National Security

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. and gallant Friend has asked an astute question. He obviously heard my reference to the initiation of an internal piece of work, and a review of the national terrorism threat level. In truth, that has long been on my mind, and I want to satisfy myself that current arrangements are fit for purpose. Those current arrangements have served our country fairly well for a number of years, but I feel as if they have now been overtaken by events. It is therefore appropriate to look carefully at the way the threat level is not only calibrated, but communicated, and I want a system that makes some sense to the public. We will look carefully at that.

I will consider the recommendations over the coming months, and I am obviously happy to discuss the matter further with my hon. Friend and other Members. He made a further important point about the strategic defence review and the need to have an ongoing conversation with the public, and he is right to remind us of that. I discuss such matters not only with colleagues across Government, but also with our European partners who, it is not unreasonable to say, have taken a somewhat more forward-leaning approach than UK Governments going back a number of years. We must ensure that the public understand the nature of the threats we face, and do so in a way that ensures they are alert but not alarmed.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I welcome the statement because the issues that the Minister raises, particularly the antisemitism that we have seen grow exponentially and frighteningly in this country, and issues with the Chinese embassy, which are particularly relevant in my constituency, are concerns that we hear from our constituents all the time. For that reason, will he tell us a little more about the tackling state threats Bill and the national security Bill, as well as measures to tackle antisemitism, which he says must be passed without delay? What sort of timetable are we looking at, and how quickly can we have those measures to reassure the public that everything is being done?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, as I always am, for the points that she has made. She mentioned the Chinese embassy, so I hope she will forgive me if I seek to provide her with a word of reassurance on that matter, because I know it has been somewhat controversial in this House and elsewhere. Our intelligence agencies have been involved throughout the process, and an extensive range of measures has been developed to manage any risks. Following extensive negotiations, the Chinese Government have agreed to consolidate their current seven sites in London into one site. I hope she will acknowledge that that brings very clear national security advantages.

As for the timeframe, we are seeking to fast-track the legislation through Parliament, and it is a priority. I intend to bring it forward very soon and to do it in a way that I hope will be collegiate, with Members right across the House. We made a commitment that we would introduce this legislation; we need to get on and do it, and that is what I intend to do.

Debate on the Address

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 13th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell).

As I listened to His Majesty the King today, there was one part in his speech that reminded me of the Queen’s Speech in 2017, when I was first elected. The then Government promised that their priority would be

“to secure the best possible deal as the country leaves the European Union.”—[Official Report, 21 June 2017; Vol. 626, c. 34.]

That went well. Let us compare our economy then and now. Inflation and unemployment are now both higher. In 2017, we had the fifth-largest economy in the world. We have slipped to sixth since we left the EU. Outside this place, in 2017, people were concerned for the welfare of the refugees risking their lives on boats crossing the Mediterranean. If they landed in a safe European Union country, that was where they had to seek refuge. Not now. Now that we have left the European Union, that rule no longer applies to us. That is something that the Brexiteers omitted—perhaps forgot—to mention then in their campaign, and now in their immigration rants. That is why one part of the speech I welcome is the promise of closer links with the European Union. I am delighted to hear that we will, in the words of the King’s Speech, “strengthen ties”, but what exactly will that mean?

At the weekend, I spent time with some non-political friends. It would be a welcome break, I thought, from the constant election messaging of the past few weeks, but they dragged me back here by asking quite clearly and categorically: “When are we doing something to get back into the European Union?” Leaving has been a disaster for them, for their businesses and for the country. “Closer” probably will not be enough for them. They want to know exactly what we will do, and how we will get back to the centre of Europe, to lead and work with our neighbours and build the trading links that are essential to economic recovery.

What about the customs union and the single market—does being closer include being in them? While I agree that being closer to Europe will help our economic growth, it will not be enough on its own. It will not be enough to improve the lives of the constituents who come to me every week. It will not be enough to cut their energy bills before next winter, to provide housing that they can afford, or to help their children get on the housing ladder.

I welcome the moves on antisemitism, which has rocketed in the past few years. We have seen it go up by 175% in a decade, and it has been all too visible in the recent attacks on our streets. However, while the Government are promising to tackle antisemitism, I hope that they will not forget Islamophobia, which is also rampant, or the misogyny that we see everywhere, influenced by the dangerous views that young men hear expressed on the internet, and that affect how they look at women and girls.

Among the 35 Bills are measures to support women and give them greater “agency over the decisions” that affect their lives. I do not disagree with that, but again, as with the measures on the European Union, it is not exactly clear what that will mean. More action on domestic abuse and helping women entrepreneurs sounds good, but I hope there will be bold action, rather than clever language and warm words.

Over the past two months, on the doorstep of almost every home I visited, the theme of the conversation was exactly the same: change. It was change that people wanted—the change that people voted for two years ago, but did not feel yet. I am not sure that they will see that desire for change reflected in the Government’s plans today. They are all too bitty, unclear and not absolutely transparent.

We know energy security is vital to national security, and that national security is increasingly under threat and needs investment. It is only too clear that Ukraine’s pain is being suffered on behalf of us all, and that without its resistance, the rest of Europe would be even more vulnerable. Again, there is nothing in the King’s Speech on defence that most people would take issue with; what is there sounds good. However, I believe that people will take issue with what is missing from the speech.

Where is the bold new direction for this country? Where is the thing that will give people hope that their Government understand what it is like to lie awake at night, worrying about how to pay the bills, or understand the fear that the job that a person has just lost, because their employer struggled with national insurance increases, will be their last? Where is the hope that the Government understand that same employer’s growing realisation that they may not be able to hold on to the company that they spent their life building? I actually think that many in this Government do understand that, because like me, they come from a background where that was an all-too-clear reality, but the country wants to see action and change—and soon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine]

While I agree with the hon. Member about young people’s routes into work, how does that sit with the way his SNP Government in Scotland have destroyed apprenticeships up there? As for the hospitality industry in Scotland, it pays business rates in Scotland—I hear complaints about them all the time. Is that perhaps why the SNP lost seats in the election that he is so busy congratulating himself on?

[Dave Doogan]

We still got more than four times as many seats as the Lib Dems in Scotland, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will not be taking any lectures there. However, I look forward to working closely with the Liberal Democrats in the Scottish Government—

[Christine Jardine]

That’s never going to happen.

[Dave Doogan]

I am not sure the hon. Lady has that in her gift, but to her point about youth unemployment, as I said to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor), the Scottish Government are subject to the same economic malaise as anywhere else in the United Kingdom. It is to the betterment of the fortunes of their constituents and mine that they are under an SNP Government—on that point, I can assure the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) that she is welcome.

Do not just take my word for it, Madam Deputy Speaker: the markets give their verdict on what is happening in the United Kingdom, and the markets are incredibly concerned. That is why 10-year gilt interest rates touched 5.13%, a rate not seen in the UK since the financial crash of 2008—a very dangerous report card.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

4. What recent steps his Department has taken to help tackle issues impacting the civil service pension scheme.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

15. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the delivery of the civil service pension scheme.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Satvir Kaur)]

The issues and delays that a number of civil servants and pension scheme members have encountered when accessing their pensions after a lifetime of service are completely unacceptable. Members of the House will have heard my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General’s statement to the House yesterday on the Government’s robust recovery plan to stabilise the service, while ensuring that support is in place for those impacted. We will continue to use every commercial lever possible to hold Capita to account so that public servants get the quality service they deserve as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Satvir Kaur]

I also wish my hon. Friend a happy Warwickshire day and a happy St George’s day. I thank her constituent Jillian for her public service of 34 years. I agree with my hon. Friend that the service that Jillian has experienced is completely unacceptable. My hon. Friend will know that we have taken a number of measures, including deploying a surge team to help stabilise the service, and we continue to hold Capita to account for poor service. I encourage her and other Members to direct affected constituents to the hardship loans we have made available to support those impacted. If she sends me the details of Jillian’s case, I will make sure to look out for them.

[Christine Jardine]

Happy St George’s day. Yesterday, in the statement, the Paymaster General was kind enough to say that he would look into the case of one of my constituents who is afraid that she will lose her house because she has no income and cannot get access to her civil service pension. However, I have several other affected constituents, one who is still working full time and is a full-time carer. They were supposed to retire in January but cannot, because they cannot get access to their pension. Can I meet the Minister to discuss what is happening and how we can get Capita to pay attention to this issue and to look for a way forward?

[Satvir Kaur]

I thank the hon. Member for raising both of those distressing cases, and I would of course be happy to meet her to discuss them.

Pension Schemes

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I am delighted to hear the determination with which the Minister intends to approach this and the messages he is sending to Capita, because like many others, I have a mailbox full of civil service pensioners unable to access their funds, many of them in hardship. One woman at the moment fears she may lose her home simply because she cannot get a response from Capita—I have asked for a meeting. Is the Minister aware of any plans to prioritise those in severe hardship, or has he asked Capita to do so, because there seems to be no attempt on its behalf to do that?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The surge team of about 140 officials who have gone into Capita are certainly looking at prioritising the most urgent and vulnerable cases. On the hon. Member’s specific case, I would be very grateful if she wrote directly to me about it, and I will certainly look at it.

Security Vetting

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I think that needs to be subject to the review, and that is among the reasons why I put the review in place.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

It must be clear to the Prime Minister that many of us in this House are totally scunnered with this whole mess, although that is nothing compared with what I am being told on the doors in Scotland by voters who feel that they expected, and that they were right to expect, more from this Government after what they were promised. We have focused on process today, but the Prime Minister would not have had to come here and stand at the Dispatch Box to answer all these questions if he had not made the decision, which he accepts was wrong, to appoint Peter Mandelson. That is the root of this whole thing. Having accepted responsibility, what does the Prime Minister think the consequence should be for that, and how do we restore faith?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Middle East

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. It absolutely shows why we must keep pushing for Lebanon to be included in the ceasefire. It is vital that we do so, and of course there must be accountability for all the actions that are taken, in any respect, in this conflict.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I have been overwhelmed by the number of constituents who have written to me over the past two weeks about the situation in the Gulf. They are of course concerned about their energy bills and the cost of living, but overwhelmingly they are outraged at the actions of all the actors in this conflict—Iran, Israel and the United States. What they want from their Government is more and stronger leadership on the international stage to open the strait of Hormuz. Will the Prime Minister consider going to the United Nations Security Council with an emergency motion to get that done and to condemn the actions in the middle east?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Lady probably knows, we have been supporting measures in the UN over the last two weeks, particularly some of those that were put forward by our Gulf allies, and I had the opportunity to discuss those last week in the Gulf. We will continue to work with them and others on building the necessary coalition to do all that we can to get the strait open.

EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Gethins]

I absolutely agree. That is the benefit of Ireland being a member of the European Union and why I cannot fathom why Labour and, I am sorry to say, the Liberal Democrats—I can understand the Conservatives and Reform—do not endorse rejoining the European Union. It is staring them in the face.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I tire sometimes of the hon. Member’s party in Scotland making this fuss about us not wanting to rejoin. If he looks back, he will see that the Liberal Democrats were the ones who desperately wanted not to leave. We campaigned for a second referendum. We want to create a new customs union. We desperately want to be closer to Europe, so, please, will the hon. Member kindly give the correct picture of the Liberal Democrat position?

[Stephen Gethins]

The correct picture is this—let us talk about the present. Do the Liberal Democrats want to rejoin the EU right now? My party does; does the hon. Lady’s? I will give way again—yes or no?

[Christine Jardine]

If the hon. Member can explain the contradiction between wanting to join one union and give up sovereignty and wanting to leave another.

[Stephen Gethins]

The hon. Member has fallen into the nationalist exceptionalism trap that I would expect more from the Conservatives or Reform. Why is it that the 27 member states of the European Union consider themselves independent and sovereign? The European Union is a club for independent states; the UK is not. That is the fundamental difference.

I will talk briefly about migration, because it is important—and I want to make progress, as a lot of Members want to speak. The UK left the Dublin regulation, which led to an explosion in the number of small boats—the Brexit boats, the Reform boats, the Tory boats. In the EU, irregular border crossings have gone down, but in the UK they have gone up. I know that the Government are looking at returns, but that is a desperate situation.

On the impact on devolution, Scotland voted to leave, but even within the deal we have the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. I hope the Minister will revisit that Act—one that Labour cried out about previously, and the Scottish Parliament refused consent for. We have talked about Northern Ireland. Because we do not have the purest of pure Brexits, now the European convention on human rights is under threat. It is a bit like the purest of pure communism has apparently never been tried; the purest of pure Brexits, for the ultimate Brexiteers, has never been tried either. The threat to devolution continues under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act, and I hope the Minister will address that.

Finally, we are less secure. Today is four years since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and I know we are all in the same place on that. It turned the whole of Europe upside down. The EU is integral to our security, so will the Minister tell me why Canada can join the defence procurement scheme but the UK cannot? What progress is being made on that? It is a fundamentally important issue.

Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I am a former journalist and member of the NUJ, and I cannot sufficiently express my anger at hearing that a member of my former profession was investigated in this way in an attempt to intimidate them. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has made great play of the fact that it was not the Government but Labour Together that investigated them, but in the mind of the public the two are now linked. Do the Government not need to take urgent action to distance themselves from this organisation, cut off links and make sure that there is some transparency about what exactly went on?

[Darren Jones]

As I have said, in relation to anything that the Government are responsible for, we of course uphold the principles that the hon. Member speaks passionately about, and which we in the Government agree with wholeheartedly. If there are changes that need to be made in Government, we stand ready to do so. As I say, the Government are unable to take steps to investigate private organisations directly, unless there is a legal basis to do so. Therefore, it is for the independent organisation to conduct its own investigations.

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

We are working with relevant advisers and Departments to scope the Bill, and the measures that need to be brought forward for that to be effective. The legislation raises a number of constitutional questions, which have taken some time for the Government to consider. The last time peerages were removed, I think, was in the 1600s, so it is not something that has been done recently. We must ensure that the scope and drafting of the Bill is done in a way that means it will be effective when it is brought forward to the House.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

This is the second statement or urgent question in a row that we have had about ethics, and where the tentacles of various organisations or individuals go within Government. Does the Minister accept that we need a statutory inquiry that looks closely at the links and interference of outside bodies in Government, and in the operation of government?

[Darren Jones]

I have already committed on behalf of the Government that we will review the current regime and rules in relation to transparency on lobbying, and changes have been made recently in relation to the register and people’s declared interests. My sense is that we could go further, and as I said in my statement, I will come back to the House in due course to update Members on how we will be able to take those reforms forward together.

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address Motion

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Ward]

Yes, absolutely; as I say, we will be fully transparent and comply fully with the motion, and we will do so as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend’s second point is the central point to which we need to return throughout this debate and going forward.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his assurances today that these reports and publications will come forward as soon as possible. As I am sure he can pick up from the tenor of the House, many of us are concerned about public confidence in this place—in us—being undermined. Every day that we do not have the reports, there is more speculation and more doubt is heaped on all of us and on the Government. The Government need to be stronger. Will the Minister commit to keeping us up to date regularly and to giving us a date, as soon as he can, for when the public can expect to see these papers published?