Oral Answers to Questions
Martin Wrigley Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. I know that Members across the House have raised issues with the organisation directly. It is imperative that these communities are listened to. I understand that the Charity Commission has opened a compliance case, but I will get that confirmed for him. I am proud that this Government have stood up for mining communities, including ending the injustice of coal pension schemes, increasing the pensions of more than 150,000 former British Coal employees. I thank him for raising this case.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member will have seen the action we are taking in relation to social media—it includes the social media ban for under-16s, which has been welcomed by families across the country; strengthening the Online Safety Act 2023 to tackle intimate image abuse and cyber-flashing, and closing loopholes in chatbots; and taking on Grok—but there is more to do.
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address
Martin Wrigley Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin Wrigley
I was trying not to interrupt his flow—[Interruption.] Until I did.
Throughout the files there are mentions of Palantir and Peter Mandelson, including a memo in which he tries to introduce Peter Thiel to No. 10 staff in June last year. Even though Mr Louis Mosley has written to me today suggesting that Peter Mandelson was not intervening regarding Palantir business with the Government, does the Minister agree that he still was doing so?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I reject the suggestion that there is any wrongdoing, as regards Palantir contracts being renewed—I think one was renewed by the Ministry of Defence—in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. I reject that absolutely. On the meeting between the Prime Minister and Peter Thiel, to be clear, that did not happen.
Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment
Martin Wrigley Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I start by reflecting on something that I feel, along with many Members across the House and, certainly, our constituents? That is how utterly depressing it is that we are having to have this debate at all. Just a few years after we went through all this under Boris Johnson and the Conservatives, and less than two years after the British people voted them out of office for indulging in this sort of chaos and distraction, here we are again.
Vladimir Putin is waging war on our continent. Donald Trump is waging war with Iran. We desperately need to strengthen our own national defences. Families and businesses are struggling against a cost of living crisis. Petrol prices have soared, and people are really worried about what Trump’s war will mean for their holidays this summer and their energy and food bills this winter. Our NHS is still in crisis. We all have constituents who are waiting weeks to see a GP, people who are dying on corridors in our hospitals, and loved ones who are not getting the care they need. We should be talking about them today. Theirs are the problems that the Government should be focused on every single day.
That is what Labour promised, after all. In their manifesto, they said that the problems in our country are a
“direct result of a governing party that, time and again, puts its own interests and obsessions above the issues that affect families.”
They promised to change that, but here we are again. Instead of fixing the NHS and social care, instead of properly funding our defence, and instead of cutting prices at the pump, here we are, having to ask why the Prime Minister appointed the close friend of a notorious paedophile sex trafficker to one of the most important and sensitive jobs in his Government.
Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein had been well reported and highlighted to the Prime Minister. He had already been forced to resign in disgrace twice from the previous Labour Government, and we now know that he was deemed a national security risk by the Government’s vetting agency. So we do, sadly, have to ask: why did the Prime Minister appoint Mandelson? Why did he announce the appointment before the national security vetting had been done, despite the then Cabinet Secretary Simon Case having told him that that should happen first? And why was he so determined to get Mandelson in post that he created, as Olly Robbins described it this morning, “an atmosphere of pressure” and a certain dismissiveness about the developed vetting process—a vetting process that the Prime Minister has since blamed for his mistakes?
Even after all this, even after yesterday’s statement, the Prime Minister still has not told us why he appointed Mandelson. He admitted that appointing Mandelson was a mistake and has apologised for it. He has tried to make the rest about process and officials, but he still has not answered the fundamental question: why?
I think we know a big part of the answer, do we not? It is Donald Trump. This all comes back to the way that the Prime Minister decided to approach his relationship with the President when he returned to office last year. Our party urged the Prime Minister to stand up to Trump, to stand together with our allies, and to approach him from a position of strength, not weakness. But he chose the opposite course. He decided to try to appease Trump, to flatter him, to stroke his ego, and to hope that he will be nice to us in return. Clearly, he thought that Peter Mandelson was the man for that job. So that is it: the decision to try to curry favour with Trump instead of standing up to him is the original sin that has landed the Prime Minister and his Government in the mess they are in today. Has it worked? Absolutely not.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister about the security vetting condition that required Peter Mandelson to be accompanied when visiting previous clients. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to find out whether the lack of accompaniment when visiting Palantir in Washington with the Prime Minister was a one-off or simply Mandelson continuing business as usual?
Ed Davey
My hon. Friend was right to ask that question yesterday, and I thought the Prime Minister’s response, which was that those types of meetings had not been recorded, was totally inadequate.
Despite all the flattery, Trump has still caused enormous damage to our economy and to the livelihoods of the British people with his tariffs and his war with Iran. Trump still undermines NATO, makes threats against our country and our allies, and insults Britain’s armed forces. Just look at what Trump said last night: that Mandelson was a “really bad pick”. I will not dwell on the hypocrisy of those words from a man who was close friends with Epstein, who partied with him and has so far taken no responsibility for that—those words from a President who still has as his Commerce Secretary a neighbour of Epstein who visited Epstein’s island and who lied about his relationship with him. All that is for another debate.
But Trump’s post, hypocritical as it is, does show the futility of trying to appease him. It shows how pointless it is to make a decision like who to appoint as US ambassador based on what Trump would like most. It does not work—it has not worked. I hope that on top of everything else, the Prime Minister and the Labour party will reflect on that point. The approach to Trump has failed. It is time to change course, to stand up to him, and to stand with our European and Commonwealth allies in defence of our national interest.
This is a mess of the Government’s own making. It is a mess born out of a futile attempt to appease Donald Trump. It is a mess that just keeps getting worse with today’s revelation, uncovered by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), that the Prime Minister pushed for the appointment as ambassador of another Labour crony with ties to a sex offender. Those catastrophically bad judgments have created a mess that has distracted and consumed the Government and stopped them from focusing on what the British people actually need.
The people out there do not want more Westminster drama; they are thinking about the hospital appointment that keeps being pushed back, the mortgage payments that just seem to keep going up, the loved ones who need care but are stuck on a waiting list, and the threats to our national security from an ever more dangerous world. Those are the things that keep people up at night, and they deserve a Prime Minister and a Government who are focused on them.
Our party will never stop making that case. We will never stop holding the Government to account, not for the sake of political point scoring but on behalf of the British people, who deserve better than this. The last Conservative Government failed our country by getting stuck in a cycle of chaos and scandal and refusing to move on. The question for the Labour party is whether it will repeat that mistake or finally deliver the change that our country needs.
Security Vetting
Martin Wrigley Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I have set out the facts to the House this afternoon. I have ordered a review of security vetting by Sir Adrian Fulford, so that if any further changes are needed, we can put them in place.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I understand that Peter Mandelson’s vetting clearance was conditional on his being accompanied to meetings with former clients, such as Palantir. Will the Prime Minister clarify why there is no record of his and Peter Mandelson’s meeting with Palantir in Washington, and will he tell the House what it was all about?
The Prime Minister
That was a routine meeting in the course of a visit I was on in the US.
Oral Answers to Questions
Martin Wrigley Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I welcome the Mayor of London’s crackdown. The Metropolitan police have made hundreds of arrests and recovered thousands of phones, and mobile phone theft has fallen. I agree with her that there is more to do, and we must work with the tech industry in order to do it. If we can reduce the value of stolen phones, it will help to break the business models that drive theft. We are committed to working with the industry, and are willing to consider any further necessary action to drive down that crime.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman says, the Chancellor set out yesterday the huge economic opportunities of innovation and AI. We have put £5 billion behind British start-ups, and we will launch our sovereign AI unit with £500 million to help AI businesses start and grow. We are investing the £2 billion that he refers to in our quantum capabilities so that we can be the first country in the world to roll-out quantum computers at scale. Procurement must be the launchpad for start-ups, and we are determined to deliver that.
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion
Martin Wrigley Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
The Prime Minister has apologised for appointing Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States. He believed the lies that Peter Mandelson put to him in response to questions about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. As soon as all of us, including the Prime Minister, became aware that those were indeed lies, with the publication of the documents from Bloomberg and the United States Department of Justice, he was dismissed promptly.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
In my investigations into Palantir, it has been brought to my attention that 20 years ago Peter Mandelson was lobbying the Government very hard to take on board a strategic supplier from the United States that was not an obvious choice at the time. That sort of decision is something that a financier like Epstein would have taken advantage of and made money from. We see the same things with influence and persuasion from Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Will the Government commit to following the money and the money trail to ensure that we are not continuing to pay into Epstein’s estate through the deals that we are doing with large American contractors such as Palantir?
Darren Jones
I am not familiar with the details of the case the hon. Gentleman raises, but if he wishes to write to me with those details, I can commit to him that we will look at them.
Digital ID: Public Consultation
Martin Wrigley Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
I am happy to confirm that the digital ID scheme and its build in the gov.uk app will be built as a sovereign capability within Government and within the UK. It will not be outsourced to a foreign company.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
May I thank the Chief Secretary for his inclusion of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee in the work so far and for his removal of the mandatory nature of digital ID? That is what caused so many of my residents in Newton Abbot to write to me and complain about it. Will he commit to continue to involve the Committee as this situation evolves and as the system is implemented?
Darren Jones
Members of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee know that I look forward to working with them and other Members on how we might legislate more innovatively through the Bill coming later this year, so that quicker digital transformation of public services is enabled through appropriate checks and balances in the House, without having to return to an enormous piece of primary legislation or have repeated Bills. I look forward to the Committee being a part of that when we legislate later this year.
Extreme Climate and Weather Events: National Resilience
Martin Wrigley Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jayne Kirkham
Yes, a great deal of work will have to be done in future, because this will not get better; it will get worse.
Businesses that rely on electricity and broadband are paralysed by outages during extreme weather events, and hospitals risk losing power or water. Heavy rainfall has even led to overflowing septic tanks and sewage spilling out on to streets in Cornwall, creating serious risks to public health. So much of Cornwall’s economy depends on our coast. When beaches, cafés, coastal roads and car parks are under managed realignment in the new shoreline management plan epoch, coastal places will lose their staple industries, and entire communities face existential threats from rising sea levels and coastal erosion. A lot of work is being done across Government, particularly on the water industry and flooding preparedness, which I welcome, but we need to protect communities from the inevitable march of climate change and act with greater urgency.
The urgency of the situation was obvious when Storm Goretti struck Cornwall on 8 and 9 January 2026. It triggered a rare Met Office red warning, with gusts of around 120 mph, and inflicted severe damage on our homes and infrastructure. We lost over 1,000 trees, 121,000 customers lost power, and thousands lost access to clean water. Roads were blocked, communities cut off, and schools, care homes and hospitals faced unprecedented strain.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this really important debate to the Chamber. Does she agree that the railway is a key part of the infrastructure and communications she is talking about, and we must focus on getting the final phase of the Dawlish rail resilience programme completed, along with the other measures? Dawlish and Teignmouth saw massive damage in these storms, with Teignmouth pier washing up on Dawlish beach and Dawlish beach itself being destroyed. Does she agree that the railway going down would be disastrous for Cornwall?
Jayne Kirkham
The hon. Member feels my pain. Yes, of course we need a strategic plan for our rail in the south-west. That is fundamental, and I will come on to it later.
Middle East
Martin Wrigley Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The actions I have taken have focused on our need to protect British nationals. It is in all our interests, including British nationals, that we do all we can to de-escalate the situation as quickly as possible.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I welcome the removal of the abhorrent Iranian regime, having seen its beginnings 47 years ago, when my father was a serving officer in the British embassy. We knew the Americans who were taken hostage. I add my thanks to our serving personnel, who are putting their lives at risk. Since the pre-emptive strike, there has been a sad but inevitable escalation in hostilities, so what can the Prime Minister do to persuade Donald Trump to go to negotiations—that is where we have to be—given that he believes only in win-or-lose situations?
The Prime Minister
We are working with all our allies, and having discussions at every level with the US and others about how to resolve and de-escalate the situation. Ultimately, it will have to be a question of negotiation.
Oral Answers to Questions
Martin Wrigley Excerpts(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Ward
That is one of the Government’s goals. Prime Minister Carney said he thought that Canada should be Canada’s best customer. I think that Britain should be Britain’s best customer, and we should work towards that. As I say, we will publish the proposals soon and I hope that we can make progress quickly.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I have been trying to get records from the Cabinet Office of a meeting held between Peter Thiel of Palantir, then Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings on 28 August 2019. I am getting conflicting data back. Is it in the public interest that the management of this information is being outsourced to Palantir?
Chris Ward
My understanding is that that has been dealt with by way of a reply to a written question that we have already put in the public domain.