins giving evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee today saying that there was, you know, a degree of grey area, that it was borderline, that he only had a verbal briefing.

He didn't even see the piece of paper that made it clear that Uxv felt that Mandelson should not pass developed vetting. But Sir Olly Robbins says that he decided that there could be mitigations to be put in place in that system. This is clearly a process that the Prime Minister himself didn't understand, despite the fact it's at least one hon. Member had said today, it was very clearly notified to him in advance. The Prime Minister didn't even want to do this process again.

It's clear from Olly Robbins testimony today that there was a tussle between number ten and the Foreign Office about whether to undertake the vetting at all before Sir Olly Robbins took up his position with number ten, just wanting to rush through the appointment about it. And the previous Permanent Secretary had to really dig his heels in in order to insist that the vetting was done. And then the FCDO was subsequently hassled by number ten to get the appointment done before Trump's inauguration, without any curiosity or any caveats about whether the vetting was past, the Prime Minister asked no questions.

He displayed terminal professional incuriosity wilful ignorance, totally unacceptable. It's clear that no value was placed on the vetting process by number by number ten, despite the PM now claiming that he's completely staggered that he would that he was not told against it about it. Indeed, Olly Robbins today said that number ten had a dismissive attitude towards the vetting, and number ten put in place a culture that established, again, in the words of Mr. Robbins, a very, very strong expectation that vetting would be passed.

There was no culture of paying attention to due process. There was simply a culture of getting a political appointee in post as quickly as possible with the minimum minimal scrutiny. And it didn't just apply to Mendelsohn. It applied to, again, as we heard today from Olly Robbins Matthew Doyle, where a request came from number ten to put him into a political into a position without even informing the Foreign Secretary. And now the PM has a temper tantrum and sacks the civil servant because he's furious about this.

The country is furious with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has previously said he takes responsibility for mistakes made in his team, but there is no accountability on show today. There is no responsibility taken by the Prime Minister. This is just one of numerous errors of judgement by the Prime Minister. He should resign.
16:37
Sorcha Eastwood Portrait Sorcha Eastwood MP (Lagan Valley, Alliance)
-
-
Sorcha Eastwood thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Deputy Speaker. >> And others have already said you almost feel like everything has been said at this point. But one thing that strikes me in all of thing that strikes me in all of this is that this is called a House of Commons. Our job is to come here and represent the common person, and it is so far removed from the common person. This entire debate, as I said last night, if one of my constituents in Lagan Valley is accidentally overpaid on a benefit that's clawed back, no matter the cost to that person, the human cost that's clawed back right away, no questions asked, no special circumstances.

And we say that writ large across our public life. And the reason being is because we said that we valued a rules based ordered system. We wanted a society that was fair and we valued integrity and we valued trust. But more importantly, we wanted to understand that the people that came to this House were going to act in a way that was beyond reproach, that was going to act in a way that they expected everyone else across the UK to behave.

Neither guy disabled, accidentally parked in a parking space, didn't have his blue badge displayed, and he's getting hammered. He's getting hammered. Maybe he'll get off. Who knows. But we are dealing with the situation where the Prime Minister of the day is now saying that he regrets the appointment of Mandelson, and I'm not going to get into the whys and wherefores of DV and Strap and CTC and everything else, because my people in Lagan Valley don't know what that means, and a lot of people are banking on the ordinary man and woman on the street not to know what that means, and to stop being curious and to suspend their expectations, because this is all high falutin, serious stuff, and we don't really know what that is.

Maybe they did do right. Maybe they didn't do right because they're bamboozled. But I'm going to break it down for them. I would say this the Prime Minister, what was it about the twice disgraced paedophile adjacent, self-styled Prince of Darkness that you find so attractive to put into this plum job, not just of government, but of the United Kingdom on the world stage? What was it, Prime Minister, that appealed to you about Peter Mandelson? We still don't have the answer.

No, we still don't have the answer. No, but all I know is that my constituents are disgusted with all of this. And this isn't the first time. It's not the second time. It's not the third time. It has been going round in the merry go round, no matter who it is. And I'm really glad that the Member for Liverpool West Derby is in the chamber, because he has worked tirelessly to make sure that issues at the nub of this, the duty of candour, the obligation to be honest with the public, let alone your colleagues and the entire administration.

And yet we're telling families that they can't access documents for another 100 years due to a technicality. Why am I making that make sense to them? And I am indignant, and I am outraged. And a lot of people in this building are expecting us to no longer be outraged. We'll be outraged. Because if we can't prove that this works, we know who's going to step into the shadows. We know he's going to be out there setting the algorithms. We know who is going to be preying on the carcase of what was a once great democracy.

And we've seen other democracies fail. Let's not fool ourselves that the UK is immune from this. And the number one thing we can do within our gift is to show that we still value integrity. And for those reasons, there is not a single excuse that this government can come up with, that I can sell to my constituents or myself, that I will believe. And for those reasons, I believe that the Prime Minister needs to go not just for his own party, but more importantly, for the sake of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country. Not to Ben Spencer. Thank you, Madam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. I sat through yesterday over 2.5 hours of questions and responses to the questions and responses to the Prime Minister. Pretty much response is focussed on process when really what's fundamental to when really what's fundamental to the issue at hand is judgement and national security. Now, I really national security. Now, I really don't think you need to have some sort of fancy UK vetting or whatever it's called dossier, to
16:42
Ben Spencer Portrait Dr Ben Spencer MP (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
-
-
know that Mandelson is a risk to national security. But what's more, above and beyond the the impact on above and beyond the the impact on these. The victims of Epstein. It's these. The victims of Epstein. It's the fact that surely the FCDO and the machinery of government knew that the American administration that the American administration had information on Epstein had compromising information very likely on Epstein given Mandelson's close association with Epstein and they were going to appoint somebody to admittedly an ally, but nevertheless a foreign power to negotiate with that foreign power.

Very difficult critical negotiations, national interest, knowing it's highly likely that country has compromising information on that individual. That, for me is the most egregious fundamental failure in terms of protecting our national security. And we know and we have learned that this was a political decision. This was the Prime Minister's decision. But what more this reflects on all Ministers given collective responsibility. Yeah. Now I believe in forgiveness. I strongly believe in forgiveness. And the Prime Minister has come here and he has apologised of sorts.

It's been a very caveated apology. I didn't know people didn't tell me people lied and lied and lied to my team. We know apologies only count. They only have value. If you truly believe you did something wrong, the Prime Minister needs to finally show some leadership and take responsibility for his actions. For

**** Possible New Speaker ****

all of us. Yes. And solemn. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box for nearly 2.5 hours and he said on at least occasions that appointing Mandelson occasions that appointing Mandelson was an error of judgement. He apologised for it. He said he took responsibility for it. But at no responsibility for it. But at no point, not once in that 2.5 hours did he tell this House what his error of judgement was, or exactly where he went wrong.

In his reasoning, Madam Deputy Speaker,
16:44
Ian Sollom Portrait Ian Sollom MP (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
That distinction matters. Saying I should not have appointed him is a description of an outcome. It is not an account of a judgement. It's like saying I should not have like saying I should not have crashed the car without accounting for the actions that led to the crash, because whether the driver crash, because whether the driver was speeding or distracted or asleep at the wheel, the answer asleep at the wheel, the answer matters. It matters for understanding what went wrong. It matters for preventing it happening

**** Possible New Speaker ****

again, and it matters for judging whether the driver should still be behind the wheel. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. The difference is not a technicality. It is the difference between meaningful accountability between meaningful accountability and accountability that is merely performative between a Prime Minister who owns his decisions and Minister who owns his decisions and one who merely acknowledges them. Accountability to this House is not Accountability to this House is not a constitutional nicety. It is the condition on which this House and the people we all represent grant the government the authority to act at all.

We all know what was in the due diligence report the Prime Minister received in December 2020 for the twice resigned Minister, the China connections, the Russia connections, the Epstein association that continued after conviction. The Prime Minister received that report. He has confirmed he knew its contents, but he proceeded anyway. That was his judgement and it is that judgement, not the vetting process, not the Foreign Office chain of command, not Sir Olly Robbins, that this House has not been given an account of.

Instead, yesterday we received a detailed, exhaustive account of what officials failed to tell him. Yet the more exhaustive the catalogue of official failures becomes, the more completely the Prime Minister's own reasoning disappears from view. You cannot simultaneously claim an error of judgement and outsource its explanation to official failure. He has offered us an alibi instead of an explanation, an account that places him away from the scene of the crash. Yesterday's statement was a masterclass in process process that the Prime Minister was apparently unaware of.

It was not an account of a judgement. This morning, Olly Robbins Sir Olly Robbins told the Foreign Affairs Committee that number ten showed no interest in whether Mandelson would receive clearance only when that there was, in his words, a generally dismissive attitude to Mandelson's vetting, with focus only on getting him to Washington quickly. This is not a picture of a Prime Minister kept in the dark by officials. The alibi, it turns out, has witnesses, and they are not saying what the Prime Minister told us yesterday.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister has wide executive latitude. He is entitled to make difficult appointments. He is entitled to weigh competing considerations and reach conclusions that others would not reach. That is what governing requires that the latitude is not unconditional. It comes with a democratic obligation to account for his reasoning to this House and to the people we represent. Not to describe outcomes, not to catalogue process, but to explain his judgement. What did the Prime Minister weigh? What did he conclude? And where, in his reasoning did he think he went wrong? Yesterday he told us 12 times that he made an error of judgement, but he is not told us once what that error actually was.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

We still don't know how he crashed that car and this house demands an answer. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Gregory Stafford thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday's statement from the Prime Minister should have brought Prime Minister should have brought clarity. Instead, it has left this House with more questions than answers. And this isn't a narrow answers. And this isn't a narrow procedural issue. It goes to the judgement of the Prime Minister and it's really a disgrace. I think, it's really a disgrace. I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, that he's not here today to answer questions, perhaps the usual excuse that he wasn't told holds clear.

So let me begin, Madam Deputy Speaker, with the exchange I had with the Prime Minister yesterday, because it
16:49
Gregory Stafford Portrait Gregory Stafford MP (Farnham and Bordon, Conservative)
-
-
crystallises the problem. On the 4th of February, the Prime Minister told my right hon. Friend, the told my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition, that the vetting process had disclosed information relating to Epstein yesterday. He attempted to rope that back by saying he had conflated vetting with due diligence before then, insisting he diligence before then, insisting he understood the distinction. Those positions cannot comfortably sit together. No. If he understood the distinction, why give an answer that conflated the two? If he did not, why claim certainty at the despatch box? His defence that due diligence forms part of the wider process does not answer the question he was actually asked at the time.

And if that is not misleading the House. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is difficult to see what is, and that lack of clarity runs through the entire account. The Prime Minister confirmed that he chose not to follow the advice of his then Cabinet secretary, Lord Case, in November of 2024, to carry out vetting before he appointed Mandelson. That advice was clear and obvious. Instead, the Prime Minister now relies on a later review by Chris Wormald, which merely says the approach may be usual.

Not that it was right. So the question remains why was the advice rejected when it mattered? The Prime Minister's account of what he knew is equally difficult to reconcile. He says he had confidence the vetting process had addressed the most serious concerns yet. He also says he had not seen the vetting report. If you've not seen the report, on what basis did his confidence rest? If he was relying on the Cabinet Office due diligence paper, why was that not made clear at the time when he was specifically asked about security vetting, why was a direct question met with an answer that did not address it at all? The contents of the due diligence paper raised further questions.

It was highlighted the connections to Russian and Chinese interests. It referred to involvement with Sistema, a company embedded in Russia's industrial and military structures with well known links to the Kremlin aligned figures. This information wasn't hidden. It was in the public domain and placed directly before the Prime Minister in December 2024. So why did none of that trigger greater caution and more importantly, greater action? And most seriously of all, the Foreign Affairs Committee heard evidence from Sir Olly Robbins today, consistent with Mandelson being able to act in a role and have exposure to sensitive material before that process had concluded, and we also discovered the Prime Minister's team tried to put Matthew Doyle, another friend of a known paedophile, into an ambassadorial position.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are left with this. We still have no clear account of who knew what and when, no clarity on what decisions were taken, where responsibility, responsibility lay or how this situation was allowed to develop. But I think we do understand why this is about judgement. Time and time again, the Prime Minister has shown a willingness to appoint individuals despite serious concerns about their record. Yeah, a Transport Secretary with a fraud conviction, an anti-corruption Minister under investigation. Yeah, a homelessness Minister with a record that raises profound questions.

And the deputy Prime

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister who failed to meet her own tax obligations. Yeah. And in this case, despite

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And in this case, despite personal associations, that should have raised the most serious red flags, despite connections to flags, despite connections to hostile states and despite a long and controversial history in public life, the Prime Minister judged life, the Prime Minister judged Peter Mandelson to be a suitable candidate for one of the most sensitive ambassadorial roles sensitive ambassadorial roles because of his influence over the Labour Party and the Prime Minister himself. This is not a failure of process, it is a failure of judgement and with judgement like that, this Prime Minister is not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fit to lead this country for a moment longer. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Edward Morello Madam Deputy Speaker. This morning's Olly Robbins appeared in front of the Foreign appeared in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee. What I saw was a dedicated public servant who over 25 years has held some of the most 25 years has held some of the most senior roles in the civil service. The Prime Minister would like us to The Prime Minister would like us to believe that he was let down by officials like Sir Oli, but in truth, it was the officials who were let down by the Prime Minister.

They were let down by a Prime Minister who decided to appoint to the highest diplomatic post in the
16:53
Edward Morello Portrait Edward Morello MP (West Dorset, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Foreign Office a person with a known association with a convicted paedophile who had been forced out paedophile who had been forced out of government on previous occasions for personal failings. Having made that decision, number ten was that decision, number ten was determined to ram it through. We have heard of the repeated calls to Olly Robbins private office, demanding that they get it done and do it quickly. Number ten even went so far as to arguing that the so far as to arguing that the vetting process wasn't necessary at all.

It was the FCDO officials who insisted that the proper process be applied. It was thanks to that decision that there were risk mitigations in place at all. Other members have raised concerns about security, but if it wasn't for officials insisting on security vetting and the imposition of mitigations, how much worse would the national security risk have been to the UK? This is not the Prime Minister being let down by officials. It is officials clearing up the Prime Minister's mess. Mr. speaker, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister wants us to believe that the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US was a singular error of judgement.

However, we now know as a result of Sir Olly Robbins evidence, the number ten also sought an ambassadorial appointment for the Prime Minister's director of communications, Matthew Doyle, appointing one friend of the paedophile as an ambassador might be an error of judgement. Attempting to appoint two looks like no judgement at all. In his statement to the House yesterday, the Prime Minister says it beggars belief that officials in the Foreign Office saw fit to withhold information from Ministers. However, we have now learned that number ten, having sought an ambassadorial position for Matthew Doyle, ordered Sir Olly not to tell the Foreign Secretary about it at all.

On the one hand, the Prime Minister thinks officials should not withhold information. On the other hand, number ten are ordering officials to withhold information. Who is letting down who? Mr. Madam Deputy Speaker, today I saw a diligent, committed, proud and passionate civil servant who worked unbelievably hard for this country and for this Prime Minister. The Prime Minister may have found someone to fire, but the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson was his. The decision to ram that appointment through was his.

The decision to announce the appointment before security had been completed was his. The Prime Minister is running out of people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to fire. It is time he answered for them here. The Minister will be called at 5

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister will be called at 5 p.m. precisely so with the remaining time. Jim Allister. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday the focus of many members was asking the question of the Prime Minister why he never thought Prime Minister why he never thought to ask A whether Mandelson had had to ask A whether Mandelson had had security clearance. There was great reticence about asking that question, but today we discovered there was no such reticence in number ten when it came to trying to meddle in this process, we heard from Sir Olly Robbins this morning
16:56
Jim Allister Portrait Jim Allister KC MP (North Antrim, Traditional Unionist Voice)
-
-
that the message was very clear from number ten. The Prime Minister wants this done at pace. Prime Minister didn't tell us that yesterday. They said nothing to do with him. This was an independent with him. This was an independent process. Never once did he tell us that his officials told the Foreign that his officials told the Foreign Office this must be done at pace. We heard from sir this morning that there was an atmosphere of pressure from number ten, that throughout January there was constant pressure to get it done, some of it laced with expletives.

Get it done. And then Sarah Olney came to the point of telling us it would have been very difficult not to approve Mandelson that in the context of the meddling, of the pressure, of the insistence that it should be done and done at pace, and that in a context where the Cabinet Office even he reported, said there should be no need to vet Lord Mandelson. Think of it. The man twice dismissed the man with a litany of black marks against him as a public official and the Cabinet Office at the heart of this government, protested there was no need to vet a Mandelson.

What we had on display in the appointment of Mandelson was an unbridled, unabashed display of cronyism of the highest and most disgusting order, a corroborated by what at the very same time was happening in respect of Matthew Doyle. At the very same time, in the same early months of 2025, the Prime Minister, who wanted to rush through to get Mandelson approved, was also secretly behind the backs, not just of this parliament, behind the backs of his foreign secretary was seeing.

Could Matthew Doyle be found a ambassadorial post? But don't tell the Foreign Secretary that is the circumstance that prevailed in the Prime Minister's number ten. And yet he comes to this House and he tells us nothing to do with me, guv. People didn't tell me I'm innocent because I didn't know it was a lawyer. He should know. Ignorance is no defence, and as a lawyer, he should be. His training. His instinct should be to interrogate, not to cover up.

Sadly, what we've had in this case is a monumental failure. Not just a process, failure of character, failure of judgement, failure of leadership. And he should go.
17:00
Darren Jones Portrait Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)
-
-
Minister Darren Jones. >> Minister Darren Jones. >> Mr. Speaker, today's motion asks this House to consider the this House to consider the government's accountability to this place. Regarding Peter Mandelson's appointment, the government has been and remains fully committed to keeping the House informed of all relevant information related to Peter Mandelson's appointment and subsequent dismissal as ambassador to the United States government. Ministers have addressed this House on a number of occasions on this matter. The Prime Minister has set out to this House that while much of the debate on this issue has focussed on process, at the heart of all of this is the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson in the first place.

The Prime Minister has been upfront about that and takes responsibility for it. The Prime Minister knows that he should not have made the appointment. He regrets the decision and he apologises in particular to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein for doing so. Those women and girls have been subject to intolerable cruelty, disgusting abuse and yet to date, without justice and their experiences should be taken seriously and they should be listened to. So, Mr. Speaker, I do not come to the House today to defend that decision.

It was the wrong one. I am here, however, to account for the government's accountability to this House on the process that followed. Mr. speaker, I take the government's responsibility to this House seriously, and so I will not take this opportunity this evening to try to score party political points or to defend a decision that the Prime Minister himself has said is wrong and for which he apologises. But I do commit to returning to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this House as often as required. I give way. Poole for the Minister. Giving way. In taking.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In taking. This wrong decision. Did the Prime Minister. Follow due process?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Follow due process? Sarah Jones the Prime Minister followed the process that was in place, and I will turn to some of place, and I will turn to some of the details of that and the remainder of my status statement. Mr. speaker, on the 11th of March, Mr. speaker, on the 11th of March, I addressed the House in response to the Humble Address. As we release the first tranche of documents relating to Peter Mandelson's appointment and his subsequent dismissal, I committed to keep the House updated as we work to publish documents relevant to that Humble Address, and I recommit to do so today.

I would like to reassure the House that we are proceeding at pace to process the outstanding documents, a number of which are currently in the process of being reviewed by the Intelligence and Security Committee of this Parliament, with the aim of publishing the next tranche of documents as a matter of urgency in the debate. Mr. speaker, I was asked specifically about a question of redactions in respect to documents being published in relation to the Humble Address. I'll just be clear that redactions are visible on the face of the document by the black marking out of information.

If there is no marking out, it is not a redaction, and all redactions are agreed via the Intelligence and Security Committee before they come to this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House. Sure. I'm very grateful to. The right hon. Gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The right hon. Gentleman. For giving way. We've heard a lot from the other side today about process, but can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister Secretary to the Prime Minister please tell my constituents, tell please tell my constituents, tell the House and the country why? Why on earth did the Prime Minister appoint Peter Mandelson to be the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

appoint Peter Mandelson to be the ambassador to the United States? I refer you to the Prime Minister's. I prefer the hon. Gentleman to the Prime Minister's words, Mr. Speaker, but also to reiterate his apology for having made that wrong decision in the first place. Mr. speaker, I now move to the specific matter of security vetting, as the House heard from the Prime Minister yesterday on the evening of the 14th of April, he was told for the first time that last year, before Peter Mandelson took up his position as ambassador, that the Foreign Office had granted Peter Mandelson developed vetting clearance against the recommendation of the United Kingdom Security Vetting Authority UK s v I k Mr Speaker.

In the debate this evening, there have been accusations that the Cabinet Office had suggested that developed, vetted status or the process to seek that was not necessary. Those accusations are inaccurate. Mr. speaker, I can confirm to the House, based on advice that I've received, that a question was asked by the Foreign Foreign Office of the Cabinet Office team, whether on the basis that Peter Mandelson was already a member of the House of Lords and a Privy Counsellor. Whether further developed vetting status was required that then subsequently took place as members of the House.

Now the Foreign Office officials who made the decision to overrule the recommendation of UK s v, then failed to notify the Prime Minister, the Foreign secretary or her predecessor, the Deputy Prime Minister or any other Minister, including myself, including the former Cabinet secretary, Sir Chris Wormald. That has been confirmed today in evidence by Sir Olly Robbins to the Foreign Affairs

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Select Committee. I'll give way. I thank the Minister for giving way. I've been listening to this entire saga being described, and it is confusing, even for someone who's a Westminster insider in the Westminster bubble. Can I ask a Westminster bubble. Can I ask a question about process? Because he's mentioned the 14th of April, when the Prime Minister was notified that there had been a breach in the security vetting and it had been failed on one extent at it had been failed on one extent at that point, could he explain to me the process of what the Prime Minister would have had to do to gather all the information before coming to the House, so who would he have to speak to? What legal advice did he have to take? Who would he have to consult and what permission did he have to have? 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.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I thank my hon. Friend, as the Prime Minister has made clear to the House and indeed, by the the House and indeed, by the publication of a minute of the meeting in which he was informed of this information, the Prime Minister made it immediately clear Minister made it immediately clear to his officials that he intended to come to this House to inform members of Parliament of the members of Parliament of the situation that he had just been told, but that he needed an urgent set of information about who had made what decision when, in order to be able to provide the full facts to Parliament on Tuesday the 14th.

This is when the Prime Minister instructed officials to establish the facts urgently and, Mr. Speaker, 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 including when the decision to grant Peter Mandelson developed vetting status was initially made, but then subsequently, when the Prime Minister asked the former former Cabinet secretary to assure him that all due process had been followed and he had been assured of that, and then subsequently, when the Foreign Secretary and the then permanent secretary of the Foreign Office provided a signed statement to the Foreign Affairs Committee, confirming, and I quote Peter Mandelson, security vetting was conducted to the usual standard in line with established Cabinet Office policy.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Esther McVey. The Prime Minister has clearly said that he was right to sack the said that he was right to sack the senior civil servant, Oliver Robbins. So can the Minister guarantee that the government will guarantee that the government will contest any employment claim from Sir Oliver Robbins for unfair or constructive dismissal all the way to the Employment Tribunal, and to the Employment Tribunal, and will not use taxpayers money to pay off this gentleman to avoid that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

outcome. The hon. Lady will know I'm not at liberty to comment in respect of any potential claim to the Employment Tribunal. Peter Mandelson security vetting was Mandelson security vetting was carried out by UK SSEP between the 23rd of December 2024 and the 28th of January 2025. This included collecting relevant information and interviewing the applicant in this case on two occasions. The one issue was raised in the debate about this particular time period, where there is suggestion that number ten applied pressure on officials at the Foreign Office in relation to the security vetting process.

It was confirmed in testimony today before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that no such pressure was applied beyond asking for the process to be completed as quickly as possible, and by Sir Olly Robbins that no personal contact was made of him by a telephone or message. Testimony from the official himself in in front of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. Then on the 28th of January 2025, UK, S.v recommended to the Foreign Office that develop vetting clearance should not be granted to Peter Mandelson.

The following day, on the 29th of January 2025, Foreign Office officials made the decision to grant developed vetting clearance for Peter Mandelson. Nonetheless, this was an established process for the Foreign Office, which had the authority to be able to make those decisions. And it is worth reiterating this this for the sake of clarity, as the Prime Minister did yesterday, that UK CSV makes decisions for many departments in government, but not for the Foreign Office. The final decision on developed vetting clearance is made by Foreign Office officials, not by UK CSV.

When I became aware of the details of Peter Mandelson's case following the publication of Guardian Reporting last Thursday, I was then briefed on this matter that evening at the Cabinet Office by officials, both in respect of the case of Peter Mandelson, but also the existing policy regarding UK s v recommendations and the Foreign Office's decisions. I immediately suspended the right for the Foreign Office to overrule UK s v recommendations pending further investigation. And in reply to my hon. Friend from Halesowen, I can confirm that the review that Adrian Fulford will be conducting for the government should be completed in around four weeks, so that we can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

take quick decision to the proper functioning of the process. For the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For the. Giving way. Actually, in his his letter, Ollie Robinson's letter to letter, Ollie Robinson's letter to the committee today, he actually countermands what the hon. Gentleman said from the despatch Gentleman said from the despatch box. He says, I believe the Cabinet Office raised whether vetting was actually necessary. I understand actually necessary. I understand the FCDO insisted that it was the requirement before Mandelson took

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the post to Washington. After their due diligence, they were insisting it wasn't necessary. Surely he needs to retract. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. I repeat my words and refer back to them. Mr. speaker, much has been said about the ability of officials to disclose sensitive vetting information. As the Prime Minister information. As the Prime Minister has set out, I accept that the sensitive personal information provided by an individual being vetted must be protected from disclosure. If that were not the case, the integrity of the whole process would be compromised. However, what neither the Prime Minister nor I accept is that the appointing Minister cannot be told of the recommendation made by UK.

S.V. nor does the government accept that Foreign Office officials could not have informed the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary or the Cabinet Secretary of UK S's recommendation, whilst also maintaining the necessary confidentiality? That vetting requires. The Civil Service code on this issue is clear not just normal practice, but especially in relation to a minister's giving evidence to Parliament, as was the case via correspondence from the current Foreign Secretary to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. There is no law that stops civil servants sensibly flagging UKSC recommendations while protecting detailed, sensitive vetting information to allow Ministers to make judgements on appointments or to explain matters to Parliament.

Mr. speaker, the government has also changed the direct ministerial appointments process so that due diligence is now required as standard. The Prime Minister has also changed the process so that public announcements about direct ministerial appointments can now not be made until security vetting has been completed. Mr. speaker, clearly what came to light about Peter Mandelson following the release of files by the United States Department of Justice was deeply disturbing. In February this year, the Prime Minister instructed officials to carry out a review of the national security vetting process to ensure it is fit for purpose.

I can confirm, Mr. Speaker, that the terms of reference for that review have now been updated to include the means by which all decisions are made in relation to national security vetting. The government has appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead this review and, for completeness, has separately asked the government security group in the Cabinet Office to look at any security concerns raised during Peter Mandelson's tenure as ambassador to the United States. In answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, we will publish terms of reference and the government commits to returning to the House on its findings and recommendations.

Mr. speaker, just two other questions that were raised during the debate. One, there has been accusations made of the Prime Minister, both in this House of misleading and outside of this House of lying that has been shown today by evidence in the Foreign Affairs Select Committee to be not true in any way, and I am sure the House will be as concerned as I am that whilst officials felt unable to provide this information to Ministers, this information was made available to the Guardian newspaper.

As a consequence of that, I can confirm that a leak inquiry is now underway. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I thank right Honourable and hon. Members for their contributions to today's debate. This is my sixth address to this House on the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States of America. I recognise the House will want to know about the next steps in respect of the publication of the remainder of the information relevant to the Humble Address that was not included in the first tranche.

I commit to the House that we will release this further material shortly. Subject to the process is ongoing with the Metropolitan Police and the Intelligence and Security Committee, and we will continue to keep members updated as we make progress. Mr. speaker, I commend the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

statement to the House. Leader of the Opposition Kemi Badenoch.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Badenoch. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and let me start by thanking members from across the House for speaking in across the House for speaking in this debate today. We heard many, many powerful statements. I'm many powerful statements. I'm particularly grateful to the many speakers on my side, including the members for Chingford, Ruislip, members for Chingford, Ruislip, Goole, Maldon and Weald. I found myself nodding along to the Member for Leeds East the first time. I think that has ever happened. But you know, Mr.

Speaker, we heard very, very good speeches from the the Member for North Herefordshire from Lagan Valley East Wiltshire, Saint Neots, North Antrim. This is this is membership from all sides of the House giving powerful statements, members of all parties who know that this story doesn't add up. We have also heard some statements supporting the Prime Minister, which can only be described as brave. As I said when I opened the debate, I do feel for
17:15
Kemi Badenoch Portrait Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP (North West Essex, Conservative)
-
-
the Minister sent here today on the Prime Minister's behalf. He is the latest person to have to carry the can for the Prime Minister's can for the Prime Minister's mistakes. He could never have given this House the answers it deserved to hear about what is, at its core, a failure of the Prime Minister's judgement, a failure of the Prime judgement, a failure of the Prime Minister to follow process, and a shocking failure of the Prime Minister to take responsibility for Minister to take responsibility for his own mistakes, not just apologise.

Take responsibility. The Minister could not answer why the Prime Minister decided to appoint Peter Mandelson to our most important diplomatic role, despite many members asking in full knowledge from the due diligence that Mandelson was a security risk, he could not answer why the Prime Minister chose to ignore the Cabinet Secretary and appoint Peter Mandelson before he received vetting. That was clearly not the process at the time, despite what the Minister is saying at the despatch box, he's saying they changed the process.

The advice in November 2024 was to carry out the security vetting. So what process are they changing? One, he's just making up. He could not answer why the Prime Minister put the Foreign Office under constant pressure to approve the appointment. He could not answer why number ten were dismissive of the entire vetting process. He could not answer why. Number ten also asked for the disgraced Matthew Doyle to be made an ambassador and hid this from the Foreign secretary, and he could not answer why the Prime Minister sacked Olly Robbins if he was following a process which he claims was there already.

It doesn't make any sense. He couldn't answer because only one man can. That man is not here today. I do not know whether he thinks he is above answering these questions. Will try again tomorrow. I do not know whether he still somehow thinks that he did nothing wrong. But I'll tell you what I do know. The Prime Minister has put the country's national security at risk. He is not fit for office. He must take responsibility. It is time for him to go.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. The question is, as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper as many of that opinion say I. The contrary. No, I think the ayes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. The ayes have it. Point of order point of order. Richard Baker thank you, Mr. Speaker, and firstly, I'd like to Speaker, and firstly, I'd like to apologise for not being able to give you advance notice of this
17:18
17:19
17:19
Miatta Fahnbulleh Portrait Miatta Fahnbulleh MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Peckham, Labour )
-
-
>> Who said that Ian Minister move. >> Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. This

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. This government was elected with a clear mandate to deliver change, but to deliver change that people can see and feel. We must empower our communities. So we are determined to build a different type of state where local leaders and communities with real skin in the game are given power and control to shape the things that matter in their place and in their lives. Our English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill is a critical, bold step to deliver this, driving the biggest transfer of power out of Whitehall to our regions and our communities in a generation.

It sets a floor for devolution, and we intend to build on the foundation set out in this bill to give communities the power, the control they are demanding to drive the change that they want to see in their place. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for giving way. She will be aware that at the moment there are elections that we're in. The election campaign for Surrey The election campaign for Surrey West and Surrey East unitary as a consequence of this bill, and we still haven't had an announcement still haven't had an announcement yet whether we will get a Murphy, Surrey, which is critical for Surrey, which is critical for protecting our greenbelt if the Conservatives do not retain power after these elections. Can she after these elections.

Can she update the House today on the importance of protecting our green belts and getting a mayor for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Surrey? Who can do so? Yeah. Thank you to the hon. Member.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you to the hon. Member. The question of Unitisation is being dealt an. Applications have been made and the government is been made and the government is going through the process and looking at the objective criteria. No doubt the hon. Member has had No doubt the hon. Member has had many conversations with my colleague, the Minister for housing colleague, the Minister for housing on these matters. I will, however, try to focus his mind and his attention on the key premise of this bill, which is community empowerment and devolution and the amendments that we are discussing here.

But before going to the amendments, I want to thank my noble friend, Baroness Taylor, for so ably guiding the bill through the other place and put on record my appreciation to all those peers who contributed to its scrutiny. So let me begin with the government's amendment that was made in the other place, following the insightful contribution of peers in the Other place Lords, amendment one adds culture as a distinct area of competence within clause two of the bill, by including culture as a distinct area of competence, the government is sending a clear signal of the role that strategic authorities can and should continue to play in supporting cultural initiatives, as well as recognising the important role that culture in its many forms, plays an enriching the quality of life and supporting local economic growth.

We are also improving the operational flexibility of Commissioner model introduced by the Bill. Lords amendment three and five increase potential appointments of commissioners up to ten and Lord amendment 125 127 129, 131, 33 and 135. Allow more than one commissioner to operate in a single area of competence. The next group of important changes the government made in the Other place concern local accountability and scrutiny. Government committed to exploring a local Public Accounts Committee model in the English Devolution White Paper.

This recognised that greater powers afforded for local scrutiny are needed to reflect the increased scale of responsibility which will be devolved to strategic authorities through the Bill. To that end, Lords Amendment seven, 137 and 138 introduced local scrutiny committees, which will place overview and scrutiny committees in Wirral. Combined and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

combined county Authorities. Local scrutiny committees will provide an enhanced scrutiny regime with stronger oversight and a broader remit to reflect the scale of responsibilities and the greater of responsibilities and the greater teeth to hold mayors to account at Commons report. Government introduced amendments to the bill, introduced amendments to the bill, which would amend the Licensing Act 2003 and introduce a new strategic licensing role for the Mayor of London. This included an amendment to create a new duty on the Mayor of London to determine and publish a new strategic licensing policy.

I will. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for being so responsive to the concerns that I and colleagues in London have shared with her about strategic licensing, and in that respect, may I confirm it's not the government's attention for an application to be attention for an application to be treated as a potential strategic importance solely by reason of its location within the London Plan designation or a London mayoral policy area, but instead, in deciding whether a licensing application is a potential strategic importance, the government intends that regard must be had to the residential character of the immediately affected area and to the evidence of the local

**** Possible New Speaker ****

licensing authority. Thank you to my hon. Friend for raising this important question and raising this important question and for his ongoing engagement in this. Let me take his question in turn, in the context of the set of things that we are trying to do through that we are trying to do through this bill. So, look, the government is really clear, and Baroness Taylor made this very clear. The Taylor made this very clear. The other place that we recognise that the licensing authority are often best placed to make licensing decisions based on their local knowledge.

So in that context, the evidence provided by the licensing authority will have a significant role in both the design of the policy, but the determination of strategic importance, potential way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. One of. The areas that's been talked about is the is the ability for scrutiny bodies to take decisions. scrutiny bodies to take decisions. And the challenge in London is that it has to move to a two thirds majority making decision now. The majority making decision now. The amendment or the suggestion was put forward that this could be changed and brought in line with the other authorities. So it's got simple

**** Possible New Speaker ****

majority voting. Would the Minister agree that we've missed an opportunity to do this here? Madam Deputy Speaker, I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, I will come back to that point because it speaks to a particular amendment I'd like to speak to, but I do want to fully address the point that has been made on particularly the call in powers with regards to licensing. And look, my hon. Friend, as well as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, Hackney South and Shoreditch, Vauxhall and Camberwell Green Dulwich and West Norwood have provided very clear, insightful feedback, constructive engagement and they have done a fantastic job, I may say, of representing the concerns of their constituents.

And so let me reassure them on all the key points that they have raised. This amendment will be embedded within the 2003 Licensing Act, and I think it is very important to put that on record. The licensing objectives, which seek to protect and safeguard local communities will apply, and the mayor will be required to have regard to them. When exercising the powers conferred through this amendment, the government is also incredibly clear that there must be the right balance between encouraging the growth of hospitality in the night time economy, which we want to do, but also protecting the needs of local community and their place.

And the safeguarding and the reassurance that's required is locked into the way that we have designed this policy. Local licensing authorities have said, will continue to be the default decision maker, and therefore the mayor must have regard to the evidence that they are providing to determine the decisions that they make. And finally, and crucially, where cumulative impact zones have been designated by boroughs, this will remain the case. And the mayor must have regard to the cumulative impact assessment. So we hope we have designed this in a way that provides that balance between growth, but critically, residential amenity and safeguarding the protection of the local community.

And as we designed the detail around potential strategic importance, we are committed to working with members across the House as well as our licensing authorities, to ensure that we get this right on pavement parking, which affects communities across the country and disproportionately harms people with mobility or sight impairment, as well as those with prams or pushchairs who rely on safe, accessible pavements to move around independently. This government is committed to creating safer, more inclusive streets. Lords Library, 41 and 158 will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations under which English local transport authorities would be able to prohibit the parking of motor vehicles on pavements in their area.

This will include detail on how local transport authorities will exercise the power to prohibit pavement parking, which vehicles would be excluded and permissive exemptions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will give. Way for that. For giving way. I'm just wondering, with these new powers wondering, with these new powers being handed to local transport authorities, will there come funding to actually enforce these new measures and obligations that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the council is getting? We have a policy that wherever there are new powers that are conferred, whether to local conferred, whether to local authorities or combined authorities, the new burden principle is in place. And in designing this place. And in designing this particular policy, we will work really closely with local authorities to ensure that we are doing enforcement in a way that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

actually bites for our communities in the way that they want to see. On that. Point, I will give way and then

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Point, I will give way and then I will try and make progress. I do thank you for giving me, and I think any progress on banning pavement parking is progress. So absolutely welcome that. So will guidance be given to local authorities and how that could work? authorities and how that could work? We've got a ban in Edinburgh and has been transformative, so hopefully we can look to there for some examples of how this could some examples of how this could work.

And also, you did mention the hon. Lady did mention exemptions. Will the government be mandating any exemptions centrally, or is that entirely up to local authorities to make that decision?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister thank you to my hon. Friend. We will be learning from the insights in Edinburgh and other places that have applied this. We will be providing further details will be providing further details and guidance on how this could work, and in doing that, we will try and strike the balance between setting out an overall framework that out an overall framework that enables places to put this in place, but allowing places to be able to use their discretion, their local use their discretion, their local knowledge to make sure that it works in their interest.

On private taxis and private hire vehicles. Madam Deputy Speaker. Whilst we agree with Baroness Casey's view, expressed in her report published last year that the vast majority of trades where the drivers, vehicle proprietors or private hire vehicle operators are hard working and law abiding people who take pride in their work. It is right that there are enforcement powers available to prevent those few that seek to abuse their position of trust and pose a risk to the public. Lords amendment 43 to 79 provide that any licensing authority may temporarily suspend with immediate effect any licence, whether it was issued by that authority or by any other in England that is being exercised in its area, where necessary, to address a risk to public safety.

This new clause places certain duties and obligations on the licensing authority in terms of how these new powers will work, for example, the length of the suspension and what action the authority that issued the licence might take. But other details, such as the content of the suspension notices, are to be set out in secondary legislation. We acknowledge the suspension powers may impact licensees livelihoods, and they can only be used where in the immediate suspension of the licence is judged necessary in the interests of public safety.

Nevertheless, powers have been taken to set out in secondary legislation any legislation, an appeals process and to enable compensation to be payable by licensing authorities in certain circumstances. The amendments in the other place also support the effective application of national standards, placing a duty on all authorities in England to report

**** Possible New Speaker ****

breaches of them to the authority that issued the relevant licence. I will give way. Thanks.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thanks. I'm very grateful to her for giving way. I think she's slightly brushed over a min 41 on Agents of brushed over a min 41 on Agents of Change, and this is an excellent bill, but I do think it's disappointing that the government is rejecting amendment 41. If we is rejecting amendment 41. If we want to properly protect our beloved music venues, pubs, cultural institutions, we need cultural institutions, we need measures with teeth. Agent of change works in Scotland works in statute.

The measures don't really work in England at the moment. I had hoped that the government might put in an amendment in lieu on this issue. There's still time, I guess, but if not, I know she's going to say that they're looking at the government, looking at the planning policy framework. Can I just encourage the strongest possible protections in that for venues that I've talked about?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Thank you to my hon. Friend, and I will be touching on a Lords I will be touching on a Lords Amendment 41 and 95, which, as he says, places the agent change principle on a statutory footing within the planning and licensing and statutory nuisance regime. This and statutory nuisance regime. This is a principle that, you know, look, whilst I and the government respects the concerns raised in the other place and the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised, that in some cases, new homes are adversely affecting existing businesses and cultural venues in their vicinity.

We are not persuaded that this amendment is necessary, given the changes in progress to the planning system already. The agent of change principle is already firmly embedded within the national planning policy, and both the licensing and the statutory nuisance framework give local decision makers the flexibility to factor it in, where relevant to the circumstances of particular cases. We are furthermore already considering changes to strengthen this duty because we recognise the arguments that he has made. And as the House will be aware, we recently consulted on a new National planning Policy Framework which would strengthen this policy and will ensure that the principle is effectively applied to protect businesses whilst building the houses of the country desperately needs.

So today I can commit to publishing updated planning policy guidance on the agent of change following the publication of the final National Planning Policy Framework, and this guidance will ensure consistency in application of the principle and a fair approach across local planning authorities. And so I hope this will be enough to satisfy my hon. Friend, and I do urge the House to disagree with Lords Amendment 41. If I may, Madam Deputy Speaker turn to statutory trusts. I want to address Lords amendment on statutory trust.

Moved by Lord banner. It fixes a current gap in the law where land held on statutory trust was previously appropriated or disposed of without complying with the statutory advertisement requirements under the Local Government Act, 1972. The law currently provides no legal mechanism to resolve this situation, resulting in a difficult and protracted legal wranglings. Whilst this will only apply in a very small number of cases, this government does not believe historic procedural errors should be left unresolved, especially when that risk preventing the delivery of environmental improvements or improvements to community facilities.

I'll make a little bit of progress and then I will give way. Look, this amendment creates a mechanism for the Secretary of State to intervene in these rare cases to determine whether the land should remain in statutory trust or be disposed of. Crucially, the amendment does not it does not weaken protections for public recreational land. It introduces a rigorous evidence based process overseen by the Secretary of State, with strict qualifying conditions and robust publicity requirements. It has a broad public interest test at its heart, which includes environmental and heritage considerations.

By providing a clear route to fix the gap in the law that we see, the amendment ensures that decisions about land previously held for public enjoyment are taken in the interest of public of the public, and for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those reasons, the government does support the amendment. I will give way. For the Minister for. Giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Giving way. With respect, can I correct the Minister? There is a process by which it can be corrected. The land can be reconveyed to the local authority and then the correct process carried out. Does the process carried out. Does the Minister agree with me the weakness of the amendment? Lord Banner's amendment is that the local authority has no role to play in authority has no role to play in the process they should have used. The local authority has a role to play.

This is moving from localism back to centralised government making decisions. Is that not wrong?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister Madam Deputy Speaker I disagree with him because ultimately it is still the responsibility of local authority. What this amendment is trying to get to is those specific cases where the local authority has not where the local authority has not applied the proper process to dispose of land, and then we are in a limbo, and this creates a mechanism in which to resolve it. But ultimately, there is a process in place for local authorities to choose to dispose of land or maintain them in statutory trust, and that is not affected by this.

This is trying to get to those situations where that hasn't been discharged properly, and there is currently a gap in the legislation that we hope that this amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

briefly. But then there are two remedies.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But then there are two remedies. One is to one is to convey the land to the local authority, to do it correctly, or to bring an amendment that uses the local, gives the that uses the local, gives the local authority a role to play. The local authority has no role to play in this amendment. That's why in this amendment. That's why you're moving from localism to ministerial fiat. That's what's wrong with the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wrong with the amendment. Madam Deputy Speaker What I would say is that ultimately, whether it is in the planning system or in other systems, the ability to in issues where we have a contentious situation, because there is a disagreement, because a local authority has not discharged its responsibilities in terms of disposing of of statutory trusts where you have it. And it's contentious at the moment, we are in limbo. And what this does is create a mechanism by which by which that can be resolved.

But we're very, very clear there are strict criteria that are put in place. There are clear safeguards that are put in place, and ultimately the Secretary of State will opine and come to a decision based on what is in the public interest and the ability for the community to be able to make representation is very clear and very firmly built into the way that we are designing this policy. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will try and make progress, and I will move now on to amendments made by peers in the other place.

Look, whilst we welcome the scrutiny and challenge provided and are willing to make sensible concessions in some areas, most of the amendments in question serve to undermine the core principles of the Bill, and for that reason we cannot accept them. And let me be clear precisely why in each instance where that is the case, starting with Lords Amendment two, this amendment seeks to include rural affairs as a standalone area of competence for strategic authorities, peers and the Other place highlighted the distinct challenges facing our rural communities, from public transport through to employment opportunities through to affordable housing.

The government recognises these challenges and agrees with many of the points that were made in the other place. However, we cannot accept this amendment because we consider it unnecessary. The areas of competence have been deliberately framed in broad terms, allowing a wide range of activities to fall within scope, including matters relating to rural affairs, from transport through to local infrastructure to housing. The existing area of competence already allow for strategic authorities to address rural needs where relevant and crucially, this is now being borne out.

So, for example, in York and North Yorkshire, Combined Authority is already piloting affordable rural housing. So there is no disagreement on policy. The government recognises the role the strategic authorities can play in supporting our rural communities. Given this, I'm happy to commit to bringing forward non-statutory guidance to support strategic authorities in delivering for rural communities using the powers and functions that they have been given on Lords Amendment four. It seeks to ensure that appointments of commissioners by mayors are made through a fair and open selection process.

On this, we agree this is why the government has published statutory guidance which sets out the selection and appointment and renumeration process, and we hope by doing this. This satisfies the points that were raised in the other House. If I move to Lords amendments 13 and 87, which reduced the threshold needed for London Assembly to amend the Mayor of London's final draft Budget from a two thirds majority to a simple majority, which was the point that the hon. Member was making. It is the government's intention to simplify and ensure there is consistency in voting arrangements across all of our strategic authorities, including the Greater London Authority.

For most decisions, the default will become a simple majority, but this does not apply to mayoral budgets, which will continue to require a two thirds majority to amend. So given that mayors and combined authorities may only have their budgets amended by two thirds majority, the government believes that this amendment would bring scrutiny of London's mayoral Budget out of line with other strategic authorities. And for this reason, and for this reason, we do not support this amendment and we urge the House to overturn these amendments.

I will I will make progress, if I may, Lord. Amendments 26 and 89 would require that mayors, combined authorities and county authorities may only designate greenfield land for development, where it is satisfied that no suitable brownfield land exists. The government is strongly committed to a brownfield first approach, and has been clear that brownfield land should be the first port of call. To further support this ambition, the National Planning Policy Framework was revised in December 2024 to set out the proposals for brownfield development should normally be approved.

We also explained I will make a little bit more progress, if I may. We also expanded the definition of previously developed land in the framework to include large areas of hard standing, better reflecting land that is already developed. We are looking to go further still in our support for brownfield development as part of our most consultation, most recent consultation on changes to National Planning Policy Framework, which closed in March, the government strongly promotes the policy, so there isn't a disagreement on policy here.

However, brownfield sites vary greatly and need to be both available and in the right place to support sustainable development and meet the needs of the community. Imposing such a requirement in legislation rather than in policy, which is what we do across all aspects of the planning system, as this amendment seeks to do, would be unduly rigid, likely to delay land coming forward for development

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and support sustainable development. In some cases, I will give way. Grateful to the hon. Lady for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I'm conscious we don't have a huge amount of time this evening, but when it comes to brownfield, first, if this Labour government was really serious about brownfield, first, she would accept brownfield, first, she would accept this amendment from the House of Lords because this is exactly about making sure developers develop on making sure developers develop on that sort of land first, and it protects communities and the environment in areas like mine that are coming under attack from her government's 20,000 homes that they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

want to impose on Warsaw. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm not going to resile from the fact that going to resile from the fact that we want to build more homes. We have a housing crisis. We absolutely need to build more homes across the country. But we are across the country. But we are agreed. We are agreed on the principle of brownfield. First, our argument, our argument is, as we do argument, our argument is, as we do across all aspects of the planning system from local authorities, it system from local authorities, it should be done in policy.

It is far too rigid to be put on the face of the Bill. And so we have strengthened the national policy framework to deliver that policy intent, and we hope that that will reassure and satisfy members, both in this House and members in the other place. Now, if I may very briefly turn to Lords, amendments 36 155 and 90, removing the provision in the Bill relating to local authority, governance and executives, the government continues to hold a strong preference for executive models of governance and in particular the leader and Cabinet model, which is already operated successfully by 80% of councils.

For this reason, I will make progress. We cannot accept the amendment made. In the other place, the government's provisions are intended to bring greater clarity and consistency in local authority governance across England. However, we have heard and we have responded to the genuine concerns of members in this chamber and noble Lords in other places. On certain aspects of this policy. Members will recall that a Commons Report stage the government brought forward its own amendment to allow those councils that have all that have more recently adopted the committee system, following a Council resolution or referendum, to continue with those arrangements until the end of the moratorium period.

We believe that this strikes the right balance, and so we do not think that the amendments are necessary. And then finally, let me just turn to Lords Amendment 37 and 91, which requires the Secretary of State to develop and implement a strategy for parish governance in England. Let me put on record. We absolutely see the important role of parish councils and parish and town councils, and we are clear that they will have a role within the neighbourhood governance system that we will be rolling out through clause 60.

And so we do not think that the amendment that is proposed is necessary, but what we are committed to is ensuring that we are very clear with an amendment in lieu, that neighbourhood governance structures may include town and parish councils. We are also pleased to commit to updating the existing Community Governance Review guidance to reflect examples of good practice for local authorities. I will have to make progress unless I incur the wrath of Madam Deputy Speaker. And finally, finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Group of amendments 85, 86, 97 to 116 and 120 to 121 and 23, collectively seek to remove the Secretary of State's power to direct the establishment or the expansion of a combined authority or combined county authority, or to provide for a mayor.

In certain circumstances. The government has been clear that devolution has the potential to drive growth. We've also been incredibly clear that we will always seek to make sure that these partnerships are locally living, locally driven, and I hope that the evidence, both the new combined authorities we have established in recent weeks, but also from our invitation to all areas to form foundation strategic authorities suggest that we are taking a local, first driven approach. I am happy to. I will make progress.

I am happy to give the House a commitment that the government will not commence these ministerial powers of direction for. When we get Royal Assent for two years following Royal Assent. Nor will it use the powers to provide for a mayor without local consent for a period of four years following Royal assent, and I hope that this will reassure members in the House. So, to conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, many amendments for us to work through together in this debate, but I hope the House has seen that we are willing to engage with amendments that we think enhance the bill, but we cannot and we will not accept amendments which undermine the core principles of the bill, which is fundamentally to make sure that we're giving local authorities, local leaders and communities the powers that they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deserve. I therefore urge the House to support the government's position. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment to, and I call Shadow Secretary of State James Cleverly. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are today considering the Lords We are today considering the Lords amendments to the devolution Bill. So I begin by recognising the work that has taken place in both houses that has taken place in both houses to try and improve this legislation, which is in many ways such a curate's egg. And there are faults and flaws which there are Lordships in the Other place have worked towards improving. I'd like to thank them for that work, but we on this side of the House have been clear throughout the passage of the
17:48
James Cleverly Portrait Rt Hon Sir James Cleverly MP (Braintree, Conservative)
-
-
Bill that this is a centralising bill. It takes decisions away from local communities and places them into the hands of Ministers, often without consent. And we've already seen the consequences of this seen the consequences of this centralising power. And government knows best attitude. We've seen elections cancelled and then reinstated. We've seen restructuring of local government imposed from the centre, driven by political considerations rather than the voice of the Independent Boundary Commission's local leaders, presented with plans and told to comply.

It's called a devolution bill, but it is not devolution. So we welcome the improvements to this bill that have been put forward by the Lords. The question before the House, however, remains simple does this bill empower local areas or does it continue a pattern of centralised control? So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will go through the amendments in turn. I turned first to Lords Amendment 36. This is an important and practical improvement to the bill which we support.

It establishes clear principles. Brownfield land should be used first. This is just common sense. We want to get more houses built. Of course we do. But if. But if we are to get more houses built, we should start with land that has already been used rather than virgin land. This amendment protects communities while still enabling homes to be built with local improvement and local consent. I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just briefly, the right hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. And in the West Midlands, point. And in the West Midlands, under the leadership of Andy Street, it was proven that you can regenerate on brownfield site. You've done it in the Walsall borough. The government has to be prepared, as we did in government, to put some funding into it to to put some funding into it to unlock these sites. It can be win win, develop the brownfield sites, win, develop the brownfield sites, regenerate our towns and cities, create the housing that young people want as well as old, and protect the green belt, the green spaces for as long as we possibly can, so that communities such as the ones I represent and 600 people came out last weekend to protest about the government's measures,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can enjoy the amenity of life and that they currently do. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My right hon. Friend is is absolutely right. And this, I mean, it's fundamentally betrays a lack of ambition by the government. The of ambition by the government. The hon. Gentleman for Greenwich and Woolwich, he will know Kidbrooke in south east London, a fantastic example of previously developed land, poor quality post-Second World war tower blocks, redeveloped, increased beauty, increased density, good for the local economy, good for the local society. But this does nothing to encourage more developments like that.

But what it does do is encourage developers to build cheap and awful in, in in in green fields, around urban areas, which is the opposite of what should happen. So let's talk about local consent. No, let's talk about local consent. Lords amendment 98 addresses one of the central concerns with this bill. It ensures that changes to local governance cannot simply be imposed from the centre, and this matters because devolution must be with consent of local people not imposed from Whitehall on commissioners.

This issue has been rightly scrutinised by the Lords in Lords Amendment four, which strengthens transparency around the appointment of mayoral commissioners. And we we have consistently argued that power must come with proper accountability. Following engagement with colleagues in the other place. The government has now published draft guidance on appointments and remuneration. This is welcome, but the guidance is not the same as proper accountability, and there remains a real risk of expanding layers of unelected roles, expensive and unelected roles without sufficient scrutiny, and we will continue to press for further and stronger safeguards on London governments.

Lords amendment 13 makes a targeted change to how decisions are taken on council tax requirement, and it lowers the threshold, a point that was made by my hon. Friend, who is no longer, sadly, in his place. It lowers the threshold for the Assembly to amend those decisions, strengthen it, strengthening its ability to hold the mayor to account. This is a step towards greater democratic accountability in London, and we support it. Madam Deputy Speaker, whilst we support these improvements, concerns do remain on Lords Amendment 42.

We have been clear about the need for proper safeguards. We argued that any change in this area must be preceded by a full review. The government promised a wider review of protections for public open spaces, and that they would engage widely before recommending any changes. But those commitments have been watered down, those commitments have been watered down and suddenly we discover that rather than a proper consultation, it has become an internal review. This is why we have again tabled an amendment to require a proper review of open space availability before these powers were exercised.

I will give way because I have a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thing to say about your party. I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he agree that the amendment the Tories have tabled would do nothing? Actually, just a tick box exercise and allow the tick box exercise and allow the amendment to pass. After the Minister had regard to the report, why didn't the Tory party vote why didn't the Tory party vote against this amendment, given that their amendment didn't pass? Why did they not vote against the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment? Lord Banner's amendment? Madam Deputy Speaker, I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment of this and had his party in the other place actually voted to keep these protections in. We wouldn't have this discussion at this Dispatch Box now, his party, his party, failed to do their work in the other place. And I'm not going to stand here and be lectured. I'm not going to stand here and be lectured by his party who failed to do their job.

Madam Deputy Speaker, Madam Deputy Speaker, The pattern here is familiar. The government centralises powers first and then considers accountability later. The amendments before us represent sensible improvements. We will support them where they do. But the underlining concern with this bill remains, and the concern is this devolution must trust local people in local areas and in so many ways this Bill does not. Devolution only works when there is proper transparency in decision making and proper safeguards.

When powers are expanded. And in many ways this bill does not. And that is what we will continue to press for, and that is why we will continue to hold this Labour government to account, because this Bill has serious consequences. It is currently still deficient and we will support the Lords in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments which they have put forward to improve this bill. LSIP Blundell.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

LSIP Blundell. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The implications of this legislation will be significant for legislation will be significant for communities across the country and it is therefore crucial that we get it right. I would like to begin by paying tribute to Eamonn Boylan, who sadly passed away earlier this month. A pivotal figure for Greater month. A pivotal figure for Greater Manchester's devolution journey. During his time as chief executive of the Combined Authority, he understood that the more power we obtain, both regionally and locally, the more we can deliver.

And Aman
17:57
Elsie Blundell Portrait Mrs Elsie Blundell MP (Heywood and Middleton North, Labour)
-
-
certainly helped Greater Manchester to deliver following the progress made by the likes of Sir Howard made by the likes of Sir Howard Bernstein and Sir Richard Leese. We in Greater Manchester have been at the forefront of progress in this area and we have been focussed on area and we have been focussed on one thing making tangible improvements to the lives of those who elect us. This Labour government must be radical in its approach to devolution, bringing power closer to people, not power closer to people, not hoarding it in this place.

And we must future proof this government's achievements from those who would seek to undermine and unravel our progress. We need to ensure that the transfer of power to our communities is permanent. From adding culture as a devolved competence to strengthening restrictions on gambling premises, there is much to welcome in these amendments. Madam Deputy Speaker, today I would like to cover amendments related to private hire vehicles, both in terms of National Standards and Lords amendments, 55 to 62 in relation to enforcement powers for drivers operating in other areas.

I previously tabled an amendment on this matter that I believe would have empowered mayoral strategic authorities to require private hire vehicle drivers to license within their region. This would have brought licensing, enforcement and monitoring closer to home, and would have forged stronger ties between drivers and the communities they serve. I would like to acknowledge the efforts of Baroness Pidgeon, who sought, as I did, to phase out Out-of-area operations. I nonetheless welcome the steps that the government, in the form of Lords amendments, has taken towards this in enabling licensing authorities to take enforcement action against the five licenced out of area and to temporarily suspend licenses.

I especially welcome the steps that these amendments take to improve information sharing between licensing authorities on the conduct of individual drivers. Well, I do support this step and the government's work on national standards. We must acknowledge that the system at large will still be characterised by Out-of-area operations. I commend what the government is seeking to do, but if we are to bring about better processes when it comes to enforcement, we need to incentivise or perhaps mandate drivers to licence locally and therefore disincentivize drivers from taking shortcuts to obtaining a licence hundreds of miles away from where they wish to operate.

Even now that there will be a clear line of communication between licensing authorities, a lack of local knowledge, context and history will all mean that decisions could still be made in a vacuum. My constituents would agree that local enforcement measures are best carried out by authorities who have this local understanding, and that despite the best efforts and intentions, there will still be things that officers in Wolverhampton and Sefton can never know about what's going on in my borough of Rochdale. I would appreciate the Minister's views on this and whether, in their view, gaps in enforcement could still remain and what the government plans to do about this.

As we know, enforcement is generally funded by licensing revenue. But in Greater Manchester, for example, around 50% of FPS are licensed elsewhere to avoid our rigorous standards and fees, limiting this revenue, which could be utilised for enforcement. Can the Minister please also set out how they will ensure licensing authorities have the adequate funding in place to effectively utilise the new enforcement powers that will result from this bill? As I made clear earlier during Report stage, Madam Deputy Speaker, The private hire and taxi sector is critical to our regional economies, but for too long, the safety of passengers and the ability of licensing authorities to do their job has been undermined by a model that is not fit for purpose.

And I hope that the measures being considered today are a stepping stone on the path towards both ending out-of-area working and keeping passengers and drivers safe in causing. Madam Deputy Speaker, devolution has been a bedrock of growth in Greater Manchester and going further can only help us go faster. From transport policy to regeneration to the coordination it takes at a regional and local level to keep my constituents healthy and safe. As I make clear in my opening remarks, the more autonomy we obtain, the more we can deliver.

And this is why this legislation cannot represent the heights of our ambition or an end to the journey. But the next step. My constituents in Heywood and Middleton North are tired of top down policy making, and I hope that this bill is implemented with the backing it needs so that we can finally dismantle the structures that have failed our regions for decades. Further progress in areas such as ending Out-of-area private hire vehicle operations would assure constituents like mine of the government's intent, and I look

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward to seeing more progress in this area, hopefully in the form of additional primary legislation. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Liberal Democrat spokesperson Zoe Franklin. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to start by thanking colleagues in the other place who have worked tirelessly to improve this bill right across the House, this bill right across the House, but in particular, the Liberal Democrat peers Baroness Pigeon, Lord Foster of Bath, Baroness Lord Foster of Bath, Baroness Bakewell and Lord Shipley. As we on the Liberal Democrat benches have said throughout the passage of this bill, while it has potential, it does not amount to true devolution and I sincerely hope that after the King's Speech we will see more real devolution and more on neighbourhood governance.

What this bill offers is power handed down with strings attached, shaped and constrained by central government rather than genuine trusting to local communities. And the government's response to the Lords amendments before us only reinforces that fact. The government says this bill rebalances power away from Whitehall, but their response to the amendments tells a different story, resisting even the most modest steps that would give local areas more clarity, flexibility and control. I believe these are the real hallmarks of devolution.

So let me start where I feel our power is being withheld. So our Lords Amendment two would ensure that rural affairs are properly recognised when the competences of strategic authorities. The government says this is unnecessary and that non-statutory guidance will be suffice. And I do appreciate the Minister that has moved forward on this issue. However, I take the view that without clear legal requirement, rural areas risk being overlooked as they too often are at the moment. There must be a duty either on the face of the bill or through statutory guidance, to ensure that rural communities are properly considered.

Non-statutory guidance, sadly, can be ignored. It requires, it creates no obligation and this really matters. Rural areas are already under pressure, facing higher delivery costs and feeling the strain of the recent funding review. Without a clear duty, they risk once again becoming an afterthought. We see the same pattern when we look at how power is exercised. Lords amendment four would ensure transparency in the appointment of mayoral commissioners. The government again sends that there. There were. Work is enough, but these are unelected positions with real influence.

Transparency should never be optional in any layer of government. The guidance speaks of visibility and accountability, yet says nothing about merit based selection. There are concerns about patronage and they are quietly acknowledged, but they are not being addressed structurally. If the government believes appointments should be fair and open. And that is what I firmly believe, and I think we can quite clearly see the public expect. The government should have no hesitation in putting that principle into law. So turning to my colleague in the Lords, Baroness pigeons, Lord amendment 13, which would strengthen democratic oversight of the Mayor of London's Budget, just very briefly and very simply, a two thirds majority threshold is not a safeguard.

It is a barrier to effective scrutiny. A simple majority isn't radical. It is. Democratic Londoners deserve an assembly that can genuinely hold the mayor to account. We also see the government's lack of devolution and how decisions are shaped on the ground in terms of planning, Lords amendment 26 would genuine Bradford East brownfield first approach in the government's achieves this, but the reality is very different. Developers are often incentivised to build on green belt or green fields because it's quicker and cheaper.

The reality in my own constituency is the majority of large planning applications are coming forward on green belt and grey belt. This is undermining public trust in development altogether. People recognise that we need more homes, people want more homes, but the way they see it happening is undermining their trust in the process. Brownfield sites may be more complex, but but they come with infrastructure, they come with connectivity, they come for the connectivity, they come for the opportunity for real regeneration. Once again, if the government is serious, that priority should be reflected in law, not left to policy alone.

I will give way.
18:06
Zöe Franklin Portrait Zöe Franklin MP (Guildford, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thank you. I'm grateful to the hon. Lady because she makes a very important point, which I think she knows I have a lot of sympathy with in in my in my area, it's estimated that 5000 homes alone could be unlocked because of, of if we had a proper brownfield first approach to, to planning. Does she agree with me that this is the whole issue around housing is not about a lack of land, but it's about a lack of funding to regenerate some of these sites and a lack of political will from this government and a lack of a little bit of ambition.

Look at brownfield sites, look at the empty buildings, and look again at the housing targets that have been arbitrarily put on areas which will do nothing to to protect us from urban sprawl.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. For her intervention. I certainly recognise the fact when it comes to brownfield, first it comes to brownfield, first development in my own constituency, where an area where in the town centre we could deliver homes at the moment that is prevented by the fact that we do not have the money to progress that pace with the necessary flood alleviation scheme. necessary flood alleviation scheme. So we will be voting to support the Lords in this amendment. We need to Lords in this amendment.

We need to keep this in the Bill. Turning to local government structures, and perhaps this is the clearest example of how democracy itself is not actually being devolved by the government. Our Lords Amendment 36 would allow local authorities to determine their own governance structures, and instead, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government insists on imposing a single model from the centre. At that point. Would the hon. Lady give way? I will give way. I'm grateful to the will give way. I'm grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. Green led Bristol City Council recently received glowing peer review from received glowing peer review from the Local Government Association this month, specifically noting how moving to a committee system has moving to a committee system has strengthened democratic engagement and transparency. It also, by the way, enables cross-party cooperation and an honourable cooperation and an honourable mention to the local Lib Dems in Bristol there.

So does the hon. Lady agree with me that if independent, non-political reviewers can see the benefits, then the government should not be imposing the more tribal, less cooperative leader and Cabinet model on councils.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank. Him for her intervention, and she's absolutely right. We saw in she's absolutely right. We saw in the last Labour government how the Labour government actually imposed the Cabinet structure on councils up and down the country, and up and down the country, and actually true devolution puts the power of choice in local government's methods in the hands government's methods in the hands of local people, and therefore as an approach that doesn't allow local government councils to change local government councils to change towards that committee system is the wrong approach and is not devolution.

You simply cannot claim to devolve power while denying local areas the ability to keep the system they have chosen or they wish to choose. So I ask the Minister, can she clarify whether councils with the committee system will be able to stay as a committee system, and whether she will actually consider allowing other councils to change to the committee system should the local team, the local council team and local people wish to? Turning to Lords Amendment 37, which introduced a national strategy to support and expand parish and town councils, the government say this should be left entirely to local decision making.

But this isn't about removing local choice, it's about whether communities are even given the opportunity in the first place to really understand what a parish council could mean. Without a national strategy, there's no direction, no support, no momentum to expand parish governance. I have seen in my own community and my own constituency the power of a parish council. Parish councils give residents a direct voice. They ensure development works with communities not against them. And at a time when councils are becoming larger and more distant, parish councils keep power close to the people.

I think one of the most compelling things about parish councils is that where they exist and how they have a local neighbourhood plan. 25% of CIL goes directly to that local community, where there isn't a parish council

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that drops to 15%, which is then held centrally. The honourable. Lady gave way. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give way. Honourable. Lady for. Giving way on this point. And can I congratulate the Conservative Lords for insisting on this particular amendment, although I wonder if the Shadow Minister might have a word with the Surrey Heath have a word with the Surrey Heath Conservative Association, who have campaigned vigorously against parish councils in my area, parish councils in my area, describing parish councils as gravy trains that allow most councillors to do very little, if anything, at all and collect a financial allowance.

However, setting that inconsistency to one side, can I ask my hon. Friend whether she agrees with me that in the context of local government reorganisation in Surrey, where we have a new West Surrey with 650,000 people and which will be bankrupt on day one, that parish councils actually represent an incredible receptacle through which to move key local

**** Possible New Speaker ****

assets so they can be secured for the future. I thank my hon. Friend for his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I couldn't agree more. Madam Deputy Speaker We can see in parishes across the country see in parishes across the country how giving them the parish, the community assets allows them to look after those assets for the look after those assets for the community. I'm in a massive advocate for both that approach, but also town and parish councils but also town and parish councils as a whole. And I think one of the final areas of reluctance that we see from the government when it comes to devolving power is around laws.

Amendment 41, the agent of change principle. And I would just like to declare an interest that I am a vice chair of the APPG for music, but it has shown me, and I've seen it in my own community, that the wonderful power of bringing together the live music venues have. And this amendment is so crucial to protecting community assets and live music venues. So I really wonder if she can advise whether the guidance she has mentioned will be statutory or non-statutory.

We on these benches will be voting to support our laws colleagues. So finally, I want to end in the spirit of positivity about what we can do when we work collaboratively, and that is in reference to Lords Amendment 18, which is co-sponsored by my Lords colleague Lord Foster of Bath with the government. And it really, genuinely shows what we can do when we work across across these benches to improve legislation. At best, good ideas do not belong to one side. And this amendment, I think, really reflects that.

But I will end on my central point, which is this bill asks us to believe that it delivers devolution, but devolution cannot simply mean the limited powers Ministers are willing to relinquish, while so much remains held or controlled by Whitehall. If you do not trust local communities and their elected leaders with real authority, real decision making and real agency, then you have not really devolved power at all. That is why these Lords amendments matter, and that is why we will oppose the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government's attempts to remove them. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And we'll start with a five

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And we'll start with a five minute time limit. Doctor Beccy Cooper thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker So my own area of Sussex is Speaker So my own area of Sussex is on the fast track devolution programme and whilst this brings challenges and inevitably, inevitably means that there are parts of the plane we are still building whilst we learn to fly, I nevertheless think that my for my nevertheless think that my for my constituency is in Worthing West and for all residents in Sussex.

This devolution of power and resources has the potential to transform our area in terms of health, education, housing, transport and sustainable economic development. So in this debate today, I would like to concentrate my remarks on amendment 80. Given the shortness of time, which strengthens the ability of licensing licensing authorities in England, Scotland and Wales to issue cumulative impact assessments or gambling impact assessments. This amendment will give councils a clear, evidence based tool to assess the cumulative impact of adult gaming centres and identify areas where further gambling

**** Possible New Speaker ****

premises would undermine local licensing objectives, including vulnerability and clustering. We should give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We should give way. I will of course. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Crewe in my.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Crewe in my. Constituency is currently facing proposals for yet another adult gambling centre, which I have personally objected to, and I wonder if she agrees with me that strengthening gambling impact assessments, as well as the wider proposals in the pride in place strategy, allow areas like Crewe and other places in the country to actively shape our high streets. And does she also agree with me And does she also agree with me that it is now incumbent on local authorities to proactively take up those powers?
18:14
Beccy Cooper Portrait Dr Beccy Cooper MP (Worthing West, Labour)
-
-
I thank my hon. Friend and I absolutely, wholeheartedly agree with what he says. And I should say that actually, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. I am an officer of the APPG for gambling harm, so we have been doing significant work on gathering evidence in this area over the past 18 months. Going back to adult gaming centres and identifying areas that have significant vulnerability, I would like to say that the sad truth of the matter is that adult gaming centres are predominantly found in highest numbers in our poorest areas, and areas of deprivation need investment, employment and development, not a drain on resources and an open door to the black hole of addiction.

However, this amendment is only the start of what we need to do in this area in order to create environments where our populations can thrive. AIM to permit remains and will hold attention with gambling impact assessments, as it means that councils must still start from a presumption of granting licences, limiting their ability to respond to community opposition, high street saturation and local priorities. Even in areas where there are clear concerns about overconcentration of gambling venues. The licensing committee in my own area and Worthing Council have recently turned down yet another request for a gambling premises on our high street, but this has now gone to appeal, and the presumption of aim to permit means that the balance of evidence is more difficult to hold, even with sound public health and local economic development arguments.

We must therefore continue to develop our legislative approach in this area. Once the impact of gambling assessments has been assessed. We should make a decision on bringing forward legislation to remove aim to permit to give councils the right powers to protect and develop our local areas. And alongside this, as the impact assessments and aim to permit, will only refer to the opening of new centres, we must also ensure that current licences are not being abused and that licensing codes are upheld.

This amendment speaks to our national and local government desire to pass and enact legislation that lets people thrive in the places where we live, creating a healthy democracy with clear objectives and properly resourced, alongside legislation that allows local government to protect populations from harm and create healthy environments, is an integral part of this devolution bill, and I very much welcome it for both my area of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sussex and across our country. Lewis Cocking. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the interest of time, I will try and keep my remarks short and just speak to a number of amendments proposed by the Other place. I'd first like to start by speaking in favour of amendment 26, which is brownfield first. Now, if this Labour Government were well and truly a brownfield first Labour government, then they would support government, then they would support this amendment and support it being put in the Bill.

Broxbourne has had its fair share of development, but targets are going up and up. This Labour government have increased Broxbourne housing targets by 22%, whilst decreasing them in London by 11%. That is not fair and that is creating the. In the village of Gosport, which is under attack. Loads of urban sprawl on green spaces and on the green belt, which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is what this government should be trying to protect. I will give way to my right hon. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to my hon. Friend, because the point of urban sprawl is exactly the point that greenbelt is exactly the point that greenbelt was put in place. Greenbelt. The purpose of greenbelt was to protect areas such as mine and my hon. areas such as mine and my hon. Friend and many others that are on the periphery of some of the biggest conurbations and urban biggest conurbations and urban areas from urban sprawl. Does he agree with me? This Labour government does not care about our communities.

All it cares about is an arbitrary housing target.
18:18
Lewis Cocking Portrait Lewis Cocking MP (Broxbourne, Conservative)
-
-
My right hon. Friend makes a fantastic point and she is an excellent campaigner to protect the greenbelt within her constituency. And it leads me on to say the greenbelt around London was set up after the Second World War to protect the peripheries from urban sprawl, just like she is next to a big city. Mine is next to London, and now the government are coming forward with a new town right in the heart of this green space that this greenfields that was meant to be protected after the Second World War of 21,000 new homes at Crews Hill.

So effectively joining my constituency to the urban sprawl of London. My constituency is completely different to London, and that green belt needs to be protected, and it is a crucial buffer zone between the urban sprawl that is coming out of London and the ruralness of Hertfordshire and London communities, and I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my fellow committee member for giving way. I do agree with him with his criticism of the Labour government. But does he also agree with me that the Conservatives have an appalling record on defending our greenbelt and our environment in my constituency of Woking? It was the conservative government's planning policy that follows the release of Green Belt in Whitehall in West Byfleet, to have this urban sprawl

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Byfleet, to have this urban sprawl that he's now speaking so strongly against. Gently, just like to say to my committee member, there are some horrific examples of some Liberal Democrat controlled councils who are building all over the greenbelt. So I don't think it's a I don't think it's one to preach from from the sidelines, although I do have a great respect for my hon. Friend. So it's really important that we put this on the face of the bill, because we must protect the greenbelt at all costs, and development should be brownfield first, because, as has been pointed out already, brownfield sites are more often than not connected by the transport.

Links do have local facilities where the green fields and green belt does not. And as I've said, my my constituency is under attack from ever increasing housing targets, up by 22%, while London is down 11%. And now we're even under attack by new Town of 21,000 new homes. And we're told that this location is such a good location for a new town. It's such a good location to build on the greenbelt. It's because it's near good transport links. Well, I've driven on the A10, the M25 at rush hour as I welcome the Minister to do, and it is chock a block, it is absolutely rammed.

So I don't know why these 21,000 people are going to drive their drive, their cars on the local infrastructure because because it just simply it just simply will not cope. And as I said, the village of Oak in my constituency is completely under attack by development on the greenbelt, which is why this amendment is so important. And as I've made the point on my my Select Committee, there are thousands of unbuilt planning applications on brownfield site up and down the country.

Now, rather than concreting over the greenbelt, this Labour government should be focusing on making developers build on those brownfield sites that they already have planning permission for the next amendment. I would like to speak on is is the pavement parking. So I do welcome the government accepting some of these amendments from the House of Lords, because I'm incredibly frustrated with pavement parking across my constituency. Just last week, I saw reckless pavement parking in Chesham, where all four wheels of the car were on the pavement.

You couldn't get by in a buggy, you couldn't get by in a wheelchair. And we must hold these people that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

park recklessly to account. I will very briefly on that point. It's very brief. I thank the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's very brief. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support of the government's actions to give local authorities powers to ban pavement parking. Does he agree pavement parking. Does he agree with me, particularly for those with disability? This is a real

**** Possible New Speaker ****

problem. And also those who don't are blind. Yeah, complete. I completely agree and I suspect it's an issue that lots of us face it's an issue that lots of us face across this chamber. So I do agree with the hon. Lady. I mean, where this where these amendments go wrong is that the government plans to give these regulations to local transport authorities rather than district councils, because at the moment in my area, it's the district councils that do parking enforcement. So we're going to have one authority with the powers to enforce and do pavement parking.

We're going to have one authority with the parking enforcement teams, and that just doesn't seem like a joined up approach. And we shouldn't have to wait for these local transport authorities and these combined authorities and metro mayors to get in place. Without doing this, the government could have brought forward a simple legislation to give powers to councils that are outside London, the same powers that London councils have, and they could effectively be able to issue Pcns yellow tickets and be able to control pavement parking throughout the country.

Then lastly, I'll just finish my remarks on consent for local government reorganisation. I'm sure lots of lots of hon. Members are out and about speaking to their constituents in the local election campaign. Not one has raised comments with me about the consent for local government reorganisation. Not one of my residents I've spoken to across my constituency of Broxbourne wants to be put into a combined authority, wants to have a mayor, wants to move into a unitary local government system and there is no evidence.

And I was on the bill committee. We have seen no evidence at all that the changes in local government structures actually bring about more money for local councils, better services for residents. It's just the government using its powers to force local government reorganisation in this country. That's why local councils have replied to letters from the Minister because there have been forced to do so. So that is why this is really important part of this bill, and we should allow local people to have a say over what structures they have in their local communities.

As I've said, I don't think any one of us will go out in this local election campaign and be spoke, speak to residents on the doorstep, and they raised with us, do you know what Lewes? What I really want in in Broxbourne is I want you to change the local council structures. I want a devolved mayor. I want a combined authority that actually want more effective local government that's connected to the people. And, and we hear lots of lots of chanting opposite. But there is no evidence that any of this will save any money.

In actual fact, this being forced on my constituents in Broxbourne, we've got the lowest parish council tax in the country run by Broxbourne conservative run Broxbourne Council. Through this bill and through what the government's proposing, they're actually forcing my residents to pay more and higher council tax. That is not I'm not in favour of more taxation. The best people to spend their money in Broxbourne are the residents and my constituents of Broxbourne rather than the council. So I urge the government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to accept those amendments and listen to local people. Joe Powell thank you, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Joe Powell thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it's a pleasure to follow my former colleague on the on the Select Committee. This bill is packed full of exciting bill is packed full of exciting measures, but in the interests of time, I want to speak just on one which is in support of Government which is in support of Government Amendment 80 to introduce gambling impact assessments. Now, many members of this House will be members of this House will be familiar with what has become almost a gambling takeover of high streets across the country.

What used to be a rarity is now all too common. Slot machine casinos often open 24 over seven, strategically located in some of the poorest neighbourhoods in the country, crowding out other local businesses. Despite often vociferous local opposition. And when residents and councils do try to resist it, it's often futile. These companies have become experts at manipulating the planning process. They submit applications, then they withdraw them, then they re-apply, and they oppose even the smallest restrictions to their operations. restrictions to their operations.

This grinds down local opposition and forces councils to spend money on legal battles that they could lose. So you can see why the incentives are being to give up and incentives are being to give up and grant permission. And I will give way to.
18:26
Joe Powell Portrait Joe Powell MP (Kensington and Bayswater, Labour)
-
-
Thank the honourable. constituency in Crystal Palace. I'm campaigning against 24 hour gambling casino. The communities don't want it. And the same company that applied were fined £1 million in January for failing to safeguard vulnerable people. Does he agree with me that ending the aim to permit rule and creating a presumption to reject in specific areas will force my conservative run council and others to either listen to residents and make themselves clear. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I've also been frustrated with my conservative run council in not taking a more proactive approach to resist these applications, and I'm sure the Minister will come back to him on on aim to permit as a next step.

But for today, I think these gambling cumulative impact assessments are going to be a really useful tool. And I think to admit defeat and accept the continued and inevitable decline of our high streets, whether that is dodgy shops not paying their tax, the involvement with serious organised crime that we know exists and these adult gaming centres is defeatism. And I think this bill starts to reject that defeatism. And I know lots of my constituents in Kensington and Bayswater are really passionate about this issue.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Giving way, he describes across my own constituency, we have many vape shops. Does he believe that in the future, similar powers to this gambling impact assessment could be brought in to try and bring a healthier high street, not only

**** Possible New Speaker ****

healthier high street, not only licensing powers for gambling, but also for vape shops. Thank my for that intervention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank my for that intervention. And she's right. Pride in place has to mean pride in our high streets, and that means tackling all sorts of different illegality, but also about supporting the independent businesses that might take those premises up. It's obviously no good if we just have empty premises and the high street is devoid of anything. So this has to be a strategy. And I know the government has a high street strategy that the Minister has, I'm sure, working on for later this year.

And I just want to talk about one briefly, one case study. Madam Deputy Speaker, The residents in Earls Court have provided a textbook example of community organising to resist adult gaming centres. Two already operate Admiral and Silver Time alongside two traditional betting shops, which themselves, of course, now make approximately half of their revenue from machine gaming. But they are not satisfied with this footprint. They want more. Admiral is trying to move to a 24 over seven operation, but were refused permission to do this last year after the Earl's Court Society and other resident groups joined with local councillors and I to push back.

But we still expect an appeal. Silver time have purchased a former bank site opposite the tube station, which would significantly expand the footprint and give them a prime site with triple the frontage. And just last week, after a major local campaign, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea officers did recommend refusal, which was endorsed by the planning committee. That is a rare win, but an appeal is again likely. And for context, this neighbourhood of Earl's Court has five specialist hostels for people with complex needs three methadone dispensing chemists and has long been a hotspot for anti-social behaviour and crime.

And it's also an area dense with schools, with thousands of children passing through the area on their way in every day. A young man I met recently, who wanted to remain anonymous, said every lunch break, his friends remove their uniform and head to these gaming centres and that the peer pressure to participate is exceptionally high. So it is no accident that Admiral and Silva10 are attempting to expand in this area. But my message to them is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clear we don't want your adult gaming centres full stop. Well. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Think we I'm most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and as he knows, we have a neighbouring constituency to my constituency. constituency to my constituency. The North End Road area of Fulham is a designated gambling vulnerability zone, identified as such by the Council. It borders the. And West Kensington Estates, which are both in the bottom deciles nationally for deprivation and nationally for deprivation and income. And this is no coincidence the Council is doing what it can within the current legal framework.

But does he agree that councils remain constrained by the law and this new Bill will help? I completely agree, and I actually was with other councillors from London, from Brent, with the hon. Member for for Brent East earlier today, who similarly have tried to use creative methods to to restrict these opening but have really struggled and they really welcome these impact assessments. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, In the interest of time, it's my sincere hope that these gambling impact assessments will start to tilt the balance back to communities and away from these companies.

These formal assessments must help communities like ours, where too many gambling venues already exist and the harms are already clear to see. We need these preventative powers, not just reactive regulations and law enforcement, to clean up the problem after the fact. So I strongly support this amendment,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I look forward to the day that it comes into force. On a. Three minute speaking limit. Vikki Slade thank you, Madam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Vikki Slade thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. I am pleased the government supports the principle of. Banning pavement. Parking and giving local

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Parking and giving local authorities new powers, assuming they come with new burdens funding. However, this amendment giving the However, this amendment giving the powers without a national framework risks risk confusion with inconsistent enforcement, frustrated residents and unfair frustrated residents and unfair pressure to frontline staff. We need a ban to be done across the country, with embedded changes to the Highway Code and a public information campaign shifting the responsibility to councils who decide to go ahead ahead of the curve means drivers could be caught out, particularly in areas of high tourism like mine and Dorset, where many drivers come from elsewhere.

We also need the law to be clear about exemptions for postal workers, emergency vehicles and where roads are too narrow for parking and where such issues exist. The time to put down yellow lines and
18:32
Vikki Slade Portrait Vikki Slade MP (Mid Dorset and North Poole, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
parking restrictions to prevent one problem being replaced with another. I recognise that as a government I recognise that as a government amendment, there will be no vote on this, but I urge the government to consider the potential pitfalls of this amendment and whether this is answering the question that people have been asking for so many years. I think the answer is that it does I think the answer is that it does not, and I urge the government to bring forward proper road safety bill in the King's Speech to bill in the King's Speech to properly ban pavement parking.

Turning to community asset transfer, I recently worked with Corfe Mullen Town Council to prepare an application for one of these, but it was no longer needed thanks to the community raising nearly £600,000. But I'm now working with Holt Football Club to help them protect their club from sale. The club was started 60 years ago by Terry Bradford and I'm told with a lawn mower and a hose pipe for a shower. And since then, local residents and businesses from Gaunt's Common and Holt have invested for all those decades to build a fabulous clubhouse and developing talent that has represented their country.

But these projects fail because communities cannot compete with private buyers looking to take a profit, and sellers knowing they can squeeze every penny from local people by setting a price beyond their ability to fundraise. So I do welcome the government's commitment in this bill to extend both the time communities have to delay a sale and the independent valuation, but I'm seeking clarity on whether the change will take effect on royal assent and will be retrospective for those applications already in train.

I also strongly support the Lords amendment to extend the time on the register so that Holt Football Club that have been threatened with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

eviction can protect into the next generation, their club. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. speak. putting. The agent of change principle on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The agent of change principle on a statutory basis, particularly ensuring that new developments have a noise impact assessment when they a noise impact assessment when they are near grassroots music venues. I support the government's plans to increase house building, and I recognise that there have to be genuine care in not increasing red tape at the detriment of that, but I think at the moment the agent for change regime is actually stopping elements of house building and residential use in my constituency, which I'll come on to.

And I have to say, I am slightly disappointed that there's not a government amendment in lieu of the Lords amendment. Today, as my friend from Manchester Withington said as well, Sunderland is a music city and venues like Pop RECs, Independent and The Bunker are absolutely core to our identity. If we were about empowering our community, we need to empower our community to protect
18:35
Lewis Atkinson Portrait Lewis Atkinson MP (Sunderland Central, Labour)
-
-
those venues that are culturally important to us. And of course, those venues are also, crucially, those venues are also, crucially, economically important as well. It's already been said about the level of closures of grassroots level of closures of grassroots music venues in the in recent years, from 150 venues nationally to 800 today. And those closures are due today. And those closures are due not just to economic factors but also due to planning issues. The Minister referenced that there will Minister referenced that there will be guidance around the agent of change principle, but the reality is there has been forms of guidance since, I think 2014, 2015, and the Music Venue Trust report that there has been no let up in inappropriate planning applications.

Muir near music venues, and for those reasons that the culture, Media and Sport Select Committee report of 2024 recommended that agent of change principles are put on a statutory footing at the earliest opportunity. This bill is an opportunity to do that, if not through the Lords Amendment 41, then potentially through alternative means, which I hope the Minister might say something about. And I repeat, the Liberal Democrat spokespersons call or question about whether that guidance would be statutory guidance as opposed to general guidance in my constituency there, the Music Venues Trust had to intervene in a planning application to convert a unit of flats near independent on home side because the plans didn't contain sufficient noise protection, a process that took too long, incurred costs and risk to the venue and ultimately meant that the flats were not built.

So we've actually got housing that's not being built as a result of lack of clarity on the agent of change principle at the moment, and I think that shows why it needs to be strengthened, because currently, developers are incentivised to try and get away with proposals given that the guidance is not statutory. So I wonder if the Minister would meet with me, other members of the APPG for music and the Music Venue Trust, to discuss strengthening the guidance, if she will make sure that the statutory guidance, the Nppf that she refers to specifically refers to noise abatement in relation to grassroots

**** Possible New Speaker ****

music venues. Thank you. Paul Kohler thank you. Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paul Kohler thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to speak to amendment 42, where local authority provides land for public recreation. provides land for public recreation. It can be held on a statutory trust that protects it. Parliament set out a process that must be followed out a process that must be followed if that trust is to be ended. It's not a brilliant process by any means, but at least it gives a central role to local authorities. central role to local authorities. In Shropshire, the Supreme Court recently held that where those requirements are not followed, the trust quite reasonably remains in place.

However, amendment 42, first tabled by the conservative peer Lord banner in the Other place, cuts across that to allow the Secretary of State to set aside those protections with the proper process has not been followed, even where the current local authority authority might not now support terminating the trust. It replaces centralism with localism. It replaces localism with centralism. Lord Banner sought to justify his amendment on a number of questionable grounds, including the assertion that the Supreme Court decision is causing considerable uncertainty in relation to land purchased in good faith from local authorities.

The only example I'm aware of is a controversial issue in my Wimbledon constituency. In that case, the LTC bought the freehold to a portion of Wimbledon Park, 1993. It's an appropriately reduced price, having expressly agreed both to never build on the land and to restore full rights of public recreation after the expiry of a pre-existing leasehold interest. There seems little doubt the primary motivation behind the tabling of Lord Banner's amendment relates to the Wimbledon Park controversy. Unfortunately, despite previous assurances to leave the law unchanged before proper consultation, the government road in behind the banner amendment.

It would, however, have still been defeated at the Tories. Joined with my Lib Dem colleagues in the no lobby. Sadly, despite many assurances to the people of Wimbledon, every Tory peer either abstained or voted for their conservative colleague Lord Banner's amendment. As we've heard,
18:39
18:40
Amanda Martin Portrait Amanda Martin MP (Portsmouth North, Labour)
-
-
Amanda Martin thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a privilege to speak tonight in support of two speak tonight in support of two specific areas of this bill that will directly affect my constituents of Portsmouth North. Firstly, I welcome the strength in the Gambling impact assessment because Madam Deputy Speaker. This links directly to the work that I and my hon. Friend from Grimsby and Cleethorpes have already been doing on our High Streets Dodgy Shops campaign, which has been calling for stronger powers for councils and trading standards to protect our local high streets from rogue, harmful businesses.

As ever throughout this campaign, it's not about tax dodging businesses, dodgy vape shops and cowboy barbers alone. It is also about making sure our high streets are not overwhelmed by the uses that damage community wellbeing and push out legitimate local traders. And that is absolutely includes gambling premises in North End. One small part of my constituency, there are five betting shops and arcades concentrated within a very small area. North end is a proud local high street, but it faces challenges because it's a community already dealing with significant economic and social pressures, alongside a high street that's been neglected for years.

This concentration of gambling premises in one community is not an accident, and it's not acceptable. Where we see this kind of clustering, it can deepen financial hardship, contribute to addiction and poor mental health, and undermine the health of the high street itself. That is why amendment 18 matters. It gives local authorities stronger powers to assess whether additional gambling premises are genuinely consistent with the needs of the area and licensing objectives. That is exactly the kind of tool I've been pushing for, exactly the kind of tool local councils need.

If we are to be serious about backing our high streets and restoring confidence, that is what pride and play strategy should look like in practice. Not just warm words on a page, but real high street powers to shape better high streets. Secondly, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to highlight the amendments on taxing private vehicle licensing. I welcome amendments 43 to 79 wholeheartedly. The gap in enforcement powers that exist when a vehicle is licensed in one authority and operates in another is real and a long standing concern of my residents.

Like colleagues across the House, I have concerns around the number of vehicles operating outside of Portsmouth North license, mainly from Wolverhampton. I want to be clear though, Madam Deputy Speaker. I realise that Wolverhampton does carry out robust checks and I understand why many drivers choose to license, particularly because of the cost of living and it's significantly quicker. But authorities have too often found themselves powerless to act swiftly when poses a risk to public safety, simply because their licence is issues. This amendment closes that gap.

But Madam Deputy Speaker, residents have also highlighted concerns where local standards differ. For example, in Portsmouth, licensed taxis are expected to meet local safety requirements such as dash cams and vehicle CCTV, while those licensed elsewhere. So can the Minister comment on the options to have a national framework for the licensing of vehicles? Because this to me would ensure common sense reforms and put all passengers and drivers safety first. Madam Deputy Speaker These are practical, common sense initiatives, but we also need to make sure that our councils deliver on them.
18:43
Ben Maguire Portrait Ben Maguire MP (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. I'd like to briefly speak to Lords Amendment 98. When it comes to Amendment 98. When it comes to regions like Cornwall and my constituency of North Cornwall, this bill does not respect nor give due consideration to our unique national minority status. In a letter sent to the Leader of Cornwall Council in November last year, the Secretary of State said that he recognised Cornwall's distinct local identity and said the government was minded on an exceptional basis to work with the leader to explore a bespoke deal for Cornwall.

Madam Deputy Speaker, five months later, the Bill has progressed through both houses and still nothing in writing for that bespoke Cornwall only deal or even provisions to allow for one. Instead, we see efforts by this government to undermine amendment 98. The Secretary of State plans to force his MPs tonight to vote against this vital amendment, which would prevent overreaching powers given to Ministers in this bill, where they could essentially force local authorities to combine against the will of local people. On the 24th of March, during the Lords Report stage of this bill, the government responded, saying that discussions are positive and ongoing and urged my Lib Dem colleague in the other place, Lord Teverson, to withdraw his amendments specifically designed to provide appropriate legal protections for Cornwall.

The government Minister in the other place said that while the UK is a proud signatory to the charter, the European Framework Convention and the charter for Regional or Minority languages, those amendments risk creating uncertainty over the status and interpretation in domestic law. It therefore seems. Instead, the government has chosen to completely ignore the European Framework Convention and charter for languages. This now opens up this bill to potential legal challenges. Our national minority status in Cornwall has been completely ignored and now risks being ignored by future governments as well.

This means, essentially that the current or any future Secretary of State could force Cornwall to combine with other authorities and disregard its national minority status. Let me be clear Cornwall doesn't want this. My constituents regularly urge me to make this point. We don't want to be dragged kicking and screaming into a combined authority with Plymouth or any other wider South-West authority. Without this amendment, we risk a diktat from the Westminster government telling us what to do. This isn't devolution.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I would urge members from across this House to vote tonight against the government's attempt to disregard this vital amendment, and I would respectfully ask the Minister to come to the despatch box and set out what protections for Cornwall's national minority status the government will bring forward. And when. Thank you.
18:46
Miatta Fahnbulleh Portrait Miatta Fahnbulleh MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Peckham, Labour )
-
-
That's the end of the backbench contribution. So I invite the contribution. So I invite the Fahnbulleh. >> See here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

See here. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. With leave of the House, I will close what has been a considered and insightful debate. Many hard working communities in this country have been neglected for far too long. They have seen good jobs disappearing, they have seen their high streets decline, and the dream of a decent, affordable home fade. This bill will do the job of empowering these forgotten communities and restore local pride by making devolution the default setting.

It will give our strategic authority mayors new powers over transport, planning, housing and regeneration and help rebuild local government so that it can once again deliver strong local services that we all rely on. I'd like to thank all honourable and right hon. Members for their contribution and in the time left, I will respond to some of these important contributions to the right hon. Member for Braintree, who again and again has accused the government of this being a centralising bill. Candidly, this is just not true.

And from the party opposite that had an ad hoc all over the place approach to devolution over the last decade and a half, they had the opportunity to fundamentally reset the relationship between national government and local government, and they chose not to do this. We are acting where they did not act. We are doing the biggest transfer of power that we have seen in a generation and not and not to acknowledge that, no, to our mayors, to our local leaders, to our communities, and not to acknowledge that is quite simply churlish.

Now, the right hon. Gentleman raised the key issue of scrutiny of commissioners and indeed, scrutiny of all the key decision makers within the strategic authority level. And we recognise and we agree with that. And this is why we have included amendments to introduce stronger local scrutiny committees with greater teeth, so that with greater responsibility, there is the accountability framework to make sure that we are holding decision makers to account on behalf of local people. On this question of reviewing the protection of public spaces, I am the Minister responsible for green and public spaces, and I'm absolutely committed to making sure that that asset is something that is available to all of our communities.

This is why we're committed to doing this review. And we're also very clear that the powers that have been introduced with regards to statutory trusts in particular, will not be used until we have concluded that review. The Member for Guildford talked to Lords Amendment two, and again, I say there is no agreement on policy. We are very clear that absolutely mayors have responsibility to rule to ensure that their rural communities are looked after and are protected. And the reality of what we're seeing in places like Yorkshire and North Yorkshire is that that is exactly what our mayors are doing.

We do not believe we need to put it on the face of the Bill, because we believe that it sits within each of the competencies that mayors will have to take on board, and actually guidance that sits alongside that. That points to good practice in the work that the mayor has done, will be far more powerful to ensuring that this bites in the communities that we want it to bite. On the point that a number of members made on brownfield first look, we agree with the policy of brownfield.

First, it is very clear in the National Planning Policy Framework. We have strengthened it in order to ensure that that's the case. But no, no, no, it's not just about saying it, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it is in policy, and policy determines what happens in the planning framework. Where we are clear, however, is there is variability. Now he talks about centralising. We say we should leave it to mayors and local authorities to be able to deal with the diversity in particular circumstances, so that they are not caught in legal wrangling, but can make the choices.

But the policy is very clear. It's about brownfield first, and critically, unlike the last government, we're actually putting investment to enable our councils to enable our mayors to remediate and regeneration lands so that that policy can bite in the way that it's supposed to. On the question of Cabinet and leader model, which and I come back to the fact the reason we are doing this is that we fundamentally care about creating strong local authorities that can deliver for their people. 80% of local authorities already have this model.

It is an effective model, and we have already made concessions. It says that where alternative models, whether that's a committee model or the model, exists in particular places, that they can see out the term of that. But we think it is right that in the long term, we are moving towards a model that will serve local people. The Member for Guildford also talks about devolution being imposed on on places. The approach that we have taken, and I ask the House to judge us by the way that we are acting, and not just by the words I say.

So if you take the approach that we're taking to strategic authorities, we are incredibly clear that ultimately it's for local partnerships to come together and government will enable and pass devolution through that. We are not imposing and we are committed to not imposing. But I will make progress because there is very little time. But I will have to take issue on the point of neighbourhood governance. We are told that we are centralising. We are told that we are trying to impose models on communities.

And yet, in the question of neighbourhood governance, the member of Guildford and her party wants to impose a particular model on communities and we say that is wrong. We take a very different approach. Ultimately, it should be for communities to determine the right neighbourhood governance structure for their place. Town councils, which exist in 80% of the geography, I agree, will have a role in this and where that is the will of the communities, then that should be the what communities do. But other communities will want to take different approaches and we think it is right.

The community should build on what they have and that ultimately it should be for communities to determine what they want to. I won't give away, but I will pick up the Member for Broxbourne his point about local government reorganisation. In his defence, he's been consistent on this throughout all the debates that we've had. And what I would say is, candidly, if we think about the near decade and a half that the last the last government had to deal with the issues with local government, where we recognise that the current status quo is not fit for purpose, but instead what they had a decade and a half where they denuded local government, years of austerity, years of cuts.

They could see that the model was creaking and they did absolutely nothing to deal with it. We are acting where they chose not to act. And so the member opposite can continue bleating about this. But fundamentally, we want to get to local government structures that work for communities that fundamentally deliver services for communities, something they did not do, something that we are determined to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West, the Member for Kensington and Basingstoke, the Member for Portsmouth North, have raised the important point about our high streets and gambling.

And can I just thank them for their tireless campaigning and advocacy for this fundamental point? We are committed to giving local authorities the powers in order to shape their high streets. We think that this is absolutely critical. The gambling cumulative assessment is a first step in this process. It is an additional tool to local authorities that will allow them to begin to shape their high streets. But we are clear that we will and we must go further. Our high street strategy will be setting out further steps that we will give local authorities in order to empower them to shape their high streets in the way that their local communities want.

And let me turn to the Member for Heywood and Middleton North, my hon. Friend, who, again, has been a vocal and passionate advocate for the reforms that we absolutely recognise that we need to taxis and private hire system, we completely agree with her that the system is not fit for purpose, and I'd like to personally thank her for all the work that she and many of my hon. Friends have put into driving forward the changes that we have put in this bill, we are clear that these are important first steps.

So national standards, that means that we can ensure that across the country there is consistency in the approach, but critically strengthening enforcement powers. But we know that there are additional reforms that must be put in place, and we are committed to bringing those forward. My hon. Friends have raised the question of the agent of change, and let me reassure them again, we absolutely recognise the arguments that have been made both by my hon. Friends, but also in the other place. We will, and we are committed to publishing guidance, which will sit alongside the National Planning Policy Framework and will bite on planning decisions.

It will be a powerful material considerations in decisions that are made. And I can give my hon. Friend the reassurance that the Minister for housing will meet with him and other members in order to think about how we continue strengthening and building continue strengthening and building on that important policy. And then let me come to the critical point of brownfield first, which has been raised time and time again by members. And again, look, what I would say here is there is no disagreement on policy.

We are very clear that we will take a brownfield first policy. We are very, very clear that that exists within the national policy framework. We are putting in the funding that is required to ensure that we do this. But I reiterate the point that we do not think that we should lock in the rigidity within the system and within legislation, and we think national planning policy is the space and in the place in which this should bite. And look, if I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the final minutes that I have, just take a step back.

Look, we have shown that we are willing to work with members across the House. We have shown that we're willing to make sensible changes to the bill in response to genuine concerns that have been raised. There is no disagreement across us that we want a strong bill that fundamentally does the job of transferring powers and control to our communities and to our local leaders. But what we cannot and what we will not accept are amendments that undermine that core principle.

And I think some of the amendments for the very party that accused us of centralising does exactly that. But nor will we accept amendments that fundamentally go against go against the principle that we must strengthen the institutions and the structures of local government so they can deliver for our communities. I'd like to place on record my thanks to members across both houses for the constructive way that they have engaged in the debate of this bill. I look forward to continuing this constructive conversations with a view securing amendment across both of the houses.

I believe there is genuine consensus on the need for devolution, and I think that is a big step change because, candidly, the way government has operated for decades, where the centre has thought that it knows best, where the centre has imposed its will. And I look at the party opposite. You had 15, they had 15 years, Madam Deputy Speaker, and failed to act almost 50. It felt like 15. It felt like 15. But but critically, critically, there must be a consensus that we have to change the way that government works.

And this bill is an important first step forward. And what I would urge members, both in this place and in the other place, is that we must ensure that this bill achieves royal assent so that we can move forward. But I will put on record that we are very clear that this this is a first step. This is not the ceiling of devolution. This is absolutely the floor. And the job for us as a government, and the job for members across the House is to make sure that we together, continue working to ensure that we are building power and control locally, because that is how we will drive change in our places for our communities.

I commend the government's position in this bill. I ask members across the House to support the government's position in this bill. We want to be constructive, but equally, we cannot miss the opportunity to achieve royal assent. So with that, I would like to commend the the government's position. I would urge my colleagues to resist and reject the amendments that we do not support. We don't do it for the fun of it. We do it fundamentally because we think it will weaken the bill.

Thank you, Madam Deputy.
18:59
None Portrait Division
-

Speaker Keir Mather. disagrees with the laws in their amendment two. As many say, I because, you know. because, you know.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Colleagues Colleagues on Colleagues on their Colleagues on their feet Colleagues on their feet should be seated. The question is, as on the Order Paper as many of that opinion say, I of the contrary, no. no tellers for the ayes r Jake Richards and Taiwo Owatemi Tellers Richards and Taiwo Owatemi Tellers for the noes r James Wild and Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right 293 the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right 293 the noes to the left. One five 155

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thank you. The eyes. The right. 293 the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The eyes. The right. 293 the Noes to the left. 155 unlock. Order, order! I must now put the question necessary to bring a conclusion to the proceedings on the Lords Amendment. We now come to motion to disagree with the Lords Amendment. Number four. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment. For as many that opinion say, I of the contrary, no. know. Notice that I am on my feet and they should be seated.

The question is as on the Order Paper as Marianap and say I. Know tellers for the ayes of Taiwo Owatemi and Jake Richards Tellers for the noes are James Wild and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For. Oh!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The order! The ayes to the right 298 the Noes to the left 152.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noes to the left 152. The ayes to the right. 298. The noes to the left. 152 to the ayes noes to the left. 152 to the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 13. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 13. As many that say I can't, you know.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. Colleagues paying attention to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Colleagues paying attention to the chamber will know that I am on my feet and they should be seated. my feet and they should be seated. The question is, as on the order papers that say I of the contrary, papers that say I of the contrary, no. no tellers for the ayes are Taiwo Owatemi and James Jake Richards and Tellers for the noes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Our order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Our order. To the right 297. The nos to the left 147.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. The Ayes to the right 297. The Nos to the left, 147 to the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Unlock. We. We now come to Mr. Richards.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We. We now come to Mr. Richards. I'm waiting. Sorry. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 26. I call the Minister Amendment 26. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment. 26 as Lords in their amendment. 26 as many that have been. Say, I. Know many that have been. Say, I. Know Colleagues on the back row should be seated. The question is, as on the Order Paper as many of that opinion say, I of the contrary, no.

know tellers for the ayes of Taiwo Owatemi and Jake Richards Tellers for the noes are Jerome Mayhew and Katie Lam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh. Oh. The Oh. The order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh. The order. The ayes to the right, 287 the noes to the left. 149.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left. 149. The ayes to the right. 287 the noes to the left. 149. For the ayes noes to the left. 149. For the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlocked. We we now come to the motion to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

disagree with Lords Amendment 36. I motion. Move formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment. 36 as many of that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. 36 as many of that opinion say, I of the contrary, no. Know.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Know.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The lobby. Seated. The question is, as on the Order Paper as Main.net opinion say, and many of Main.net opinion say, and many of that opinion say, I of the contrary, no. know the tellers for the ayes of Taiwo Owatemi and Jake the ayes of Taiwo Owatemi and Jake Richards Tellers for the noes are. Rebecca Smith Rebecca Smith and Order, Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 288 the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 288 the noes to the left. 147.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left. 147. The eyes, the right. 288 the Noes to the left. 147. So the ayes Noes to the left. 147. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlocked. have it. The ayes have it unlocked. We. We now. We now come to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 37. I call the Minister to move the motion. Move formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move formally. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 37 as Main.net say, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Know. Seated as. When the chair is standing, Mr. Barclay, will you when you're ready. The question is, as on the Order Paper remain that opinion. Say, I of the contrary, no. to the. I Taiwo Owatemi and Jake Richards Tellers for the noes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. Order, order. The Order, order. The Ayes Order, order. The Ayes to Order, order. The Ayes to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. The Ayes to the right 291.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Noes to the left 140.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Noes to the left 140. The Ayes to the right 291. The Noes to the left 144. To the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Unlock. I call the Minister to move amendment A in lieu of Lords amendment 37. Formally, the question is that the Government amendment A in lieu of Lords amendment 37 be made to the Bill as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amended. Say I Of the contrary, no. Are.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are. Of Of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 41. I call the Minister to move the motion. The Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 41. As Marianap say, I of the contrary, no. know where the lobby.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To be seated. Most definitely the leader should be seated. The question is, should be seated. The question is, as on the Order Paper as Marianap say, I of the contrary, no. know tellers for the ayes of Taiwo Owatemi and Jake Richards Tellers for the noes are Rebecca Smith and Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right 284. The Noes to the left 149.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noes to the left 149. The Ayes to the right 284. The Noes to the left 149. To the ayes have it, the ayes have it unlock. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 85. I'll call the Minister to move the motion. The question is this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment 85 as Maidenhead say, I Of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 86.

I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment. 86 as many say, I Of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motion to disagree with Lords in Amendment 87. I call the Minister to move the motion. Move formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move formally. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 87. As many that say I. I amendment 87. As many that say I. I come to no. The ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 89. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees. The that this House disagrees. The Lords in their amendment 89. As many that say I of the contrary, no.

the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords in their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 90. I call the Minister to move the motion. Move formally. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 90. As many say, I. I no. The ayes have it, the ayes have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment motion. Move formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move formally. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment 91 as Amanda Hack say I amendment 91 as Amanda Hack say I Of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords amendment 94. I call the Minister to move the motion. Move formally. The question is this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment 94 is that say I continue. The ayes have it, the ayes have it. The ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords in their amendment. 97 now call the Minister amendment. 97 now call the Minister to move the motion informally. The question is that this House disagrees with the law that their disagrees with the law that their amendment 97, as amended, say I.

Country no. The ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 98. I call the Minister to move the motion. To move formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To move formally. To this House disagrees. The Lords and their amendment 98 is made that opinion say I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I no, no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I no, no. The lobby. Colleagues should be observing the chamber. The question is, as on the order papers. Say, I have. No tennis with the eyes of our Tommy and Jake Richards Tellers for the noes, our James Wild and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order. Order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order! The ayes to the right. 287 the nos to the left. 150.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 287. The noes to the left. 152. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock. Now with the leave of the house, I will come to the motions to disagree with the Lords amendment 99 to 116. Collectively, I call the Minister to move the motions. The question is this House disagrees

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with the Lords in their amendments. 99 to 116. Collectively, as Maidenhead say I. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with come to the motion to disagree with the Lords in their amendment 120. I call the Minister to move the motion I. The question is this motion I. The question is this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment 120. As many in their amendment 120. As many in that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it.

We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 121. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is its House disagrees with the Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and their amendment one two, one. As many of that opinion say, I. I. Of the contrary, no. the ayes Minister to move the motion. The question is if this House disagrees with the Lords in amendment 123 Matt Turmaine that opinion say aye. Matt Turmaine that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 155.

I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is this House disagrees with the Lords amendment 155 as amended, say I. I know the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the government amendment A to F to the words restored to the bill by the Commons disagreement to the Lords amendment 155 minutes. To me formally, the question is that the government amendments A to F be made to the words restored to the Bill, as amended. The opinion say aye.

Of the contrary, no. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Understanding order number 83 f6. I must put a single question to agree to all remaining Lords amendments. The question is that this House agrees with the Lords in their amendments. One, three, 5 to 12, 14 to 25, 27, 35. 38, 40, 42 to 84, 88, 92, 93, 95 or 96, 117, 219, 122, 124, 254 and 156 to 170. As many say I. I continue the ayes have it, the ayes have it Minister to move that a committee be appointed.

Draw up reasons.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that a committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain other disagreeing to certain other amendments that Miatta Fahnbulleh Deirdre Costigan Laura Kyrke-Smith Sam Carling, Andrew Cooper, Sir Sam Carling, Andrew Cooper, Sir James Cleverly and Zoe Franklin be members of the committee that Miatta Fahnbulleh the chair of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Miatta Fahnbulleh the chair of the Committee free the quorum. The Committee and the Committee do withdraw immediately. The question is that a committee

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that a committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments that. Miatta Fahnbulleh. Deirdre Costigan Laura Kyrke-Smith, Sam Carling, Andrew Cooper, Sir James Cleverly and Zoe Franklin be members of the Committee. That Miatta Fahnbulleh be the chair of the Committee, that there three be quorum of the Committee, that the committee do withdraw immediately as that opinion say. I the contrary. No. The ayes have it, the ayes have it.

That concludes consideration of the Lords amendments to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Those wishing to exit should exit the chamber swiftly. When you're ready, we can proceed. We move on to motion number five on retained EU law reform. Minister Tamworth. The
20:38
20:39
20:39
20:41
20:41
Kevin McKenna Portrait Kevin McKenna MP (Sittingbourne and Sheppey, Labour)
-
-
discuss something that's of immense importance to residents in Sittingbourne and especially on the Sittingbourne and especially on the Isle of Sheppey, but also should be of real concern to members of this House. Since the wreck that I'm House. Since the wreck that I'm about to talk about, which lies at the mouth of the Thames estuary, also presents a danger to the also presents a danger to the physical well-being of the Houses of Parliament themselves. For those of you who don't who don't know the of you who don't who don't know the Richard Montgomery which lies just beneath the water at the mouth of the Thames is potentially the largest amount of explosives that could explode in peacetime anywhere in the world.

That hasn't been a nuclear test. This amount of explosives would, if all if all went off at the same time, could potentially throw a plume of water 3000m into the sky and set off a tsunami that would obliterate vast swathes of the Kent and Essex coastline, shooting all the way up to London, and would flood all of our colleagues that are currently potentially drinking drinks on the terrace of the House of Commons. So this is obviously something that's a real concern.

I have to say that that was based on some calculations done in the 1970s. More recent assessments of the wreck are not quite as dramatic. Nevertheless, there is a significant significant amount of munitions on the floor of the sea, just just at the mouth of the most important river, the River Thames, to our country. The Richard Montgomery came over during the 1940s. It was full of munitions that were being given to Britain to fight the Nazis in the Second World War.

Tragically, it went. It lost its Anchorage and drifted onto a sandbank. And when it went onto a sandbank and the tide fell, it broke the back of the ship, leaving it marooned and the mouth of the Thames. And since then, it's been a major landmark that's used by ships to navigate their way up and down the River Thames, a major landmark warning people not to get too close to these explosives and can be seen from Sheerness, where it's only about a mile and a half out to sea.

It's something that people who've grown up on Sheppey know. This story doesn't just connect them to the Second World War and to the support we got from our American allies during the Second World War. It's also has this. Because of this threat of explosives, has a really powerful story. As people grow up around it and feel that they might be under threat from such a catastrophic explosion. And in recent years, the rec is gradually deteriorating, slowly corroding. It's a steel vessel, and concerns have been raised about what would happen should the vessel disintegrate, completely scatter these explosives across the sea or even worse, potentially, if any of them were triggered.

Now, I've spoken to explosives experts. I've spoken to bomb disposal experts in the Royal Navy. The general feeling is that vessels like this, when they were set to sea, all of the explosives and munitions on board were made safe. The detonators are kept separate from the high explosive charges, and comparatively, the risk is fairly low. But we can't rule it out as a zero risk. And one of the concerns that's been raised in recent years is the three masts that stand proud of the water.

As they erode and rust away, they could fall on the wreck and destroy what's left of the of the Richard Montgomery, either triggering an explosion or scattering these explosives. So the government, over several years and the previous government looked at what could be done to make this as safe as possible. And the decision was made to remove the masts. Well, finally, now the government has signed a contract with the removal company, which will dismantle the masts, and this landmark will be lost forever for people from Sheerness and also the sort of the emotion, the stories is at risk of being lost locally.

I mean, you'll

**** Possible New Speaker ****

see this if you visit. Oh, absolutely. First of all, commend hon. Gentleman for Sittingbourne and Gentleman for Sittingbourne and Sheppey for bringing this forward. And he's also studied the issue and the concerns over the explosives. the concerns over the explosives. But the second and up to date appointment authority seems to indicate that maybe the threat indicate that maybe the threat isn't the same. But what I want to ask the gentleman about is about the marine and maritime history, the marine and maritime history, the three masts and what that can do.

The member will agree that the ultimate goal, I believe, is to protect local maritime history while creating a lasting public display for locals and tourists alike. Does the hon. Member not agree that our maritime history and my consisting of Strangford, has incredible maritime history should be promoted in schools across the United Kingdom and schools should be encouraged to visit these masks as we do in Northern Ireland, with the Titanic Museum in Belfast, to gain a better understanding of our strong history.

The government should be congratulated for bringing this forward. None of us, not me, would have known of this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

only for his knowledge. Thank you. And I. Think the link back to the topic

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Kevin McKenna on Mozilla. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and yes, any community that got strong links to the sea, the sea stories run deep in everyone's veins. And as I was in everyone's veins. And as I was about to come on to, you'll see an amazing mural in the middle of Sheerness of a fairly mean looking mermaid who's got her hands gripped around the plungers of a TNT detonator threatening Sheerness. But this is something that obviously people have a sense of pride about and the stories, and I think it really matters to all the communities that surround the area where Montgomery lays at rest.

It is really important that we make sure these masks are preserved for the future and and building on from what the hon. Gentleman has said locally, people are keen for as if these masks are removed, they come to land. Now, the government, as I say, is removing the masks. We don't know what condition they'll be in when they come off the ship, but certainly people on Sheppey would love to have one of the masks

**** Possible New Speaker ****

at least return to the mainland. On that point. For my own. Way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this debate forward, and the SS Richard Montgomery is the SS Richard Montgomery is equally as visible from Southend and my residence in Southend, and Lee on the other side of the estuary share all the same stories as his residents share. They have as his residents share. They have an affinity to these masks and to the stories that that, as well as a little bit of fear of the stories that they hear of the ship.

So while whilst he calls for a mask to be preserved and placed in the Isle of Sheppey or somewhere within his constituency, I too would like to see a second mast saved and placed somewhere within Southend or Leigh,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

across the estuary opposite his constituency. I thank my hon. Friend for that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for that. Absolutely. I mean, as I've talked to people on Sheppey, some people have gone the master all hours. We've got to have them all. There We've got to have them all. There are three masks we can share and as I've talked to people in Southend, I know, I know it matters to people I know, I know it matters to people in Southend. I've had communications in from from some of his constituents, but also people more generally. There are three more generally.

There are three masts. There is one extra snag in this project. So currently the mast of the responsibility of the United Kingdom government, there was a there was an Act of Parliament in 1973, largely pulled together for the. Richard Montgomery so that we could take on what has been described as the most dangerous wreck in Britain. And while. While for now, for decades the United Kingdom government has been responsible for making sure that the masts are safe and that shipping transits around them safely, as soon as anything comes off the wreck, it reverts to its original owners, which is the United States government.

So actually, although I know that people locally would like the masks, I'm sure that the United Kingdom government would be very happy for them to come to and to Southend. We are going to have to ask the United States government for one of the masks. I mean, there are three masks Southend could have. One could maybe one of them could go into Donald Trump's ballroom that he's building at the moment. They look great if they were covered in gold leaf. But beyond that, I think actually it does mean that we've got to engage in a little bit of a diplomatic discussion, I'm sure, with our American allies.

What I would say is, of course, it's a massive testament to the partnerships that we've had during the Second World War with our American friends, but also since then in NATO. It's it's a way of bringing that story to life, to people. I would also say that obviously, this is this and this is something that we could use to bring people together in the same way as it would bring people in Southend and Sheppey together and can tell the story. It helps to reignite those.

Well, hopefully not literally. In this case that would be terrible. But but, you know, reignite those bonds that we've got with our American allies. So I've got a few questions for the Minister. I mean, some of them have been raised by my constituents recently. A a no fly zone has been extended around the wreck of the Montgomery, including bans on drones. I I've got several constituents would like to know why and what's changed in those instances and is there is that is that reflective of any additional concern about the explosive nature of the cargo on the Montgomery.

Also, I think people would love to know in a bit more details what it would involve and what we need to do to ask the Americans to have the masks and and just to check that the government is still believes that actually the mask should be retained in the United Kingdom. I'd also like and just some sort of general evaluation of, of, of the government's ideas about the timeline for the removal of the masks and what that would involve. Going beyond that, I think that this is this is such a it's actually quite a romantic story in its way.

I think shipwrecks have always got a degree of romance to them. It's got that added frisson of an incredible amount of explosives, which does add, as my hon. Friend said, a little bit of fear, but also it just, it really speaks to me about how how these stories get embedded in communities even over a few decades and the people who really care. I'm carrying I've got a petition running at the moment. I'm hopefully there's a petition in South End as well.

I would really encourage anyone to sign that petition so that we can show the strength of feeling and this real desire to return. Well, actually, they've never been on land, but to bring finally bring the masts of the Richard Montgomery home to the United Kingdom, home to Sheffield, home to Southend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Where. Dangerous wreck in Britain. Minister respond to that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister Lilian Greenwood. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'm responding this evening on and I'm responding this evening on behalf of my hon. Friend, the Minister responsible for maritime matters who's led this work within the department but is not available this evening, and I'm very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey for securing this adjournment debate and for the constructive way in
20:52
Lilian Greenwood Portrait Lilian Greenwood MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Nottingham South, Labour)
-
-
which he has continued to engage with the department on this long standing and sensitive matter. And frankly, it was fascinating to read the briefing for today and see the the briefing for today and see the photographs of the masts sticking up from the surface of the Thames, up from the surface of the Thames, and he's consistently articulated on behalf of his constituents the importance of safety and the strong importance of safety and the strong local attachment to the SS Richard Montgomery as part of the area's history.

And obviously those views are shared by my hon. Friend and his constituents in Southend West and Lee as well. It's entirely right that these matters are discussed in this House, and I really welcome the opportunity to set out the government's approach. Now, as we've already heard, the Rec has been the source of intrigue, speculation and concern for a number of years, both regionally and nationally. I understand it's even the subject of a Bollywood drama. I can reassure hon.

Members that my department monitors the SS Richard Montgomery 24 hours a day, every day of the year, carries out annual surveys, and publishes reports detailing its condition, and I'm sure that hon. Members will be pleased to hear that these reports show no significant worsening of the wreck, and there is no reason to suspect that there will be any increase in risk. Nonetheless, the SS Richard Montgomery has spent more than 80 years lying on the bed of the Thames estuary and over time it will corrode.

And that's why, in 2018, the expert Advisory group recommended that the three masts should be removed to reduce stress on the overall structure and avoid the risk of heavy material collapsing onto the cargo of munitions. Now, following this recommendation, a project was initiated to carry out mass removal with contracts put in place to carry out the works. However, detailed investigations during the planning phase found that the site was more complex than they originally thought due to legacy munitions from both world wars present below the seabed, and the project paused in 2023 to allow my department to consider the best way to manage this risk.

Now, since 2024, the government has invested time and resource in understanding as much as possible about the SS Richard Montgomery. This has included the most comprehensive survey programme ever undertaken on this risk wreck site. A thorough review of all available information and revised modelling of a worst case scenario, and that revised modelling using the latest advanced techniques for simulating an explosion in water, has been peer reviewed by experts at the Ministry of Defence, and that might well be welcome news for any of my colleagues currently enjoying a drink on the House of Commons terrace.

Because I can reassure my hon. Friends that this latest modelling shows that even in the absolute worst case scenario, which is in itself considered highly unlikely, damage onshore is likely to be limited to potential minor breakages to single glazed windows, with no debris expected to reach Sheerness or any other town, and waves unlikely to breach flood defences. However, based on this modelling, the government decided in May last year to introduce a restriction of flying above the wreck site.

So rather than that to be a concern about the dangers of other of aircraft flying over the site with any intent, it's to make sure to protect aircraft from an absolute worst case scenario. And that decision was made on the advice of the Civil Aviation Authority. As I say, to protect any aircraft in the vicinity in an absolute worst case scenario. But I would like to stress that the risk of an incident related to the SS Richard Montgomery remains low, but the government is committed to reducing this risk as far as possible.

So the SS Richard Montgomery programme has progressed to procurement at pace since mid 2025 to deliver mass reduction. Now, as my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for maritime matters set out in correspondence to local Members of Parliament and councillors in November 2025, the department was clear about its intention to procure a specialist salvage contractor to carry out these works in a safe and controlled manner. Manner that correspondence explained that the decision to progress mass removal was based on expert advice, reflecting the age and the condition of the wreck, and the need for proactive intervention to manage risk.

It also made clear that the department intended to launch a procurement process to identify a contractor, with that specialist capability required to operate at such a complex site, whilst continuing to monitor the condition of the wreck. Now, the procurement was designed to prioritise safety and risk reduction whilst ensuring appropriate oversight, value for money and resilience in delivery. And it also reflected the department's commitment to transparency and to keeping locally elected representatives informed as decisions were taken and the programme progressed.

Now, as my hon. Friend made clear at the time, this would be a cautious, evidence led process shaped by expert advice and informed by the unique risks associated with the SS Richard Montgomery. Consequently, a leading global salvage company, Resolve Marine, has been appointed recently and is currently preparing detailed plans to undertake the work. The solution put forward by resolve is considered to provide the best chance of achieving mass reduction safely by 2027. It's possible that that may be completed earlier than that, but obviously it does depend on the conditions and weather and so on.

As that work is carried out now. My hon. Friends have both raised important questions about what will happen to the masts once they're safely removed from the wreck, and I absolutely recognise the strength of local feeling about preserving them as a cultural and historic feature. I want to be clear at this stage that the government's focus must remain firmly on reducing risk and delivering the operation safely. Decisions about the treatment, storage or potential future display of the mass will depend on their condition once they're recovered.

The way in which they're removed and what can be done safely, safely and practically. And furthermore, our salvage advisors have made clear that the masts will require specialised treatment and storage once removed to prevent decay. The conservation process required won't be clear until the masts can be studied after they've been removed, and therefore it's not possible at this stage to commit to displaying the masts in a particular location. However, my department fully recognises the interest of local authority of heritage bodies and the community in this issue.

I know how important this is locally. I've indeed seen photographs of the mermaid mural. It's really very impressive and I absolutely congratulate Sheerness Town Council and the Criterion Theatre, who I know have both been involved in working with my hon. Friend to celebrate this local landmark, which, as he has said, is as such a source of local pride. As the project progresses. My officials will continue to engage with him and with local stakeholders to explore what options might be feasible without compromising safety or prejudicing the primary objective of risk reduction.

It wouldn't be right to prejudge those outcomes now, but I absolutely want to assure him that we understand that those conversations are important and will continue alongside delivery of the works. I should also make clear, as he recognised in his speech, that the Rec remains the property of the United States government and that any decisions regarding the future of the masks, masks and the Rec need to be taken in consultation with the United States Maritime Administration. But I want to assure my hon.

Friends and the wider community that this program is being taken forward with seriousness, with transparency and a clear sense of responsibility. The issue of the SS Richard Montgomery is not something that can be resolved quickly or simply, but it's a situation that this government is addressing in a careful, evidence led way, informed by expert advice and supported by sustained engagement with those who are most affected, including my hon. Friends, constituents and others with an interest.

So I'm really grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker to my hon. Friends, for continuing to raise the interests of their constituents, and my department will continue to engage with him as the project moves forward. I thank him once again for securing this debate and for the constructive contributions that he has made on behalf of the people of Sittingbourne and Sheppey, and I'd like to congratulate as well my hon. Friend, for Southend West and Leigh for making his contribution today, and I look forward to updating the House as this project reaches further progress.

Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn. As many of that opinion say I. The ayes have it. opinion say I. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Order! Order!
11:00
None Portrait Speaker's statement Mr Speaker
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page