MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition

Mike Wood Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing this debate. This is a vital discussion that goes to the very heart of how our democracy functions, how our legislature connects with the public and how we maintain institutional integrity. Although we disagree with the prescription of a blanket ban, I certainly respect the sincerity with which the argument has been put forward. We all share the fundamental goal of protecting and restoring public trust in this House.

There is no question that public support for MPs having second jobs has reduced drastically over recent years. The public rightly expect us to be working for them, rather than prioritising our own interests, and we must make sure that that is what we are doing. If we are considering a ban on second jobs, however, we ought to be clear as to why. Some have argued in this debate that the issue is the time spent on outside jobs, and that the time ought to be directed entirely to MPs’ parliamentary constituency work.

I do not have an outside job, but before the general election I served as a Government Whip. It was a paid position, and it almost certainly took up more of the time that I was in Westminster each week than any outside job would. While those in Government posts—or for that matter House roles, such as Chairs of Select Committees—do necessary work for the proper functioning of Government and Parliament, I would struggle to argue that my constituents benefited directly from me having that additional job.

The same would be even more true for many ministerial positions, but most Ministers of all parties are able to fulfil those demanding roles without their responsibilities as constituency MPs suffering. If we accept that a Minister can balance the immense, exhausting weight of working in a Government Department with their duty to the electorate, it is logically inconsistent to argue that a Back Bencher cannot do the same with a few hours a week of external professional practice.

If the primary problem is not the time diverted from representing constituents, perhaps it is the money. But if we go down that route, there is a danger of us getting drawn into an argument over good jobs versus bad jobs. Few people would complain about the shadow Minister for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), continuing to work as a consultant paediatrician; I informed her in advance that I would mention her.

It is necessary for my hon. Friend to continue to work so that she can maintain her professional qualification, and it adds immense real-world value to her shadow ministerial role. She also properly declares her interests during relevant debates. Similarly, Members across the House have often been rightly congratulated on their ongoing work as surgeons, GPs and nurses, but these medical jobs are no less time consuming and, in some cases, may be better remunerated than some of the other interests that are more often the focus.

[Cat Eccles]

Does the shadow Minister recognise that this is not necessarily about the amount of remuneration, but the risk of corruption and the types of employment that have been mentioned by many Members in this debate?

[Mike Wood]

I thank the hon. Member for making the point that I was about to move on to.

Some of the jobs that I have mentioned are better remunerated, so it is incredibly difficult to know where a formal line should be drawn in explicit rules. If medical jobs are acceptable, why not the legal work that some Members have legally and properly been paid to do as Back-Bench MPs? If paid newspaper columns are allowed, which the Government’s current plans notably exempt, it becomes much harder to explain to the public why work advising a manufacturing business on global supply chains is completely unacceptable.

The point that the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) rightly made was that we must differentiate between work and influence. The real threat to public confidence has never been an MP spending a few hours a week doing genuine practical work in business, law or the media. The threat is and always has been paid advocacy and lobbying, which is why the rules were fundamentally overhauled. We have an absolute ban on paid advocacy and an explicit prohibition on MPs acting as paid parliamentary strategists, consultants or advisers. In July 2024, the new Opposition gladly supported the removal of exemptions regarding public policy advice.

[Phil Brickell]

The shadow Minister is making an important point about the distinction between outside employment and paid advocacy. Could he expand on what seems to be his view that Members of this House should be treated differently from serving members of the armed forces, members of the judiciary, civil servants and other public servants for whom there are restrictions on taking outside commercial jobs in addition to their core role? What does he think is different about Members of Parliament?

[Mike Wood]

Fundamentally, I think it comes down to the employment relationship. Obviously, as Members of Parliament, we are elected to represent constituents. It is then a question of judgment as to what activities conflict with that and prevent us doing that role as well as we need to. I think most people would agree that some of the cases highlighted today cross that line, but the question is whether a blanket ban is the most effective and proportionate way of dealing with what is clearly a genuine problem.

The independent Committee on Standards launched a comprehensive inquiry on the issue in January 2025 to look at the exact benefits, risks and regulatory effectiveness of outside employment. That inquiry is still under way, so it would seem the height of legislative impatience if we were to go down the road of threatening blanket bans while that independent review is still gathering evidence on how a more balanced approach could operate.

Trying to put together a rigid set of formal rules that allows the activities we happen to approve of while preventing those that we find unpalatable is a recipe for hypocrisy and administrative chaos. It risks leaving Parliament poorer rather than our constituents better served. Ultimately, the best people to judge whether an MP’s outside work prevents them from being an effective Member of Parliament are the voters in that MP’s constituency—if they have the full and proper information available.

Let us ensure absolute transparency. Let us publish every hour and every pound in the register for the world to see. Then let us trust the British public to look at that record, weigh it against the service they receive and render their unappealable verdict at the ballot box.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Wood Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

The Minister has submitted in answers to written questions that there will be no substantive vote in this House on UK association to Erasmus+, even though the Government plan to tie us into a multi-year programme without saying what it will cost after the first year. The Defence Secretary resigned because the Chancellor will not provide the funding we need for our defence, but apparently money is no object when it comes to this programme. Will the Minister finally tell us the Government’s own central estimate for the programme, or must the public rely on press reports of an £8 billion bill?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

We have re-accession to Erasmus+ from next year at a cost of £570 million, after I negotiated a 30% discount. After 10 months, there is a review clause so that we can balance participation versus cost. I have looked after every penny in this negotiation, and I have not signed up to things that do not deliver value for money. I am quite happy to explain it to the shadow Minister, rather than him just reading about it in the newspapers.

[Mike Wood]

I think everybody will have heard that the Minister has again refused to give any indication as to what he thinks would be an acceptable bill.

The Government used the cover of the Prime Minister’s resignation on Monday to sneak out a written ministerial statement to say that the Turing scheme was being cancelled —a good day to bury bad news. Turing reached 43,000 UK students and provided opportunities in 153 countries for £105 million. Six of the 10 most popular destinations were outside Europe. Erasmus+ will send about half as many UK students abroad as it will bring in, and for more than five times the cost. Given all that, and the Minister’s unwillingness to indicate what the long-term budget will be, how can he possibly be confident that this programme provides five times the value of the scheme that it apparently replaces?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Because it has a 10-month review clause to ensure that it is delivering value for money. Under Erasmus+, there are still opportunities to go around the world. I say quite candidly to the hon. Gentleman that he should look very carefully at all the different opportunities under Erasmus+. It is not just about traditional studies. People studying vocational qualifications go overseas as well, such as those studying sport coaching. There is a range of opportunities that are not available under Turing. If the Conservatives are seriously now setting their face against these opportunities for young people, best of luck to them.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Mike Wood Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I thank right hon. and hon. Members from across the House for their thoughtful, measured and often heartbreaking contributions. I would particularly mention the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for securing and leading this debate, and my right hon. Friends the Members for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), who spoke movingly about cases involving their constituents and the heartbreaking effects this scandal has had on them.

The infected blood scandal remains the most devastating treatment disaster in the history of our national health service. The scale of the tragedy—the lives cut short, the families shattered, the trust destroyed—is something this House and indeed the entire country must never forget. The victims of this scandal, those infected and those affected, have spent decades fighting the establishment for truth and justice. Now that the truth has been laid bare by Sir Brian Langstaff’s inquiry, it is the duty of the state—and that means all of us in this House—to deliver that justice without further delay.

It is entirely right that we begin by recognising the significant progress that has been made, because the establishment of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, with the commencement of actual payments, represents a monumental milestone in this decades-long journey. In doing so, I again place on record my profound gratitude for the foundational work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) when he was the Paymaster General. It was under his determined stewardship that the Government accepted the moral case for compensation and passed the legislation needed to establish the delivery body to administer this scheme. He faced an incredibly complex technical challenge, but his deep personal commitment to the infected and the affected communities ensured that the crucial groundwork, including the initial framework for multibillion-pound interim payments, was laid. I know that the Paymaster General and the dedicated civil servants at IBCA are building on that foundation and working intensely to stand up a complex compensation scheme from scratch. We welcome the fact that more than £2.1 billion has been paid out to more than 3,200 victims. For those living infected victims who are already registered with existing support schemes, these payments offer a long-overdue measure of financial security and tangible recognition of the horrific wrongs that they have endured. Getting billions of pounds out of the door to those who need it is no small administrative feat, and we support the progress that the Minister and the Government have made on that front.

However, it is exactly because we share the Government’s desire to see the scheme succeed that we must urgently raise the profound frustration being voiced by those who are still waiting. Progress for living infected victims on existing schemes has accelerated, but the reality for the thousands of affected victims and the estates of infected victims who have tragically passed away is still one of agonising delay.

Since the registration of intent opened, more than 18,500 registrations have been made, yet we know from IBCA’s own figures that the number of payments made to affected individuals—the widows, the widowers, the parents and the children of those who died—remains painfully low. The same is true for the number of payments to those claiming on behalf of deceased infected individuals. There have been thousands of registrations, but only a tiny fraction of claims from estates and affected people have been fully processed and paid. We hear from families across the country who feel that they are stuck in an unbearable limbo. They have watched the inquiry conclude; they have heard the apologies from the Dispatch Box; and they have seen the compensation scheme launched, yet they still wake up every day wondering when their claim will even be assessed.

For the families who have lost loved ones, time is a cruel companion. Of course, many of those waiting are now very elderly. Tragically, victims and affected family members are dying before they receive the compensation that they are owed. We must ask ourselves: what comfort is a compensation scheme if it arrives too late? IBCA has stated that it expects to bring in all currently registered claims from living infected people and estates by March 2027. We must push to see if that timeline can be safely accelerated, because for some, even next year is simply too far away. Of course, as more time passes, the real value of the offers reduces. Will the Minister look again at uprating payments in line with the consumer prices index, so that victims and their families are not financially disadvantaged because their claims take longer to process?

That brings me to a specific, acute concern that has been raised repeatedly by victims and their families, as well as by hon. Members today. It is one that I urge the Minister to address. It is the issue of the burden of proof, and the requirement to provide evidence that is, in many cases, practically impossible to access. Let me give the House a harrowing example. There are parents who suffered the unimaginable trauma of watching their children die as a result of infected blood products decades ago. Under the current requirements, some of those mothers and fathers are being told that for the claim to be processed, they must provide documentary evidence that they lived with their child at the time. Think about what is being asked here. We are asking grieving parents to source official paperwork from 40 or 50 years ago to prove that their own child lived under their roof. How many of us in this House could easily produce a four-decade-old document proving our living arrangements with our own families? It is not just an administrative burden; it is deeply distressing and re-traumatising. It makes victims feel as though they are not believed.

We see similar issues for estates; they are trying to track down decades-old medical records, or navigating complex probate rules relating to relatives who died in the 1980s or 1990s. We understand that the authority has a duty to protect public funds and to ensure that claims are valid. However, we cannot allow the pursuit of administrative perfection to become the enemy of compassion. When the state has been responsible for the systemic cover-up and destruction of medical records, as the inquiry so damningly revealed, it cannot turn around and demand that victims produce those same missing records.

The burden of proof must be relaxed. We must always be mindful that we are talking about huge sums of taxpayers’ money, but we need a system that operates on the balance of probabilities, applying flexibility, common sense, and, above all, humanity. We must allow caseworkers at IBCA to display the compassion that Members have spoken about this afternoon. I urge the Government to work with IBCA to review the evidence requirements immediately. We must empower caseworkers to make compassionate judgments, rather than forcing them to stick to rigid bureaucratic checklists that punish the victims of state failures.

I know that the Minister shares my desire to see this issue resolved, and the tone of our debate reflects the shared resolve of this House, but good intentions must translate into urgent operational improvements. We need to rapidly scale up the processing of claims for the affected and the estates. We need to ensure that the legal and administrative support that is provided to claimants is truly adequate to help them navigate the hurdles without adding to their distress. The Opposition stand ready to support the Government on any measures needed to expedite the process. We will vote for the necessary resources, support the necessary regulations, and work collaboratively to remove any legislative hurdles.

For more than 50 years, the victims of the infected blood scandal were ignored, gaslit and denied justice. This Parliament promised to do everything that we could to right that wrong. Significant progress has been made; we praise those who have worked hard to deliver it and, above all, the incredible work of the many victims and their families over many years, but our promise is not kept until the final payments are made, until the grieving mother is recognised, and until the families who lost everything finally see the tangible justice that they have fought their entire lives to achieve.

Let us work together, across the political divide, to tear down the remaining bureaucratic barriers. Let us push IBCA to move faster, to act with maximum compassion, and to finally close this darkest of chapters with the dignity and urgency that the victims so deeply deserve.

Preparedness for National Emergencies

Mike Wood Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker, for this vital debate on our nation’s preparedness for national emergencies.

We live in an era defined by profound and accelerating global volatility. The primary duty of any state is the protection of its citizens: we must ensure that the United Kingdom is as properly prepared to meet the threats of an unstable world as it is to respond to a domestic crisis.

Our adversaries are becoming bolder. We have seen hostile state action inching closer to our shores, with alarming incidents such as Russian-flagged vessels anchoring mere miles off the UK coast and directly above the critical transatlantic telecommunication cables that underpin our digital economy.

When the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster introduced the UK Government’s resilience action plan last year, he promised that it would assess the UK’s resilience, enable a whole of society approach and significantly improve public sector resilience. Almost a year later, however, what we find is a framework characterised by high-level bureaucratic ambition that is fatally undermined by deep structural fragility, broken promises and ministerial inaction.

I must start with the foundational prerequisite for national resilience—the economy. I understand why the Government want to talk about resilience planning, but they ignore the elephant in the room: a collapsing economy locked in a doom loop of high spend, high debt and high taxes. True national resilience requires immense fiscal headroom and economic stability. A Government who are actively hollowing out that macroeconomic foundation are inherently making Britain more vulnerable and far less equipped to absorb and recover from future crises.

Turning to the machinery of central Government, the Amber Book, updated in April 2025, rightly makes explicit the leadership role of the Cabinet Office in the cross-Government response to national emergencies, yet its operational execution relies entirely on seamless co-ordination with lead Government Departments. Nearly a year ago, the Government explicitly committed to publishing refreshed lead Government Department expectations to clarify the exact role of the Cabinet Office and other Departments in planning and responding to crises. Ministers promised that we would have those by spring 2026. It is now approaching the middle of the year, but there is seemingly no sign of those vital expectations.

Why does that administrative failure matter? Take the grave case of a national power outage. The resilience action plan claims that the Cabinet Office would provide oversight, but experts at the Royal United Services Institute have explicitly warned that the current fragmentation of responsibilities between the Cabinet Office, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and arms-length bodies like the National Energy System Operator risks creating profound confusion. They warned that this fragmentation will fundamentally slow down central Government’s response during an acute crisis. Ministers must urgently rectify this failure and explain to the House why they have failed to publish those expectations on schedule, leaving interdepartmental boundaries dangerously ambiguous.

This failure extends to the Government’s promises to the private sector. The resilience action plan includes a commitment to use the critical national infrastructure knowledge base to map out the various resilience standards to which businesses in those vital sectors are held. While Ministers have confirmed that the interactive map of vulnerabilities has been completed, they have not provided any timeline on their progress in mapping out those resilience standards.

Furthermore, businesses were promised a comprehensive package of support to help them to improve their own resilience. The Government committed to publishing further information on business impacts alongside the national risk register, including a dedicated business section on the Prepare website. Where are they? None of the commitments seems to have been fulfilled. If the Government expect the private sector to take a leading role in improving our preparedness, they must honour their commitments to support businesses in doing so.

At a local level, local resilience forums are the absolute frontline of our emergency response, yet the foundational wider guidance detailing the fundamental role of those forums in emergency response was last updated in 2013. That means that we are asking our local emergency planners to combat the complex, cascading threats of 2026 using a conceptual framework that was drawn up in what may as well have been a different world.

The previous Government launched the emergency alert system in March 2023 after almost two years of public testing. It was an important part of our preparedness for a national emergency, allowing Government and the emergency services to send a text alert to mobile phones in a situation where there is perceived to be an immediate risk to life. However, a ping on a mobile phone cannot be a substitute for robust national infrastructure, and strategic documents are meaningless if the core guidance for our frontline responders remains over a decade old. It is now time for the Government to move beyond issuing glossy action plans and start doing the hard foundational work of actually preparing this country for the realities of the modern threat landscape.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Wood Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

The UK has become a global leader in agri-tech and particularly selective breeding, largely because of our flexible regulatory framework, including the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023. That would not have happened if we were still members of the European Union. The BioIndustry Association says that dynamic alignment would threaten UK leadership in biotech innovation. Will the Minister commit to securing a carve-out for precision breeding so that our success in this vital sector is not threatened by new or future EU legislation?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The common understanding agreed between the UK and the EU last May provides for carve-outs, subject to negotiation. But if the hon. Gentleman seriously thinks that all the export costs and fees that businesses are currently paying, which the SPS agreement will take away, should continue, he should say so.

[Mike Wood]

I think the House and the public outside will have heard that the Minister is refusing to give that commitment to the representatives of this vital sector. However, he will know that the high cost of fertilisers is one of the biggest pressures on British farming and food prices. Raising carbon prices to the level of the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism is projected to add around £100 a tonne to that cost. At a time of high food costs and squeezed food security, does he really think that now is a sensible time to hammer British farming yet again?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

That is an absolutely absurd question. The hon. Gentleman is asking that question when his party’s position is to keep in place all the fees that we currently have to pay on exports to the EU. He also talks about the emissions trading system linkage. Without mutual exemptions from the carbon border adjustment mechanism, businesses will have to pay around £700 million in carbon taxes. The consequence of his party’s position is that they would have to pay them.

Pension Schemes

Mike Wood Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I begin by paying tribute to our fantastic public servants, civil servants and postal workers. The vast majority give so much in service of our country and the general public. This week, perhaps more than any other, is a reminder that it is Ministers’ responsibility to provide the political leadership so that those workers can deliver. The Minister’s decision to terminate the Royal Mail statutory pension scheme is enormously consequential and will be welcomed by many in this House, but more so by our many retired postal workers.

While I appreciate being given advance sight of today’s statement, it does seem that the Minister, particularly in regard to the civil service pension scheme, has come to the House with more of a plan than a statement. It is clear that the current situation, as the Minister said, is the culmination of a series of entirely unforced errors by Capita. Its failure to adequately administer the CSPS has caused significant financial distress to thousands of former public servants, such as my constituent Chris. He has found himself without the pension he was relying on at just the time that his wife has had to step back from work after a cancer diagnosis.

These people worked hard and planned responsibly for retirement, on the basis that the CSPS would be there for them when they needed it. Capita’s failures have left them anxious, frustrated and, in many cases, desperately out of pocket, but in all too many cases that I am aware of, Capita has been utterly unresponsive. Sadly, the constituents and others from around the country who have contacted me about Capita simply would not recognise the Minister’s claim of answer times being down to two minutes. This is not the way to reward a career of dedicated public service.

Last year, the National Audit Office highlighted that Capita had failed to meet three of the six key transition milestones that had been due by March 2025. All those milestones related to scheme design and operational readiness. In October last year—two months before Ministers had to make a final decision on the transition to Capita—the Public Accounts Committee noted that Capita had missed milestones to deliver its IT systems. The Committee called on the Cabinet Office to fully develop contingency plans before making a final decision about whether Capita should take over administration on 1 December last year.

The Minister’s Department confirmed that—four months after the transition was completed—Capita had still not met three transition milestones, while one was only partially met It is only at this point that the Minister has brought forward the contingency plans—the same contingency plans that the Public Accounts Committee recommended months before—but the warning signs were there, and they should have been clear and obvious. Despite that, last November, a full year and a half after the Government took office, they wrote to trade unions, confirming that Ministers were pressing ahead with Capita’s contract..

We all agree that it is in everyone’s interests that the operational stability of the CSPS be restored as quickly as possible. After all, Capita won the contract because of the failure of the previous MyCSP contract, and clearly a further change would mean more disruption, causing further harm to those who have already been so badly impacted. Ministers must ensure that Capita meets its contractual obligations consistently, and that any penalty clauses in the contract that can be enforced are enforced, to allow compensation to be paid.

The Minister has some questions to answer. For those who are missing out because of Capita’s failings, will the Minister unequivocally commit to delivering a functioning service in the timeframe that he has set himself? Will he confirm that his Department has delivered the standardised mitigation letter that CSPS members can share with lenders to explain their temporary financial difficulties? That was promised last month; has it been delivered? I understand that there will be a commercial session on 28 April to discuss the penalties that Capita is facing, and what officials have called the “wider commercial position”. Will the Minister be attending in person? Will he commit to updating the House at the earliest opportunity, following that meeting? Will he elaborate on exactly what his officials mean by Capita’s “wider commercial position”?

Finally, and most importantly, what contingency plans has the Minister put in place in case it becomes necessary to terminate Capita’s contract for the CSPS, just as he has today terminated its contract for the Royal Mail scheme?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

First of all, I echo the shadow Minister’s tribute to public servants, including his constituent Chris; I am very sorry to hear about his wife’s cancer diagnosis. I welcome what I think was his support for my decision to terminate the Royal Mail statutory pension scheme contract. On the civil service pension scheme, he asked about a plan; I have been implementing a plan, and I have come here to update the House on its implementation. He also talked about the contract. The Capita pension scheme contract was awarded by the previous Government in November 2023 on a long-term basis. That is what I inherited and have been trying to deal with. He talked about the point of transition; what I did at the point of transition was get in the Capita chief executive and the Cabinet Office permanent secretary to go through these matters, and to seek assurances. I am afraid to say that the assurances given have not been met.

The shadow Minister talked about not meeting milestones; I can assure him that milestone payments have been withheld, and I will not hesitate to use the commercial levers in the contract to drive performance. I am absolutely clear about the restoration of service by the end of June; that is what I am holding Capita to. He also talked about MyCSP. I have said that we are reserving rights under both these contracts, with regard to the backlog that was left by MyCSP and how Capita has dealt with it since. In relation to MyCSP, there is also an option to pursue a parent company guarantee, and he can be assured that I will explore all possible legal options to ensure that the service that public servants rightly deserve—not just in retirement, but in very difficult circumstances, such as death in service—is being provided sensitively.

The shadow Minister asked about forthcoming meetings and updates. I will consider the appropriate steps to take, and will update the House, and Members from across the House when they write to me.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Wood Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 22 April.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Queen Elizabeth II devoted her life to public service. As we mark the 100th anniversary of her birth, I am delighted that her extraordinary reign will be marked by a permanent memorial.

In recent days we have seen a series of despicable antisemitic arson attacks. With additional funding to deploy specialist officers, a fundamental reset of how we counter extremism and action to tackle the poison of antisemitism in our schools, our colleges and the NHS, we will do everything in our power to keep British Jews safe, and I am sure the whole House will join me in standing with our Jewish community. There is no place in British life for antisemitism.

Today my thoughts are also with the family of Stephen Lawrence, murdered in a racist attack 33 years ago today. We honour his legacy in the fight against racism and in providing opportunity for every young person.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Mike Wood]

Can the Prime Minister deny that Downing Street considered appointing Matthew Doyle to a diplomatic position?

[The Prime Minister]

Matthew Doyle worked for many years in public service for me as Prime Minister and other Ministers. When people leave roles in any organisation, there are often conversations about other roles that they want to apply for, but nothing came of this.

Government Procurement Strategy

Mike Wood Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) on securing this urgent question—I know how rare it is for a Government Parliamentary Private Secretary. [Interruption.] She is not any more—I apologise. I welcome the Government’s ambition to modernise public procurement, but ambition, as ever, must be matched by delivery. There are a number of questions that the Minister must answer today.

The Government promised transparency through a new online register of commercial agreements. When precisely will that register be live, and will it be comprehensive from day one? Ministers often speak of backing small business. Will the Minister publish in a single, accessible place every Department’s SME target, its latest outturn and whether it is on or off track? On prompt payment, how many suppliers have actually been excluded from major contracts for failing to meet the required standards? If this strategy is truly about value for money, why have the Government still not resolved the fragmentation, poor-quality frameworks and poor use of data and technology that were identified by the National Audit Office?

On national security, contracting authorities are now required to assess risks not just from prime contractors, but from associated persons and subcontractors. How many procurements have been referred for national security consideration, and how many suppliers have been excluded or challenged as a result? What assurances can the Minister give that public contracts are not still flowing into supply chains with links to hostile states? What assessment has the Minister made of the EU’s emerging “Buy European” policies? Is that not a protectionist barrier by the European Union?

Finally, if social value is now mandatory at 10%, what assessment has been made of the risk that it adds cost and complexity, particularly for SMEs? I know that the House will want clear answers.

[Chris Ward]

I thank the hon. Member for those questions—let me try to answer a few of them.

First, on SMEs and Department spend, as I say, part of the aim of this package is to support SMEs and ensure that they have a greater chance of winning contracts. We did publish the departmental spends the day before recess. I know that there was a lot going on, but we have published them; they are there. They show an ambitious step forward. I believe that around £7 billion of Government contracts will go to SMEs as a result of those changes. I am proud of what we are doing; it is the first time that the Government have done it. We have helped drive that through and have worked hard on that.

The hon. Member asked about “Buy European”. That is not in conflict with any of our international agreements or, obviously, with our negotiations with the EU that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office is leading on, and we work closely on that. At the heart of this package is a recognition that we need to use our procurement budget within international law and international regulations to do more to support our industries. That is the right thing to do, and I hope that we can get cross-party support.

The hon. Member asked about social value. Again, I think he was implying that we are making this mandatory. It is already mandatory and it is already weighted at 10% within the contracting system. I am not changing that; what I am saying is that I am changing the definition of social value so that it does more to support communities and to ensure that it really works, so there is no change on that.

The hon. Member asked me a couple of specific questions about national security. I will get back to him if that is okay, but in general terms, I hope that we can get cross-party support on this. The Procurement Act 2023 was passed with cross-party support and was a step forward, but this is the next big step in trying to ensure that we do much more with that budget to support Britain.

Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

Mike Wood Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western]

In a moment—I am just beginning to make my speech. There is the point about some sort of conspiracy or cover-up at No. 10 on which I can disabuse the Leader of the Opposition. The point is to differentiate between the team around the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister himself.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

[Matt Western]

I want to allow others in.

The Prime Minister clearly delegated responsibilities to his chief of staff. It may be that the Leader of Opposition missed the fact that the Prime Minister sacked that—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)]

I want to address three aspects in my remarks: first, the appointment of Peter Mandelson in the first instance; secondly, the approach taken by the Prime Minister as details have emerged over the last few months; and finally, the vetting process overall.

The debate so far has been characterised by collective amnesia on the Opposition Benches. We have seen some amateur dramatic theatrics, and the leader of the Liberal Democrats has demonstrated why he is such a risk to trade and industry with one of our largest trading partners. We have seen the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who sits on the Opposition Benches, choosing to lecture Labour Members about traditions in the Labour party. We have even seen some of my hon. Friends, whose experience of No.10, I suspect, has been purely about attacking No.10 or in a disciplinary capacity, claiming to have real insight into the culture there.

At the core of the current debate is the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the USA. Clearly, Peter Mandelson’s background of resigning twice from a ministerial office has been a matter of public record, but while there are other allegations about his conduct, not all of them were in the public domain at the time. Many recent revelations have led to his dismissal from the post of ambassador, action in relation to his peerage, and referral to the police, which is an ongoing process.

It is clear to all that Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed to the role. While that is the case, the apology offered by the Prime Minister on repeated occasions in this House and outside has been full, wholesome and without equivocation.

Most importantly, the Prime Minister has repeatedly and rightly apologised to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein for making the appointment in the first instance.

[Mike Wood]

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gurinder Singh Josan]

No, I will not.

While the initial appointment has been, and I suspect will continue to be, a matter of debate, the Prime Minister’s apology cannot be faulted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Gardner]

I apologise, because I struggle with my hearing. I did not pick up everything that the hon. Lady said, but I will come to the vetting and security policy in a second. I hope that might deliver an answer for her.

Conservative Members are quibbling about the process, but I remind them that the policy of the FCDO being able to grant vetting, contrary to the advice of UKSV, has been running for many years under successive Governments. This Prime Minister and this Government are now reviewing the process, and I will reiterate the key points. Mandelson should never have been appointed as our ambassador. The Prime Minister has repeatedly acknowledged that and repeatedly apologised.

[Mike Wood]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Gardner]

I am conscious of the time. We have a seven-minute guideline, so I will carry on.

It is clear that Foreign Office officials granted developed vetting security clearance to Mandelson and never told Ministers that they had done so, against the recommendations of the vetting agency. That is shocking, and any reasonable person would have assumed that the information would have been proffered without asking. The policy is wrong. It should change, and as a result of the review, hopefully it will change. This Government—still less than two years old—will not let such a policy continue. I am pleased that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has immediately suspended the ability of the Foreign Office to grant security clearances. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen is not in his place, but I understand that he asked for that to be a short-term response for other security reasons, and I acknowledge his point.

Thanks to the previous Government, the cryptocurrency-fuelled damage of Reform and, of course, the economic suicide of Brexit, which both the Conservatives and Reform are responsible for, people are fed up and trust in politics is at an all-time low. Indeed, the Prime Minister recognises this and understands that recent revelations have further damaged that trust, and I acknowledge that. However, I stress that politics focused on people, not political process, and on the decent, hard-working people of our country, who are thankfully still at peace due to the strength of this Prime Minister, can be a force for good.

The Conservatives are still addicted to chaos and game playing, and seek scraps of political capital where they can get them. I suggest that they have flogged this issue as much as they can. They need to focus on rebuilding their dying party and apologise to the people. This Prime Minister and this Government are focused on rebuilding this country—the country the Conservatives broke, which they still will not apologise for.

Security Vetting

Mike Wood Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Because he did not bring to my attention information that he should have brought to my attention. Had he done so, I would not have made the appointment.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

The Prime Minister dissembles over what he knew about Sistema and Mandelson, but the Cabinet Office due diligence report sent to the Prime Minister on 11 December 2024 stated:

“Mandelson served as a non-executive director of the Russian conglomerate Sistema, which is itself the majority shareholder of RTI, a defence technology company…Mandelson remained on the board until June 2017, long after Putin’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.”

Will the Prime Minister finally confirm that he knew that Mandelson was a director of Sistema long after the invasion of Crimea, but appointed him anyway?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have made clear, I did know what was in the due diligence report, and I have made that clear to the House a number of times today. I have actually made it clear to the House on previous occasions.