Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Evans Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response
Luke Evans Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
I share the right hon. Lady’s sentiment, but the Government do not have the legal power to require the disclosure of Peter Mandelson’s device. As I have said in earlier statements, other powers are available—for example, to the Metropolitan police and others, should the CPS proceed to put a criminal investigation before the courts—so that may become clearer in the future. However, the Government have done everything we can to ensure we have provided full disclosure in compliance with the Humble Address.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
On page 243 of volume II part III, the Minister’s predecessor, talking about Labour MPs, states:
“Every meeting I have is ‘who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others’.”
Is that the same experience the Minister is having in every meeting he has?
Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address
Luke Evans Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Darren Jones
The hon. Gentleman is making assumptions about redactions that he has neither seen nor read. Redactions have been made in relation to personal data or national security and international relations—that is it.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Government stand accused by not one but two of the most august Committees in this House of not playing fair in giving across the information. The Minister’s argument is simply that the Government have done nothing wrong. If that is the case, why would both of those Committees come to this House and lay those accusations?
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Evans Excerpts(2 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a brilliant representative for Croydon, and she is right: for too long, renters have been at the mercy of rogue landlords, pushing thousands into homelessness. I am delighted to confirm that this Friday no-fault evictions will be scrapped once and for all. That sends an important message to anyone living in a damp, unsafe home, anyone who has suffered an unfair rent increase, and every family forced to move over the last year to year. Change is here, delivered by Labour, and opposed by the Tories and Reform every step of the way.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Prime Minister
No, it’s because they can see a baseless allegation and political stunt when they see it. The hon. Gentleman is a former GP, so here is the truth: we have recruited 82 more GPs and upgraded his medical centre. Opposition Members want all the benefits, but they never want to pay for them.
Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment
Luke Evans Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
In the immortal words of the famous film “A Few Good Men”:
“‘I want the truth.’
‘You can’t handle the truth!’”
The court goes quiet. That is the moment of realisation that things have moved from process to accountability and responsibility. If hon. Members have not seen the film, it is about two marines who are on trial for killing another. The real story that unravels, however, is whether command can deny any responsibility for the actions that it has set in motion. Here lies the parallel. When subordinates act on the understood direction of authority, where does responsibility ultimately sit? They acted because of someone; it belongs to that person.
Let us recount the facts that are not disputed in this House. Lord Mandelson was announced by the Prime Minister as the UK ambassador to the US in December 2024; UK Security Vetting recommended against developed vetting clearance in January 2025; the FCDO overruled that recommendation, enabling the appointment; the Prime Minister stated publicly that due process had been followed; and Sir Olly Robbins, the then permanent secretary, was later dismissed. However, what Robbins told us in the Committee in November 2025 is telling.
“By the time we are describing, it was clear the Prime Minister wanted to make his appointment himself. Therefore, I understand the FCDO was informed of his decision and acted on it, and, via the Foreign Secretary, sought and obtained the King’s approval for the appointment. In this case, as Chris explained, the Prime Minister took advice and formed a view himself, and we then acted on that view.”
The FCDO is clear: that was not drift; it was acting under direction. The Prime Minister formed that view and the FCDO acted on it—acting on instruction, acting on direction, acting on what the Prime Minister wanted. Yet since then, the Prime Minister has been trying to separate the decision and the consequence. There is the decision, there are the consequences, but we and the public know that we cannot separate the two. If an official acts in the shadow of a settled view, responsibility returns to the source, where the shadow was first cast.
Let us draw some more comparisons with the film, because it is quite telling. Colonel Jessep does not issue the written order; the Prime Minister does not personally do the vetting. Subordinates act on a clear command and intent; the FCDO acted on the political intent. The defence by the colonel was that he did not order that; the defence by the Prime Minister was he was not told. The court finds that authority cannot be passive; we in this House say, “Neither can the Prime Minister.” The blame lands on the subordinates, and the same has happened here. In both cases, the controversy does not turn on the mechanics but on where the moral and constitutional responsibility resides. Officials were acting on a settled prime ministerial preference.
The Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot have decisive authority on the way in and plausible deniability on the way out. That is not process; that is power without accountability. If the decision was his, is not the responsibility his? If not, why not, and whose is it then?
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
This is probably a useful speech to intervene on, due to my striking resemblance to Tom Cruise. [Laughter.] The key point in that scenario was about responsibility. Labour Members are probably lucky that Sadiq Khan has cancelled all the tubes today, otherwise they might be under another transport mechanism. Does this not show more widely that the Prime Minister is failing in his key role, which is to take responsibility for the decisions he is charged to take?
Dr Evans
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is the bottom line: the Prime Minister shaped the system by having a settled political decision—one with horrific consequences—despite all the warnings that we have talked about in this House, about Mandelson being fired twice and so on, and now tries to point to the process as the failing. The country is not buying it. The film teaches us this simple lesson: power cannot hide behind those who obey it.
Before I finish, I have a message for Labour MPs and will address them directly. To paraphrase Colonel Jessep’s famous speech, the PM neither has the time nor the inclination to explain himself to Back Benchers who rise and sleep under the blanket of the very majority that he provides and then question the manner in which the PM provides it. The PM would rather they say just “thank you” and went on their way. Otherwise, he suggests they pick up a weapon and stand at post. Either way, he does not give a damn about what they are entitled to.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Following the revelations at the Foreign Affairs Committee today by Oliver Robbins, who said how the Prime Minister had pushed for Peter Mandelson to be appointed and had pushed for his former director of communications, Matthew Doyle, to be appointed as well, though unqualified for the post, does my hon. Friend agree that those are the actions of a Prime Minister concerned not about the national interest but rather his personal interest? Nor are they the actions of a Prime Minister concerned about national security; they are merely the actions of someone concerned about his job security—and particularly in pushing for Peter Mandelson, who is a known national security risk.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
Surely there can be no situation where the hon. Gentleman thinks officials should not flag concerns with Ministers or Prime Ministers, who are fundamentally accountable to this House and to the British public. What we are talking about here is accountability.
Dr Evans
Accountability starts from the top. We have heard from the FCDO today that the message from No. 10 was to “Get this f***ing done”. That was the political directive and everything else followed suit. That is exactly what Olly Robbins has said.
We on the Conservative Benches know the truth. The public want the truth. The only question that remains is whether Labour Back Benchers can handle the truth. Surely if they cannot, they must do something about it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address
Luke Evans Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
I think I said to the House last week, for the sake of clarity, that while I recognise that correspondence in the bundle mentions the business case being referred to me for my approval, that was never sent and was never received, so I was not privy to it as the hon. Gentleman suggests. On the basis of the severance payment, as I have said to the House, it was, based on advice, deemed to be the quickest way to get Peter Mandelson off civil service employment, and cheaper than maybe incurring the legal fees of a dispute at the employment tribunal.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I welcome the first tranche of documents being released. One of those documents—the due diligence checklist, “11-12-2024 Advice to the Prime Minister”—has an entire section about Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, yet on 4 February at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister said that
“If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near Government.”—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 258.]
What additional information did the Prime Minister get to come to that conclusion?
China: Foreign Interference Arrests
Luke Evans Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
With great respect to the hon. Lady—I always listen carefully to what she has to say, because she represents a part of the United Kingdom that I have a long-standing interest in—she is not right in what she says about the embassy. I refer her to comments made by the Intelligence and Security Committee and the director generals of our security services. The arrangement that underpins the Chinese embassy involves the reduction of the diplomatic estate in London from seven sites down to one. I hope that when she looks at it in those terms, she will understand that there are national security advantages from that proposal.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
A Member of Parliament’s partner has been accused of spying for China. The Minister has been asked this several times: have the Foreign Secretary or the Home Secretary specifically asked and summoned the ambassador to come to explain themselves, and if not, why not?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Member will have heard from my opening remarks that Chinese officials have been démarched in both London and Beijing. I hope he will also understand that we are referencing events that happened earlier this morning.
Middle East
Luke Evans Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is important that he has raised that point and I thank him for doing so.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Prime Minister has been explicit on two decisions: one was that no bases would be used; now, some bases can be used. Could he set out specifically how this interacts with the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill and the exchange of notes from 1966 between the UK and the US?
The Prime Minister
It doesn’t. It is the simple use of bases operationally that has been agreed, as of last night.
Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address Motion
Luke Evans Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Ward
I was not involved in that matter at all, so the answer simply is no.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) about the WhatsApps, the Minister seemed to suggest that it was not an orderly process. First, is there to be any reprimand for the Health Secretary? Secondly, will the WhatsApps between all Ministers and Peter Mandelson be released, because the Humble Address referred specifically to electronic communications?
Chris Ward
I would never want to imply that it was not an orderly process, so let me correct myself there. The point that I was making is that the Prime Minister, the Cabinet Secretary and the Cabinet Office—all of the above—have made it clear that Ministers need to abide by the process that we are carrying out. That will be done collectively. The scope is set out by the Humble Address, and the breadth is being identified—
Chris Ward
Electronic communications are covered within the Humble Address, so that will be looked at by the Cabinet Office, in terms of the breadth and scope.
Standards in Public Life
Luke Evans Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
As the Prime Minister has made clear, he apologised for appointing Peter Mandelson to the position of ambassador. Had the information that is now available been available at the point of his appointment, the Prime Minister would never have appointed Peter Mandelson in the first place.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
May I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement about the new rules and legislation that he is bringing forward? I have missed something, though. Can he point to what he is bringing forward that would stop a Prime Minister from appointing a twice-sacked best friend of the world’s greatest paedophile?
Darren Jones
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the detail of my statement.