Strengthening Community Resilience

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am sure that Opposition Members, and indeed hon. Members from across the House, will all know the motto of the scouting movement. It is not “Dyb, dyb, dyb”, as the right hon. Lady says.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Be prepared.

[Dan Jarvis]

It is “Be prepared”—thank you very much. The circumstances are certainly different, but I hope the House agrees that there is wisdom in both of those mottoes. Both remind us that we have a responsibility to be ready for the sorts of everyday emergencies that people faced just this weekend. Together, by taking the simple steps in this campaign, we can help people and communities right across the United Kingdom to be ready.

I commend this statement to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I certainly will look at that.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The Security Minister and Cabinet Office Minister knows that I have a huge amount of time for him, but I want to slightly break the consensus that has mostly held in the Chamber today. I think the Government’s communications—mass public communications—are confused on this issue. We are being asked by senior Ministers to stock up on corned beef, water and whatever, because of storms. Well—breaking news—there have been many storms over the last 80 years in Shropshire, and indeed across the country, and we have never been given this advice before.

If this is about war preparedness and being on a war footing, as the Defence Secretary has suggested we should all be, I think the Government should just come clean and treat the British public with a little bit more respect. At the beginning of the Ukrainian war, defence intelligence was signed off by the excellent then Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, and shared with the British public, so that they came along with the Ministry of Defence and the Government. I think that the Security Minister needs to look at that as a good example.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. In case I was not understood earlier, questions need to be shorter and answers on point.

Civil Service Pensions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sally Jameson]

I will continue to challenge Capita about that. I have already done so, particularly in relation to correspondence from Members to which its responses have not been acceptable. If my hon. Friend will write to me about any specific cases, in particular the one that he has mentioned, I will happily put that in front of Capita myself.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Let us not sugar-coat this: the contract has been a complete flop. Yes, it was awarded under a past Government, but now it is under the current Government—but of course the Prime Minister is setting the standard of not playing the blame game, although I have heard a lot of that today. What my constituents want to hear is when this will be sorted out. Ministers have talked about a recovery plan in April—fail. They talked about a recovery plan in June—fail. They talked about a recovery plan in September —fail. There has been failure after failure after failure. Will the Minister answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), and tell us whether Capita will be given any other Government contracts? Will my constituents be compensated? This Government wanted to be in government, so now that they are, may I ask when the Minister and the Government will take responsibility for this, take control of the contract, and get it sorted out, because my constituents are suffering?

[Sally Jameson]

I set out in my statement how we are taking responsibility, holding Capita to account and ensuring that it fulfils its contractual obligations. For legal and commercial reasons, I cannot discuss other Government contracts in the House right now, or who might be subject to debarment under the new procurement law—I made that clear in response to earlier questions. We are now moving to a member-led approach and dealing with the most complex cases first. We will be able to see that on the fortnightly update to the website, where members will be able to see cases going down. We will mark progress against that by looking at the cases on the website and the updates that Capita sends me, and by seeing the improvements. If those improvements do not start to materialise in the coming weeks, I will return to the House with what further actions we may take.

International Update

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

No. 10 North or Dorset North? [Laughter.] In the weeks ahead, I hope that we can encourage that same spirit of pragmatism among the rest of the Opposition Members.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his steadfast support for Ukraine and his early visit. However, next year there may be a potential problem for Europe—I see the Europe Minister and the Defence Secretary are in their places—because the rise of National Rally in France and Alternative für Deutschland in Germany might mean that support for NATO starts to fragment in some European nations. Will the Prime Minister work with the Defence Secretary and the Chancellor on defence planning and a defence budget should the United Kingdom need to do more for Ukraine in those circumstances?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to point to the changing picture in Europe. Obviously, we will have to be mindful of how that picture might change. I was pleased to welcome the NATO Secretary-General to Oxfordshire—we had an excellent discussion. Britain will remain at the heart of NATO and we will continue to do whatever we need to do. It is right that Opposition Members challenge the Government about our commitments to defence, but we are still the third biggest contributor to NATO and sometimes that point is missed. We are spending billions of pounds more as a Government than we were, and we will continue to spend more as we go forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

5. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to improve cross-border rail links between Wales, Shropshire and London.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Kinnock)]

I recognise the connectivity benefits of transport. The overall cross-border connectivity that has been announced relates to the £14 billion that we are going to invest in rail in Wales, with £455 million secured at the spending review. This plan will transform connectivity across Wales, and between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Mark Pritchard]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment to the Cabinet. He will know that I have very fond memories of his constituency, growing up as a young boy. Will he throw his support behind the open-access application by the Wrexham, Shropshire and Midlands Railway company to the Office of Rail and Road? The new revised application would include Wellington in my constituency and give a £3 million economic boost to that market town. Will he work with Network Rail, the Office of Rail and Road and the Transport Secretary, and get that new timetable and route delivered?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I know about and welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s strong connections to Wales. I recognise the connectivity benefits that WSMR’s proposal could deliver, particularly for passengers in Wales and the west midlands. I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Transport has provided conditional support for the application, subject to the Office of Rail and Road and Network Rail being satisfied that services can be accommodated without compromising network performance or affecting the rights of other operators. I will certainly join him in making the case for that compelling project.

Direction of Government

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I will at some point—as soon as I can. In relation to shipbuilding, I worked with the Mayor of Liverpool, who was setting a contract for a new Mersey ferry and found that there was pressure to have it built overseas. Using social value commissioning, he and I worked together to ensure that the ferry was built at Cammell Laird in Birkenhead, and it will soon come into service in Liverpool. We need to see more of that. Too many buses are being bought from companies outside our shores, when we have Wrightbus in Northern Ireland and Alexander Dennis Ltd in Scotland and Scarborough. We should be doing more to back British business, and my hon. Friend can expect that fully from me, as well as commitments to the shipbuilding industry.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Can I say that I am flattered to be associated with the Prime Minister? It must be mistaken identity—I am not sure if he would be as flattered. I welcome him to the Dispatch Box and back to the House, and I welcome his commitment to Ukraine. I would like some clarity on the defence budget. It seems over the recess—of course, there has been no scrutiny of the Prime Minister and the Government over the recess—that there has been a talking up of the Government’s commitment to spending 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035. There has not been as much talk about meeting the 3% target by 2030. Would the Prime Minister like to inform the House and the country, given that his Chancellor, in his previous role as Defence Secretary, said that this country should prepare to be on a war footing?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a crucial issue that matters greatly to me and to the Chancellor. We will meet all our international commitments, and we will set out how at the spending review.

National Security (State Threats) Bill

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Wednesday 17th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I declare an interest that I chair, and have done for about five years, a group called Solidarity with the Iranian Workers’ Movement Committee. We formed officially about five years ago and have been working for about 10 or 15 years. It is a group of Iranian refugees and trade unionists in this country, and we have tried to provide solidarity and campaign on human rights issues, focused on trade unionists in Iran. We started informally around the Tehran bus workers’ dispute, if people can remember that taking place, because a lot of the trade unionists we worked with were subsequently arrested and detained, and some were executed. That brought us together in solidarity.

On new clause 3, we have been raising time and again the proscription of the IRGC and have expressed our disappointment at the lack of action by the Government. I understand why the legislation is brought forward, and I hope that it will be brought through effectively and with the impact that we want, particularly on that organisation. Members will remember that we worked with the National Union of Journalists. In this country, the IRGC targeted journalists in particular, and a broadcasting station in Chiswick had to depart and operate from New York for a period.

Although I support the intentions of the legislation, may I also express my reservations about it? I have been in this place long enough to have experience of legislation that has come through not with undue haste, but with haste, and it is in that legislation that we usually make mistakes because we have not taken into account others’ views about the impacts. What worried me was that the explanatory notes—the Secretary of State asked us to look at them in some detail—made clear:

“Given the pace at which this legislation was developed, outside groups have not been engaged on the specifics in the Bill.”

A range of organisations are now expressing concern, such as the Red Cross, and that worries me. That is why rushing a Bill through in one day is precipitous. I am worried that as a result of that, we will legislate poorly. When I say “poorly”, I am referring to incursions on people’s rights; I do not mean the right to in any way defend the organisations or states that many hon. Members referred to on Second Reading, but people’s right to express solidarity with some organisations or even countries in struggle, which we have had in the past.

To cite an example, I am a member of the Cuba Solidarity Campaign. Trump is now targeting Cuba and has designated it as a terrorist state. Under the Government’s proposals, for an organisation to be designated there are two factors, which were set out on Second Reading. First, a body has to have been

“involved in foreign power threat activity”,

as set out in proposed new section 33A of the National Security Act 2023 and in the Bill’s explanatory notes. One of those activities is foreign interference in elections. Secondly, the Secretary of State may designate a body if they believe that

“is necessary to protect the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.”

In the coming months, even until the next general election if necessary, I will be working in solidarity, through the Cuba Solidarity Campaign, with the current Cuban Government. I will be working to influence that election to ensure that a Government are elected that prevent the hostile attack by the US on Cuba, so that will be seen as foreign interference in an election.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman references Cuba in the context of this legislation. The United States has elections—whether they elect the right president or not, is a matter for the Americans—but the Cuban people do not have that luxury. On direct or indirect threats to the United Kingdom’s interests—this is indirect threat—he will know that many Cuban nationals have been sent to Ukraine to fight in Russia’s illegal war. They are killing Ukrainian soldiers and aiding and abetting the bombing of civilians. Putin is losing, but if he did win, Cuba would have been aiding a regime that is not in our national security interest.

[John McDonnell]

Well, QED. There we have it. Under the Bill, as members of the Cuba Solidarity Campaign, I and many other hon. Members will be committing an offence—

Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The answer is that they are blank now because they were blank then. The formal decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as the ambassador was conveyed by the Prime Minister’s then principal private secretary in a letter to the Foreign Office. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the empty box notes, and the reason that they are empty is that there was nothing to redact. I hope that is a sufficiently clear answer.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I want to ask about the process of the appointment, rather than the process of the release of the papers, which I think he is about to move on to.

I have previously spoken in this House about the process in the future, and I think the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), has made not-dissimilar comments. Whether we have a future Conservative Government—hopefully—or another Government, we should have pre-appointment scrutiny of senior posts, both ambassadorial appointments and, I would argue, permanent secretaries of Departments. That would be a safer way of doing things.

On senior appointments to the ISC—there are lots of current ISC members present in the Chamber, as well as former members such as myself—the Paymaster General will know that the appointment is made by the Prime Minister, but the double-lock mechanism ensures that the House has a say and can veto appointments if necessary. I am not necessarily asking for that mechanism, but certainly the relevant Select Committee should carry out pre-scrutiny for senior appointments of ambassadors and other senior officials, whether they are political appointees or not. I think that would help the whole House, whatever our politics.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am not hiding from the fact that we have to make changes to the appointments process. Indeed, the Government have changed the process for all direct ministerial appointments to make sure that due diligence and national security vetting have to take place prior to appointment. It is absolutely right that that change was made.

Let me turn to the process. The process that was followed was obviously a significant one in order to publish such a large volume of material. When I was at the Dispatch Box on 4 February, I committed to publishing material in scope of the motion—bar that which the Intelligence and Security Committee agreed would be prejudicial to national security and international relations.

At this point, I want to put on record my thanks to the Committee. Members who were in the House that day might recall that even as I was speaking in the Chamber I was making the case for the involvement of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I know that it was not a small undertaking for the Committee. A huge amount of time has been spent on this, and I am very grateful to the Committee’s members for their very careful and—it looks to me—painstaking work in going through the volume of documentation.

On 4 February, and indeed since, Members have raised a range of issues, and it is absolutely right that the Government are held to account on those. As Members will have seen from the material that was published on Monday, the Government have acted on the House’s request for transparency to an extraordinary extent.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

Yes, I do agree. We have legislated, and we are prepared to go further. I have already made strangulation and suffocation in porn a priority offence under the Online Safety Act. We are determined to ensure that rules about what happens in online pornography are the same as the rules for what happens offline, and we are coming forward with proposals on that. This is something that deeply worries parents across the country. The question is not whether we act but how, and I am determined to use all possible levers to protect children online.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Big tech is a force for good, but so often it is used for bad. Is there not a fundamental conflict of interest for this Government, and even the previous Government, in that big tech companies are so embedded in Government Departments and agencies that the Government are not prepared to take the tough action necessary to protect children and the most vulnerable? Is it not the case that big tech companies are not paying taxes to this country and are avoiding substantive regulation, and that the Government now believe that big tech is too big to fail?

[Liz Kendall]

Not for the first time, and not for the last time, the right hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important issue. He may not be aware that we have made the decisive move to back more British tech companies, because we believe that as artificial intelligence and tech become the engine of economic and hard power, we need more sovereign control.

There are many wonderful examples of technology provided by big tech companies. I have seen that in my own constituency, with AI tutors to help poor kids catch up. We want to make sure that the benefits of technology are felt by everybody in this country, not just a powerful few, and that we shape this powerful technology, so that it works for all. I say to the right hon. Gentleman: watch this space, because there will be more to come.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jo Stevens]

My hon. Friend is right to say that this Labour Government’s more than half-a-billion-pound local growth fund will fuel economic growth in every corner of Wales. It will support people to start and grow their businesses, it will help people to secure new skills and jobs, it will revitalise Welsh communities, and it is a great example of what can be achieved with two Labour Governments working together.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

One way to support growth in Wales, and indeed in Shropshire, is to support the Wrexham, Shropshire & Midland Railway’s open access application to the Office of Rail and Road. Will the Secretary of State make a commitment, similar to that of the Transport Secretary, that the Government will not get in the way of this application and will allow growth in Shropshire, Wales and the border market towns?

[Jo Stevens]

I have to apologise to the right hon. Member. I did not hear the first part of his question, but I am very happy to chat to him afterwards. If he writes to me, I will give him a full answer.

Hatzola Ambulance Attack

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I can give my hon. Friend the reassurances that he seeks, and hopefully the words I have spoken will reassure those in his community about how seriously the Government take these kinds of threats. It is important to say that this must involve a range of different organisations. That is precisely why, in my earlier remarks, I detailed the work taking place in academia, the NHS and local government. We will ensure that wherever there are challenges in this regard, our response is joined up and properly resourced, and that we are clear across Government and across society that this kind of antisemitic behaviour is not acceptable.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The United Kingdom remains one of the most tolerant nations in the world, but social cohesion can never be taken for granted, as the Minister knows. As well as the welcome work to increase security around faith schools and places of worship, what more can the Government do through the Secretary of State for Education to teach all communities that tolerance and respect for all is a fundamental tenet of being British?

The Minister mentions the Bell review. I welcome the £7 million of funding, but the review is looking at schools and colleges, not at universities. A recent report showed that 49% of Jewish students have witnessed glorification of Hamas and Hezbollah on campus. What more can the Minister do to work with universities, not just schools and colleges, to root out antisemitism?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who made important points about social cohesion and, more widely, about the importance of activity that takes place in academia and education. I referenced the £7 million that the Government have previously invested, and I know that the Union of Jewish Students attended the meeting with the Prime Minister earlier today.

I would to like to take this opportunity to commend the extraordinary work of the Holocaust Education Trust—an organisation that many hon. Members will know and will have worked closely with. Let me further reflect on the right hon. Gentleman’s important points.