Live Debate: Commons Chamber

Q16. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of changes to business rates announced in the Autumn Budget 2025 on the retail, hospitality and leisure sector. (908890)

Thomas.

12:17

Dan Tomlinson MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Chipping Barnet, Labour)

- -

Minister. government has introduced a support package worth £4.3 billion to protect ratepayers across the country against the impact of the independently set new property values valued for the first time since the pandemic. We have also introduced permanently lower multipliers for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties. These are worth nearly £1 billion a year and will benefit over 750 000 high street businesses.

12:18

Bradley Thomas MP (Bromsgrove, Conservative)

- -

Mr. speaker, I recently met Chris, the owner of chapters here in Bromsgrove, who told me that after 25 years of trading, current conditions are the most difficult that he has faced and he directly attributes attributes this to the decisions taken by the Chancellor. Why is it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the government across the board, is riding roughshod over what businesses think the people who know best how to run their businesses? And when will the government get off their backs and get on their side?

12:18

Dan Tomlinson MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Chipping Barnet, Labour)

- -

Yes. multiplier, the tax rate paid by businesses, medium sized businesses or the very largest businesses was exactly the same within business rates. But we have implemented significant reform to the way business rates works, so that it supports the high street and the tax rate paid by small high street businesses will now be 33% lower than the one paid by the largest properties, such as online giants. Of course, Mr. Speaker, the revaluation since the pandemic has had an effect, and that's why we've stepped in to provide support.

12:19

Richard Fuller MP (North Bedfordshire, Conservative)

- -

Richard Fuller Shadow Minister >> Richard Fuller Shadow Minister for Mr. Speaker, a comprehensive survey this month by hospitality UK shows that 1 in 7 of our hotels, shows that 1 in 7 of our hotels, pubs and restaurants will close as a direct result of the Chancellor's policies. Many of those businesses represents the hopes and dreams, the hard work and savings of the people who set them up. So, Mr. Speaker, as I am permitted, rather than the Minister coming to the despatch box, could I ask the Chancellor to come to the Dispatch Box and answer this? If it wasn't me standing here, it was one of those people who founded the business, now going through a gut wrenching process of closing it because of her policies.

What should we should she say to them? Yeah.

12:20

Dan Tomlinson MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Chipping Barnet, Labour)

- -

Exactly, sir. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Of course, the government wants to do all it can to support businesses up and down the country, small and and down the country, small and medium and large. That's why we're working hard to make sure we can put the economic stagnation that we had over the last 14 years behind us. We're seeing economic growth rising, growing by 0.5%. In February, we saw unemployment falling and we and we were seeing government borrowing falling as well. Those are the long term changes that we need to lay the foundations in order that businesses can grow and invest and hire more people.

It's disappointing that the Conservatives seem to have forgotten what we need to provide stability in our economy.

12:20

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

To topicals. Catherine. >> Chancellor. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are on the right path with the right economic plan. Unemployment is down. The economy is growing. Interest The economy is growing. Interest rates have been cut six times, and government borrowing was lower last year than it was the year before, and is set to fall by more than in any other G7 economy. At the same time, the government is acting responsibly on the world stage. This is a war that we did not start, we did not enter, and we are working with our international allies to de-escalate.

Our focus is on protecting family finances, supporting businesses and taking care with the public purse to improve Britain's economic resilience. That is the right plan for our country.

12:21

Cat Smith MP (Lancaster and Wyre, Labour)

- -

Cat Smith Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the Chancellor for her work to lift the two child benefit cap, which was cruelly brought in by the conservative government, and would she agree with me that not only is this morally the right thing to do, but it is economically good news for the 1690 families in Lancaster and Wyre who will have more money in their pocket to spend in our local economy in Lancashire. Unlike the super rich who would havens.

12:22

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I thank my hon. Friend for that question. And I hosted an event in Downing Street just a couple of Downing Street just a couple of weeks ago where I met with people who benefited from the change in the two child limit and people who had campaigned for that change as well. And mums told me that they were going to use the money to pay for their kids to go to after school club with their friends, swimming lessons that they weren't able to afford before, or a new school coach rather than a second hand one.

That is the difference that this money is making to families up and down the country. And I'm proud to be the Chancellor limit.

12:22

Rt Hon Sir Mel Stride MP (Central Devon, Conservative)

- -

Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Mel Stride thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. speaker, in response to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash on borrowing the right hon. Lady suggested that she was following a strict deficit reduction plan. I think she made reference to a reduction in the deficit of £20 billion year on year. But of course, it's easy to reduce something if you pump it up recklessly in the first place. So could the right hon.

Lady, tell the House how much more borrowing this government will undertake across this Parliament compared with the plans that she inherited from the last government?

12:23

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

Good question. with that. The plans we inherited from the past government would have seen fuel duty go up straight away. The plans that we inherited from the last government wouldn't have seen £29 billion investment a year into our NHS, and the plans that we inherited from the last government would have seen business rates for our high street businesses, our retail, hospitality and leisure businesses go up straight away. We did make the decision to change that inheritance because we thought that was the right thing to do, and we still do.

But the IMF confirmed that we have the fastest rate of fiscal consolidation of any country in the G7 and are borrowing as a share of GDP fell to 4.3% in the last financial year and is due to fall in every single year of this Parliament. It's the first time our deficit has been lower than 5% since 2019.

12:24

Rt Hon Sir Mel Stride MP (Central Devon, Conservative)

- -

Sir Mel Stride Mr Speaker doesn't seem to know how much doesn't seem to know how much additional borrowing this government is undertaking compared to the plans of the last government, so I will tell her it is one quarter of £1 trillion of additional borrowing across this Parliament. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that this Chancellor is addicted to borrowing, and that means, compared with what otherwise would be the case. And she said exactly this in terms in the answer to my right hon.

Friends, it means higher borrowing costs, higher inflation, higher interest rates and more sluggish growth, doesn't it?

12:24

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

Yeah. >> Yeah. >> What the right hon. Gentleman is basically admitting is that he would have gone ahead with the increase in fuel duty. He would have gone ahead with the increases in business rates, and he would take that money out of our National Health Service. Well, we made those changes on the mandate we got at the election. And at the same time, we are reducing the Budget deficit. So for the first time in six years, it is now below 5% of GDP.

And as a result, the Bank of England have cut interest rates six times, helping all of our constituents with their mortgages, very different from the hikes in mortgages that we saw under the previous Tory government.

12:25

Yuan Yang MP (Earley and Woodley, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This weekend, while doorknocking in Woodley, I spoke to a young father of three who, despite working multiple skilled jobs, feared being made homeless because of high and rising costs of rent. Will the Chancellor examine the case for a fixed term rent freeze in the private rented sector to protect renters like my constituent from rising costs following the invasion of Iran, and to bring inflation down in the wider economy?

12:26

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. And as she knows, sitting on the Treasury Select Committee, on the Treasury Select Committee, this government have also already taken action to reduce the cost of living and to bear down on inflation with the changes around energy prices, around fuel duty, prescription charges and rail fares. And I will do everything in my power and use every lever we have to bear down on the cost of living, including for people in the private rented sector.

That is why we have already introduced the Renters Rights Act. And whilst for people in who have mortgages, they have seen cuts in their mortgage rates since we came into office, we will do everything we can to also help people in the private rented sector, because we must ensure that this conflict in the Middle East does not result in our constituents being poorer. spokesperson.

12:26

Daisy Cooper MP (St Albans, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Business >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Business rates bills have been landing on doormats over the last few weeks, and for some small businesses in St and for some small businesses in St Albans and beyond. They tell me that the future looks bleak, with some taking the crushing decision to close their doors. Will the Chancellor please look again at the eye watering re-evaluations and release the full £0.20 discount for small businesses, which the government legislated to do to save our high streets.

12:27

Dan Tomlinson MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Chipping Barnet, Labour)

- -

On business rates? The hon. Member will know that this government inherited the plans that were set in train to have an independent revaluation of properties take place for the first time since the pandemic. It wouldn't have been the right thing to do to delay that pandemic. For those businesses who'd seen their value to delay that revaluation. For those who've seen their rates fall since the pandemic. So we went ahead with it, the independent valuation. And then we put in £4.3 billion of support to limit the increases in bills that businesses would pay.

Of course, we keep all taxes under review, Mr. Speaker, but we did set out for the first time putting in a differential within the business rate system so that high street businesses face a lower tax rate, a lower multiplier than the largest online giants.

12:27

Antonia Bance MP (Tipton and Wednesbury, Labour)

- -

Tony Vaughan. We now know what was going on in the economy before the attack on Iran. Growth was up, unemployment was down, borrowing was lower than forecast. The Chancellor took the right decisions and it was working. So does my right hon. Friend agree that families and businesses should know that when times are tough, it is Trump Nation that is to blame.

12:28

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. And whilst other parties, specifically Reform and conservatives wanted us to enter this war, we stayed out of it and are working to de escalate the conflict and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The economy was growing, interest rates were coming down, inflation was falling, and as a result, every month since I've become Chancellor, wages have risen by more than inflation, easing the cost of living pressures that the previous government oversaw.

12:28

Olly Glover MP (Didcot and Wantage, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Olly Glover thank you. >> Mr. Speaker. At a recent meeting with members of Wantage Chamber of Commerce, local businesses were united in their concerns about united in their concerns about business rates and unconvinced by recent government tweaks at Ministers. Opposite have just alluded to page 31 of Labour's manifesto states the current business rate system Incentivises Incentivises investment creates uncertainty and places an undue burden on our high streets in England, Labour will replace the business rate system so we can raise the same revenue, but in a.

12:29

Dan Tomlinson MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Chipping Barnet, Labour)

- -

Fair way. Sorry, it's tropicals and I want to get your other colleagues in. Please. >> Mr. speaker, I'm always happy to take questions on business rates, even months after the decision set even months after the decision set out at the Budget. And I thank my and I thank the hon. Member for reading out the Labour manifesto. We have made significant changes to business rates by. By introducing the new lower multiplier for high street businesses in order that they can pay a lower tax rate than the largest online giants, Chris Bloore.

12:29

Chris Bloore MP (Redditch, Labour)

- -

Mr. speaker, given reform in. taxes but have instead increased County council tax for Redditch residents by nearly 9%. Does the Chancellor agree with me that the Redditch Borough Council elections on May the 7th, the only way to protect, protect vital local services and keep taxes low is to vote for Redditch Labour candidates.

12:30

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

Redditch Labour. >> Redditch Labour. >> My hon. Friend is absolutely right that whilst Worcestershire right that whilst Worcestershire reform led council said that they would cut taxes, they have instead put them up and so that is why on May 7th, I would urge people in Redditch and across the country to vote Labour.

12:30

Sarah Olney MP (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. More than 1.3. The property cap of £450,000 has been frozen since 2017, despite rising house prices. But those buying their first home over this threshold face a 25% penalty. First time buyers across London are disproportionately affected. Data from February this year showed the average price paid for a first time buyer in London was £463,000. So can the Chancellor tell us if. How is she ensuring first time buyers in London are not unfairly disadvantaged by using this savings scheme? Yes, Mr.

Speaker.

12:31

Lucy Rigby KC MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Northampton North, Labour)

- -

The government is. Committed to making the aspiration of home ownership a reality for as many people as possible, and we recognise that the lighter isn't working for everyone. That's exactly why we've launched a short consultation into the implementation of a new Isa product that's going to support more first time buyers, and that new product will include the government bonus being paid at the point the individual makes a withdrawal for a home purchase, therefore removing the need for a withdrawal charge.

12:31

Tom Rutland MP (East Worthing and Shoreham, Labour)

- -

Tom Rutland thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Chancellor will have Speaker. The Chancellor will have seen the news this morning that BP profits have more than doubled, undoubtedly driven by the conflict in the Middle East. Does she agree that this shows the value of having a windfall tax at this point in time?

12:31

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The oil and gas sector question. The oil and gas sector will play an important part in our energy energy mix for many years to come, and we need to support them as we are, for example, through tie backs. But it is important that the energy profits levy remains in place for now, because during this conflict, we will be able to capture the profits made in the UK through the windfall tax and the Conservatives and reform that they oppose this tax.

And that would just mean even higher profits for the oil and gas companies. We are also, as my hon. Friend knows, delinking gas and electricity prices by increasing the electricity generators levy so that no energy company can make excess profits because of this conflict.

12:32

Chris Coghlan MP (Dorking and Horley, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Chris Coghlan Mr. Speaker, it has been widely reported in the press that the Chancellor is rightly considering issuing defence bonds. I know Chancellor agrees with me on the value of defence R&D. So does the Chancellor or the Minister agree with me that these defence bonds could be a powerful way to increase R&D and raise economic growth? Thank you.

12:33

Rt Hon James Murray MP, The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Ealing North, Labour )

- -

Mr. Speaker. Whatever the purpose, spending funded from bonds issued by the government adds to the national debt and so must be considered within the fiscal rules. But the hon. Gentleman is right to point to the importance of research and development within the defence industry to support economic growth, and I'm proud that last year we allocated £400 million for UK defence innovation to foster a world leading UK defence tech sector.

12:33

Michael Wheeler MP (Worsley and Eccles, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. >> Government has ensured that as of this month, workers in Worsley and Eccles and across the country get sick pay from day one, get sick pay from day one, including low paid workers. As chair of the parliamentary group and someone who's campaigned for this, I welcome this so much. Does the Chancellor agree with me that it is only Labour, with its trade union link that is on the side of working people?

12:33

Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Leeds West and Pudsey, Labour)

- -

Yes. thanking my hon. Friend for all the campaigning work that he has done in this area, and also pay tribute to the trade union Usdaw, their former general secretary Paddy Lillis, and their current general secretary, Joanne Thomas. For all the work that they have done in this area, strengthening statutory sick pay as part of our commitment to implement our plan to make work pay, ensuring that the safety net is a safety net of sick pay is available to those who need it from day one.

12:34

Shockat Adam MP (Leicester South, Independent)

- -

Final question. Leicester South has. >> A home ownership rate of just over 40%, which is nearly 23 points below the national average. In a city where an average house is eight and a half times the local earnings. My young constituents are working very hard, doing everything responsibly, saving, etc. to get on to this letter. Yet the tax system offers them absolutely nothing. Whilst incorporated, landlords deduct full mortgage interest through a company structure, Canada and Nordic countries are offering targeted tax relief for first time buyers.

Can I ask the Chancellor, has she assessed, introducing a similar relief here to ensure young people are supported by the tax system and not left behind?

12:35

Lucy Rigby KC MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Northampton North, Labour)

- -

Oh yeah. government is committed to enabling more people to realise the dream of home ownership and mortgages have become more affordable under this government, thanks to increased economic stability and six interest rate cuts. We We now come to presentation James MacCleary.

12:35

Presentation of Bills

Newhaven West Beach public Access Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday the 8th of May. Presentation of Bill James MacCleary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

MacCleary. Defence bonds proposals. Bill. Second Reading. What day? Friday.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second Reading. What day? Friday. Friday. The 8th of May. We now come to the ten minute rule motion.

12:36

Ten Minute Rule Motion: Local Area Energy Plans

to the ten minute rule motion. Local area. Energy plans. James Naish. >> Mr. speaker, I beg. >> To move that leave be.

12:36

James Naish MP (Rushcliffe, Labour)

- -

>> To move that leave be. >> Given to bring in a bill to place a duty on local authorities in England to produce and maintain local area energy plans, to make provision about the content of those plans and limitations on that content and for connected purposes. Mr. speaker, I am proud that before I came to this place, I worked in the energy sector at SSEP. I led large industry change programmes such as faster Switching and at Northern Powergrid, I led the Customer Engagement Workstream for its easy to business plan.

I therefore refer members to my register of interests. I am also proud. As a councillor, I led the bottom up public engagement about the future of West Burton Power Station in north Nottinghamshire. I set up a residents planning group which over 18 months demonstrated that Bassetlaw would make a fantastic home for the world's first prototype fusion energy plant. Nottinghamshire won that multi-billion pound project and I believe that the types and quality of community engagement were a key reason for doing so.

So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that when I speak about the energy sector and community engagement in this place, it comes from a position of knowledge and understanding. And, Mr. Speaker, it is worth stating that across the private and public sectors, there are some excellent examples of how communities can be taken on a journey from being uninformed to becoming knowledgeable, from being nervous to feeling confident, from being sceptical to being supportive as a result of good engagement. But sadly, this is not the norm for energy projects I would like it to be, and I believe that it can be through the universal adoption of local area energy plans.

Mr. speaker, this government is advancing one of the largest infrastructure programmes that this country has seen in generations. As part of this, tens of billions of pounds are rightly being spent on energy projects to end our dependency on international fossil fuel markets. At the same time, we are rewiring the energy network in response to changes in how we generate, store and distribute power. Ordinary people can now generate energy and sell power back to the grid, meaning we operate in a radically different energy landscape.

And yet we are doing a lot of this without purposefully engaging communities about new infrastructure, in contrast to how we plan housing through local plans, with formal regulation consultations. Right now, there is no meaningful strategic conversation or consultation about energy infrastructure. Yes, individual projects consult about their impacts, but there is no strategic oversight or decision making required by local authorities, which are overwhelmingly reactive rather than proactive on energy matters. In my view, this has to change if we want to successfully deliver our clean energy mission.

Let me describe more clearly what is happening nationally. There is an emerging sense of order. The National Energy System Operator Nyiso, is producing regional energy strategic plans for the whole of Great Britain by 2028. These are long overdue. Ofgem is simultaneously mapping the network upgrades needed in every locality, and the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan sets out what we need. And for the first time, where we need it. This means that the strategic framework for the energy sector is being strengthened across the board, and yet there is still a gap need.

Those regional plans need local inputs to be credible. Demand projections, spatial constraints, sequencing preferences. But there is no meaningful or consistent dialogue taking place with local authorities. Without this, regional planning will either proceed on assumptions that are subsequently contested or stall while fighting objections to top down diktats. Even worse, the communities with valuable national grid connections, they are inundated with projects, some of which are unlikely to ever proceed. I recently hosted a surgery in my constituency of Rushcliffe, near Ratcliffe on Soar, which hosted a coal fired power station.

One parish councillor came to tell me that he and a small team of volunteers had reviewed over a dozen applications for new grid connections. Over a dozen. This level of disorder means host communities cannot see the wood for the trees, and cannot picture how the projects that do go ahead will contribute to a joined up narrative about local energy generation. Mr. speaker, I believe there is an answer which is mandatory local area energy plans. This isn't a new idea.

Local area energy plans have existed as a methodology since 2018, dozens of councils have produced them, detailing specific energy system changes, locations and delivery timelines. But in England they remain voluntary. This means that the essential transition to green energy is potentially being made without consistent, meaningful local engagement across the country. And, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to see this. So this bill proposes doing four things. First, it places a duty on every local authority in England to prepare, adopt and maintain a local area energy plan.

Second, critically, it will state that these plans must identify sites capable of meeting energy generation targets set for each area. The Secretary of State would set those targets, but communities would help to decide where the infrastructure goes, much like local plans for housing. And in so doing, we spread the load and take people on the journey. Third, the bill makes data sharing by distribution network operators mandatory, meaning constraint data reinforcement plans, connection queues and capacity forecasts are provided in standardised formats.

And fourthly and finally, this bill would give legal weight to local area energy plans. I believe energy needs and generation should be a material consideration in planning decisions and considered as formal evidence in network investment cases assessed by Ofgem. Let me be clear about what this bill does not do. It does not allow local area energy plans to contradict national policy statements, and it does not provide a mechanism for blocking infrastructure that has legitimate needs. Rather, it recognises that local area energy plans can help to shape where and how and when infrastructure is delivered locally, and bring communities and elected representatives into a very important and consequential conversation.

Handled badly. Mr. Speaker, energy projects become a source of major grievance, but handled well, as happened in Bassetlaw. They become something else. They become a story about jobs, about investment, about agency, and ultimately about consent and control. Mr. speaker, this bill, I believe, is the only way to genuinely shift the dial away from. This was done to us to I had a say away from nobody cares to. This project was considered and discussed locally, away from why here to I understand why and how we are playing our part.

I do not pretend that this bill will satisfy everyone. Some people do not want wind turbines or solar farms full stop and no amount of process should do so. But in my experience, local opposition is not normally a fundamental objection to renewable energy. Rather, it is about feeling blindsided, lacking control, and not having a local narrative about which energy projects have been consented to and why, and understanding how this contributes to a better, cleaner, local future. Mr. speaker, it's estimated that £40 billion could be spent annually on new energy infrastructure between now and 2030.

The question is not whether that money should be spent. It must be. The question is what evidence and what voices inform how and where it is spent. The window of opportunity is narrow because business plans for the next price control period and the regional energy strategic plans will both be finalised by 2028. Getting that local layer right now is therefore essential. It will reduce conflict, prevent delays and limit expensive changes down the line. So I hope that the government will take this matter seriously.

Mr. speaker, this bill gives communities a genuine stake in where and how energy infrastructure is delivered. It connects local planning to real investment decisions and ensures that transition will happen with people, not to them, while still making the essential shift to clean up greener energy. Eminently deliverable. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

therefore commend this bill to the House. The hon. Member have leave to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Member have leave to bring in the Bill. The question is bring in the Bill. The question is that the hon. Member have leave to bring in the Bill. As many of that opinion say, I. The country. No. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Who will prepare to bring in the bill?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the bill? Chris Bloore. Maya Ellis. Allison Gardner. Jodie Gosling. Chris Hinchliff. Julie Minns. Perran Moon. Samantha Niblett and myself.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

James Naish. Local Area Energy plans bill. Second Reading. What day?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second Reading. What day? Friday eighth. Friday the 8th of May. Well done

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday the 8th of May. Well done James. Before we begin the next item of business, I think it will item of business, I think it will be helpful to the House if I remind members of the decision in question members of the decision in question and the procedures to today's debate. The decision before the House today is not about whether or not a contempt has been committed. It is about whether or not to refer the matter to Committee of Privileges.

If such a referral is made. It will be for the committee in due course to report back to this House and make any necessary recommendations. The debate today may continue till 7:00 at the latest, at which time there will be either a need to a successful closure motion or a debate will be adjourned to a future date. In recent years, the length of time taken for debates on similar motions has ranged between 7 minutes and 5 hours. Any members who wish to speak need to stand to ensure that they catch my eye at the beginning of the debate.

I would say to members that if debate becomes very repetitive, we may have to consider whether it will be appropriate to accept an early closure motion. Finally, members may well be aware of the rules relating to good temper moderation in parliamentary language. Today's proceedings are on a substantive motion relating to the specific responses by the Prime Minister to this House. It is perfectly in order for hon. Members to question the veracity of those responses cited in the motion, or whether or not they were misleading.

However, it is not in order to challenge in more general terms of truthfulness of the Prime Minister. Right. The right hon. Member for North West Essex has tabled the motion to Essex has tabled the motion to debate on the matter of privilege, which I have agreed should take precedence today. I now call the Leader of the Opposition. Kemi Badenoch to move the motion.

12:49

Emergency Debate: Privilege

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Mr. speaker, shall we pick up where we left off last Tuesday when we had an emergency debate about the government's accountability to Parliament over Peter Mandelson's appointment as our ambassador to the United States? The very next day, a Prime Minister's Questions, the Prime Minister read out selective quotes from Sir Olly Robbins, evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, and deliberately left out critical sections to make it seem as if Sir Olly Robbins evidence had exonerated him.

12:50

Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP (North West Essex, Conservative)

- -

13:24

Emma Lewell MP (South Shields, Labour)

- -

The question is, as on the Order Paper Emma Lewell-Buck. Paper Emma Lewell-Buck. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have watched this whole sorry I have watched this whole sorry saga play out for weeks now. Like the public, I feel let down, disappointed and I am angry. Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed. This was a fundamental failure of judgement. Matthew Doyle should never have been given a peerage. This was also a failure of judgement. I feel the way that today's vote has been handled by the government smacks once again of being out of touch and disconnected from the public mood.

The fact that MPs like me are being whipped into voting against this motion is, in my view, wrong. Mr. speaker, it has played into the terrible narrative that there is something to hide, and good, decent colleagues will be accused of being complicit in a cover up. Yes. A number of weeks ago, at a private meeting with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I spoke about how, after a career of working so closely with victims of child sexual abuse, that I could not even begin to express how much it hurts me when people are screaming at me in the street that I am a member of the Paedo Protectors party.

I also said that prior to this scandal, people criticised the government's policies and at times lack of political narrative. But to me they are now questioning the government's moral compass. My comments were leaked almost immediately by colleagues who were present. My words were then used later by the Leader of the Opposition. Recent weeks have since seen such abuse intensify and ongoing abuse and threats to mine and my staff's safety continue. Privilege motions. I ask the investigations committee hearings and process don't come up on the doorstep.

What does come up time and time again is a general feeling that there is something just not right, that politicians are failing to deliver on their promises. Trust has gone and it's been replaced by anger and already fragile fabric of our democracy is eroding further every day this continues. This Prime Minister is very careful with his words and does have respect for the office he holds. He does want to change this country for the better, and he truly believes in public service, something which in recent years may have been sorely lacking from previous prime Ministers.

So I can't understand, Mr. Speaker, why the Prime Minister doesn't refer himself to the committee with a clear statement that he's doing so to clear his name. One quick session of the committee could surely see this matter concluded. Instead, it will now drag on and dominate every headline and interview. It will overshadow and undermine every good policy we make, and continue to drag every single one of us down. Whether any Prime Minister misled the House or not is not a matter for the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, nor is it a matter for the Intelligence and Security Committee.

It is a matter for privileges. That's why such a committee exists. It may be that opposition parties are using this motion today to box Labour MPs in. But I'm not angry about that. That's politics. Some of us here would do the same. But I know one thing for certain today, Mr. Speaker, that I will not be voting against this motion, but I want to listen carefully to the rest of this debate because, like everyone, when I came to this House, I wanted to do the right thing.

And I hope I continue to do that for whatever,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

however long I have left in this place. Sir Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Liberal Democrats. Mr. speaker, it's an honour to follow the hon. Lady. The Member for South Shields, who I think has for South Shields, who I think has made a very powerful speech. I think we all, on all sides listen to it, and I hope her colleagues on the government benches listen to it and think about it carefully during and think about it carefully during the passage of this debate. Mr. speaker, the Prime Minister called this motion a stunt. That is not why I put my name to it.

But it's funny, though. I was just checking whether they were awake, Mr. Speaker. But it is funny, though, because stunt is exactly the same word Boris Johnson used about the

13:29

Rt Hon Ed Davey MP (Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

- -

motion to the Prime Minister and I tabled four years ago, referring tabled four years ago, referring Boris Johnson to the Privileges committee. Ironic. Alanis Morissette could probably write a Morissette could probably write a whole album about it. It wasn't a stunt then, and it isn't a stunt today. It is. As the Prime Minister said back then, a motion that, and said back then, a motion that, and I quote, seeks to defend the simple principle that honesty, integrity and telling the truth matter in our politics honesty, integrity, telling the truth.

These things matter in our nation's Parliament, perhaps more than anywhere else. And when I hear the Prime Minister complain that we've tabled this motion just over a week before important elections, I find myself transported back to that debate four years ago, seven days before crucial local elections. At that time, conservative MP after conservative MP made exactly the same bogus argument in defence of Boris Johnson. So I do have to say, although there are differences in the whipping arrangements, I do find it very hard to take some of the sanctimony from the leader of the Conservative Party seriously.

She and her conservative colleagues propped up Boris Johnson back then. She called him a great Prime Minister, and even after the game was up and Johnson was gone, she dismissed the Partygate scandal and called it overblown. So it does seem there's quite a lot hypocrisy to go around, Mr. Speaker, but I in a minute. But I want to try and be consistent. So I look back in Hansard at what I said back then, and I was struck that I can use exactly the same words today with families facing the deepest fall in the living standards since 1950s, with the pain of energy bills and rising food prices compounded by the government's unfair tax rises.

We know that our constituents are facing real hardship. It's not just a cost of living crisis, it's a cost of living emergency. At such a time, the country needs a government that will be focussed on tackling that economic emergency. Crucially, it needs a government that it can trust. Labour members agreed with me back then. I hope they will still agree with those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lady. I thank the. Hon. Member. For giving way. He's mentioned Boris Johnson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He's mentioned Boris Johnson. A few times, so I just wanted to remind the House that Boris Johnson misled the Foreign Affairs Select misled the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and his words about my constituent, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, meant that she Zaghari-Ratcliffe, meant that she spent six extra years in jail for a crime he didn't commit. He had crime he didn't commit. He had multiple opportunities to apologise, including when he saw Nazanin face to face. Does the hon. Member think when someone has made a mistake, especially someone in a position of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

power, they should apologise? Ed Davey. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can see from your letters in the chair that from your letters in the chair that you don't necessarily want me to go down that that particular avenue, but I hope I speak for others, that but I hope I speak for others, that we can reflect on how incredibly depressing it is that nothing has depressing it is that nothing has really changed. The British people are facing a cost of living emergency. They need a government emergency.

They need a government focussed on tackling it. They need a government they can trust. But instead this is what we've got. A Prime Minister who promised to be different, who promised to turn the page, who promised above everything else, change but was now mired. This government the same endless cycle of chaos and scandal as the last one, a Prime Minister who appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States, even though his links to Jeffrey Epstein have been widely reported, even though those reports have been brought directly to the Prime Minister's attention.

Even though the Cabinet secretary had advised him that security clearance should be acquired before the choice was confirmed, a Prime Minister who, despite all that, still told the House repeatedly that full due process was followed. A Prime Minister who says no pressure existed whatsoever to appoint Mandelson. Even despite all the evidence we've heard to the contrary, as the right hon. Lady set out in her speech and now Prime Minister, who desperately claims that he wouldn't have appointed Manson if he had known about UK security vetting his recommendation.

The Speaker The Prime Minister said we would find what he told us to be incredible and we do. But I think it's that last part that is the most incredible of all. Does he really expect us to believe that after all of that, ignoring the clear warnings from the propriety and ethics team, ignoring the advice of his then Cabinet secretary to get the security vetting done first, ignoring everything we already knew about Peter Mandelson and announcing his appointment to the world before the vetting had been done, does the Prime Minister really expect us to believe that if he'd be given the same recommendation as Olly Robbins, that it was a borderline case that he'd have cancelled the appointment? Do hon.

Members opposite really believe that's what would have happened? Because that claim is now all that's left of the Prime Minister's case for the defence, and it afraid it just doesn't stand up. So, Mr. Speaker, I will finish. Not with my own words, but with the words of another hon. Member. Four years ago, the now right hon. Member for Ashton under Lyne. I know her words carry a lot of weight on Labour benches, she said, and I quote, the only way to get to the bottom of this issue and regain public confidence in our democracy is by respecting the processes that have been created to enshrine the rules of our Parliament.

I point out that process we are following today is in place only because the Prime Minister, as Prime Minister, has failed to do the decent thing and resign. I repeat. Honesty, integrity and the truth matter in our politics today. MPs across the House have the opportunity to defend those principles and and to vote to support our democracy. Mr. speaker, the right hon. Lady was right back then. That is the opportunity before MPs today, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

urge us all to take it. Brenda, Saint Joseph. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last week I spoke in the emergency motion debate. I spoke about the appointment of Peter Mandelson in appointment of Peter Mandelson in the first instance, the approach taken by the Prime Minister as details have become available and finally, the vetting process finally, the vetting process overall. Today I want to address the motion and why I feel it's

13:36

Gurinder Singh Josan MP (Smethwick, Labour)

- -

13:43

Rt Hon David Davis MP (Goole and Pocklington, Conservative)

- -

13:57

Karl Turner MP (Kingston upon Hull East, Independent)

- -

14:07

Rt Hon Sir Edward Leigh MP (Gainsborough, Conservative)

- -

Bar of the House Edward Leigh. >> Yes. >> I want to speak very briefly, Mr. Speaker, because I'm not particularly party political and I particularly party political and I don't like making personal attacks, and I'm not calling for the Prime Minister to resign. I'm not questioning the appointment of Mr. Mansfield. This debate is not about whether that was a good decision. I'm sure that at the time, there was some logic in appointing him in that it obviously, the incoming president was a very political, very difficult character, and it was felt that Manson had the political skills to deal with him.

I understand all that. So I'm not making a big issue about Mr. Mandelson or about whether it was right to appoint him or not, and I wasn't really going to speak in this debate until I heard the speech from the hon. Lady for South Shields, which I think was a very powerful speech, because it came from somebody who was obviously a loyal member of the Labour Party, as is the Member for Harley, who's just spoken, that they were not trying to damage their own government or they were.

I think trying to say is that when you have an issue like this, when all sorts of allegations are being thrown across the floor of the House about whether people lied or not, actually having a process with the privileges committee is a process of catharsis. And we saw that with Boris Johnson. There was deep upset in the country. We know that whether that was fair or not, whether Mr. Johnson acted wrongly or not, we know that there was deep upset about what was going on with Partygate.

But it was right that the House decided to have that privileges committee. And we knew that in a way that drew a line under the whole thing. Now, I believe that Prime Minister. I'm sure he's an honourable person. I don't I it's not for me to say that he deliberately misled the House, but I think there are many questions that quite reasonable people are asking. And one of the most reasonable questions was actually put by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, if due process was followed, why was a dedicated civil servant, Olly Robbins, sacked for not following apparently due process? And I think many reasonable people feel that what is really monstrously unfair about this is that civil servants, dedicated civil servants, were simply trying to carry out the wishes of their political masters, and Olly Robbins has paid a very great price.

And I think many people in the civil service, our civil service is incredibly loyal to Ministers. They work loyally for Ministers. They try and carry out the wishes of their Ministers. And I think that many reasonable people feel that the treatment of Sir Olly Robbins has been quite wrong and he should be reinstated. But that's in a way, for another day. You know, I think the hon. Friend for Lagan Valley put it so well, if there's nothing to hide, why worry? You know, in these scandals, it's such a war of words.

We almost lose track of what was originally true. It's not the original scandal. If there is indeed a scandal which is at fault, it's the cover up or the perceived cover up. And the best way to restore public trust in Parliament, in the system, in what the Prime Minister said or didn't say, and the public are not that interested in all the details of all this. And they're they're probably like me, quite confused about actually whether the process was followed. Who said what, whether the chief of staff bullied the the the head of the Foreign Office.

These are all just party political words. Westminster bubble. What's important is the reputation of this place. And the most important thing in this place. We may say wrong things, we may say silly things. We may be party political. We've got to tell the truth. That's all that matters. Nothing else matters in this Parliament. I am prepared to accept that the Prime Minister, for whatever reason, made this appointment. I am prepared to accept that in his heart of hearts, when he's been standing in that despatch box, he's been telling the truth.

Why can't we just have a privileged committee, not the Foreign Affairs Committee, which is deciding great issues of foreign affairs, just the privileges Committee to look at this narrow issue. Why can we not just not have a vote at all, not have a vote at all, like the last occasion with Boris Johnson? Just don't have a vote. Let us all express our point of view and let it go through. Let us have an impartial committee. Let us listen to the testimony and let the committee and the House of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Commons make up its own mind on the truth. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Nadia Whittome thank you, Mr. Speaker. Firstly, it's important that in all of this we're centring that in all of this we're centring Epstein's victims, who have so often been forgotten. Their courageous campaign for justice and courageous campaign for justice and accountability continues. And we must all do all that we can to support it. I've heard the argument support it. I've heard the argument that this is all a distraction from the real issues that we should be discussing now. I would like nothing more than for us to be focusing on what this government

14:13

Nadia Whittome MP (Nottingham East, Labour)

- -

has delivered, like bringing NHS waiting lists down, raising the minimum wage and lifting children out of poverty, and pushing for even greater ambition. But unfortunately, it's because of the unfortunately, it's because of the serious mistakes made by number ten, like appointing Peter Mandelson, that these achievements are being overshadowed now. I also don't doubt that the Conservatives are attempting to use this issue for attempting to use this issue for their own gain ahead of the local elections. As my hon. Friend said, that is politics.

Of course, our political opponents will try to exploit our weaknesses, but nevertheless, I believe that our constituents do care about the honesty of politicians and that they deserve nothing less than the whole truth on this matter. This vote is not on whether we in this House believe that the Prime Minister misled Parliament or not, but about whether we believe that there are questions that the Prime Minister needs to answer and that the Privileges Committee should look at the matter and give its assessments.

I appreciate that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee inquiry is ongoing, and I'd like to commend its chair for the fantastic work that she is doing. But the purpose of that inquiry is not to look at the Prime Minister's conduct. I've listened to the Prime Minister's arguments, and unfortunately, I am yet to be convinced that he has definitively not misled the House, even if inadvertently, because I'm concerned that pressure was put on the Foreign Office regarding Mandelson's appointment, given Sir Robin's evidence, and if I remain unconvinced, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure there will be a sizeable number of our constituents who are also unconvinced.

Why not let the Privileges Committee settle this matter once and for all? As is often said, sunlight is the best disinfectant if we're to preserve what little trust still remains in our political system, it is vital that Ministers demonstrate the utmost transparency, and it is vital that we as MPs, no matter our political allegiance, do not allow the impression that we are in any way attempting to cover things up for the leadership of our parties. And that is why I'm extremely disappointed that Labour MPs are being whipped to to oppose this motion.

Votes on house business are not normally whipped, and even Boris Johnson's government did not whip conservative MPs to oppose his referral to the privileges committee. I'm not making any comparison between his behaviour and that of the Prime Minister's, but our government must be seen to be holding itself to far higher standards than the mess and the sleaze and corruption that Johnson's government came to represent. I wish that the Prime Minister would just refer himself to the Privileges Committee, demonstrating his confidence that he has nothing to hide and preventing the need for a vote entirely.

Now, colleagues will be aware that the Prime Minister and I have had our political differences, which is to be expected in a broad church party. But I want to be clear that that has absolutely no bearing on my vote today. I'd rather stick to debating these politics, not matters of integrity. So it brings me no pleasure to vote for the motion today. But this is about doing what is right by our constituents for trust in politics and for the party that I've been a member of for almost half my life.

14:16

Simon Hoare MP (North Dorset, Conservative)

- -

14:30

Tim Roca MP (Macclesfield, Labour)

- -

GPP Tim Roca. >> The appointment. >> Of Mandelson was a profoundly flawed process. It was also a profoundly flawed choice. It was profoundly flawed choice. It was the wrong choice. And I think of the victims of Epstein. And I also the victims of Epstein. And I also think of Alistair Darling, who was a fine public servant, a committed public servant, and what he would be thinking today. But we're asked this afternoon to make several leaps of faith, one of which is to believe that just nine days from local and national elections, that we are here not because of a political stunt coordinated by the Conservative Party, but to accept that they have turned into a sober, principled set of defenders of parliamentary standards that they are not interested in pre-election theatre.

But nobody seriously believes that even their own press briefings give the game away. A senior conservative source, which was reported as saying we got the privileges vote. That was the goal ahead of the local elections. Not the truth, not the outcome, not the merits of the case. No, the goal was simply to force the spectacle of a vote. And that tells us

**** Possible New Speaker ****

everything we need to know about the intent behind what is happening this afternoon. Yeah. And it's no surprise then that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And it's no surprise then that this has been widely characterised, even by those observing closely even by those observing closely political correspondence as a win win exercise for the opposition. If they secure an inquiry, they claim they secure an inquiry, they claim vindication. If they lose, they still bank the headlines, the still bank the headlines, the insinuation, the noise. This is not how the House should conduct itself. When invoking one of the most serious mechanisms at its disposal. And as the hon.

Member for Smethwick very powerfully pointed out, we're not dealing with a vacuum. There are mechanisms already in train, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, the Humble Address the Prime Minister answered questions for two nearly three hours last week. Yes, that is important. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, referral to the Privileges Committee is not a partisan tool. It is not a device to be deployed because one side sees a political opportunity. It exists for a clear, prima facie serious and evidenced case of misleading the House cases that go to the heart of ministerial integrity.

Very happy to give way to honourable. Because it's so evident that what you're doing this afternoon, sorry that the hon. Member is participating this afternoon, is party political? In fact. In fact, I would say to the hon. Member that he's partaking in a particularly dishonourable act in doing this in such a partisan, partisan way. So to carry on with the case that I was making, I do not believe that what has been presented meets the bar that I just mentioned at most what we are dealing with now.

I'm going to make some progress. Thank you. At most, what we are dealing with here is an argument about a deeply flawed appointment. As I've said, a deeply flawed process and the judgements around it. But those are matters for political debate, for scrutiny, for challenge across this chamber, across this chamber. But they are not in themselves grounds for alleging contempt of Parliament. If they were, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Privileges Committee would be constantly in session. And that brings me to the question of consistency, because the House in recent years has had to confront genuinely serious breaches, cases where standards weren't just questioned but plainly and repeatedly violated findings of bullying at the highest levels of government.

In the last government of Ministers in the last government, falling short of the standards expected of them. And most notably, we saw a former conservative Prime Minister investigated and found to repeatedly have misled the House conduct, conduct so grave. We finish this point and then I might give way if I'm feeling generous conduct so grave that it resulted in a damning report which I think the Leader of the Opposition abstained on voting in favour of, I think. And of course, that's quite aside from the fact that it also involved a criminal conviction.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, exactly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There is no equivalence, none between those cases and what is before us today. Because if there was, there would have been a genuine attempt at a cross party piece of persuasion. And instead, piece of persuasion. And instead, what we got from the Leader of the Opposition was a rambling roller coaster. Iran, the two child coaster. Iran, the two child benefits cap U-turns, etc. so to attempt to draw that comparison is not just wrong. It diminishes the seriousness of those findings in the past.

It risks turning the privileges committee from a guardian of standards into a weapon of convenience. Madam Deputy Speaker, the motion today speaks the language of contempt, of contempt of Parliament, but actually reveals something else. It reveals the contempt the opposition hold for the British people.

14:35

Rt Hon Stephen Flynn MP (Aberdeen South, Scottish National Party)

- -

14:43

Sam Rushworth MP (Bishop Auckland, Labour)

- -

14:54

Alicia Kearns MP (Rutland and Stamford, Conservative)

- -

15:07

Brian Leishman MP (Alloa and Grangemouth, Labour)

- -

Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon. >> Deputy Speaker, and from the outset, I wish to state my support for justice to be delivered for all for justice to be delivered for all the people who were harmed by Jeffrey Epstein and for those involved with him who committed such despicable violations and crimes to be held responsible for the people who were exploited, should be at the front of all our minds. It is my opinion that this motion does not come from anything noble, a deep concern for those that were trafficked or abused, nor is it about the protection of democracy or anything of that nature.

Of course, this motion is designed to embarrass the Prime Minister and put Labour MPs in an awkward position, and not for the first time, as Labour MPs, we are in an awkward position and not for the first time is because of the Prime Minister's actions and not that of the opposition. The accusation of secrecy and the goings on in this place are serious political issues that mean the world to a whole host of our constituents. Sometimes it's in the traditions and protocols of this place, which to many often seem archaic, arcane and totally unrelatable to how they lead their daily lives.

People are regularly frustrated at Ministers not answering questions at the despatch box, and equally shadow Ministers with amnesia. Their own record. When in power, people are infuriated watching politicians do the media circuit, slavishly going through the party lines, no matter how illogical they may be. All of it just breeds utter contempt in politics and for politicians, people are sick to the back teeth of it all. Now, when I'm out campaigning and knocking on people's doors, they tell me just how irritated they are with politicians who endlessly try to deflect and defend the most absurd and wrong decisions just because of the party that they represent.

Of course, this is not unique to the Labour Party. All parties indulge in this. Conservatives defending the record of austerity that ripped the heart out of communities up and down the United Kingdom. Many in the SNP refused to take responsibilities for failures in housing, education, health, local authorities and vital public services. But credit to the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South for alluding, touching the lightness of touch on some of the travails that his party have experienced.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I just want my Labour government to be better than that. It really is a low bar that we have been set, but people genuinely think that we are all the same. They see no real difference. And to echo other honourable and right hon. Members, I think the Prime Minister should refer himself to the Privileges Committee. I would say to Parliament and more importantly, our voters, the country that he knows he will be proved innocent, that he will be vindicated, that he's got nothing to hide, and importantly, that transparency and accountability are really are at the heart of our democracy.

I say to colleagues on this side of the House that we were elected based on the promise of providing change, an end to the scandals and the cover ups that people are so disgusted with, whether it be Tory lockdown parties or trips to castles, hundreds of miles to test eyesight, the SNP abandonment of care homes and the do not resuscitate notices placed on patients without their consent during Covid. We need to be better than all of that. But truthfully, in our first 20 months in government, the public do not think that we are.

And because of the mistakes, the decline in standards, the secrecy, the lack of accountability, then we are paving the way for a hard line, far right government to come next and be under no illusions that government would set the country back to the days of mass unemployment, dire

**** Possible New Speaker ****

poverty and The quality they want to create a society that is as intolerant as a society that is as intolerant as it is unfair. And it absolutely it is unfair. And it absolutely terrifies me. In finishing, I say to any colleague that if you think I'm wrong, then please do have a I'm wrong, then please do have a look at the polls. Look at the by election results we have had. The Prime Minister said we would put country before party today with this vote.

He has the perfect opportunity to do just that. The Prime Minister needs to stop putting Labour MPs in awkward situations. The open and honest thing would be to refer himself to the committee, but if you want, then I'm afraid he has left me with no choice. I will have to vote for this motion this afternoon.

15:13

Rt Hon Sir Roger Gale MP (Herne Bay and Sandwich, Conservative)

- -

Sir Roger Gale. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the start of this debate, when Mr. Speaker was in the chair, he Mr. Speaker was in the chair, he reminded the House that this debate was not a trial of the Prime Minister. This was a debate about whether or not an issue should be put to the privileges committee. I do think we all need to remember that. And he also said, for the record, that when the debate became repetitive, he might consider taking a closure motion.

I'm sorely tempted to move one, Madam Deputy Speaker, but not yet. It saddens me deeply that we are where we are today. It saddens me that this has been presented by some members of the government benches as a ruse before the local government elections. This is about something very fundamental to many of us. It's about the truth, the probity, the integrity of this house, and every man and woman that sits in it. I've heard some very courageous speeches from the government benches this afternoon, and I applaud each and every one of those people who made them, because I know just how difficult.

Madam Deputy Speaker, this is. Mr. Johnson has been referred to frequently. I was one of the first, possibly the first, to call publicly for the resignation of Johnson as Prime Minister. That was not a happy circumstance. I did not enjoy it. I do not like taking on my own side, but I believe then, as indeed I believe now, that man was not fit to be Prime Minister. But I also know that what I did and said was right, as I believe that those hon.

Members on the other side of the House who have spoken this afternoon in support of the motion, are doing what they believe to be right. I'm horrified, Madam Deputy Speaker, to find, to believe, to have to believe that House business is whipped. It should not be. It's been said repetitively that actually the sensible thing to have happened would be for the Prime Minister to refer himself to the Privileges Committee. But if that's not going to happen, then I think we all need to understand that out there.

There are people waiting to see what we do. Can we be trusted? Never mind. Can the Prime Minister be trusted? Can we be trusted? Can we be trusted to take the right? The proper decision tonight. Every single one of us in the morning is going to get up and look in the mirror to either put on makeup or shave. And we have to look. My hon. Friend reminds me. That my hon. Friend reminds my hon. Friend reminds me that he did say incorrectly that the vote on Johnson.

The call for the resignation of Johnson was not taken until after the Privileges Committee findings. He's actually quite wrong. That call was made well before it went to the Privileges committee. So let's come back to what I was trying to say. Every single one of us has to be able to look in the mirror in the morning and live with ourselves. I hope very much that the government whips will withdraw the whip for whipping tonight, so that hon. Members can vote according to their conscience.

And I believe that if that is so, and if that is done, then this matter will be referred entirely properly to the Privileges Committee, and then we can get on with the job that after the King's speech we will be here to do again, which is devote our concerns to the cost of living, to fuel prices, to the manner in which the hospitality business is being destroyed, to all the matters that we ought to be here discussing today, rather than discussing this.

I beg my friends on the other side of the house to do the right thing tonight.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Chris Kane. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. A referral to the Privileges.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A referral to the Privileges. Committee, particularly. Involving a Prime. Minister. Should be rare. The bar should be high because we have so many other processes available to us in this place. And with this issue, this place. And with this issue, many of these processes are already in action. The Foreign Affairs Committee, under the excellent chairing of the right hon. Member

15:18

Chris Kane MP (Stirling and Strathallan, Labour)

- -

chairing of the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury, is taking evidence and will report in due course. The Humble Address from this House has put a process in place to ensure transparency, and the government is complying with it. Then there is a tendency in this chamber. I have no doubt the Prime Minister will continue to make himself available here, as he has done in recent weeks through statements and at PMQs, both because it is right and because the processes of this House require it.

Let us be honest about the timing. Bringing this forward one week before elections is political. I do not criticise that. It is part of the system we operate in. But we should be clear about it. I've been reflecting this week on the concept of pressure. We have heard from senior civil servants that there was pressure to proceed with the appointment of Peter Mandelson before vetting had concluded. They have said that the pressure was inappropriate. They have not said the pressure was inappropriate, simply that it existed.

The Prime Minister, for his part, has been clear. He has said that this was the kind of pressure that exists in any high performing environment where decisions need to be made and progress needs to happen. That is very different from pressure to do something you are not comfortable with. But I suppose the truth is, is that my experience of pressure is not the same as the Prime Minister's. A degree of recalibration is required on my part as a member of the Public Accounts Committee.

We apply pressure to senior civil servants every week. We expect them to account for the decisions, often in difficult circumstances and under public scrutiny. And time and time again, I am struck by their professionalism and their ability to handle that pressure. I am equally struck by the Prime Minister's ability to do the same, whether at Prime Minister's Questions or an extended sessions like the one we held last week where he answered questions for over two hours. That level of scrutiny is constant and unrelenting.

In my time in this House, I have never known the Prime Minister to act in anything other than good faith. He is focussed, serious and determined to deliver

**** Possible New Speaker ****

circumstances. Yeah. Is he perfect? Of course not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is he perfect? Of course not. None of us are. His is an almost None of us are. His is an almost impossible job in turbulent times. But that is the nature of government. The public Alexa government. The public Alexa government gives it time to govern. That requires consistency, judgement and at times the ability judgement and at times the ability to change course as circumstances demand. What it does not require is abandoning the course entirely. At the first sign that another ship looks to be sailing more smoothly.

We are quite clearly in the middle of a storm, not a passing squall, but sustained difficult conditions. Economic pressure, global instability and challenges at home that have been building for years. In those circumstances, what matters is not whether the sea is calm, but is whether the vessel is seaworthy and whether the person at the helm knows how to navigate. Now, no ship is perfect. There will always be repairs to make, adjustments to take, and decisions that, with hindsight, might have been handled differently.

But abandoning a ship amidst storm or trying to sink, it appears, is a risk. It. Because that other ship, because I'm finding another ship that is sailing in different waters, is sailing under different conditions. And let's be honest, that other ship will. The same storm is heading its way to. So the real question is not whether things are perfect. It's whether we have a vessel that can withstand the conditions. And a captain who can steer it. Now, when I look across the chamber, I do not see a credible.

Alternatives ready to take us through what lies ahead. On one side, we have a conservative approach that too often feels like a ship designed for a different age, a wooden ship not equipped for the realities of the world we are living in now. A vision that looks backwards rather than forwards. And in the other, I see the SNP. If you cannot reliably build and run the ferries that connect your own communities, it does raise serious questions about the readiness to navigate a much bigger journey.

There is less of a fully equipped vessel and more like something assembled for the appearance of movement, rather than the reality

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of it. That point, of course. Doctor Scott Arthur.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does he agree that it appears the SNP do not have a ship right now? They must have a submarine or.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now? They must have a submarine or. Think hon. Members will find this is not a debate about the SNP and perhaps.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and perhaps. We all ought to confine remarks to the subject of actually debating Chris Kane.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chris Kane. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. To finish my metaphor, but not about the SNP. You hold steady, you make the adjustments that are needed and you focus on getting safely to better conditions. That is the task that's in front of us, and that is why I will be supporting the Prime Minister to continue doing the job he was elected to do, to keep a steady hand on the tiller and guide the country through challenging times. And I would urge colleagues to do the same, because in the end, this is about stability, seriousness and leadership, and that is what this country needs.

Today's motion feels to me like a distraction from that mission. And so I urge colleagues across the chamber to vote against the motion today.

15:24

Ann Davies MP (Caerfyrddin, Plaid Cymru)

- -

Ann Davies, madam. this motion a stunt and pure politics, but the Prime Minister and Labour MP is rallying around him. Forget the seriousness of the allegations against him. That is misleading the House of Commons over statements relating to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States. An individual with well-documented links to to the convicted sex offender and human trafficker to swat away these allegations as a desperate political stunt, refusing them to be investigated properly by the Committee of Privileges is an insult to us all, an insult to the public, who are promised transparency and openness by the Prime Minister's Labour government, and an insult to fit to victims.

Sorry to victims and survivors of violence and abuse who deserve so much better from those who claim to represent them. What Parliament is being asked today is a straightforward question about whether serious concerns regarding the Prime Minister should be examined properly and independently. If the Prime Minister insists that he has done nothing wrong, then surely the Privileges Committee will come to that same conclusion. And if Labour believe that everything is in order, why have they forced their MPs to vote against the motion today? It begs the question what does the Prime Minister have to hide? The Prime Minister promised change and people across Wales gave him a mandate for that change.

But what did the public get instead? Misjudgements incompetence, a lack of transparency at the heart of government and no real accountability. I put myself forward to become a member of Parliament because, to be frank, I was fed up of Partygate, the betting scandal, the 200 000 that Vaughan Gethin had accepted in order to fund his own leadership campaign. I thought, we're better than this. As residents, as constituents, we are better than this. And people deserve a government which is honest and transparent, and we certainly haven't had that in the two years that I've been sitting here on these benches.

The Prime Minister has tried to wash his hands of Mandelson's appointment, hiding behind processes, procedure and the actions of civil servants destroying decent people's lives, only to hobble on for another few weeks. And even if the Prime Minister's loyalists vote this motion down today, Labour and the Prime Minister himself will have shown their true colours in just over a week. People of Wales have a chance to give their verdict and they will. Yeah. Alex Barros-Curtis.

15:27

Mr Alex Barros-Curtis MP (Cardiff West, Labour)

- -

15:39

Charlie Dewhirst MP (Bridlington and The Wolds, Conservative)

- -

15:45

Johanna Baxter MP (Paisley and Renfrewshire South, Labour)

- -

Johanna Baxter thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And before I start, Deputy Speaker. And before I start, let me also pay tribute to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein because their views have been heard far too little in these debates. Let me also address some of the what I feel to be quite patronising. Comments made to backbench Labour MPs today. Nobody has asked me to speak today and nobody has put any pressure on me. In fact, colleagues on these benches know that I have my own mind and will express it as I see fit.

At a moment of genuine challenge for families across the country. When households are concerned about rising prices, instability abroad and pressure on living standards, the opposition has brought a motion that is ultimately more concerned with political point scoring than practical solutions, and that is deeply regrettable because the British public expect and deserve

**** Possible New Speaker ****

better than Westminster at its most performative. Yeah. They expect seriousness and rightly expect scrutiny for scrutiny is due, but also expect Parliament to focus on the issues Parliament to focus on the issues that shape their daily lives, the bills landing on their doormats, the cost of food in the the cost of food in the supermarkets, the price of fuel at the pumps and the strength of the the pumps and the strength of the economy in uncertain times. On Peter Mandelson, let me be absolutely clear he should never have been appointed as our ambassador.

The Prime Minister recognised that. He has apologised for that. He did so properly, repeatedly, with transparency and accountability and with respect to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. That was the right course of action and I would not have expected anything less from the Prime Minister because I too have known him for many years. I have worked with him as he sought to rid our party of the stain of anti-Semitism, which has now infected others. I have seen him stand up to Putin when others have taken bribes from his allies.

Madam Deputy Speaker, given those processes of transparency are in place and under way, which they are, why it has to be asked, are the parties opposite working to ride roughshod over investigation processes they all agree to? Well, we have heard it here earlier in the debate. Social media clicks and cheap headlines ahead of significant elections. The fact is that the government has agreed to and is complying with the Humble Address to allow scrutiny of the Mandelson appointment in this place to see the facts, the advice that was available to the Prime Minister at the time Mandelson was appointed, and my right hon.

Friend the Member for Islington and Islington South and Finsbury is chairing a Select Committee inquiry to which key figures involved in the Mandelson appointment have rightly been summoned, and the Prime Minister has come to this House repeatedly to answer questions about that appointment. As has been already expressed, politically motivated use of the Privileges Committee procedures risks undermining those procedures. What is clear is the circumstances the opposition hoped would come to light, which they hoped might bring down a successful Labour government, have been nothing more than conspiracy.

First, they said that the Prime Minister must have known that UK security vetting recommendation was to reject the vetting for Peter Mandelson. Yet Olly Robbins confirmed to the Select Committee last week that he had chosen not to share that crucial information with the Prime Minister. They were wrong. They said that the Prime Minister was wrong to say that due process was followed. Yet Chris Wormald has confirmed in a letter to the Prime Minister that the process was followed. In his own words, the evidence I have reviewed leads me to conclude that appropriate processes were followed in both the appointment and the withdrawal of the former ambassador to Washington.

Again, they were wrong. How could the Prime Minister have taken any other assessment than due process was followed when it was spelled out to him in black and white from his own officials? Those are not rumours. They are not talking points. They are facts. And facts matter in this place. Many good colleagues on these benches, and indeed I'm sure some on the others know deep down that the number one issue facing our constituents is the cost of living fallout from Trump's war in Iran, a war torn by parties opposite.

They know that because when we've been out on the doors in the lead up to the elections in May, that is what voters are telling every one of us. They are worried about their bills, the prices at the pumps and the prices in their supermarkets. And while some in this House want to engage in political stunts, this very afternoon, the Prime Minister is convening a committee on the response to the conflict in the Middle East on how we support the British economy, our services and most importantly, our constituents.

What is clear is that there is only one party focussed on the job of delivering for the British people, and it is the one that the country voted for in the last election. The Conservative Party, after 14 years of chaos, scandal and economic recklessness, now wants to lecture anyone else on standards in public life is galling from the party that gave us Partygate revolving door, prime Ministers, cronyism, collapsing public services, Liz Truss's catastrophic experiment that sent mortgages soaring and punished working families for conservative failures.

Meanwhile,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they collude with the SNP. The SNP, who asked voters. Have made.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Have made. The point previously please, will members confine themselves to debating the issue at hand and not debating the issue at hand and not into fighting the local election campaign, perhaps? Johanna Baxter.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Those are the issues we could have been debating today, but instead we are debating a political stunt. This government is standing up for the British people, showing leadership in our support for Ukraine, bringing our national rules, but services back into public ownership, delivering our historic Employment Rights Act, amongst many others. Madam Deputy Speaker, when I vote this afternoon, I do so knowing full well that I was elected to serve on the priorities that matter to the people of Paisley and Renfrewshire South.

Their bills, their security, their welfare and I will vote to ensure that we have a government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that continues to focus on those priorities. Richard Tice.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Richard Tice. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, the motion to refer the Prime Minister to the Privileges Minister to the Privileges Committee revolves around two words. Madam Deputy Speaker. Pressure. Madam Deputy Speaker. Pressure. That's the first word. And it's absolutely vital. Also process. And

15:52

Richard Tice MP (Boston and Skegness, Reform UK)

- -

absolutely vital. Also process. And of course, the Prime Minister is the master of process. He bangs on about it all the time. The king of process here in the commons. And he says that full due process was followed. And yet we've already heard from other hon. Members that Sir Simon Case, the then Cabinet Secretary, gave the Prime Minister in November 2020 for due process. He said that actually the vetting and the due diligence should be carried out before confirming the choice of ambassador.

The Prime Minister chose to avoid that due process. There is a second key element of due process that I don't think has been properly teased out so far this afternoon, and that is with regard to the timing of the decision on vetting through January 2025, because if full due process was being followed, then the security authorities, the vetting authorities, should have been allowed to take whatever time they deemed necessary to make their judgement. And with regard to Mandelson, goodness me, there's a lot to go through to check that clearance.

Clearly, we've heard from a number of senior civil servants that actually they were not allowed to carry out full due process and to take as long as they determined was necessary, even if that took them beyond the inauguration of the president of the United States. No, no, no. I bring you on now, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the second word, which is whether or not any pressure whatsoever was applied. And we've heard we've heard from not one, not two, but from three separate senior civil servants that actually the pressure was not on the decision itself.

The pressure was indeed on the speed of the decision because the decision had already been taken by not following due process. And we have heard Sir Olly Robbins confirm that pressure was felt to get on with the decision. We've heard yesterday from Ian Collard that actually pressure was applied to make that decision and we've heard, of course, from Sir Philip Barton that actually again, he said the pressure was to get on with it. There was no space in the decision.

There was no space in that. In other words, due process was not followed and it was all about I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We did not hear last week. At the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that whilst there was pressure and that was discussed, it pressure and that was discussed, it had no impact on the decision and it was a marginal decision. And they felt that they felt that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they felt that they felt that the risks could be managed. I feel that the hon. Gentleman is missing this part out in his story. I thank the hon. Gentleman, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I would remind him what the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister's Questions just last week. No Questions just last week. No pressure existed whatsoever. Whatsoever is the critical word, which is the flaw in the hon. Member's argument. So we now know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that not only actually did the Prime Minister inadvertently mislead the House with regard to full due process, but he has misled the House for a second time with regard to whether or not any pressure existed whatsoever.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the evidence is in and for a Prime Minister that prides himself on process, anecdotally, it seems that there is a culture that does not exist around him and within him and perhaps himself. For example, we now know that the Cabinet Office questioned whether or not there should be any vetting at all. In other words, they didn't want full due process. So we know that, and we now know. We now know that. Sir Olly Robbins, in terms of the decision whether or not to retain him or fire him, clearly full due process was not followed.

And then the issue of whether or not this decision to refer any member of the House to the Privileges Committee precedent clearly shows that it should not be whipped. And I would argue, Madam Deputy Speaker, that precedent is a process, and the process of not whipping this decision, this vote is not in this instance, Madam Deputy Speaker, being followed. So I would urge all hon. Members to ignore the whipping, to follow the conscience and to follow the evidence.

The evidence is in. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House of Commons. Yes.

15:58

David Pinto-Duschinsky MP (Hendon, Labour)

- -

David Pinto-Duschinsky thank you. >> David Pinto-Duschinsky thank you. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Appointing Peter Mandelson was Appointing Peter Mandelson was wrong. And as with any debate on this subject, we should start by acknowledging the suffering of Jeffrey Epstein's victims. They have my full solidarity. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have listened closely to the opposition during this debate, and I think we need to call their behaviour for what it is. This is political game playing of the lowest order from the party.

Opposition politics is a circus to them. They thrive off this use of politics as a soap opera because it is all they know. That's why the public grew so heartily sick of them. And it is precisely why so many of their former colleagues no longer sit on their benches. Just weeks ago, their leader showed a catastrophic failure of leadership in calling for this country to rush to war. When she spoke, then she had no lying strategy, and she didn't focus on what was right for the country.

Clearly, she has learned nothing from that. Her cynicism becomes clear now when we peel back their rhetoric and expose the lack of substance behind her arguments. Peter Mandelson was dismissed last September. Rightly so, the Prime Minister has already acknowledged that his appointment was a mistake. Senior civil servants including Olly Robbins, Chris Wormholt and Cat little, have all made clear that due process was followed in that appointment. Olly Robbins himself has said that no one from number ten ever spoke to him or messaged him to apply pressure, and Philip Barton today also confirmed that there was no pressure on the substance of the vetting.

I also want to deal directly with this point about the sequence of vetting. I have been through developed vetting. I've been through security vetting numerous times. It is completely standard procedure to make offers of jobs contingent on passing security. On this point, as on other points, there is simply no case to answer. What's more, this government is undertaking an extensive release of document No. I'm making some progress in the interest of transparency and respect for this House. Ministers have updated us on that progress with the Humble Address.

And on top of that, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee is holding hearings. What's more, alongside that, the government has strengthened already the processes around national security vetting and senior appointments. So I'll ask again, what's the real substance here? We are not uncovering new facts. In fact, the opposition's argument has changed time and time again. As the Member for Cardiff West so eloquently put point pointed out, what we are seeing is lots of throwing mud in the hope that some of it will stick.

The party opposite is not speaking in the public interest, but in service of political opportunism or opportunism. It is no. It is demeaning and diminishing an important parliamentary process. Our disciplinary processes are serious. They should not be used for political point scoring. A privileges investigation would not bring further clarity. It would only create a long, costly and wholly unnecessary duplication of processes that are either completed or already underway. It is a distraction, and I'm guessing that's why the party opposite wants it a stunt, and that's why I will be voting against it.

But Madam Deputy Speaker, under the previous government, this House was treated with contempt. Standards were bent and procedures were torn apart to protect those in power, with the support of many members now sitting opposite. So we are entitled to ask why do they raise this now? Well, it's for one reason only, of course, it's because there's an election in a few days time, but it's also because fundamentally they cannot accept the change this government is delivering. They cannot accept that we are investing in public services that they ran in, in, in,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in to the ground. Nor duh. Yep. I'm going to make the point again. We're debating privilege. We're not debating the government's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We're not debating the government's record and its actions. David Pinto-Duschinsky Madam Deputy Speaker So with that, I will then wind up. We were elected with a mandate to deliver change, and that's exactly what we'll do. The that's exactly what we'll do. The party opposite is trying to distract from that fact. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, it will not work.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker, it will not work. A Joy Morrissey. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And may I echo the voices of other MPs across this House, particularly the Member for South Shields, when asking, why doesn't the Prime Minister refer himself to privileges? And if the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, why

16:02

Joy Morrissey MP (Beaconsfield, Conservative)

- -

is he whipping his MPs against a is he whipping his MPs against a House motion? Now we have the privileges Committee. As Madam Deputy Speaker, you know full well the Privileges Committee. The the Privileges Committee. The Standards Committee is there to judge us and our conduct in this judge us and our conduct in this House to judge members. We sign a MP code of conduct when we become MPs. And this these two committees MPs. And this these two committees are the select committees that judge our conduct in the House.

The Select Committees, the Foreign Affairs Select committees. All of these committees are to judge the government, to hold the government to account. Those two committees are the only committees that hold us as MPs to account. Therefore, why hasn't the Prime Minister taken the leadership that he has demanded of others time and time again, and not refer himself to privileges he has demanded others resign for far less trivial matters. He has referred and demanded that others be referred to privileges and standards.

But why have the rules changed for him now? We could spend another afternoon laboriously analysing who did what and when. Another week of the Prime Minister telling us what he didn't know and wasn't responsible for that. The buck stops anywhere but here. This is from the man who has made a career of standing on the moral high ground, damning others for behaviour. He is now demonstrating, demanding others do the honourable thing, something we now see he is clearly incapable of doing himself, instead choosing this painful spectacle, clinging on until inevitably, those sitting behind him or beside him dispense with his tarnished services, which we all know they will do soon.

And I note, Madam Deputy Speaker, many are absent from the front bench, perhaps on full time leadership manoeuvres as we speak, but I do not wish to further condemn the Prime Minister, only offer my genuine sympathy on a basic human level for the embarrassment and shame he must be feeling underneath the veneer of virtue he has spent decades cultivating that is now crumbling to dust with his every word, his every defection, every desperate excuse. What goes around comes around.

And for the Prime Minister, it has come around right here, right now. It is an intensely sad and embarrassing sight. And for that, he does not deserve my condemnation. Only pity.

16:05

Andrew Lewin MP (Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)

- -

Andrew Lewin thank you, Madam >> Andrew Lewin thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in advocating for the motion today, the Leader of the Opposition, who I see has just Opposition, who I see has just returned to her place. I know she was waiting for me. Well. Her was waiting for me. Well. Her essential argument, I believe, is that we in this House have not spent enough time debating this issue, and that perhaps just one more committee would be the answer. Madam Deputy Speaker before we began our debate today, five statements, two debates, and more than 13 hours of debate here in the House of Commons.

That's my count of how long we've been discussing the Mandelson issue. That's a small C conservative estimate because it cannot account for PMQs all the other ministerial questions. And it is, of course, distinct from the hearings, the very important hearings being held by the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee, as it forensically carries out its work in compliance with the Humble Address and the release of all papers relating to Lord Mandelson's Mandelson's appointment as the ambassador to the United States.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not believe that the British public believe that just one more committee is the answer, but I do want to set out why. I think we are an important juncture and look at three things three actions that have been taken by the government. The apology from the Prime Minister, the action taken across government departments and the ongoing scrutiny that is still being applied to this case. The apology the Prime Minister has offered repeated and unconditional apologies from that Dispatch Box, from when he's been asked questions by the media and to the victim victims of Epstein, he's made clear that this was an error of judgement.

There has been a message of contrition that I believe, that has been heard by people in this House and across the country. We all make mistakes. That is not in dispute. So let's turn next to the action that has been taken and continues to take place across government. More than 300 documents have already been released to the Intelligence and Security Committee in full compliance with the Humble Address. And I think this is really important because I was part of the debate, and it was a good debate that this House had about involving the Intelligence and Security Committee in this process and giving them that oversight.

And at the time, the benches opposite said that this was the very important thing to do. And there was a consensus across the House. But

**** Possible New Speaker ****

earlier today, I happily. Given way I was in that debate. And if you if the member remembers, And if you if the member remembers, as the House will show, it was the decision during the debate to suddenly do that the government was suddenly do that the government was going to vote against having the Humble Address. It was only because members from both sides of the members from both sides of the House, particularly the security Committee, put themselves forward to say, we have an option here so that the reason we were actually that the reason we were actually having the debate in the first place was because this side of the House compelled the government to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

come to give that papers away. He can't have it, that it was just put out there by his side. Andrew Lewin thank the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Andrew Lewin thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I remember it vividly. Members from both sides made the case, and I both sides made the case, and I said in my remarks that it was an example of the House at its best, because we came to a good decision because we came to a good decision to involve the ISC. But the reason I raised it again today, Madam Deputy Speaker, is because I was fascinated by what the Leader of the Opposition said.

She characterised that committee as, quote, a never, never committee in her remarks earlier today, as if it would never come to the answer. So all of a sudden, it seems that they've it's politically convenient. They've now lost faith in the ISC when they were advocating for. It for so long. But more action has been taken. It's important that it has been on. Vetting has been discussed extensively today. The process that was in place under the last government and at the start of this government has gone and has already been changed by my hon.

Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister. In the future, all vetting will now be completed before appointments. That is absolutely the right change.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But it's quite clear from the advice given by Simon Case in advice given by Simon Case in November 2024 that that was the situation. The only reason that we found out that there wasn't the found out that there wasn't the alternative one was because the documents were forced into the open. documents were forced into the open. And does he not agree that Chris Wormald's letter that suggested that everything had been done properly, directly contradicts the direct advice given by the then Cabinet Secretary that you should do the vetting first? The.

It's not compatible, it's illogical. And surely the hon. Gentleman who is giving the least embarrassing speech on behalf of the government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

so far, congratulations to him for that. Can see that Andrew Lewin. It's very kind. I'll see him on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's very kind. I'll see him on the cricket pitch in a week's time. Look, there's a serious point here in that there are a number of very senior civil servants that I'm senior civil servants that I'm going to come to who have given evidence on this and have said that process was followed. And it leads process was followed. And it leads neatly into my next point about the importance of ongoing scrutiny, the scrutiny that has been conducted by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. Very happy to give way. On the point. We've had a lot of evidence today. Does he agree with me that what's clear about the process is that there were so many inconsistencies and so much confusion, that the Prime Minister was absolutely right to build back trust in that process and make the you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I appreciate it, my friend. I think he was absolutely right, and the House was absolutely right to accept the Humble Address, to involve the Intelligence and Security Committee and to give the Foreign Affairs Committee all the scope that it needs to ask questions of the key actors in the process. And just to remind the House, in the last few weeks and House, in the last few weeks and days, we've had evidence in public from Cat little, Sir Oliver Robbins, Morgan McSweeney, and, of course, Morgan McSweeney, and, of course, the Prime Minister himself, repeatedly from that Dispatch Box.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister and the government is not hiding. It is putting everything in the sun, in the sunlight. As an hon. Member suggested earlier. But this is a deeply serious issue for the House and for the country, and I want to, again, associate myself with everyone who has spoken today about the pain that must continually being felt by the victims, by the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Every time this issue is raised and our thoughts are with all of them.

But the Prime Minister has apologised unconditionally. He has acted and the government has acted, and scrutiny from two committees is still ongoing. So the judgement before us today is not whether scrutiny should happen, because his most clearly and evidently is, is whether we should support a conveniently timed motion from the Leader of the Opposition to refer the issue to one more committee. I'm afraid, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not believe that is the answer, and I would trust the judgement of this Prime Minister over the Leader of the Opposition every day of the week.

16:12

Sorcha Eastwood MP (Lagan Valley, Alliance)

- -

Sorcha Eastwood thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just want to put Deputy Speaker. I just want to put two things on record here before I commence my remarks. So the Labour Party don't stand for election in Northern Ireland. We do not have elections next week or the week after. So everything I'm about to say has got absolutely nothing to do with the so-called political stunt. But everything to do with the integrity of this House. And by the way, I find patronising the context that we shouldn't be discussing these things because the government of the day want to get on with the cost of living.

I have had two car bombs at the edges of my constituency in the last five weeks, so believe me, there are much bigger things than I would prefer to be talking about at this time. However, it is incumbent upon everybody in this House to make sure that everything we're doing is completely above board. Now, last week I posed the question, I don't know why Mandelson was appointed Prime Minister, then said it was a mistake. But here's what I don't understand.

Everything that was out there about Mandelson that would have been cause for concern was open source material. It was out there. Peter Mandelson wouldn't have survived the vetting for a kid's football club, and rightly so. And yet we're expected to believe from those benches that it's nothing to see here. We're going to do some process here and there. It's a bit of a hoo ha, as if there's been a bit of opprobrium around an appointment of a local Rotary Club.

This is the government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, and we need to make sure that everything that is done here has the trust and confidence of the people that we are sent to represent. One of the things that I'm really passionate about is people being able to get on in life. But if you look at the social mobility figures for the UK, they are declining steeply and that should be a concern for us all. But don't worry about that.

It seems to be jobs for the boys going great guns over the road there instead of a meritocracy. It's a chumocracy and that is at the nub of this. We cannot get we cannot get answers as to why this was done. So what I'm asking today, will the real Prime Minister please stand up? Please stand up. Is it the man who wanted to tread lightly on our lives? Is it the man who promised a decade of national renewal? Is it the man who said that he was going to do things by the book? And better? Because in my nearly two years here, I have not seen that.

So I'll ask people from across the way, and I want to commend the Member for South Shields for her heartfelt words, because this should not be about party politics. This should be about doing the right thing. And I'm here as one member of my party. So I am aware that I am speaking from a place of privilege myself. But believe you me, there's a stink here and the public smell it. And if we're serious about getting better in terms of making our constituents lives better, in terms of proving that this place can deliver for every single person here today has a choice.

Make the right one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Phil Brickell Madam. Deputy Speaker, can I just start by saying I do take serious exception to the remarks from the exception to the remarks from the hon. Member from Beaconsfield, who I see is just about to exit the chamber complaining about us chamber complaining about us spending an afternoon talking, in her words, laboriously about process, because it is process that process, because it is process that is on the face of the motion the Leader of the Opposition has brought to this chamber today.

And that is what we are debating, and it is because of her party bringing that. And I am more than happy to spend an afternoon talking about

16:16

Phil Brickell MP (Bolton West, Labour)

- -

process, because that is what we are here to do. I speak today in this debate on privileges with a this debate on privileges with a unique perspective, one garnered from almost 15 years of experience working in a highly regulated sector with responsibility for sector with responsibility for managing financial crime and reputational risk. At two FTSE 100 reputational risk. At two FTSE 100 firms accountable for decisions made in managing conflicts of interest for promoting ethical codes of practice. For training staff on when to do the right thing, for testing, the effectiveness of whistleblowing regimes, and for completing enhanced due diligence on individuals who pose heightened risk.

That is an experience gathered in the UK. In the US, India, the UAE and elsewhere. And I also speak today as a recently departed member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and as someone who sat in portcullis House only in November and quizzed Sir Chris Wormald, the former Cabinet secretary, and Sir Olly Robbins, former permanent under-secretary at the foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, when they gave oral evidence to that committee in light of Peter Mandelson sacking as UK ambassador to Washington. Now let me say this first my thoughts are with the victims of Jeffrey Epstein's terrible crimes.

Nothing we say or do today can take away from the unimaginable hurt and pain that man caused and continues to cause for victims, survivors, their friends and families. Today and all days. We must remember them and do all we can to support them in their continued fight for justice. Second, I will confine my remarks to the specifics of the proposed referral to the Privileges Privileges Committee. In the motion today. Mandelson's appointment, what was recorded in the Proprietary and Ethics Team Due Diligence report, the UK security vetting process.

Those are all topics which have been debated on numerous occasions in this place already, and there remain live reviews underway, which I do not want to preclude in any way. Third, the Prime Minister has rightly recognised that appointing Mandelson as ambassador to Washington was a mistake. Mandelson's behaviour has been contemptible, and we are in no doubt on these benches that he should never have been appointed. It was a mistake for which the PM has faced significant opprobrium, and there have been consequences for the Prime Minister.

Let us not forget that the honest truth is that we are all fallible. The PM made an error of judgement for that. He has rightly apologised last Monday in this House and sought forgiveness, but to suggest that he has in any way misled this House is a political fabrication. As I will set out. It is anchored not in a truth, but in a smokescreen of political mendacity which supposes a up somehow equates to a conspiracy. Now the opposition may wish to move a motion to have the Prime Minister referred to the Privileges Committee, something which has not happened since Boris Johnson's referral back in the early part of 2022.

That case then, and the matters being debated today, are like chalk and cheese. Because Johnson was referred to the Privileges committee for the most egregious of lockdown breaches, partying in number ten in breach of the rules. While we all made daily sacrifices to contain the virus, denying that he had breached the rules and then doubling down on his denials and reading back through the 108 page final report of the Privileges Committee from 2023 gave me flashbacks, especially recalling that Johnson misled the House on no fewer than six occasions that he misled the privileges committee itself, that he breached confidence, that he impugned the committee and undermined the democratic processes of this House and, perhaps most importantly, that he was complicit in a campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the Privileges Committee itself.

I mention all of the above not to advance a political argument, rather to warn to warn conservative colleagues that the country does not forget what took place the last time the Privileges Committee convened to consider a PM's conduct, and advise them to take heed of that history. On that point, I will give way. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend, for giving way. And he speaks wisely. At the time that speaks wisely. At the time that Boris Johnson was indeed put before the privileges Committee. And does he also believe that this House should remember that, that the should remember that, that the Prime Minister then lost an anti-corruption champion over this issue and they resigned, and again, issue and they resigned, and again, members on the other side of the House would be well placed to remember what happened when the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Privileges Committee actually found the misdeeds and wrongdoing of the previous Prime Minister. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hon. Friend makes a very valid point, and he is a notable campaigner on cleaning up this House and the public sector more House and the public sector more broadly. Now, today's opposition motion supposes the PM may have misled the House due to statements misled the House due to statements he gave in this place. First about due process and second about due process and second about pressure. This is a complex topic and given the forensic demolition of today's motion by my hon.

Friend the Member for Cardiff West. With reference to pressure, I will focus my remarks on due process now before I speak to more pointedly, to process as flagged by the opposition, let me say this I have no special access to information. I've not spoken to any of the individuals concerned regarding Mandelson in any way, shape or form. Since the Humble Address, I offer only my analysis based on the documents we have been given before us and statements made to this House by the Prime Minister and others when giving evidence before Parliament.

I speak as a member of this House, determined to drive up standards in public life, to improve the integrity of our system of government, and to work constructively with members of all political persuasions to improve the standing of politics as a force for good out in the country at large. That's why only last week I met with the Ethics and Integrity Commission to give formal input into that body's work stream to tighten rules about financial disclosures, lobbying and the operation of the business appointment rules as they relate to Ministers and senior civil servants.

But first, let us consider ongoing proceedings, because on the 4th of February, this House passed the Humble Address relating to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as His Majesty's Ambassador to Washington, DC. It directed government to, and I quote, lay before this House all papers relating to Lord Mandelson's appointment, including, but not confined to the Cabinet Office due diligence, which was passed in number ten. The conflict of interest form Lee Anderson provided to the FCDO material, the FCDO and the Cabinet Office provided to UK security vetting as well as amongst others.

And again, I quote all information on Lord Mandelson provided to the Prime Minister prior to his assurance to this House on the 10th of September 2025. That fall, due process was followed during the appointment, now subject to agreed redactions for national security and international relations purposes as agreed with the Intelligence and Security Committee. The first volume of material was published by the Cabinet Office on the 11th of March, and the Foreign Affairs Committee has taken evidence from Sir Olly Robbins, former permanent Under-Secretary at that department that took place last Tuesday.

On Thursday, the Foreign Affairs Committee heard from Catherine Little, Civil Service chief operation officer and permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office, and earlier today heard from Sir Philip Barton, previous permanent Under-Secretary at the foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, as well as from Morgan McSweeney, former chief of staff at ten Downing Street. And there is also a separate live police investigation being undertaken by the Met into Mandelson, which the Cabinet Office will be keen to avoid prejudicing. It will require a delicate balancing of information so as to ensure that detectives are able to conduct their vital work without it being in any way overshadowed by ongoing parliamentary inquiries.

Which brings me to the reasoning for today's debate brought by the official opposition. Now, on the first limb due process to the best of my ability, my understanding is that the opposition contend that due process was not followed. One, because UK security vetting took place after Mandelson's appointment, and two because his vetting decision was not escalated. Full discussion with number ten or the Cabinet Office on the sequencing of events. Let me set the record straight as I see them.

When the Cabinet Office published its first volume of material after the Humble Address, it included a file note marked official Sensitive Personal and Staffing, dated the 11th of November 2020. For advice to the Prime Minister, options for His Majesty's Ambassador Washington. In that note written to the PM by Simon Case, Cabinet Secretary at the time, it is laid out in very clear language that one option was a political appointment, as was undertaken when Ed Llewellyn was appointed as Ambassador Paris by David Cameron in 2016 and as Ambassador Rome by Boris Johnson in 2022, for which there was a clear process to go through.

To quote Lord case in that note to the PM, if this is the route you wish to take, you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint, and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and due due diligence on any potential conflicts of interest or other issues of which you should be aware before confirming your choice. A letter is then needed from the Foreign Secretary to the Pus to FCDO, formalising the decision to make a political appointment.

That was in November 2020 for Simon case note was followed up by another note dated the 11th of December 2024 from the PM's principal Private Secretary, Nick Pandit, noting due diligence had been sought from the propriety and ethics team in the Cabinet Office, on Mandell Office on Mandelson checks, which were conducted by Pet on the 4th of December 2024. Then, after that, the PM's chief of staff discussed Mandelson's relationship with Epstein and noted the PM's director of Communications was satisfied with Mandelson's responses to questions about contacts.

Importantly, this was before further information came to light in September of last year when it was identified that those responses were not truthful. The PM's PPS I'm going to make some

**** Possible New Speaker ****

progress, if that's OK, because I want to make sure. That.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That. I'm in the. I'm in the flow of things and I want to I want to make sure, well, I'm not halfway through sure, well, I'm not halfway through yet, so I've got a long, long way to go. The PM's PPS flagged that the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein would be gone over with and Epstein would be gone over with the Prime Minister by his private office, and the principal private Secretary noted that after a Secretary noted that after a decision to proceed was made, only then would a decision be made as to whether as to when to make any appointments and announce it, and when the new ambassador would take up post, subject to a letter from the Foreign Secretary to the permanent Under-Secretary at the foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, followed by approval by the King and then agreement being obtained from the US administration.

Correspondence from number ten to the permanent Under-Secretary at the FCDO and from the FCDO PQs at the time, Sir Philip Barton, to the King's Private Secretary, was disclosed in the first volume of material published following the Humble Address which testifies to this sequence of events taking place and on the 20th of December 2024, the Private Secretary to the permanent Under-Secretary at the FCO emailed Mandelson congratulating him on his appointment, noting his onboarding including regarding his clearance which the head of the US and Canada Department at the FCDO on the 23rd of December 2024, noted was an important and I quote first step.

And when Sir Olly Robbins came before the Foreign Affairs Committee on the 3rd of November last year, he said in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Putney that quote, as is normally the case with external appointments to my department and the wider civil Service, the appointment was made subject to obtaining security clearance. Moreover, Sir Olly confirmed in that very session and I quote, we also went through the standard UK national security vetting process for DB and that I am absolutely confident that UK SV undertook the process in precisely its standard way, doing all the checks it would expect to do, and we had ample time to assess and decide on the basis of its work.

Now, in reference to the remarks from the hon. Member for Lagan Valley, it is worth confirming that, noting actually it was confirmed to the Foreign Affairs Committee that the high risk concerns in SV were not Epstein related. Just for the record. I will give, I will give way. I will give way to her on that point because I've mentioned it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does that make it better? I am correcting, I'm correcting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am correcting, I'm correcting her on the points that were mentioned here. I'm not here to talk about the process. We will come on to that shortly. Former Cabinet Secretary Chris Wormald, at the same session on the 3rd of the same session on the 3rd of November, noted, and I quote, the normal thing is for security clearance to happen after clearance to happen after appointment, but before the person signs a contract, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon mentioned, and before they take up a post, if we are recruiting a permanent secretary or similar from outside the Civil service, this is normally what would happen.

The security clearance process would happen after the announcement of the appointment, but before the person takes up the post and the appointment will be subject to the security clearance being granted. Mandelson was issued an FCDO employment contract with a start date of the 3rd of February 2025. A section 17 of that contract entitled Security Clearance. It is made explicit that in inverted commas, you must obtain the required level of security clearance as soon as possible and maintain the required level of security clearance throughout your employment.

Dated the 30th of January 2025. Mandelson's offer of fixed term employment with the FCDO confirmed his and I quote security clearance was confirmed by vetting unit and is valid until 29th January 2030. Now, I will not be selective in referring to evidence given to this House which favours one view or another. So let me be clear. Olly Robbins mentioned in his letter of the 21st of April to the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee that the then Cabinet Secretary at the time of Mandelson's appointment being proposed, Simon Case recommended the operative word in November 2024 that vetting should have been completed before an announcement was made.

But in the very same letter of the 21st of April, Robbins was also explicit in confirming and I quote, when the PM informed the House that the process had been followed in respect of national security vetting, he was correct. Moreover, on the topic of vetting, Robbins stood by the letter he wrote with the Foreign Secretary to the Foreign Affairs Committee on the 16th of September 2025, and which he confirmed. Ministers are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome.

He went on to state in his letter on the 21st of April that, and I quote, this position, reflected long standing practice and guidance, and correctly constrained our ability to share information beyond the vetting process. Then or later. He noted that the FCDO and I quote, completely developed, completed, developed vetting to the normal high standard that he, Robbins met the director for State Security and Network Directorate SND and was briefed orally that Mandelson was a borderline case leaning towards recommending clearance be denied that the highest risks could be managed and mitigated as recommended by SND and that UK s v acknowledged the FCDO may wish to grant clearance.

Robbins also confirmed that UK security vetting did not fail Mandelson. The FCDO did not overrule their decision that the risk based decision was arrived at by the FCDO. Taking into account the feedback from UK s v as a result of the full vetting process having been gone through, and that d v clearance is a risk judgement. So Olly was clear in his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee recently that no direct communication took place between anyone in number ten and himself, that the interaction between UK security vetting and the Foreign Office was, and I quote, entirely standard, and that clearance was granted subject to mitigations agreed following a FCDO Security Department assessment, which could address the highest risks associated with Mandelson and take remarks from Cat little, Civil Service Chief Operation Officer and Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet Office.

In her oral evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, which was clear in her remarks last week, which I quote, my view is that due process was followed and if I might explain why I believe that is because the process, as I have outlined to the committee, is that UK s v makes a recommendation and the Foreign Office makes a decision as to whether to grant DB that is the process and that is the process that is agreed with the Foreign Office. Furthermore, on the topic of vetting, Cat, little was clear in her oral evidence the Foreign Affairs Committee that I do have access to a number of emails which have been disclosed recently to me.

What I can see is that there is a senior official from the government security group who goes back to the Foreign Office security team and advises two things. One, that is a decision for the Foreign Office, and two, that they would advise that vetting is sought. And that, and I quote, the Prime Minister did not know about the UK s v conclusion and that he did not know which specific risks were identified at the time of appointment. Only this morning, former Foreign Office Permanent Secretary Sir Philip Barton said in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee he was very confident the appropriate process was carried out.

So there we have it. Not my comments, but those of senior civil servants. The former Cabinet secretary, two former permanent undersecretaries at the FCDO, the current permanent under-secretary at the Cabinet Office, all in direct contrast to the motion laid before the House by the Leader of the Opposition. All of the view that proper process was followed. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know whose words I would rather believe, and this chimes with the remarks the PM has made previously that for a direct ministerial appointment, it was usual for security vetting to happen after the appointment, but before the individual starting in post, members on the opposition benches might take objection to the process.

They would be right to do so, but it was a process set out at the time of the appointment, and it was the process which was followed by the Cabinet Office, by the FCDO, by UK, S V and ultimately by the Prime Minister as the Minister ultimately accountable for the decision. The PM has rightly changed the process so that appointments can only be confirmed once vetting has been completed. And he has a right. He's rightly appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead a review into security vetting to make sure that there is consistency across government into the means by which decision makers are informed of any concerns ahead of appointment.

The PM has rightly set up the Ethics and Integrity Commission and tasked with improving processes around lobbying, the revolving door between government and the private sector and financial transparency. I commend him on those steps and his commitment to bring forward legislation as soon as possible to allow for the removal of disgraced peers. That is the right thing to do, and I trust that legislation will obtain support right across this House. Now. Only yesterday, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister confirmed that the Cabinet Office has passed to the Intelligence and Security Committee all the material that is processed as part of the Humble Address and judged to be prejudicial to national security or international relations, over 300 individual documents.

It includes a number that are relevant to the processes of Peter Mandelson's security vetting, too, and we expect the second tranche of documents under the ambit of the Humble Address to be published after Parliament returns following prorogation. Now, as was mentioned in yesterday's ministerial statement on progress around the Humble Address, outstanding documents are either with the government awaiting publication with the ISC or with the Metropolitan Police. Given the ongoing criminal investigation into Mandelson, the last time a referral was made to the Privileges Committee on a PM's conduct was during the Covid pandemic and Boris Johnson was under an investigation by the Metropolitan Police for repeatedly partying in number ten during lockdown, and then misleading the House by saying that rules have been followed when they had not, and the police had issued fixed penalty notices for breach of Covid-19 regulations.

I have mentioned the vital, ongoing work within the Cabinet Office to view documents within the remit of the Humble Address of the Intelligence and Security Committee's work, reviewing proposed redactions of the public evidence sessions held by the Foreign Affairs Committee and the wholly separate police investigation. The question to therefore ask the Leader of the House is why bring this motion to the House now? Why bring this motion when we have not had the full disclosure of the documents within the ambit of the Humble Address, including the private messages, the Whatsapps, the additional minutes and file notes which were not included within volume one published back in March.

Why duplicate the work already being undertaken by the Cabinet Office and the ISC under the Humble Address? Why not wait until after prorogation, when the full documentary evidence is available, to then determine whether a privileges committee referral is warranted? Why not wait until all relevant witnesses have been able to give evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, including remarks given today, which were only just in the process of digesting the Leader of the Opposition, makes much of due process in her motion.

My retort is simple due process will also be followed in getting to the truth. Let all the documents be released, and then let this House determine the facts of the matter. And so the cynic in me would say that today's privileges motion is nothing but a barefaced political stunt designed by the party opposite, clutching at straws. With just over a week to go until the local elections to politicise a very important review process currently underway across Government and Westminster, which hard working and dedicated civil servants are working on alongside Ministers to ensure the Humble Address is fulfilled as quickly as possible.

My obligation, Madam Deputy Speaker, is to this country first and above all else, I owe it to my constituents to outline my rationale and my way of thinking. I have done so, and that is why I will be voting with the government today.

16:39

John Lamont MP (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, Conservative)

- -

16:48

Chris Vince MP (Harlow, Labour )

- -

16:55

Harriet Cross MP (Gordon and Buchan, Conservative)

- -

17:03

Dr Luke Evans MP (Hinckley and Bosworth, Conservative)

- -

been in Parliament. And it reminds me of the famous fable The Fox and me of the famous fable The Fox and the stork. Those of you not familiar with it will know that the fox invites the stork in to have dinner, and he serves soup. But mischievously he serves soup in a flat plate. And of course, the stork can't eat it. But the stork, not losing their temper, reciprocates and invites the fox back to have soup at their house.

And when the stork serves the soup serves it in a very long, thin glass. And of course, the fox can't get to it and loses its temper. And the moral of that story is, the fable of that story is, treat others as you wish to be treated yourselves. And if we look at the process that the Prime Minister, the now Prime Minister, has taken, this is due process by the standards set by the Prime Minister happening back in. Retort to himself.

And you only have to look at some of the tweets that he put out. The first one was back on January the 22nd. I quote the Prime Minister is a national distraction. Millions of people are struggling to pay the bills, but Boris Johnson and his government are spending the whole time mopping up their own rule, breaching sleaze and deceit. He must go. He's got to go. But then he follows it up from this despatch box to the Prime Minister, stating there are only two possible explanations.

Either he's trashing the ministerial code or he's claiming he was repeatedly lied to by his own advisers and that he didn't know what was going on in his own office. Come off it. So this is the standard that the Prime Minister set himself before he became Prime Minister. And so is he following that standard? Well, we only have to see from other examples, since the Prime Minister has been elected to see that he isn't, he gave passes to a donor to number ten.

He took suits, he took glasses. He appointed a donor to the football regulator. And of course, when it came to freebies, he is the MP in the last Parliament that took the most freebies above and beyond. Even the 3 or 4 below him. So he set his own standard but doesn't seem to meet it. And that fits with the way in which he came into Parliament as well, because he said change. But he changed his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

promises. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. He said I would do things differently. He the last government said it was house business and said it was house business and didn't whip it. This government has made a change and they're whipping made a change and they're whipping it. The question is why? Which leads me on to my next point. We've talked about the standards. Now we talked about the standards. Now we need to talk about the doubt. I've heard today that some Labour MPs have no doubt in their mind about the Prime Minister, but I've equally heard other Labour MPs on that bench who do.

And that's really, really important here, because if you have no doubt, that's fine. Vote against this motion. You're going to have to explain to your constituents exactly the decision you made and why, and live with that. That's what an MP does and that's what an MP should do. But the Prime Minister himself clearly has doubts in his backbenches because, as we've heard, he's going to whip this. Why, if he's so confident that so many people would come to the conclusion that there was nothing to see here, he wouldn't need to whip it in the first place.

But we know the real reason.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Running scared. There are so many unanswered questions. A Labour MP saying questions. A Labour MP saying there's no of doubt. There's no question unanswered. They can question unanswered. They can explain the inconsistencies from the civil servant, why it's taken months to get this sorted, why it required humble addresses, required humble addresses, emergency debates and still, nine months on, we're having these debates. Why were comments in the PM's box notes left empty? You see, I don't believe Labour MPs are going to show the same lack of curiosity that the Prime Minister showed when appointing Peter Mandelson, because they have a duty and they know that to their constituents to make sure they get it right.

How do I know all this, though? Well, because our side have been here before. Many of us on these benches are the remnants of what we had to go through. We've seen it. And the sort of hypocrisy I've talked about does cut both ways. And what do we learn last time? Well, it's the infection that gets you. And here we are, nine months on since I made that speech and the infection is turning into sepsis, the patient is in real trouble.

Which leads me towards the end, because at the end of the day. Labour MPs could learn from this side of the House or they will share the same fate. You see, the Conservative Party is effectively a mirror to the Labour Party that they didn't ask for, but they'd be wise to study. And if they don't believe me, maybe they'll listen to a certain. Now, Prime Minister, back in the debate on the 21st of April 2022, who closed his speech by saying, if we do not pass this motion and take this opportunity to restate the principles, we are all complicit in allowing the standard to slip, we are all complicit in allowing the public to think that we are all the same, that nobody tells the truth, and that there are alternative set of facts.

That's what Labour MPs have to wrestle with. So I hope they listen to the now Prime Minister and his words.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Back then. Doctor Ellie Chowns. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'll aim to be brief and to the point. And before I start, I'd like to pay tribute to the very moving, powerful and thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for South Shields back at the beginning of this back at the beginning of this debate. I do not underestimate the bravery that it takes to stand up and speak out. And to all Labour and speak out. And to all Labour colleagues who resist the whip with courage today, I recognise that and

17:09

Dr Ellie Chowns MP (North Herefordshire, Green Party)

- -

really welcome it and value it, because what's at stake today is because what's at stake today is trust, honesty and integrity issues that go to the core of what our that go to the core of what our politics should be about, and the behaviour of a Prime Minister who promised to restore honesty and promised to restore honesty and integrity to government. And I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham East, who said again Nottingham East, who said again very powerfully that our constituents do care about honesty, truth, trust, integrity.

Now, it's well known that I have many criticisms of the Prime Minister and this government, as do constituents across the country. Yes, he has repeatedly shown very poor judgement. Yes, he has betrayed the hopes of those who voted for real change in 2024. Yes, I am deeply frustrated that we are spending so much time that we have to spend so much time debating these issues when there are pressing daily concerns of our constituents facing a cost of living crisis, that we should be giving more attention to.

And yes, I think he should resign, but that's not what we're here to discuss today. Our decision today is not even on whether the Prime Minister misled the House still left to judge whether it was an intentional or reckless misleading. Our decision today is to decide whether the Prime Minister has a case to answer, that he may have misled the House, and it is absolutely clear that there is a case to answer there. Let's look at the detail of the motion.

It cites three quotes from the Prime Minister's own words, the first being his assurances about full due process being followed in the appointment of Peter Mandelson. And yet, just this morning we've heard yet more evidence from Sir Philip Barton, the primary civil servant in the Foreign Office at the time, who was absolutely categorical that normal process is that vetting comes first and appointment comes later. It was the opposite way round in this case. The Prime Minister, again, as the motion says, made clear that his his position was that the position of Lee Anderson was subject to developed vetting and that no pressure whatsoever existed in relation to this case.

This is clearly not a tenable position. Now, some colleagues on the government benches have tried to claim that, although it's perfectly clear that there was considerable pressure put on the timescale within the context of an already announced appointment of Peter Mandelson, within the context of there being absolutely no contingency plan for if the vetting process failed him within the context, that it would have been a complete foreign affairs crisis for that vetting process to have failed in. Those colleagues are asking us to believe that there was still no pressure whatsoever on the process.

This is clearly the hon. Gentleman has said a lot today, and there are others still waiting to speak. It is clear that there is a case to answer here. That is the decision we have to make, not whether the Prime Minister, not whether we're definitively certain that the Prime Minister misled the House, but whether we feel that there is a case to be answered, and thus this matter should be referred to the body that is in existence. To deal with these issues.

The Privileges Committee, now with many members across the House, have already commented. The Prime Minister could and should refer himself to that committee. That would save a great deal of heartache. Clearly within the Labour Party. But if he will not do that, all of us, whatever our party, owe it to our consciences and to our constituents to refer him to the Privileges Committee and to vote for this motion.

17:14

Sir Christopher Chope MP (Christchurch, Conservative)

- -

Hear, hear. >> Christopher Chope madam. >> Deputy Speaker, it's a pleasure to be able to participate in this to be able to participate in this very important debate, and I'm going to add a perspective from somebody who has never been in the somebody who has never been in the whips office but has witnessed the dark arts of the whips in my time in this place. And I can see that what is happening today is that the Prime Minister has been persuaded by his whips to put on a demand that all his troops should support him in voting down this motion, the consequence of which is that he will be even more unpopular.

The results for Labour in the local elections will be even worse, and that as a result, it will be easier for the Labour Party and its whips to be able to scapegoat the Prime Minister for their failures. And so it will then be easier for them to change their leader, which is what a lot of them are yearning to be able to do. If the Prime Minister referred himself or this motion was not being contested, then what would happen is that the Prime Minister, as many of my hon.

And right hon. Friends have said, would have the opportunity to go before the Privileges Committee, explain himself. And even if some of the allegations were proved to be true, in my view. Madam Deputy Speaker, the penalty would not be that severe. And I can remember at the time of the 1997 general election when Margaret Thatcher came down to support me in Christchurch. That was the same day that one of our colleagues who was standing in another constituency was condemned by the then standards Committee for having been in breach of the rules of the House.

And so, Madam Deputy Speaker, the first thing that the the former Prime Minister had to contend with when she arrived in Christchurch was what do you think of Neil Hamilton? And she had what I thought was the perfect answer. She said, nobody's perfect. And obviously when you answer a question like this, it's very hard to put any supplementaries in. And despite the press's best efforts, they weren't able to get anywhere further. And then they had to start talking about the conservative prospects of winning back the the Christchurch constituency in in that election.

But I think that if this matter was referred to the Privileges Committee, then ultimately the effect would be that somebody would say, well, nobody's perfect. They've got a Prime Minister who uses words which to exaggerate a situation by as much as whatsoever. And whatsoever one looks up in a dictionary is really to reinforce the strength of the proposition that there had been no pressure whatsoever. And so in using that word, I suspect I, I suspect I'm not going to give way because I think we need to make progress.

And so the effect of, of using that word was to, I think, probably inadvertently mislead him himself. I'm being I'm being generous. But what I'm really saying to members opposite is watch out. You are probably working very well together to bring down the downfall of this Prime Minister. And what I would say, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that my constituents would be delighted if there was a general election and a chance to change the government. But the last thing, the last thing they want is to get rid of this Prime Minister and be faced with another Prime Minister from the Labour Party, who they think will be far worse, even though they might be more effective.

So that's my small contribution to this evening, but I hope that it may influence the way in which some of the members opposite choose to vote.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sarah Bool thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. The Prime. Minister came to this very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister came to this very Dispatch Box and said that no pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this Mandelson case. relation to this Mandelson case. Now, I recall our late Majesty famously saying recollections may vary, but even for the Prime Minister, I really think that Minister, I really think that stretching that phrase, given the evidence that we have from Olly Robbins and others. Now, recently, Robbins and others. Now, recently, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was reading Black Box Thinking, a book by Matthew Syed, which at its heart was talking about the importance of learning from failure and using that to improve.

And in some respects, I think the Prime Minister believes that he has done all that is necessary by changing the process for appointments, but

17:19

Sarah Bool MP (South Northamptonshire, Conservative)

- -

the Prime Minister is really missing the point. The issue is what has, or rather what has not what has, or rather what has not been done and what the Prime Minister told this House about what he told the House, about whether this was misleading and whether it amounts to a contempt of the House. Bearing in mind the standards Bearing in mind the standards expected of Ministers as set out in the Ministerial Accountability and Ministerial Code. So this is not just an innocent mistake.

The phrase the cover up is worse than the crime is really resonating with me at this moment, although I think the crime is equally heinous and on the cover up now, despite the Member for Bolton's protestations, I notice he's not in his place, so I think he's probably tired himself out. To which I'd say brevity is the soul of wit. I simply say due process was not followed, despite the Prime Minister stating otherwise to the House. The security vetting was not carried out.

Before Mandelson's appointment, the Foreign Office had to act at pace to confirm the appointment pressure was applied so that there would be an appointment before the inauguration. And as the Member for Britain and Wales has said in the House earlier, no minutes or records are kept of a key meeting from December 2024. This is a drip feed of constant information and eventually, like dams, it will burst and we're waiting for this to come out now on the crime itself, this is really a question of judgement.

Alarm bells should have been ringing. We all in this house knew about the Prince of Darkness. I mean, I was ten years old when he was first dismissed. I was 13 years old when he was dismissed for his links with the Hinduja case. Again, I grew up knowing the background about Lord Peter Mandelson, and then it comes out about his links with Russia, his links with China, which is a national security risk, let alone. We're talking about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

And all of this was brushed aside in a rush to appoint this man as our ambassador. Now, I'm sorely disappointed that members opposite are going to be made by being whipped to allow him not to go before the Privileges Commission, because if he has no case to answer, then he has absolutely nothing to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hide. The prosecutor is only prepared to ask questions. He's not prepared to answer any. And I am sorry that some of the Labour MPs have had to come before us and say that they are scared about what will happen are scared about what will happen next for speaking out against this. This is not what we should be aiming for in this. This is all aiming for in this. This is all about today, this privileged motion about the House and its reputation. And I feel that the Prime Minister And I feel that the Prime Minister is under a duty to answer the questions.

And the Privileges Commission is a perfect mechanism by which to bring certainty on the procedure. And what has been said to this House. This House has a long and distinguished history, and this, using the Privileges Committee, is all part of preserving that history and the respect that people have for the mother of all parliaments. And it is above party allegiances. He, the Prime Minister, would save his MPs if only he would refer himself to the Privileges Committee.

17:22

Rt Hon Graham Stuart MP (Beverley and Holderness, Conservative)

- -

He Graham Stuart. It's a pleasure to take part in this debate, and I do. As many colleagues on this side of the House have referenced, it brings back dÃ©ja vu, rather kind of horrible chill up my spine, remembering being on that side of the house and being pushed by the whips in certain directions to vote for certain things. And here we have a Prime Minister and it's already been said. But who promised to do things differently, to promise change, promised higher standards, promised transparency, and is the ultimate arbiter and keeper of the ministerial code.

And yet, week after week, if politics is often about a certain amount of deflection, but seems to go beyond all past precedent in not answering questions and drives the speaker up the wall to the point where they actually have altercations in the chamber. So there's that as a backdrop. So we have a Prime Minister who promised he would be particularly transparent, was in fact, going to bring a duty of candour law forward before that was dropped. Who's who, who promised, who promised, promised higher standards and yet doesn't live up to it.

And even the most and we have some of them. I mean, we have the new trade envoy to Korea. Fabulous to see that that loyalty can be rewarded. The hon. Member for Rugby is in the chamber. Well done. So for those who think there can be a reward for backing the government, even when possibly you shouldn't, there can be reward for it. But as colleagues on this side of the chamber have said, if you if you don't vote with your conscience, if you don't do the right thing, when your gut tells you to, you will regret it.

And there's a particular change in today because on this matter, which is a house matter, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman on a house matter to have a three line whip on this. When the members who've spoken on behalf of the government line are. The one in his seat said he didn't think the three line whip was a good idea. The others didn't want to answer on it. But who was the three line whip for? Perhaps you know, the Prime Minister's chief Secretary could tell us, because members opposite are telling us they would always vote with their conscience and they would always do the right thing.

And yet, after the whips had phoned round, it was decided that they must impose a three line whip. Now it could be my honourable, my hon. Friend, who's never been a whip and hasn't much fondness for them, has put has put the ghastly deed at their door. Well, as a former whip myself, I tend to think it's more likely the whips did their job. They gave a nuanced but properly informed answer. And then number ten, sitting there in their bunker, panicking, their only job to keep the Prime Minister in place, make sure he's not replaced.

They said, no, no, unless you can give us 100%, well, there's no such thing as 100%. The Chief Whip would reply, no, no, I insist there would be a three line whip imposed and that and that happened. But I, the hon. Lady who was a brilliant tennis player and a great partner, will forgive me if I give way to the hon. Gentleman who I referenced, and I therefore should allow to come in. I thank the hon. Gentleman. I like the hon. Gentleman a great deal, and I thank him for his kind words.

The moment somewhat passed, but he was implying that the Prime Minister is avoiding answering questions. But this is the prime. But this is if you listen, this is the Prime Minister who came before the House last Monday and answered questions from Honourable and right hon. Members for 2.5 hours. And the hon. Gentleman spoke about transparency. This is the Prime Minister who led a government that is releasing all of the documents before this House and the public, so you can talk all you like about transparency.

The hon. Gentleman, general gentleman, can talk about transparency and answering questions. I've just demonstrated that both of those things have been achieved already. Well, the hon. Gentleman, as so often does two things brilliantly. One, he reinforces his merit in terms of the whips and future position on that side, and yet makes our case for us. Yeah. Dragged before the house. It's not me. The speaker was falling out with him and the speaker is formerly a Labour MP. It's just the frustration of a whole nation at a man who promised he'd be open and transparent, who can't ever just give a straightforward answer.

It's got to the point where if he was asked whether he'd like mash or new potatoes, he would come. He'd say to his wife. He'd start talking about pork chops. He just can't answer the question. And when he is dragged here, I'd say to the hon. Member for Rugby, and that's what the issue today, he misled this House. He, he. And we've gone over it. I won't go over it all over again. You'll be deeply relieved. But he said that due process had been followed.

We know that. And we've had evidence today, didn't we, Morgan McSweeney said, oh, he interviewed. He's an old pal of Mandelson's. He was championing. He was the man pushing for Mandelson's appointment, and he's the guy who asked Mandelson the questions. And then, whoa, let's review the answers that that that he got. Oh, let's get now Lord Doyle, another pal of both of them to review, provide the independent review that that is what the the Prime Minister presided over all in order to deliver.

What McSweeney also made very clear today was absolutely. The Prime Minister's decision. He made the decision. He got his mates in this crony boys club to sit around and review each other and then put Mandelson into place, and then he came here and that's the point, and said that due process was followed. Due process was not followed. We know only because. And again, the government had to give way halfway through the debate because it could see the direction it was going, only because of the Humble Address have we found out that the official advice to the Prime Minister, the official advice from the Cabinet Secretary was that you must, if you're going to have a have a political appointee, you must do the vetting before you announce it that that was there and this effort and that wasn't in the public domain.

When Chris Wormald will have to answer for his own judgement, himself came out and said, oh, well, due process was followed. But quite clearly to anyone who could read that advice and see what happened, it wasn't followed. So Chris Wormald's letter was false and wrong and claiming it as the great defence of the Prime Minister. I don't I don't see how you square it and we've had no answers to that. So we've got so many questions. That's even before we get to last week, the hon.

Gentleman says the Prime Minister was here, but under that questioning he. And from my right hon. Friend who does a brilliant job of keeping her temper while he evades and seeks not to, seeks not to seek, not to answer, he said. There was no pressure whatsoever. Now, quite clearly that's not true. When Olly Robbins repeatedly said how much pressure there was. So there are plenty of reasons to believe that the Prime Minister, who said he was going to set a higher standard, has misled this House.

That's all we need. As the speaker said, we're not we're not judge and jury today. Whether he did mislead the House. That's why we have this a privileges committee to look at it. It's dominated by Labour MPs and such is the lack of confidence in number ten, perhaps in the whips office, certainly in the Cabinet, for this Prime Minister, that not only does this Prime Minister not trust the Labour MPs on that committee, it doesn't even trust all the members opposite who are being dragooned into voting for something with a three line whip, when no such whip should ever be applied.

17:30

Dave Doogan MP (Angus and Perthshire Glens, Scottish National Party)

- -

Yeah. Deputy Speaker. I want to start with a clumsy metaphor. And if you're in public, not you. If one is in public office, having anything to do with Lord Mandelson is akin to filling the world's smallest hot water bottle with the world's largest kettle, dressed only in your shorts and your flip flops. The question isn't whether you'll get burned. The question is how badly you'll get burned, and potentially how fatally one could get burned. Having anything to do with Peter Mandelson.

One of the falsehoods that the Prime Minister has sought repeatedly to advance is that this was a mistake. It was a mistake to appoint Peter Mandelson. It was no such thing. It was a debt to be repaid. He had to appoint Peter Mandelson to that job. It was a deal he made with the devil. It was a high stakes political game of Russian roulette, and the Prime Minister pulled the trigger when the bullet was in the chamber and it went off at the heart of his government.

And now they've got through the noise of the bang. They're all suffering from some sort of collective cognitive dissonance where they can't see what a preposterous defence the Prime Minister and the Labour Party have mounted a frame. The rest of what I've got to say around honesty, integrity and respect on honesty. The PM's version of events is inconsistent with the evidence in its greater or lesser part than that which has been proffered by officials. That much is clear. That in itself is enough to seek recourse to the Privileges Committee.

The Prime Minister's evidence consistently sought to omit that this was a catastrophe of his own making. For the reasons that I've set out in so far as it was, political payback. These are the detriments and demerits against the Prime Minister on the honesty honesty front. But I cannot be the arbiter of that. On integrity. He made this happen, as we've discussed. It's his mess, but he has inflicted substantial damage to politics across these islands. Many of us are campaigning in elections at the minute, and most of us will realise people don't care which party you are in when they've lost trust in politics.

It's a plague on all of our houses, and that plague is now substantially more fatal because of the actions of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was. But what? Does somebody want to intervene on me? No, I didn't think so. The Prime Minister was but one of five actors involved in this debacle, and all the other four actors have lost their jobs, while the Prime Minister, for the time being so far, keeps his. And I want to touch briefly on the whipping scenario.

I won't go over the ground that people have said already. Madam Deputy Speaker, that is deeply questionable about the conviction of backbenchers in their Prime Minister or, conversely, the conviction of Prime Minister in his backbenchers that they've whipped this vote. But to be clear, notwithstanding the very brave speech given by the hon. Member for South Shields and others, I am prepared to believe that there are Labour MPs over there who will go through the no lobby tonight and vote against this motion in good conscience on the basis of the evidence, as they see.

And that's fine. The problem they've got is they've been whipped to do it, whether that's their position or not, and they should be absolutely furious about that. But I can't be the arbiter of that. And on respect, finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, the appointment was a mistake. No, the Prime Minister must take responsibility, and officials and SPADs have all had to walk the walk while he remains in post, looking increasingly like a cuckoo waiting for his successor to arrive.

And on respect, the most important thing on respect is when he stands there and he says that he's sorry to the victims of Epstein. What he should continue to say is that when I appointed him to the pinnacle of diplomatic appointments within the United Kingdom, over in Washington, I appointed him in the knowledge that he was a sympathiser and close friend and confidant of the world's most prolific paedophile, and I still appointed him. I just didn't know how much of a friend and a confidante he was of the world's most prolific paedophile.

That is no defence. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that I am surprised that the former Director of Public Prosecutions does not know that that's the shallowest of all defences. And in closing, I will say that many members opposite have talked about how often and how many hours the Prime Minister has spent in this chamber fielding questions. Well, very, very few of them were actually answered. And but for the Leader of the Opposition, nobody gets a right to reply to the questions.

The Prime Minister seriously does not answer about the appointment of Peter Mandelson. So I. Recourse to the Petitions Committee is what we need to see here. All the things I have said. I can't be the arbiter of that and neither can anyone else in here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But the Privileges Committee can. Ask Ben Obese-Jecty. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Why does the Prime Minister think everybody else's. Actions have. Consequences except his own? A question the. Country.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Country. Would like an answer to a prescient question, given the appearance of several recently defenestrated senior civil servants. defenestrated senior civil servants. But it isn't my question, Madam Speaker. It's the Prime Minister's own question from 2022 and how hollow those words must feel now. The testimonies from Sir Oliver Robbins last week and by his predecessor, Philip Barton, and the Prime Minister's former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, this morning, all casualties trailing in the wake of a Prime Minister who

17:36

8 Ben Obese-Jecty MP (Huntingdon, Conservative)

- -

will stop at nothing to save his own skin if torpedoed. What last vestiges of credibility the Prime Minister is desperately clinging on Minister is desperately clinging on to. The Prime Minister set the conditions for Peter Mandelson to be the UK ambassador to the United States with a devil may care States with a devil may care attitude to the consequences. The public announcement of his appointment in December 2024, His Majesty the King being informed. Majesty the King being informed. Agreement with the United States being secured, all before vetting had taken place, ensure that the appointment was a fait accompli.

Yeah, Peter Mandelson then being granted access to the FCDO building and higher classification briefings before he was granted his developed vetting, is a shockingly lax approach to our national security. Yeah, it is not one without precedent, though. We saw much the same laissez faire attitude with the previous ministerial appointment, that of the Prime Minister's special envoy to the British Indian Ocean Territory, Jonathan Powell. A similar pattern access to the FCDO granted access to classified documents. Use of unsecured email for communications, question marks over potential foreign influence, all confirmed to have taken place prior to his vetting within the last few hours by Morgan McSweeney only.

This was six months prior to the Mandelson farrago, as I said at PMQs last week, playing fast and loose with national security is a key characteristic of the Prime Minister's chumocracy. The question of security clearance itself asks a host more questions. When Peter Mandelson commenced his role, he had already been given developed vetting. Although Uksf had highlighted concerns. That's now, well, well established. But a full due process was followed. Why was Olly Robbins sacked on the 4th of February, less than a week before marathon started his role, the appointments and interchange officer of the FCDO informed him via email that the role also required strap in addition to DB, and that a new strap application would need to be made.

So Oliver Robbins confirmed that it was clear to him that he had received strap clearance from the strap authorities in the chamber. During the statement on the 16th of March, I asked the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister there in his place, what level of security clearance Mandelson had been granted, notwithstanding the minutiae of the developed vetting of clearance level and strap has a role specific access. The reply I received from the Minister for the Indo-Pacific. Somewhat conveniently, one hour after the Guardian broke its story, only stated that Mandelson had developed vetting upon commencement of his role on the 10th.

So when was his strap application made and when was it granted? I asked the Prime Minister last week, and despite his legendary forensic eye for detail, he had no idea. Did the intelligence services also have

17:38

Ben Obese-Jecty MP (Huntingdon, Conservative)

- -

access to the UK vetting report? The wider question is also what assessment the US intelligence services made of Peter Mandelson? Did he pass vetting by the US State Department as the nexus for all Five Eyes intelligence from US, UK eyes only intelligence coming from the United States was granted access to all the available intelligence in order to discharge all his responsibilities as ambassador. Would the US, for example, have given him visibility of TC level imagery? What assessment is the government now made of the damage this debacle has done to the UK relationship with the United States? It is surely no coincidence that this special relationship has soured at the same time as this fiasco has unravelled.

Quite aside from the other faux pas the government have made in recent weeks. Even more damning is Sir

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Olly Robbins testimony was the Prime Minister's dogged determination to reward the now Lord Doyle. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was under strict instructions not to discuss that with that with the then Foreign Secretary, which was uncomfortable. I found it very was uncomfortable. I found it very hard to think how I could explain to the office what the credentials of Matthew were to be an important head of mission role, when I was in danger of making very senior, very experienced diplomats leave office, the fact that the Prime Minister put pressure on the FCDO to give Lord Doyle a head of mission role in the diplomatic service in March last year, despite his complete lack of qualification for the role, only for that same individual to later have the Labour whip removed owing to his relationship with Sean Morton, a man subsequently convicted of possessing indecent images of children, the Prime Minister very deliberately directed that that information was withheld from the then Foreign Secretary, although I suspect that that's not the first time he's done that.

Two men with proximity to convicted paedophiles, both Labour peers, both key figures in the Starmer project. This government's cronyism is second only to its nepotism and knowing what we know about the role that Peter Mandelson played in the last reshuffle, what confidence can the general public have that Ministers who owe their careers to Peter Mandelson would vote honestly in this coming vote? It isn't on this side of the House that we have to worry about whether Peter Mandelson paid for anybody's wedding.

The laissez faire attitude to Peter Mandelson's appointment has illustrated the nonchalance, arrogance and incompetence of the government under this milquetoast premiership. There's a key question we come back to once again why does the Prime Minister think everybody else else's actions have consequences except his own? Yeah, the public must be assured that there has been an investigation into whether the Prime Minister misled the House. The Privileges Committee must investigate the Prime Minister and Labour MPs must vote for this motion for transparency and truth, not the defence of a Prime Minister who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

doesn't deserve their blinkered loyalty. Ayoub Khan I'm.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ayoub Khan I'm. Deputy Speaker. Can I first of all, extend my thoughts and prayers to the victim of Epstein? Can I to the victim of Epstein? Can I also commend the bold and courageous contributions by the courageous contributions by the hon. Members that sat opposite, which will be voting with the which will be voting with the motion now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was elected as an independent Member of Parliament to represent the people of Birmingham Perry Barr without fear and without favour.

I was sent here without a party whip, without shackles, controls or indeed hidden notes given to me behind closed doors. I was sent

17:41

Ayoub Khan MP (Birmingham Perry Barr, Independent)

- -

here to exercise my judgement, my discretion and my conscience at the discretion and my conscience at the behest of my constituents. And that is exactly what I do each and every is exactly what I do each and every day. Because the truth is, the British public feel deeply, profoundly disenfranchised. Too many people no longer trust politicians. Too many believe that politicians. Too many believe that we say one thing and do another. Too many people feel that there is one rule for those in power and another rule for everyone else.

And we cannot simply dismiss this sentiment. We must confront it. Honesty matters. Integrity matters, credibility matters. And above all, transparency matters. Because without these fundamental elements, public confidence does not just weaken, it disappears. And once it's gone, it's incredibly difficult to rebuild. So I ask colleagues across this House, especially those colleagues that sit opposite, what message do we send today if we refuse even to allow a committee to examine the facts? What are we saying to the public if we block scrutiny before it has even begun? This motion is not a verdict.

It's not a judgement. It's not a declaration of guilt. It's a process, a fair, established parliamentary process to examine evidence, to determine the facts and to allow the truth to emerge. And yet we are told that members on the Labour benches are under a three line whip for those outside this chamber who may not know, that means they are being instructed, compelled to vote against this motion, to vote against, even allowing the question to be examined. So let us be honest about what that looks like.

If an individual votes to prevent this investigation, they are not defending due process, they are denying it. They are not upholding transparency. They are obstructing it. And they are not strengthening public trust. They are further eroding it because to the British people it will look like they are shielding. It will look like blocking. It will look like protecting the powerful from scrutiny. And that is precisely the perception we should all be fighting against, not reinforcing. If we expect the public to follow the rules, to respect the law, and to have faith in our institutions, then we must hold ourselves to the same, if not higher, standards.

We cannot ask for trust while refusing accountability. We cannot demand integrity while avoiding scrutiny. And we cannot rebuild confidence by closing ranks. This is a moment that calls for courage, not partisan courage, but moral courage. The courage to say let the process take its course. The courage to say no one is above scrutiny, and the courage to put principle above party. As an independent member, I answer only to my constituents and to my conscience and my conscience, and I'm confident that every member that sat opposite and their conscience, who tells me that supporting this motion is the right thing to do, not because of politics, not because of just principles, not because of personalities, but because the standards we owe to the British public.

So I urge colleagues across this House, particularly those under instructions today, to reflect carefully on the message your vote will send. Will it be a message of openness, or will it be a message of obstruction? Will it be a message of accountability or a message of avoidance? Because the public are watching and they will draw their own conclusions? Mr. speaker, if we are serious about restoring trust in politics, then we must be serious about transparency. If we are serious about integrity, then we must be serious about scrutiny.

And if we are serious about public confidence, then we must allow the truth to be examined wherever that truth leads. And for that reason, I support this motion. And finally, can I say this the Prime Minister is willing to put each and every member of Parliament of his political party at risk at the next general election, but he will not risk himself going in front of this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

privileged committee. Thank you. Shadow Secretary of State Alex

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Burghart. Thank you. Very much, Mr. Speaker. It has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very much, Mr. Speaker. It has been a long and sometimes been a long and sometimes interesting debate. The. We have we have had some revelations. The. Well, I was very interested to hear Well, I was very interested to hear the speech by the right hon. Gentleman, the leader of the Liberal Democrats. I'm sure we will all be delighted to hear that the liberal Liberal Democrats are now opposed to sanctimony. I was also interested to hear from also here, interested to hear from the Father of the House that that he's not politically political, particularly political.

He. But I, I welcome the Chief Secretary to the Prime

17:47

Alex Burghart MP (Brentwood and Ongar, Conservative)

- -

17:58

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

18:13

Division

The the question is, as on the Order Paper as many of that opinion say, I, >> I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the contrary. No, no. The question is, as on the Order Paper as many of that opinion say, I. I of the country. No, no. The tellers for the ayes Harriet Cross of Gregory Stafford for the nos. Deirdre Costigan and Nesil Caliskan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. The ayes to the right 223. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right 223. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left. 335. Thank you. The ayes to the right. 223 the noes to the left. 335 The noes have it The noes have it En bloc. Just can I just say a member of Parliament speak to complain to me and another member when other members are shouting shame when the voting. It is not acceptable and it will not be tolerated. So I hope that the people concerned will apologise to those members that they shouted at.

Point of order, Sir Julian.

18:28

Points of Order Rt Hon Sir Julian Lewis MP (New Forest East, Conservative)

- -

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Out of 190 questions for written answer 190 questions for written answer that I've put down this session, which is coming to its close, all but one have been answered. The one exception is one that I mentioned on the floor of the House yesterday during the Chief Secretary's statement, and he responded that he always ensures that he honours parliamentary questions in a timely fashion. The last day for answering this question is today and it so far hasn't been answered.

So I wonder if I might give the Chief Secretary the opportunity to answer it now. And it is this to ask who first suggested to the Prime Minister that Peter Mandelson should be appointed as ambassador to the United States?

18:29

Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister) (Bristol North West, Labour)

- -

Just to say, we're not going to carry on the debate, but Secretary carry on the debate, but Secretary Jones is desperate to answer. >> Whilst I'm here. Mr. Speaker, first, can I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman? I would have hon. Gentleman? I would have cleared parliamentary questions, but I've been in the House all afternoon to answer his. To answer his specific question, I will refer him to the evidence given today to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee from Mr. Morgan McSweeney, who confirmed that the first person to recommend Peter Mandelson to become ambassador was Peter Mandelson.

18:29

Points of Order Emily Darlington MP (Milton Keynes Central, Labour)

- -

Emily Darlington Point of order. >> Emily Darlington Point of order. >> Mr. speaker, I'd like to seek your advice. I understand that it is custom and practice. When an MP is custom and practice. When an MP comes to visit your constituency, that you are given due notice of that. The Leader of the Opposition came to my constituency and did not inform me that she was there, and I would like to know if we could, how

**** Possible New Speaker ****

best to resolve this. I think the good thing, I think the good thing is you've told me the good thing is you've told me about it and what I would say to hon. Members, whether the Ministers, shadow Ministers, leaders, whoever shadow Ministers, leaders, whoever they are, the courtesy is the MP should know, unless it's for a should know, unless it's for a private visit. So please can everybody take that on board, especially as we're coming up to especially as we're coming up to the election.

The fever is already with us, so please adhere to what I believe is good practice. The clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day.

18:30

Consideration of Lords message to the Pension Schemes Bill

Pension Schemes Bill consideration of Lords message. >> Now. >> No. Before we consider the Lords message on the Pension Scheme Bill, inform the House that the inform the House that the government has tabled a new motion in relation to the Lords message and has withdrawn the motion tabled this morning. The new Amendment Paper is available in the vote office and online, and was issued at 555 and includes a note indicating that a motion relating to Lords Reason 88 X has been withdrawn and the new motion has been tabled.

I can confirm that nothing in the Lords message engages common privilege. Right? We now come to government motion related to the Lords recent 886 X as set out on the notice paper. I call Minister Torsten Bell to move. Minister. Minister.

18:31

Torsten Bell MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Swansea West, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's obviously disappointing to see that not every member in this chamber wishes to stay for a detailed discussion of the pension schemes, Bill, but it's not the biggest it's not the biggest disappointment ever. And it is good to see our regular engages on this bill in their place. And I want to actually thank particularly those members, for helpful discussions on the bill in recent days. Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not intend to detain the House for long.

Hon. Members will be, as always, the reaction we're looking for. Hon. Members will be aware that there is one outstanding issue between this House and the other place when it comes to the Pension Schemes Bill. This relates to the reserve power on asset allocation. Today, the government returns to its previous amendments on this issue. The spell out the intended purpose of the reserve power to underpin the industry's own commitments in the Mansion House Accord and to rule out other uses, such as a focus on any specific asset or asset class.

But we are also bringing forward a final set of changes that aim to do justice to the points made in this House and the other place, while retaining the original policy intent. These have three elements. First, a new requirement on regulators, in this case the TPR and the FCA, to make an assessment of barriers to the delivery of private asset investment, including the extent to which those barriers reflect the collective action problem that we have discussed extensively during exchanges on this bill.

This assessment would be required to be incorporated into the ex-ante report. The Secretary of State must produce before any use of the reserve power that the Bill provides for our amendment, importantly, also places a duty on the government to have regard to this regulatory assessment before any use of the power. This will ensure a Secretary of State behaving reasonably as they are required to do, must place weight on the assessment of the regulators on this matter. Now, it was always the government's intent to evaluate progress against the Mansion House Accord commitments in terms of the broad direction of travel over a substantial period of time, rather than short term movements in private asset exposure.

To reinforce this, we also propose to add to the face of the bill that the power cannot be exercised any earlier than 2028. Our second set of changes builds on the Savers Interest Test to reinforce the central role of trustees and providers. Our amendments in lieu would change the bar required to engage the savers interest test, rather than having to demonstrate the meeting. The asset allocation requirements would be likely to cause material financial detriment. A scheme would instead have to show that meeting the requirements is likely not to be in the best interests of members.

This language reflects. This reflects language regularly used when considering trustees duties. In addition, we have more tightly specified the regulator's role, confining it to ensuring that trustee or the providers own assessment of what is in the best interest of members is reasonable, rather than replacing that assessment with their own. Thirdly, our our amendment addresses address worries about the differential treatment of particular investment vehicles by allowing for consideration of direct or indirect holdings in the asset classes named in the Mansion House accord.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I would remind the House that this bill has has its roots in much work that was underway for some time in government, but also the commitment in the Labour Party manifesto to ensure workplace pension schemes take advantage of scale and invest in a wider range of productive assets. That was why one of the first things this government did on taking office was to launch a comprehensive review of pensions investment. That review found clear evidence that DC pensions market is operating with an excessively narrow focus on cost, to the detriment of saver outcomes.

That is where the reserve power comes from. It exists because the review found, and the industry itself has told us, that competitive pressure focussed on cost minimisation is the single biggest barrier to diversifying in savers long term interest. But of course, things can change over time and there are a range of other factors which may come into play, which we have discussed, particularly with the Member for Wyre Forest. The changes we propose today address that worry directly and others. They require regulators to assess whether these competitive pressures remain a material barrier to more diverse private asset investment before any use of the power, and they put trustees or providers own assessments of savers best interests centre stage.

And on that basis, Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the government's position to this House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the question is this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 15 to the Lords in their amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38, 42, 83 and 88 insists on its amendment 88 and 88 insists on its amendment 88 C 88, E to 88P88R88S and eight C 88, E to 88P88R88S and eight eight W to the words restored to the bill by the. That disagreement does not insist on its amendments. 88A8888U and V to the words so restore to the bill, but proposes amendments A to J to the words so restored to the bill, and I call the Shadow Secretary.

State Helen Whately.

18:36

Helen Whately MP (Faversham and Mid Kent, Conservative)

- -

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I begin by welcoming the hon. Gentleman back to his place? We

**** Possible New Speaker ****

missed him last night and it is good to see him back in the chamber. Yeah. Through our many debates, we have broadly agreed on the policy intent behind most of this bill. But as I have said time and time again, agreement on the principles again, agreement on the principles of a bill is not the same as offering the Minister unqualified support for every measure within it, support for every measure within it, particularly not for the power contained in clause 40 Mandation the reserve power, as he calls it, the reserve power, as he calls it, the power for Ministers to instruct pension funds where to invest.

When this bill was first introduced, that Mandation power was truly breathtaking in scope. It was extraordinary and unconstrained power that would have allowed the Secretary of State access to 100% of at least £400 billion worth of auto enrolment default pension funds. It allowed Ministers to direct their investment however they saw fit. And what happened the moment that became clear to people will right hon. Members and hon. Members opposite in front and indeed members behind me not least reform UK were already queuing up with pet projects and struggling sectors.

They thought savers money should be used for net zero schemes steel Renationalising water and to be clear, they were not proposing these on the grounds of the return on investment for savers, the income they would generate people for later life. That much is obvious, but we said no. No to politicians having that power, no to Ministers directing pension savings into their pet projects, and no to overriding the interests of savers in favour of politicians desperate for access to capital. Yeah, I was clear from the outset this power was dangerous and it had no place in this bill.

But after sustained pressure from the industry, from the Other place and from this side of the House, the government has slowly, very slowly been forced to row back. They have rowed back from a power grab that threatened trust in auto enrolment pensions and risk damaging savers retirement incomes. And let us be clear about what those concessions amount to. First, on allocation limits. The original bill contained no cap whatsoever on how much of a savers pension could be mandated into specified assets.

Now, after pressure, the government has imposed hard limits. No more than 10% of a default fund may be directed into qualifying assets, and no more than 5% may be directed specifically into UK assets. That is a major retreat from the original proposal. Second sunset and single use restrictions. The government has brought forward the expiry date of the reserve power to 2032, if unused, and repealed the whole regime by 2035, unless renewed by fresh primary legislation and limited the core mandate and power so it can only be exercised once.

Another retreat. Third, the scope has been narrowed. Mandation can now apply only to the main default auto enrolment fund, not the entire pension scheme. Not every pot. Again, another retreat. And today we have had further concessions. The government now accept that before this power can ever be exercised, regulators must conduct an independent assessment of whether a genuine collective action problem exists whereby no one wants to be the first mover, and whether that problem is inhibiting investment in private markets. We have been consistent in our view that Mandation is not the right solution, but we accept that requiring independent assessment before the power can be exercised is a safeguard against ministerial overreach.

And I appreciate the Pension Minister's assurances on the weight of evidence required. The Dispatch Box they have also accepted that the reserve power cannot be used before 2028 again. Another retreat. The government has also further strengthened the savers interest test. Since yesterday's amendment, schemes will no longer have to prove that compliance would likely cause material financial detriment. Instead, they need only demonstrate that compliance is likely not to be in the best interests of members, thereby aligning that test with trustees existing fiduciary duties.

This matters because fiduciary duty must be protected. It is sacrosanct. Nothing is more important in a modern pension system than the duty to act solely in the best interests of savers. That duty is the foundation upon which trust in our pension system rests. This amendment means that in a conflict between mandation and fiduciary duty, fiduciary duty wins again. Another important retreat. Finally, the government has agreed to remove discrimination between investment vehicles by clarifying that both direct and indirect holdings in the relevant asset classes count towards compliance.

The final retreat. Madam Deputy Speaker, Every one of those changes tells the same story. The government introduced a power that was too broad, too vague and too dangerous, and step by step under pressure, they have been forced to narrow it, constrain it and hedge it about with safeguards. Why? Because the original powers indefensible. Because the government knew the concerns were real. The work we have done has obliterated the government's original proposal. The power, as it stands now looks nothing like how it was first imagined.

What began as a sweeping ministerial power grab has been stripped back, pared down and boxed in on all sides. Only now, after our intervention has it become at least palatable. It's the vestige of its former overmighty self, a shrivelled husk. But let me be clear we do not believe government should direct capital, and we do not believe Ministers should interfere. Investment decisions properly left to trustees and markets. Here we have Labour doing what they always do, thinking government is the answer.

The state going where it has no place to go. When conservatives return to government, we will remove Mandation from the statute book entirely because, Madam Deputy Speaker, at the heart of this policy lies a dangerous assumption that Ministers in Whitehall know better than trustees, fund managers and markets how to invest the public's pension savings. I have yet to meet anyone who wants a politician managing their pension and pensions belong to the people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

who earn them, not government Ministers. It is as simple as that. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. We have. No backbench speeches, so I'll come to you Steve Darling, if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

come to you Steve Darling, if you're ready. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Steve Darling. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker and Liberal Democrats have opposed Mandation

18:43

Steve Darling MP (Torbay, Liberal Democrat)

- -

from day one, and we have continued to oppose throughout this bill. The challenge is that once you cross the Rubicon, you have changed the dynamics of pensions significantly. And the crucial thing that pensions need to be is that people need to have confidence that this is a good way of saving for your retirement. And if we undermine that by government interference, then that will reduce people's confidence in actually saving for their pension. And that is a complete reverse of what this bill as a whole is all about, because this bill is mostly about making sure that our pension system is fit for the future, fit to serve those who are looking to have a good retirement, and that is to be celebrated with the vast majority of this bill.

And it is to be welcomed, however, as Liberal Democrats, although there have been significant concessions, and we welcome those steps in the right direction, there is still a crossing of a Rubicon, and we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

continue to have grave concerns. Do come in. Thank you. The Liberal Democrat spokesman

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Liberal Democrat spokesman makes an incredibly important point about crossing the Rubicon, with the government taking mandated powers to be able to interfere in powers to be able to interfere in people's savings and assets. And we're talking about pension funds here. But once that Rubicon is crossed, actually, there's no crossed, actually, there's no reason why the government might not feel that they could start mandating investment trusts, other types of other types of savings schemes as well. So this is not only something about pensions.

This is about the fundamental relationship between the state and the private individuals.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Steve Darling thank you. And I sorry, I you my colleague, makes a very powerful point that is well very powerful point that is well made, and I'm sure the Minister will reflect on that in his in his will reflect on that in his in his wind ups. So we continue to oppose Mandation as liberal Democrats, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mandation as liberal Democrats, and we plan to vote against this tonight. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Wind ups. Minister Torsten Bell.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker

18:45

Torsten Bell MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Swansea West, Labour)

- -

and to members for their contributions and for the kind words from the Shadow Secretary of State. I'll be. I will be brief. State. I'll be. I will be brief. The government has continued to insist on the inclusion of the reserve power in this bill across reserve power in this bill across four rounds of discussions in this place, because we have not heard a convincing alternative approach to solving the collective action solving the collective action problem that we have discussed. But we have heard convincing arguments about how this part of the bill can be strengthened.

And on each of be strengthened. And on each of them we have acted. That is why the amended power is necessary but also constrained. It is caps time limited single use sunsetted subject to savers interest test that has been materially strengthened as the Shadow Secretary of State laid out. Madam Deputy Speaker, on that basis, the elected House has now been clear on many, many occasions. On each occasion that has been seen by large majorities, and on that basis it is it is now clear that this is the time to resolve this and get the bill passed.

As the industry and the group supporting workers and pensioners themselves have repeatedly called for, the government has listened to the arguments from the benches opposite, and those expressed in the other place not only listened but acted on them. But the elected House has also made its position overwhelmingly plain. Given both these points, which are both important, it is clearly time for the unelected House to bring to an end. Attempts to frustrate the clearly expressed will of this chamber. It is with that, I think, entirely reasonable expectation that I commend the government's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments and the passage of this bill to the House. The question is that this House insists on its disagreement with insists on its disagreement with the Lords amendments 15 to 24, 27, the Lords amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88 insists on its amendments 88C88E to 88P88R8T8S and 88 W to the words restored to the bill by that disagreement does not insist on its amendment. 88A88T88U and 88 V to the words so restored to the bill, but proposes amendments A to J to the words so restored to the bill.

18:47

Division

As you may say, I, I. No, no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Miss Miss Wakely, Miss Wakely, are Miss Wakely, are you Miss Wakely, are you exiting Miss Wakely, are you exiting the chamber? Mr. Darling? Wonderful. The question is, as on the order papers may have been of the contrary, no tellers for the ayes I Deirdre Costigan and Nesil Caliskan and Tellers for the noes r Katie Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right 335. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noes to the left 158. The Ayes to the right 335. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right 335. The Noes to the left 158. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlock. That concludes consideration of the Lords message on the Pension

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Schemes Bill. 7:00 motion. I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order Paper as many that say I. Contrary. No. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Do the front bench wish to shuffle over?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Order! Order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Consideration of Lords message. Now. Before we consider the Lords

19:01

Consideration of Lords message to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

>> Before we consider the Lords message to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, I inform the House that the inform the House that the government has tabled a new motion in relation to the Lords. Reason one, two three J and has withdrawn one, two three J and has withdrawn the motions it tabled this morning. Relating to those motions. The motion relating Lords Reason 155 J is unchanged. The new Amendment Paper is available in the vote office and online, and was issued at 6:30 p.m.

and includes a note indicating that the paper was issued at 6:30 p.m. and replaces an earlier version. The motion relating to Lords Reason 123 J has been withdrawn and a new motion has been tabled. We will begin with the government motion relating to Lords reason 89 F as set out on the notice paper, with which it will be convenient to consider all other Lords amendments, government motions and amendments. I call the Minister to move the motion. Minister.

19:02

Miatta Fahnbulleh MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Peckham, Labour )

- -

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to speak once again on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Can I start, Madam Deputy Speaker, by thanking members from across the House for their constructive engagement in getting the bill to this point, and why this bill matters is that if we are to transform our economy, if we are to drive up living standards and deliver better public services in every community, a fundamental change is needed in the way that the country is run.

This landmark bill will deliver just that. It represents the biggest transfer of power out of Whitehall to our regions and our communities in a generation, and so I am glad that we have found a way forward on several of the issues we most recently discussed, namely the role of strategic authorities and mayors and rural affairs. Agents of change in the planning system and the role of town and parish councils in neighbourhood governance. We have listened carefully to the concerns raised in both House on remaining issues.

The ministerial power of direction in schedule one of the Bill, prioritising development on brownfield land and the models of governance in local authorities. This is why the government has today tabled three amendments that I will now outline on the question of ministerial power of direction in the Bill. I remind the House that ensuring every part of England can benefit from devolution remains a key objective of this government. I repeat for the record, that we, on this side of the House believe strongly that government has a duty to drive economic growth, unlock investment and deliver better outcomes for our communities.

To deny communities that opportunity would be to hold them back. This is why the original. We originally put in place a backstop power of direction for the Secretary of State to use in exceptional circumstances, and I emphasise exceptional circumstances. But to be very clear, the approach that we are taking in practice is to work with local leaders to forge enduring local partnerships and strong local institutions with their consent. However, we have heard the concerns and the strength of feeling from some noble peers about the scope of the powers previously included in schedule one.

To that end, and in the interest of not delaying the progress of this bill and ensuring that communities can benefit from the powers that all of us wish to see enacted at the earliest opportunity. The government is content to remove all powers in schedule, one that would allow the Secretary of State to direct the establishment of a strategic authority, whether male or non male, or to provide directly for a mayor of an existing non strategic authority. In addition, I am happy to commit that the government will not seek to use remaining power to direct the addition of a local government area to an existing strategic authority for a period of four years following royal consent.

It will then remain subject to all the same safeguards that have been discussed at length. As I have said consistently throughout the passage of this bill. Our policy and our practice is very, very clear. We are working with local leaders, and we will continue to work with local leaders to develop devolution proposals that command broad support across their area. That collaborative approach will always be our clear preference. The concessions I am making here today put that commitment beyond any doubt. Turning now to the issue of brownfield land, the government considers Lords Amendment 89 B and 89 C to be unworkable.

They would undermine effective plan making, constrain proper consideration of local circumstances and introduce inconsistency between spatial development strategies prepared by mayors and strategic authorities and those prepared by other authorities. As I have previously said, national policy remains the most effective route through which planning reform should be pursued and is the right place to set clear expectations about where development should take place, where concerns have been expressed about the effectiveness of existing policy. It remains too early to assess the full impact of recent and proposed changes to national planning policy.

However, in recognition of the strength of feeling expressed about inappropriately located development and to further reinforce a brownfield first approach, the government has tabled its own amendment. This would set a requirement in primary legislation for the Secretary of State to use existing regulation making powers to ensure that strategic planning authorities have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on land that has been previously developed. This will put consideration of brownfield land on the same legal footing as other highly important issues that are also on the face of legislation, such as promoting sustainable development and the impact on health and health inequalities.

It will ensure that the prioritisation of brownfield land is front and centre when strategic planning authorities are producing a spatial development strategy and considering how to meet the growth needs of their area. The drafting of our amendment is consistent with national policy, making clear that prioritising development on brownfield land is an overall objective and clearly desirable. Enshrining this requirement in legislation will elevate its importance and will further solidify the government's commitment. Clear commitment to brownfield first approach.

I now turn to the matter of local authority governance. As hon. Members will know, the government has set a clear default position. Councils currently operating the committee system, and which are not otherwise protected, should be required to move to the leader and Cabinet model within one year of the relevant Bill provisions coming into force. That remains the government's firm expectation. However, we have heard concerns from the Other place and concerns expressed in this House that requiring a council to move to the leader and Cabinet model within a year could potentially create challenges for some councils, their members and officers.

For example, where authority has submitted a proposal for a boundary change or merger in response to the Secretary of state's new power to invite such proposals. The government amendment we are bringing forward today response to those concerns. It allows the Secretary of State to extend the one year transition period for non-protected councils by a further year in certain circumstances. This provides flexibility where council is already on a clear path to dissolution, so that it is not required to undertake a significant governance change that may have little practical benefit.

This does not change the government's wider policy on local authority governance reform, but it does provide a proportionate and pragmatic safeguard in response to the points that have been raised over the pace of change. To conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Bill has undoubtedly been improved as a result of scrutiny in ping pong so far, and I thank the noble Lords and this place for their contribution in helping us with that. We are pleased to be able to offer concessions on brownfield land, local authority governance and the ministerial power of direction, and I urge the House to support the government's position and to accept these concessions.

19:10

David Simmonds MP (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, Conservative)

- -

The question is that this House insists on its disagreement with insists on its disagreement with the Lords, with amendments 89 and 89 C, but proposes amendments A in lieu as on the notice paper, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

call the shadow Minister. David Smith. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I start by expressing and May I start by expressing and putting on record my thanks to the Minister and colleagues in her Department for the constructive spirit in which they have approached the negotiations around this Bill. It remains the view of the official opposition that the overall direction of travel of this bill is a centralising one, that it does bring into effect many new powers for the Secretary of State to direct the work of local authorities, and especially the new mayors, and the strategic responsibilities that they undertake will all be subject to a degree of direct influence from Whitehall.

However, it clearly is in the interests of all parties represented in this House to seek to reach agreement on those points that have remained in contention. And I know I share the Minister's sense of delight at once again being here at the despatch box and discussing Lords amendments. Let me just briefly address those. In turn, the Minister set out very clearly the government's agreement to step back from some of the directions which were included in that original legislation, and that was an example of one of the points that we felt on this side demonstrated that sense of a centralising power within the legislation.

However, government has been, I think, very constructive in the way that they've approached that has recognised that there is a degree of justification around that backstop power to avoid a situation where the whole of the country is covered by combined authorities. But some councils are left outside of those boundaries. And I know many members have expressed concern in the debates, both at Bill committee and in the House, at the impact that that would have, particularly on opportunities for economic development.

But let me turn, secondly, to the amendment around brownfield. And members on this side of the House have been resolute from the outset in saying whatever new arrangements the government is determined to implement. We need to ensure that local communities will continue to be able to stand up for and protect the green spaces that they cherish, whether those are greenfield sites that are used for agriculture or whether they are greenfield and green belt sites that may be used for leisure to provide that buffer around our cities and suburbs.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend, give way on that. Point, of course. Thank you. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he Friend for giving way. Does he agree with me that it is vital that we continue to protect those greenfield sites, as we do in my constituency of Bromley and Biggin Hill and indeed conservative councils across the country do. And does he agree with me that it's sad does he agree with me that it's sad that the reform candidate for Mayor of London disagrees and wants to build over some of our precious green Belt.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Land? David Simmonds. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill is absolutely spot on in what he says. I think members across this chamber have been quite surprised to hear reform, in particular, saying that they wish to tear up London's greenbelt as part of the local election campaign. And I am grateful to this Minister and to her colleagues that they have recognised in the fine tradition of many of our Labour councils as well, that we need to make sure that there are sufficient provisions in the legislation to ensure the protection of those vital green spaces for future generations.

I am grateful, in particular for the Minister having made what may seem like a fairly technical change, but as she has just told us at the despatch box what it establishes for the first time after five rounds of ping pong is a very clear hierarchy in the legislation that sets out that the new mayors, in their spatial development strategy, will need to prioritise brownfield land for development.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And many of the concerns which members across the House expressed when we debated local government reorganisation just a few weeks ago reorganisation just a few weeks ago about the impact of housing targets being displaced, will be more effectively managed by the effectively managed by the amendments, which have been agreed across the House tonight. So that is a distinct step forward from all is a distinct step forward from all our. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I just briefly touch on the point about local authority governance.

about local authority governance. Now we recognise that there is a difference of opinion. It is the view of the opposition that local authorities should be able to set up their structure of governance in a way that reflects their local circumstances. And whilst it is strongly our view that the leader and Cabinet model is the most efficient and effective way to do that, it is the essence of local democracy that people may take decisions that we disagree with, but the government's agreement to pause the use of that requirement so that there will be a period in which local authorities can reflect on their governance arrangements, can consult if they wish to do so, in which the normal cycle of local elections can take place, and in which, of course, there will also be a parliamentary election.

And I think we all know that the matter of local government reorganisation never entirely stops. It merely starts again at a different point in each parliamentary cycle. So there will be further opportunities in the future to reflect on that. But all of those do represent in the context of a bill with which we do still have some significant concerns, progress in a direction that makes us much more comfortable. For those reasons, we do not propose to divide the House on these matters this evening.

19:15

Gideon Amos MP (Taunton and Wellington, Liberal Democrat)

- -

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Gideon Amos. I'll be brief, as most of the arguments have already been well stated. We recognise the Minister's argument yesterday that this Bill represents a step forward, not the final destination at some. Consistency is needed to make the system function, but in seeking that consistency, it's really important that we don't lose the very flexibility that makes devolution truly meaningful. We remain supportive of my Lib Dem colleagues in the Lords in their efforts to strengthen the bill.

I want to place on record the Liberal Democrats continued backing for a number of those amendments on Lords Amendment 36. We return to Central Point. It's not devolution to mandate a single model of governance from the centre. Local areas must retain the ability to choose what works for them. I'd like to thank the Minister for concessions she has made from the despatch box. In relation to the amendments Liberal Democrats have tabled. We're grateful the government has taken note of those issues and the importance of the right of communities to choose their own governance and ensure that choice is better protected.

We've already seen why flexibility for local authorities matters. In Sheffield, the council moved away from the leader and Cabinet model to a committee system following real concerns about transparency, accountability and council overreach. That change was driven locally by councillors responding to their communities. As my noble friend, Liberal Democrat peer Lord Muhammad of Tinsley set out in the other place the consequences of concentration of power in a small executive can be profound. In Sheffield, decisions to fail thousands of healthy trees. Street trees were driven through by a small group without the scrutiny of a wider number.

Plaque now stands in Sheffield, which reads in recognition of the courageous campaigners who saved thousands of street trees from wrongful felling by Sheffield City Council. As a reminder to all that such failures and leadership must never happen again, this is a stark warning of what can go wrong when power and authority is too concentrated in the hands of too few. Liberal Democrats will continue to challenge the government on this, because we are the party that believes in real community representation. Local governance, decided by local people, will always fight to ensure that communities have a genuine voice in how their areas are run, not decisions handed down from Whitehall.

If consistency comes at the cost of local voice then we are not strengthening devolution. We will be narrowing it. Turning towards amendment 98, Liberal Democrats believe that placing limits on powers over structural changes is vital if local democracy is to have genuine autonomy. I'd like to thank the Minister for what she said in relation to that. Likewise, we have sought to remove powers that would allow Ministers to direct the creation or expansion of combined authorities, including the imposition of mayors, without meaningful local consent on both sides of these benches and those opposite.

We agree that meaningful devolution cannot mean that structured design in Whitehall and deliver to local areas with limited input, if local cannot mean structures delivered and sent from Whitehall with limited local input. If local government is to have real autonomy, consent must be meaningful and Parliament must retain its proper role and we will continue to work constructively with the government on that front. On those amendments 89 B and 89 C, we strongly support the prioritisation of prioritisation of brownfield development. That is why Liberal Democrats are grateful to the government for listening to the calls for better protection of greenfield land, and that they have taken steps in this bill to encourage prioritisation of brownfield going forward.

This will help ensure that development is happening in the right places on land that needs to be developed on and in consultation with communities around it. This is not about opposing growth. It's about delivering that growth sustainably and making best use of the land that has already been previously been developed. Whilst I recognise the Minister's argument that some flexibility is needed to meet housing demand, if that flexibility results in greenfield and green spaces become the default, then we will have failed again and got the balance fundamentally wrong.

Green spaces are essential to community wellbeing. They support mental and physical health, provide space for recreation and contribute to the identity of local places. Once lost, they cannot be replaced. If brownfield land is not properly prioritised, development pressure will fall on those spaces. We therefore welcome this step in the right direction from the Minister, and we will, but we will continue to ask the government to go further on prioritising brownfield when taking together these three amendments do not frustrate the bill.

They improve it. They move it closer to what devolution should be rooted in local consent and accountable to local communities. We are glad the government has taken heed of the priorities Liberal Democrats put forward, and we will continue to work constructively to ensure decisions are made with local people and not done to them.

19:20

Miatta Fahnbulleh MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Peckham, Labour )

- -

Minister to wind up Minister. >> Miatta Fahnbulleh thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I thank hon. Members for their continued engagement and their insightful engagement and their insightful debate on these issues? In the time left, I will respond to some of the particular points that was made. I do want to put on record my thanks to opposition members for the constructive way in which they have approached this, so that we can progress this bill and take it forward to the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner.

We will continue to disagree on whether this is a centralising bill or a radical shift in power. I still fundamentally believe that this is a huge step in transferring power outside of Whitehall. But candidly, we will demonstrate this through our actions and through the impact of the bill. The thing that drives us is the impact that this will have in our communities, and I think we have got strong measures that will help us ensure that we are putting communities in the driving seat so that they can shape their place.

To the member Taunton and Wellington, I hear the points that he's made on local government governance, in particular, the example of Sheffield that he's raised is one that many of my my hon. Friends on this side of the bench have advocated and been very clear and advocated for their communities on on their behalf, which is why we made the original concession. We think that we have found the right balance. What I would say is that we are clear that if we are to empower local authorities in the way that we want, they need strong governance in order to make decisions for their communities that will impact on their communities.

And the reason why we are trying to support the shift in governance arrangements is to ensure that we have enduring local authorities that can fundamentally deliver, and we think that we have achieved this in the concessions that have been made. Madam Deputy Speaker, to conclude, look, the thing that I have found hugely heartening throughout the passage of this bill is that there is a clear point of consensus across the House that if we are to deliver change in our communities, we must push power out into our communities, into the hands of our local leaders, into our neighbourhoods, and to people who know their patch best.

And I hope that this bill represents the start of a journey that will fundamentally change the way that government works and how we in this place serve the communities that we are here to represent. Where the principle of devolution by default, underpinned by a clear framework, is locked in, where local leaders are empowered to drive economic change and improvements in living standards across their patch, where communities are put in the driving seat and given power to shape the places in which they live and work.

I've been clear throughout the passage of this bill that this represents a floor, not the summit, of our ambition for devolution, so I look forward to working with my hon. Friends on this side of the House, but with hon. Members across the House as we build on the provisions in this bill. Finally, I'd like to thank my brilliant team of officials that have worked on this bill Hannah, Carrie Guy, Jenna, Marie, Alice, John, Rachel, Wendy, as well as my private office, Molly, Simon and Lucy, who have all done an absolutely heroic job in taking through an absolutely mammoth bill through the House.

And with that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to commend the government's amendment to this House for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords, with their amendments 89 the Lords, with their amendments 89 B and 89 C, but proposes amendment A in lieu as on the notice paper as A in lieu as on the notice paper as may that opinion say I. The contrary. No. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the ayes have it. We now come to the motion that this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords its disagreement with the Lords amendment 36, nine, 36, 90 and 155 insists on its amendments 155 A to 155 F and 155 H to the words so restored to the bill by that disagreement with amendment 155 and proposes amendment A to the words so restored the bill as on the notice paper.

Minister to move formally. The question is that this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords. Amendments 36 9155 insists on amendment 155 A to 155 F and 155 H to the words so restored to the bill by that disagreement with amendment 155, and proposes amendment A to the words so restored to the bill as on the notice paper as may in opinion, say I. I no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the motion to insist on disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 85, 86, 97, 216, 120, 121 123.

It sits on its amendments to 123 C 123 H and 123 J to 123 K in lieu and to propose amendments A to E lu as on the notice paper. I call the Minister to move the motion formally. The question is that this House insists on disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 85, 86, 97, 116, 120, 121, 123 insists on its amendments 123 123 C to 123 H and 123 J to 123 K in lieu and proposes amendments A to E in Lu as on the notice paper.

As many as our opinion say I. I no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. That concludes consideration of the Lords message on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. A point of order.

19:25

Points of Order Mike Wood MP (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, Conservative)

- -

Thank you. >> Last week I tabled a written question to the Foreign Secretary asking whether Jonathan Powell was asking whether Jonathan Powell was subject to scrutiny vetting before or after he was appointed as the Prime Minister's special envoy on the Chagos negotiations. I have not yet received a response. Given that Morgan McSweeney appeared to tell the Foreign Affairs Select Committee this morning that the vetting process only began after Powell was later appointed as national security adviser, how can I secure an official answer from I secure an official answer from the Foreign Office to this Diligence in getting answers on behalf of his constituents, and will no doubt explore every avenue to get that answer.

And for the Treasury front bench, it is only appropriate that backbench MPs are able to get responses in due time on behalf of their constituents. No doubt they have heard, and no doubt the hon. Member has got his words on the record. If the frontbench is wish to shuffle over, this is the time to do so. I now come to motion number five on income tax, and it would leave the House to take them collectively. Motion number five on income tax retained EU law reform.

That's motion number six retained EU law reform. Motion number seven on energy. Motion number eight on Financial Services and Markets and motion number nine services and markets. And motion number ten no. Motion number nine on Financial Services and markets. Minister to move. Let's move. The question is move. Let's move. The question is as on the order papers made that say aye. Of the contrary. No. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. I ayes have it. The ayes have it. I now come to motion number ten on retained EU law reform Minister to move.

19:27

Statutory Instruments

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper as an opinion, say aye. Of the country. No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No.

19:28

Division

19:53

Motion: Select Committee Statements

>> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I brought forward a number of motions today in order to facilitate recent recommendations facilitate recent recommendations of both the backbench Business Committee and the Procedure Committee. I thank both committees Committee. I thank both committees for their recent reports on these matters, and I will briefly address its motion. Hon. Members should its motion. Hon. Members should note that the explanatory notes are also available in the Vote office. First Select Committee statements

19:53

Motion: Select Committee Statements Rt Hon Sir Alan Campbell MP, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Tynemouth, Labour)

- -

First Select Committee statements currently for a Select Committee statement to be made, it must be made within five sitting days of publication of the report or announcement of the inquiry. The Backbench Business Committee recommended in its 15th anniversary report that the Select Committee statement under Standing Order number 22 D, should instead be allowed to take place ten sitting days after publication of the report or announcement of an inquiry. Select Committee statements have increased in popularity in recent years, and the government agreed with the committee in their recommendation, and therefore, the motion asks the House to amend the Standing Order to enact this change.

Madam Deputy Speaker, Turning to the motions relating to the operation of the backbench Business Committee, both the backbench Business Committee in its 15th anniversary report and the Procedure Committee in its report on elections in the House of Commons, proposed that members and chair of the backbench Business Committee should be elected in line with all other elected select committees. That is, for the whole Parliament rather than each session. While the Backbench Business Committee does have unique powers in scheduling business on the floor of the House, the government recognises that the operation of the committee is well established and that the reappointment of the Committee at the beginning of each session can cause delays to the scheduling of backbench business.

The government, therefore, has accepted this recommendation and the relevant motions bring forward proposals to make this change ahead of the next session, with a consequential changes the government proposes as far as possible alignment of nomination periods and ballot timings for the backbench Business Committee to that of other Select Committee chairs. No other arrangements relating to the election of the backbench committee Chair. For example, signature required for candidates or parties eligible to stand for chair have been amended. However, as the current chair and members have only been appointed on a sessional basis, the committee is still required to be re-elected at the beginning of the next session to allow the chair and members to be appointed for the remainder of this Parliament.

As ever, the government will endeavour to ensure that the Committee can be re-established in good time in the new parliamentary session. A further motion has been tabled which sets out the arrangements for the election of the chair and the appointment of committee members at the beginning of the next session to ensure clarity of the arrangements for setting up the committee in the transition session. Madam Deputy Speaker, the final motion in this group relates to Select Committee Chair elections and follows the recent report from the Procedure Committee.

Their inquiry recommended that rules be adopted for Select Committee chair elections to limit campaigning activity and the time that campaigning can take place. Paragraphs 109 to 111 and one one 4 to 115 of the committee's report set out how the rules should be adhered to. The government accepts the committee's recommendation and the motion asks the House to endorse these rules. I thank the Backbench Business Committee and the Procedure Committee for their consideration of these matters, and I look forward to continuing to work with them across a number of areas, both as leaders of the House of Commons, but also as chair of the modernisation committee.

I hope members will support this motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House. For. The question is motion number 17 on Select Committee

**** Possible New Speaker ****

number 17 on Select Committee statements, as on the Order Paper, I call Shadow Minister Jim Morrison. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. And may I echo the the the words

19:57

Joy Morrissey MP (Beaconsfield, Conservative)

- -

>> And may I echo the the the words of our leader, the House, and to thank the backbench Business Committee and the Procedure Committee and the Procedure Committee for contributing to these motions today. And they're widely very sensible.

19:58

Cat Smith MP (Lancaster and Wyre, Labour)

- -

I call chair of the Procedure Committee to. Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow a previous member of the Procedure Committee, and I thank the hon. Lady for all her work that she did in contributing to the work of this committee, which came to a very clear view, very consensual view across the committee that the elections that we saw in the House for Select Committee chairs at the beginning of this session of Parliament, did somewhat resemble a silly season with excessive campaigning and for new members of the House who perhaps, you know, maybe didn't even expect to be in this House.

They found it very overwhelming. And we were able to take that information and put together a very sensible set of rules that create a level playing field for all candidates, whilst respecting the right for members to have, you know, be able to open their office door without falling over a pile of leaflets. Frankly, Madam Deputy Speaker, which was one of the things that was fed to us as a committee, as one of the problems last time. And I hope that the change to the election of the chair of the backbench Business Committee to be in line with other Select Committee chairs, we'll be able to bring that in line and shows the backbench Business Committee is a Select Committee in the same way as other select committees are in this House.

So I'd like to thank the Leader of the House for bringing this forward and accepting the committee's findings in full, and I look forward to supporting them. Thank you.

19:59

Bob Blackman MP (Harrow East, Conservative)

- -

I call the chair of the >> I call the chair of the backbench Business Committee. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'd like to thank the Leader of and I'd like to thank the Leader of the House for listening to the backbench Business Committee and the Procedure Committee and bringing forward these long overdue amendments. I have to say, when the Backbench Business Committee was inaugurated, when I was first elected to this House in 2010, the government of the day refused to listen to those on the those on the backbenches who said, why is this position having to be elected every session? Unfortunately, what had happened, of course, was, if I can put it politely, members of the awkward squad managed to get elected to the committee and cause the government of the day immense problems.

However, I suspect that the government now sees that their power within the. The Parliamentary Labour Party to control their members who sit on the backbench Business Committee and and elect them appropriately. And of course my. I would. I regard him as my hon. Friend who sits on the Committee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the chair of the backbench Business Committee for giving way, and I just want to generally just put on record my generally just put on record my thanks to his able chairing of that committee throughout my time on it, and I think he would agree with me and I think he would agree with me that we've had some really good and useful debates in this place, and also Westminster Hall, because of the work of the backbench Business

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Member for that intervention. And clearly, I would intervention. And clearly, I would like to thank all the members of the backbench Business Committee for the excellent work they've done over the last year and a half, effectively in bringing forward debates, ensuring that members on all sides get the opportunity to debate the issues that they want to debate, rather than what the government wants to debate, which sometimes can be embarrassing for the government. We know that. However, that is the will of of the committee and indeed it has been a pleasure to oversee that work.

We've done some we've reformed things as well, so that members that come in front of our committee now will be at face questioning from all members of the committee, not just 1 or 2, which was the case in previous years. So that, I think, has been an important reform in terms of the changes that the leader is putting forward. I just point out the consequences of this. The Select Committee statements have been coming forward to the committee on a request for Select Committee statements on a regular basis.

Because of pressure on the chamber, we've had to push some of them into Westminster Hall, which limits the amount of time in Westminster Hall. Now, this will give the committee in future flexibility on. When the committee allocates these Select Committee statements in the House, and I think that is to the benefit of all select committees. So it's something we recommended. I warmly welcome. Indeed, the. The other issue, of course, is that the election of the committee now, I, I, I'm working out what's likely to happen in the next session.

It's likely that there'll be at least one day, possibly more days, when the government will have to put on general debates in the chamber, which have not been committed by the backbench Business Committee, because we won't have been reformed or reconstituted in time. I've as. As the leader knows, I've written to him with a list of debates that members want to debate so he can choose from some of those. I hope to make sure that the will of backbenchers is heard, and those, particularly those who have been waiting for some time, will get the opportunity.

It does mean that it brings the backbench Business Committee in line with other select committees, and so the chairman and the committee will be elected at the beginning of Parliament and serve the duration of Parliament, unless the parties decide to remove members of the Committee. And indeed, the chairman, of course, will will serve for the duration of Parliament, which is, once again, I think, sensible and a good move. I hope, of course, that members will see the wisdom of re-electing me as chairman of the backbench committee when we return after state opening.

But that's that's for another day. Madam Deputy Speaker. Equally, I think the. It's extremely welcome. The the change of rules, which obviously came from the Procedure Committee on how the lobbying and process of elections will take place for Select Committee chairman at the beginning of Parliament. We all are used to the fact of having been fighting each other in the election, suddenly arriving back in Parliament to be greeted as long lost friends. When someone is standing for election for a Select Committee chairmanship, which I think is.

That's reasonable. But what has not been reasonable has been the literal deluge of papers and other other lobbying that's taken place, and particularly use of the email system on behalf of candidates. I think most of us got fed up with it a long time ago. So this is a very sensible reform. So in closing, Deputy Speaker, I'd like to thank the leader for listening to what we had to say and acting upon it as we've we asked him to do and bring forward these these motions, albeit literally at the last minute before we irrigate.

But nevertheless, it's welcome nonetheless.

20:04

Rt Hon Sir Alan Campbell MP, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Tynemouth, Labour)

- -

Indeed. Madam Deputy Speaker, firstly, can I thank all members firstly, can I thank all members for their contribution to today's debate and thank the Shadow Minister for her kind words, and I Minister for her kind words, and I agree with her that these changes are, as she said, eminently sensible. The Chair Procedure Committee, Madam Deputy Speaker, does a fantastic job and we work very closely together with her and with her committee and our modernisation committee, and I thank her for and all of the members for all of the important work that they do.

And in welcoming the changes to campaigning, I think that it will be to the relief of members to know that once we're into the campaigning season, there is campaigning, but there are limits as to what they can do. So I thank you for that. Again, that is eminently sensible. The chair of the backbench Business Committee posed the question why are there different rules and suggested it might be because of the awkward squad on his side? I couldn't possibly comment on that, but I do remember those days and I have to say, in the good job that he does, it's less awkward and more respected.

I did say to him that I would bring forward these motions, and I have done. And as for his final remarks, better late than never, I suppose, in that sense. But I do thank him and his committee for the important work that they do. And again, the work closely with modernization, and we will be taking forward a piece of work on how we spend our time in this particular chamber. And I think that there are lessons that we can learn from people like the the hon.

Gentleman and the experience that he brings. But let me finish on this point. I am clear in the changes that we make, including if they need to be made to backbench business time or indeed petitions that I want to be seen as a champion of the rights of backbenchers in this place, it is really important that they have the opportunity to have their voices heard and long may that continue. So I hope that members will support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this motion today and I commend it to the House. The question is motion number 17

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is motion number 17 on Select Committee statement as on on Select Committee statement as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it. The ayes have it. We now come to motion number 18 on the Backbench Business Committee. I call the Minister to move formally. Formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Formally. The question is motion number 18 on the Backbench Business Committee as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to motion number 19 on consequential amendments arising from the Backbench Business Committee motion. I call the Minister to move formally.

20:07

Motion: Backbench Business Committee

Move formally.

20:07

Motion: Consequential amendments arising from the Backbench Business Committee motion

>> The question is motion number 19 on consequential amendments arising from the backbench Business from the backbench Business Committee motion, as many as are of as on the Order Paper, as many as as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come it. The ayes have it. We now come to motion number 20 on Backbench Business Committee. Election of

20:07

Motion: Backbench Business Committee: Election of Chair and nomination of members in the 2026-27 Session

chair and nomination of members in the 2026 to 2027 session. I call the Minister to move formally. >> Formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is motion number 20 on backbench Business Committee. Election of chair and nomination of Election of chair and nomination of members in the 2026 to 2027 session.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

members in the 2026 to 2027 session. As on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say I. I. I think the ayes have it. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to motion number 21 on Select Committee chair elections. I call the Minister to move formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move formally. Move formally. The question is motion number 21 on Select Committee chair elections,

20:08

Motion: Select Committee chair elections

as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The House will now suspend a right pending the arrival of Lords messages. I will cause the Division bells to ring. Five minutes before the ring. Five minutes before the

21:40

Sitting Suspended Awaiting Message From The Lords

21:40

Points of Order Emily Darlington MP (Milton Keynes Central, Labour)

- -

>> Order. Order! The sitting is Darlington. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Following my point of order, Following my point of order, earlier today, I received an email from Conservative Party headquarters having a picture of an email they said they sent to me ahead of the leader of the opposition's email. While I have never seen this email and we cannot find any evidence of it in my inbox, I do feel that I should give the benefit of the doubt that the email was sent, and have suggested that it used parliamentary email addresses to ensure that it gets gets through to the correct people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

at the correct time. Can I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order? She will know that that is not a matter for the that that is not a matter for the chair, but she has put that correction on the record. Petition.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bambos Charalambous. Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

21:41

Bambos Charalambous MP (Southgate and Wood Green, Labour)

- -

>> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I present a petition on behalf of the residents of my constituency of Southgate and Wood Green, who are concerned about illegal activities concerned about illegal activities in shops on local high streets. It has been well documented in both national and local media that shops, including in my constituency, are being used for illegal activities which are causing harm to the local community. Residents have expressed their concerns to me that the local authority has limited power to tackle the illegality, and that efforts to do so are not always coordinated with the police.

The petitioners, therefore, request that the House of Commons urge the government to provide greater enforcement powers for local authorities to crack down on shops being used for illegal activities, to support the work of trading standards officers and specialist financial investigators, and to enable a framework for greater communications between trading standards officers and the police and the petitioners remain, etc.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK. Thank you. Petition use of shops

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Petition use of shops for illegal activities.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for illegal activities. Petition. Mims. Davies. Thank you. Madam Deputy. Speaker and I rise to present

21:42

Mims Davies MP (East Grinstead and Uckfield, Conservative)

- -

>> Speaker and I rise to present this petition on behalf of 116 of the constituents from East the constituents from East Grinstead, Uckfield and the villages, and a further 87 online who have signed online. Madam Deputy Speaker, my constituents suffered unprecedented and unacceptable water outages in January. Whilst nothing will compensate my constituents for a week of no running water, at least there has been recompense for householders. That is not the case for local businesses who have lost thousands of pounds of trade and income.

Both myself and the East Grinstead Business Association are clear. More must be done for our small businesses in the town and the affected villages. The prayer of the petition is as follows. The petitions of the residents of East Grinstead and Uckfield declare that the recent South east water outages have had a particular effect on businesses in the constituency of East Grinstead. Uckfield further declares that compensation offered to date is not adequate and further declares that compensation can be paid to landlords in cases where landlords pay the water bill, but this does not reflect the end impact on the businesses themselves of water outages.

The petitioners, therefore, request that the House of Commons urges the government to take action to ensure the water companies are obliged to pay adequate compensation directly to affected businesses following the outages, such as the South East water outage recently experienced in the constituency of East Grinstead and Uckfield, and petitions remain, etc.

21:44

Adam Jogee MP (Newcastle-under-Lyme, Labour)

- -

Thank you. Petition compensation >> Thank you. Petition compensation Petition. >> Adam Jogee. >> Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. The people of Audley in Newcastle-under-lyme are proud of their green spaces and this week of stuff they want to say this week of stuff they want to say no to the land south east of the M6 being released from its green belt status for development, further declares that this proposed change of use would be significantly detrimental, particularly to the parish of Audley, and further declares that the proposed development would result in poor air quality noise, litter, loss of habitat and illumination for up to 24 hours a day, as well as severely impacting the views across the Cheshire Plains and North Staffordshire, leaving a devastating impact on the local community.

The petition is therefore requested. The House of Commons urge the government to encourage Newcastle Borough Council not to permit land south east of junction 16 to be considered for release from its Green Belt status for development and the petitioners

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Petition Petition Newcastle Petition Newcastle under Petition Newcastle under Lyme

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Greenbelt. I beg to move that this House do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now adjourn. The question is that this House

21:45

Adjournment: Houses in multiple occupation Lee Anderson MP (Ashfield, Reform UK)

- -

21:55

Matthew Pennycook MP, Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)

- -

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page