Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address Motion

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Ward]

The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister set that out to the House on Monday, and we will come forward with further detail soon. This is an important part of restoring trust, and it cannot just be about reacting to the specifics of the Mandelson revelations. There needs to be much broader consideration of lobbying and the transparency of our politics. This should not be a political point, because it is about all Governments and all parties at different times, but our politics is at a low point of public trust at the moment, and we need to rebuild it.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Whose fault is that?

[Chris Ward]

To be honest, if I was the hon. Member, I would not be shouting that—not after the last 14 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ward]

I really wouldn’t believe everything you read in the press. Let me be very clear from the Dispatch Box: the Government are complying fully and transparently, and are working very hard to so do. Any reports to the contrary are just not right.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

The issues surrounding Lord Mandelson and Lord Doyle and their proximity to paedophiles are now intertwined. On 2 January 2026, I tabled a written question, asking the Cabinet Office to publish the findings of the internal investigation that took place prior to the granting of the peerage for Lord Doyle. That investigation was carried out by former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, but also by his deputy Jill Cuthbertson, who is now interim chief of staff. An investigation is currently under way, but there has already been an investigation. Given that this issue has already been investigated, will the Government commit to publishing the findings of that investigation?

[Chris Ward]

The Prime Minister gave his answer on that yesterday, and No. 10 has provided further information on it, but that question does not relate to the Humble Address.

Standards in Public Life

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

Where the Government have jurisdiction over documents and in compliance with the Humble Address, we will publish them, as I said to the House earlier today.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

The Chief Secretary keeps making reference to, “If we had known then what we know now,” with regard to Peter Mandelson’s appointment. The key fact is that we already knew of Peter Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, as the Prime Minister spoke about at PMQs last week, just as the Government knew about Matthew Doyle’s relationship with Sean Morton and still gave him a peerage after the internal investigation. Let me come back to the resignation statement of the chief of staff yesterday. He stated that he

“did not oversee the due diligence and vetting process”.

Can the Chief Secretary explain who did oversee the due diligence and vetting process?

[Darren Jones]

Those processes are administered by the propriety and ethics team in the Cabinet Office, by the Foreign Office and by all the normal, appropriate authorities.

China and Japan

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I do. It is front and centre of everything we do, whenever we are acting on the world stage.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I want to follow up on the questions from the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), and from the hon. Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), on the global combat air programme. The funding for the next round of GCAP is going to run out in a matter of months. That will affect Edgewing and the British phase of the programme. It has been reported that contract for the next phase of GCAP has been delayed, due to the delay to the defence investment plan. Will the contract be signed before the defence investment plan is published?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member will be pleased to know that this was a matter of discussion in Japan, and the defence investment plan will be published very soon.

Chinese Embassy

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

The Minister will be pleased to know that I am not going to ask him about the FIRS, but he quoted extensively from the weighty tome of the planning approval letter. It says that the Secretary of State

“notes that no bodies with responsibility for national security, including HO and FCDO, have raised concerns”,

but he did not mention that it goes on to say that the Secretary of State

“considers that the lack of objection from these bodies on this issue carries significant weight”.

Given that extensive measures had to be put in place to protect sensitive data, will he explain why neither the Home Office not the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office put in any objections to the proximity of the data cables and their vulnerabilities? On the issue of the consolidation of the consular buildings, last week the Government informed me that they had no record of how many properties within London or within the UK are owned by the Chinese state, so how will they keep track on other buildings that are used unofficially by the Chinese state?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman has not asked me about the FIRS—I have a very good response for him that I will not be able to give now. He is not quite right to say that I quoted extensively from the planning document. I did not—I referenced it only very fleetingly and then explained why that was the case. His key point is about the points that have been brought forward by the Home Office and the Foreign Office. No specific objections were raised by both those Departments because they had both satisfied themselves that the mitigations could be put in place to safeguard against the risk that might be faced. That is the reason.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I credit my hon. Friend with having helped to expose this scandal, and with working with everyone in her community to volunteer to clean up the beaches. That is the very best of who we are. People are right to be furious that, for far too long, water companies were allowed to get away with polluting our seas and beaches. The Environment Agency is leading a full investigation. More generally, we are ending unfair bonuses for polluting water bosses, abolishing Ofwat, and introducing tougher penalties to hold companies to account.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Q15. Ahead of the forthcoming consultation on local government reorganisation, last month Huntingdonshire district council voted for option E, a Huntingdonshire unitary council. That was a cross-party view, and the Prime Minister’s own Labour councillors voted in favour of it. There is a suspicion locally that the Government favour option D, proposed by the Labour eastern regional office, which would see Huntingdonshire, and my constituency, split in two and combined with Peterborough. Will the Prime Minister offer assurances to my constituents and people across Huntingdonshire that the decision is not already a done deal, and that the democratic will of Huntingdonshire district council will not be overridden to satisfy an unelected Labour regional office?

[The Prime Minister]

There are no done deals here; we are going through the proper process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I will just set out what we have achieved this week. We are setting out our violence against women and girls strategy tomorrow, which will offer specialist support for abuse victims and 999 call experts—

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Where’s the defence investment plan?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Sorry, Prime Minister. Mr Obese-Jecty, I expect better from you, an ex-serving officer. We expect the standards of a good officer.

G20 and Ukraine

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend and his constituents. We are doing everything we can to ensure that. It is remarkable that through the coalition of the willing, which is mainly European countries but not just European countries—Japan, Canada and Australia were centrally involved in our discussions over the weekend—there has been such a singular purpose in supporting Ukraine.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I appreciate that this statement might be being outpaced by events outside this Chamber, but negotiating this peace deal with Russia seems to be at odds with nearly four years of steadfast military support. The overriding message is that the rules-based order means nothing, that we will acquiesce to countries that breach sovereign borders, and that actions no longer have consequences. The Prime Minister may as well be waving a piece of paper at Heston aerodrome. The message this sends to our adversaries, and specifically to China, is that the west will be too weak to take action if China invades Taiwan. The Prime Minister mentioned earlier that Russia will face consequences if it invades again. When he talks about a just and lasting peace, what consequences will Russia face for its current actions, or can it act with impunity?

[The Prime Minister]

We had a pretty good tone up until now. I am not here waving some piece of paper; I am working with Ukraine and with other countries to try to bring about a just and lasting peace for Ukraine. We all want a just and lasting peace, but it will not happen if we do not have negotiations. We have to have those negotiations with clear principles about accountability and with strong security guarantees. The hon. Member is not doing this House a service by undermining a serious effort by international partners to bring about a just and lasting peace. It is very easy to speak in this House; it is much harder in practice to negotiate an end to a conflict on just grounds. We will do so, as we have done from beginning to end—and as the last Government did, in all fairness—by being clear that we are the closest ally of Ukraine and the most supportive country. I am proud that that is the approach we have taken in this House.

China Espionage: Government Security Response

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

It is worth my being clear about the importance this Government attach to academic freedom. We are incredibly proud of our universities, and as a Yorkshire MP, I am incredibly proud of Sheffield Hallam University, as I am of Sheffield University. That is, in part, why we made these announcements today and why we will be holding an event that provides a very good opportunity to engage with vice-chancellors, look carefully at the nature of the challenges they are facing and support them in responding to those challenges.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker,

“The hon. Gentleman knows the answer: we are looking carefully at whether other countries should be added to the enhanced tier, but we will take that decision in due course and bring it forward in the normal way.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 638.]

That is what the Security Minister said when I asked him for the fourth time last month why China is not included within the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. So I will ask the Minister for the fifth time in as many months, and I am hoping he will offer some clarity this time. Given the range of measures he has just announced, what would it take for the Government to deem China to be a threat, and when will he assess whether China should be added to the enhanced tier?

[Dan Jarvis]

I admire the hon. Gentleman’s perseverance and patience on this issue. Unfortunately, I am going to disappoint him by referring him to the answer I gave previously.

Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I would be very happy to do so. I repeat the point that I made a moment ago: no one who wants to be considered as serious thinks that the nature of our relationship with China can be defined by a single word—I hope that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that. As I said a week ago, this Government assess that China poses a series of threats to UK national security, from cyber-attacks, foreign interference and espionage targeting our democratic institutions to the transnational repression of Hongkongers. However, we are also alive to the fact that China presents the UK with opportunities as the world’s second largest economy and the UK’s third largest trading partner. We have to be clear-eyed about both the challenges and the opportunities.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I have now asked the Government why China is not included in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme three times. On 9 June, I was told

“that particular report is coming forward in due course.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 613.]

On 15 September, I was told

“no doubt we will have more to say about it in due course.”—[Official Report, 15 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 1194.]

And on 13 October, I was told

“any decisions about the enhanced tier will be brought forward in the normal way.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 85.]

The Government are now panicked about the Chinese embassy decision, they are desperately trying to deflect from attention on the Chagos deal that the National Security Adviser negotiated on, and they appear to be decriminalising spying for China. What is the Government’s rationale for not including China within the enhanced tier? Given the threat, when will it be added?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am old enough to remember when Conservative Members said that we would not introduce the foreign influence registration scheme by 1 July. We worked at pace to introduce the scheme on 1 July. The hon. Gentleman knows the answer: we are looking carefully at whether other countries should be added to the enhanced tier, but we will take that decision in due course and bring it forward in the normal way.

Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

No, I do not agree. There will be those, including in this House, who will seek to simplify the nature of the relationship to a single word. More sensible and fair-minded colleagues, and certainly the public, will understand that difficult choices have to be made. Fundamentally, this Government’s approach will always be to put our national security first. I have been crystal clear about that today and previously, but that does not mean that we should not look for opportunities to trade with a country where there will be some economic advantage to doing so. That seems to me entirely reasonable and completely pragmatic, but we will proceed on the basis that our national security absolutely comes first.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Last month, the Security Minister came before the House and stated that he was not happy with the decision not to prosecute. I asked him why the Government were dithering over formally challenging China, having excluded it from the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, and he suggested that they were not doing so. Subsequent revelations have suggested that the Government have yielded to Chinese threats to withhold investment, and to offers to waive the outstanding debt owed to Jingye. Would the Minister like to correct the record and explain why China is not in the enhanced tier, given that we are discussing spying for China? Can he clarify what role the National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, has played in deciding that China should not be classified in the enhanced tier alongside Russia and Iran?

[Dan Jarvis]

“Extremely disappointed” was the way that I described our reaction, both on 15 September and again today. I gently say to the hon. Member that he should not believe everything that he reads in the papers. He asked me about FIRS. I hope he heard the response that I gave some moments ago; I said that we look very carefully at any question of whether to place a particular country on the enhanced tier of FIRS. FIRS is an important part of the National Security Act 2023. There were those, including on the hon. Gentleman’s side of the House, who said that we were not going to roll it out, but we rolled it out on 1 July. I said that we were going to roll it out on 1 July, and we did. We looked very carefully at how we can most effectively use that tool, and we will continue to look closely at that, but any decisions about the enhanced tier will be brought forward in the normal way.