Replacing the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023
10. What steps he is taking to replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Replacing the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023
In the previous Session, the troubles Bill drew criticism from nine former four-star generals, regimental associations and veterans across the country. The Defence Secretary told this House earlier this week that he had “dealt with their concerns” and would make “significant amendments”, but every time we ask for detail, we are stonewalled. Will the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland lay out today exactly what protections he is proposing and guarantee that no veteran will be hounded through the courts?
- Hansard source
Supreme Court Dillon Judgment: Policy Implications
May I echo the Secretary of State’s comments in relation to the sad passing of Sir Desmond Rea? In response to the Dillon judgment, a Northern Ireland spokesperson said on 7 May: “We welcome the clarity provided today by the Supreme Court, which has confirmed that the ICRIR is fully equipped to deliver human rights-compliant investigations”. Does the Secretary of State therefore accept that the courts have determined that the ICRIR as presently constituted is sufficiently independent to conduct its investigations? If so, why is there any need to make these cumbersome changes in his proposed Bill?
- Hansard source
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address
That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
- Hansard source
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address
Order. Mr Burghart, please can you observe the courtesies of the House and ensure that the debate continues in an orderly fashion?
- Hansard source
Engagements
Q9. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to combat antisemitism, but the regular hate marches we have seen on our streets with the chanting of “globalise the intifada” have led directly to attacks on Jewish businesses, synagogues and individuals in the streets, and now to an arson attack on where Jewish people live. The Jewish people of our country now want to see action, not warm words. Will the Prime Minister therefore commit to the type of action that we need to expel students from overseas who commit antisemitic acts? Will he take action to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps? Will he take action to close down the 13 Iran-sponsored charities in this country that spread antisemitism? Will he also take action to ensure that all children are taught the horrors of the Holocaust, the importance of not expressing hatred towards one another, and the true history of the founding of the state of Israel? The Jewish people of this country want to feel safe on our streets, in their homes and in our country, so will the Prime Minister take the appropriate action?
- Hansard source
Improving the UK Visa System
I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of improving the UK visa system. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. Immigration is one of the defining policy challenges of our time. It determines who our neighbours are and with whom we share our country, our culture, our values, our communities and our public services. Britain is operating an immigration system based on a high level of trust that the gangs who ruthlessly tear through our borders in the English channel will stop before thinking to exploit loopholes in our visa system. As a consequence, Britain is now an outlier in the world of self-interest, and our immigration system must reflect that. It must be robust enough to attract the best and the brightest from around the world, who can enrich our communities and boost our economy, but it must slam shut the back door to migrants who do not benefit our country and who burden our public services. The simple truth is that immigration has been unsustainable for a long time. In a little under two years, more than 1.3 million people have come to live, work and study in the UK. That is more than the total population of Birmingham, leading to strain on our public services, competition for jobs and increasing pressure in our housing market. Although some migrants will have brought talent and experience, far too many have not. This has been facilitated by a visa system that is too generous and too vulnerable to exploitation. It cannot continue. Last year I began researching the UK’s visa system, and what my team and I found was shocking. Glaring loopholes in compliance must be closed—for example, by requiring visa holders to provide an up-to-date home address during the visa period and not just at renewal or settlement, and by matching national insurance records with visa status so that illegal working can be identified and enforced in near to real time. This is legal compliance 101, and there is no excuse to keep the back doors to Britain open. Around 140,000 organisations are eligible to sponsor work visas. The vast majority are small and medium-sized enterprises, and some of them are tiny. Nearly 17,000 have five or fewer employees. More than 3,000 have just one employee, with so-called skilled workers sponsored to work in vape shops, convenience stores and takeaways. To those looking to exploit the UK visa system, Britain is sending an open invitation to set up a bogus company and sell pretend jobs that give people the right to live in the UK. None of this is hypothetical. During my research, I read an investigative report by The Times that uncovered visa agents selling fake jobs with companies that hold Home Office sponsorship licences. It is a lucrative business model for fraudsters who cheat our visa system, and for migrants who are desperate enough to do the same. Back in January, I asked the Minister on the Floor of the House how we could be sure that tiny companies sponsoring visas were not bogus. He promised to look at it and come back to me. He responded to me only yesterday, presumably as he was preparing for today’s debate. That is not good enough, because these are serious and urgent issues for all our constituents. We must draw a line at the smallest of organisations being able to sponsor visas, and we must set clear limits on the proportion of an organisation’s workforce that can be made up of people on work visas. For that to be possible, the Home Office must publish the relevant data, rather than fobbing off MPs by saying that it can only be collected at a disproportionate cost. The real cost is in turning a blind eye to loopholes in our visa system. Inspections need to be regular and transparent, so that the British public can see the system working for them. The Home Office has claimed that it regularly reviews the organisations eligible to sponsor visas, but just a cursory check finds organisations that are long defunct. The former Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy remains on the list, despite being abolished in February 2023. If Government are not joined up enough to remove historical Departments, how can there be any faith in the adequacy of checks on tens of thousands of smaller organisations across the country? Employees who break the rules get a slap on the wrist, and repeat offenders are allowed to get back their licence to sponsor visas in as little as two years. We must be tougher. Bans on sponsoring visas should be incurred after one failed action plan following a B rating. Those bans should be permanent, with penalties for directors to stop them moving on to sponsor visas at their next rogue outfit. In addition, too many public bodies have come to rely on immigration to fill job roles. That is ludicrous at a time when 1.1 million young British people are not in employment, education or training. The public sector should lead from the front and only sponsor visas in cases where candidates bring genuinely world-class expertise. Astonishingly, thousands of visas are also being issued for religious and charity work to those who meet pathetically low financial requirements. Would you believe that £2,270 in the bank is enough for a religious minister to bring in a family of five for three years? A robust visa system would scrap those routes entirely. The hard truth is that they are being used to take advantage of Britain’s good will, and that must stop. Work is not the only area where there is a problem. If someone has a high-paid, skilled job in the UK and their passport is from all but one country, they can bring their non-British spouse to the UK on a five-year dependent visa for around £1,500 in application fees. However, if a British citizen is bringing their non-British spouse to the UK for five years, that will set them back over £3,200 in fees and require two family visas. That is madness. What possible justification can there be for it to be more expensive and more difficult for British citizens to bring a non-British spouse to the UK? Even the family visa is not exclusive to citizens. Settled individuals have the same right to sponsor family visas that British citizens do. That is not fair to British citizens. On student visas, our universities have a commercial incentive to fill lecture halls with international students, and the UK’s visa policy hands international student graduates the right to live and work in any job they like through the graduate visa. As a result, the UK takes the second largest number of international students of any country in the world—750,000 in the past couple of years. Far from attracting the best and the brightest, the visa system fails to distinguish between the quality of students.
- Hansard source
Improving the UK Visa System
I agree that we have a thriving university sector, and we must maintain it. However, the reality is that many students arriving in the UK are doing so to attend poorly performing universities, and not just the best ones. That is doing long-term harm to our country and our economy. We must close down that route by establishing a minimum academic standard for incoming students and setting a cap on institutions, based on the quality of educational provision. Eligibility for graduate visas should also be linked to academic performance, to keep the best and the brightest while slamming closed this back-door route for low-skilled migrants. Universities should be stripped of their power to assess English language skills for incoming students, which allows them to bypass the official secure English language testing system. Those with a commercial incentive to bring in as many students as possible should not be allowed to mark their own homework. That has created an unacceptable loophole, one that trashes rules designed to ensure that the most basic of requirements is satisfied—that those who come to the UK can speak our language. On English language testing, the Government are acting without sense and rationale. The Home Office is pressing ahead with plans to move official English language testing to a fully remote model, despite serious security concerns. Having initially ruled out remote testing, the Government U-turned after being lobbied by Peter Manderson’s firm, Global Counsel, on behalf of Duolingo. That US tech firm is now expected to win the £816 million contract, after a consortium of leading British firms withdrew from the application process, warning that the proposal exposes the UK’s immigration system to weaker security. Remote tests are extremely vulnerable to organised criminal gangs and cheats who, as I have seen at first hand, can easily overcome safeguards with technological workarounds, some of which use cheap equipment readily available on Amazon. The Government have repeatedly promised to smash the gangs, yet they are opening a new back door to Britain for organised criminals to exploit. In a further insult to the British public, the Government initially denied meeting with Duolingo, yet a recent response to a freedom of information request shows that the Minister for Investment met Duolingo in September 2025 to discuss its offer on English language testing. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that and apologise to the British public. All that raises serious questions about the Government’s seriousness on UK border security. There are also questions to answer about whether the £816 million contract is good value for money. The Department will have received a letter from the Public Accounts Committee, on which I serve, inviting officials to brief the Committee, and I hope the offer will be taken up. It is clear from a YouGov poll that the majority of adults from across every political party, gender and socioeconomic group oppose a move to remote-only testing for an English visa application, so why on earth would the Home Office pursue that course? In answer to my written parliamentary questions, the Minister alluded to the changes delivering a “net positive” financial benefit for the Department. In plain English, that means that the Home Office are looking to trade the security of high-stakes English language testing for cash for the Department. I would appreciate a response from the Minister on that point. What other reason could there be for the Government’s diverging from our Australian and Canadian allies, who have both recently rejected proposals to move testing online? We do not permit remote-only testing for driving theory tests, “Life in the UK” tests or GCSEs, so how can we, with a clear conscience, permit it for the test that decides who makes the UK their home? Has the Home Office consulted the National Cyber Security Centre on the threat model for fully remote testing? The reality is clear for all to see: a fully remote model cannot match the security of in-person supervised testing. Are Ministers so naive that they cannot see the disaster coming down the tracks? I hope that much of my speech will not come as a surprise to the Minister—I have asked him enough questions on this topic, and I have been told that my “Backdoors to Britain” report, which I published in March, has been read. I am grateful for the responses to it that I received from the Department. However, given the inadequacy of the Government’s response so far, I am not satisfied that they have listened to my concerns and those of many in the country. I hope that the Minister’s response will reflect on the seriousness of these issues and demonstrate that the Government understand the problem. The British people do not want a blame game; this problem is too important for point scoring. I recognise that the responsibility for the problems in our visa system lies with both the current and with previous Governments, but the responsibility to act now lies with current Ministers. They need to be ambitious and brave but also thorough and serious. It is crucial that we improve the visa rules and the compliance and enforcement system. More than almost any other system, it defines who we are as a nation and what it means to be part of our community. The conversation about how we get our visa system to work in the national interest must involve all of us, regardless of our politics. I look forward to hearing contributions from colleagues from right across the political divide.
- Hansard source
Improving the UK Visa System
I thank everyone who has contributed to this wide-ranging and interesting debate. I am afraid that I do not have time to reflect on each contribution, but I thoroughly appreciate Members coming and providing their thoughts on this important subject. I thank the Minister for answering my many written parliamentary questions as I was doing my research, and for considering thoughtfully the recommendations in my report and writing to me with his thoughts. I know that he had limited time, but I was disappointed that he did not pick up on the move to remote-only English language testing, which is a very important topic to both me and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). I want to emphasise that it is important that there is confidence in the system before the Home Office goes ahead, and I encourage the Minister to encourage his officials to accept the invitation to brief the Public Accounts Committee on that. Fixing our visa system, closing the loopholes and putting the British people and their Government back in control of who our neighbours are should not be controversial. It is the norm throughout the world, and we need to make it the norm here in Great Britain. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the matter of improving the UK visa system.
- Hansard source
Replacing the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023
The Secretary of State will have seen reports in the Belfast Telegraph that prior to 1985, a large part of the gelignite used in IRA bombs was routinely stolen from a single factory in County Meath in the Republic. The supply amounted to many tonnes of explosives, and it took the lives of many hundreds of people. At the time, British intelligence repeatedly raised concerns with Dublin. Nothing was done, despite the factory’s allegedly being in receipt of Irish state subsidy. Following those revelations, will the Secretary of State commit to writing to the Taoiseach to ask him to hold an urgent public inquiry into the Enfield explosives factory?
- Hansard source
Replacing the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023
With all due respect, the Secretary of State did not answer my question. This is an extraordinary missing piece of the puzzle in the story of the troubles—in the story of how the IRA obtained weapons that killed people in our country. The Secretary of State is perfectly within his rights to raise this with his opposite numbers, and to ask them to conduct a full public inquiry on behalf of the victims. Will he do so?
- Hansard source
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address
I thank the Paymaster General for his remarks and look forward to hearing what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has to say at the end of the debate. As we made clear earlier in the week, we are not entirely happy with the way this has come together. However, just because, in the way that these debates take place, it is not automatic that we will get to ask Ministers questions if they decline to take interventions, I am very encouraged by how the Paymaster General has handled that, although Hansard should know that he said that nobody could follow the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—he shut down everyone else—and I know that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will want to follow his good lead. I hope that the Paymaster General will accept my sympathies on the loss of his mobile phone. I mean that genuinely, and it is very unfortunate that it was stolen five days after the phone of the former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, was stolen. This, I believe, is an indication of how dangerous life is in Labour-run London, and I hope those responsible for looking after the Met police are listening to this. I say that genuinely because a lot of us have friends and colleagues who have experienced the same thing and it is a serious matter. The Paymaster General referred to his resurrection of the Humble Address as a political tool, and I hope that he is still proud of that achievement and that he does not rue it or regret it and that he is enjoying being on the other end of it. I remember this coming up in one of those Brexit years, I forget exactly which one, and I was reminded of it because he spoke about precedent and the Humble Address, and the truth is that his Humble Address breached precedent in a very serious way. It had been the case in “Erskine May” throughout the ages that Humble Addresses would not be used in order to take the opinions of Law Officers of the Crown and present them to the House. That was specifically carved out, yet his Humble Address struck right through it. When we talk about precedent and Humble Addresses, we must be very careful and be very clear that the instruction given by the House to the Government is sacrosanct. It is more important than anything, and it is not for the Government to redefine what the House has asked them to do. It is simply the Government’s job to comply in order to treat the House with respect, but also to avoid falling into contempt. So I will say again that the idea that potentially large classes of document should be retained and kept away from the House because the Metropolitan police are using them may be desirable, but that should not be done automatically without the agreement of the House. If the Government wish to change the terms of the motion that was presented to them, they can come back to the House and do that. A dangerous precedent is set when the Government decide they will reinterpret what the House has said, because maybe this has not been convenient for the Government, but it might be for a future Government, so we must be very careful with precedent and very careful with setting new precedent.
- Hansard source
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right: there is no higher authority than Parliament and consequently the Government should bear that in mind when delivering not just on this Humble Address but any future Humble Address. I do not wish to go over all of the ground that we have already covered, but there are clearly some discrepancies between what has been said in public and what has appeared in the Humble Address. There may be good reasons for some of that, but some is much harder to explain. I shall start with the information that appeared in The Guardian last week regarding the contents of the ISC’s summary document. Obviously that has not appeared in this return, as the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who sits on the ISC, have pointed out. We now have a situation in which the readership of The Guardian has been privy to the information that a document contained concerns about Mandelson’s relationships with at least four individuals: a Chinese Minister; Oleg Deripaska; a former Israeli Minister; and an unnamed man with whom Mandelson is said to have had “a relationship”. This information has come out of what, by the Government’s own definition, is a highly secure document, which we were previously told very few people had seen. I suggest that if this is so secure, first, that information should not have come out in any form and, secondly, given that it has, there really ought to be a leak inquiry because this is nationally sensitive information. I hope we can get confirmation later on from the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister that that is what is happening. [Interruption.] I hear that from across on the Treasury Bench, but it would be good to have it formally on the record later. I turn now to the central element that has featured in all of our debates: the Prime Minister’s role and judgment in the process of the appointment of Peter Mandelson. The Opposition established after the first release of documents that the Prime Minister was shown a due diligence document in which he was told that Mandelson had maintained an unhealthy relationship with Epstein after Epstein had been sent to prison. We have often in this House rightly paid tribute to the victims and survivors of Jeffrey Epstein, stating that they should always be in our thoughts, but the Prime Minister’s thoughts were not with the victims and survivors of Jeffrey Epstein after he had read that due diligence document, and I think we should put that clearly on the record.
- Hansard source
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address
I thank my right hon. Friend for that timely spelling out of exactly what the Prime Minister read—and yet he went ahead and made the appointment anyway. I take the remarks of the Paymaster General and other Ministers totally at face value and totally sincerely, but it is clear that the Prime Minister was not thinking in that way.
- Hansard source
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address
I also find that very difficult to believe. We have these comments about the due diligence documents, and we have these comments about Epstein. We also have the comments about Mandelson’s directorship of a Russian company that owned a defence company that supplied Putin’s war effort in Crimea, and about his business relationships in China, to name but a few things in the due diligence document. It can be no accident that on the same day that the due diligence document was given to the Prime Minister, the then Cabinet Secretary said to the Prime Minister, “If you’re going to appoint this man, get the security vetting done first. Make sure that you have done the security vetting and had his disclosure of interests before you confirm his appointment.” But the Prime Minister went ahead and did it anyway. This was an enormous, historic and really terrible error of judgment. What we then witnessed in September 2025, when the Mandelson appointment had completely fallen apart and he had been fired, was that the civil service scrabbled to try to retrofit a justification for what had happened. Chris Wormald, the then Cabinet Secretary, did not do a bad job, but it was clearly inaccurate because we have in black and white what Simon Case had set down. We now have the due diligence document and the fact that the security vetting happened after the appointment. We also now know, thanks to the second return, that in January 2025, Mandelson was sitting in Washington looking at “highly classified” documents—the phrase “highly classified” is used in an email from January 2025— despite not having any security vetting and despite not having special treatment and restricted access procedures, or STRAP, clearance. This is a massive error of judgment and of government. It goes right to the heart of why the Conservative party has been fighting for transparency on this issue: to expose the failings of the senior people in the Labour party at that time. If we look at the second return, and at document 36 released on Monday, we can see that people such as Sir Olly Robbins were saying, while Chris Wormald was writing his note in September 2025, that they could not comment because they had not seen the relevant documentation. That makes one wonder who else had not seen the relevant documentation, because the relevant documentation is not in this release. Had Chris Wormald seen the relevant documentation, or was he just doing what a Cabinet Secretary in a crisis might do, which was trying to protect the Prime Minister? What we do know, again from document 36, is that No. 10 itself signed off Chris Wormald’s note. No. 10 itself approved—and had been given an opportunity to edit—the Cabinet Secretary’s note. Again, this feels wrong. It feels as though the process was very obviously being commissioned by No. 10 and interfered with by No. 10 in order to give the answer that No. 10 wanted, rather than the truth. It was a bogus process. It was designed to get the Prime Minister off the hook, but transparency shows that he was very clearly on the hook. Turning to the broader material, we have some things that have appeared and some things that we can deduce have been retained by the police. We have some things that we know have been destroyed and some things that may have gone missing. I hope that, during the course of this debate, we can get to the bottom of which documents may fall into which category. In April this year, the Foreign Affairs Committee had Morgan McSweeney before it, and the Chair and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) asked him a number of questions about his messages. This was some time after the theft of his phone in October 2025. In question 970, the Chair said: “Are any of your text messages to Peter Mandelson—or not—going to be available in the Humble Address?” Morgan McSweeney said, “Yes.” In question 1117, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, fearing that the theft of the phone might mean that information had been lost, asked: “Can we take it that your phone would have contained quite a lot of communications, either with Peter Mandelson or about Peter Mandelson’s appointment?” Morgan McSweeney replied: “Probably not much about his appointment that hasn’t already been available to No. 10, because when he was sacked, No. 10 did its own—I don’t want to say investigation, but its own research on what happened and why it happened and, as part of that process, I was asked to share messages and emails about the appointment and also to be interviewed”. So we know that, in April of this year, those messages still existed, that they were not affected by the theft of McSweeney’s phone and that they must have been available to the Government, but they are not in this this tranche of releases. We must therefore conclude that this is because they have been retained by the police, so let us assume that the McSweeney emails fall into that category, unless the Minister wishes to tell us that he has received any subsequent information to say that those messages were irretrievable. We then have the messages from the Prime Minister—or rather, we do not have any messages from the Prime Minister. It seems highly unlikely that the Prime Minister did not exchange any messages with Peter Mandelson at all, at any point. In fact, we must strongly suspect that he did, because there was a report in April in The Spectator by Tim Shipman, which quoted from some of those messages. We might think that those messages would have ended up being retained by the police, but when we look at the quotes that Tim Shipman had, they are incredibly anodyne. It is very unlikely that those messages would have been kept on grounds of national security or because they would be useful to a police investigation. Shipman says that “there is a text message which Keir Starmer sent the night before he made the announcement. ‘You’ll be brilliant in challenging circumstances,’ he told Mandelson. ‘And after many years of our discussions, we get to work together side by side. I really look forward to that.’” That did not age well.
- Hansard source
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address
The hon. Lady makes a good point. It may be because it was on a group message and somebody else had retained their phone, so he provided it. We have to assume that Morgan McSweeney’s messages have, in some part, been retained by the police. I suspect that we will not know why for some time. In the case of the Prime Minister’s messages, however, it is hard to understand why the police or the Government would block the publication of simple messages of praise, even though they fall within the scope of the Humble Address. We really do need further reassurances from the Government about their approach to disclosure.
- Hansard source
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address
I congratulate the hon. Lady on taking the opportunity to put that on the record. This is information that the House deserves to have. In what cases are we dealing with messages that never existed because no messages were sent, as in the hon. Lady’s case? In what cases was there auto-delete, which we know the Prime Minister had, because it was disclosed in the lobby briefing for journalists yesterday? In what cases have phones gone missing and back-ups were not done? In what cases has information been held by the police? It really ought to be possible to know that. I know that the police and the Government are, to a certain extent, understandably being sensitive about the police investigation. However, it really ought to be possible to say to the House, “X number of messages from the Prime Minister are being held by the police, as well as Y number of emails and Z number of text messages.” There is no way that any of that could possibly interfere with any police investigation, if we know roughly what the police know. We started to move in the right direction on that on Monday, when the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister told us the categories of document that we have, but there must be other ways of giving some guidance to the House on what is being held. We obviously have a huge amount of material that has been justifiably redacted for reasons of national security and international relations, but that does not mean that we do not have the headings. We often have email headings that say, “There was an email sent on this date from this person to that person.” We cannot see the subject, but we know that the email existed. Why can we not have the same thing for the messages that the Prime Minister sent to Peter Mandelson on this date, that date and the other date? We cannot see them, because they are part of a police investigation or subject to national security concerns. We have a discrepancy between different types of approaches to the disclosure of information.
- Hansard source
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address
That is entirely true. I believe that the ISC said as much in one of its responses to Government disclosure, saying it was very troubled by the fact that this guidance, which all Ministers are supposed to obey, was routinely being broken. My right hon. Friend and I were both Ministers at the time when that guidance was brought in, and it was brought in for a very good reason. It was to reflect the fact that there are new communications channels and Ministers will want to use them—some of them are very useful for Ministers—but to make it clear that that should not get in the way of the fact that the system needs to retain a record of how decisions are made and what the decisions are. That has clearly not been done in many cases here, not least, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) pointed out, in the fact that we have a lot of empty boxes and no record of the Prime Minister assenting to the appointment of Peter Mandelson, even though we know that he did.
- Hansard source
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address
My right hon. Friend is right. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will have heard his remarks, and I hope he will respond to them. Further to what my right hon. Friend said, the Humble Address was in February, but it was not until March that the Government asked Peter Mandelson for his phone, and Peter Mandelson then refused. As I and other Members said on Monday, the Government should seek to go after Peter Mandelson’s exit payment if he denies co-operation with the Humble Address. It is totally unacceptable that the House should be denied this critical information. We have some information that is retained, some information that appears to have been destroyed and some information that appears to have gone missing. I wish to turn to some remarks that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister made on Monday about his own messages, as he brought them up. I think that will be a useful case study. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said: “I do recall having some limited exchanges with Peter Mandelson over WhatsApp, including those I have already discussed…but these conversations did not involve transacting Government business and were in line with official guidance on the use of non-corporate communications channels at the time.”—[Official Report, 1 June 2026; Vol. 786, c. 853.] That is all well and good, but who decided that those messages fell into that category? Did the right hon. Gentleman decide that himself? Did he show them to officials, who then decided? Did he show them to the police? Who made the decision? Again, we must ask these questions of all Ministers who were asked to disclose information. Where is it that people have self-edited? Where is it that people have had auto-deletion on their phones? Where is it that people have refused to hand things over? We deserve to know. Something that I believe is missing throughout the three volumes we received on Monday is photos, videos, voice notes and, more significantly, attachments. I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s explanation for the Government’s approach to those types of document. Let me draw attention in particular to document 33, from 15 September 2025. The email explicitly refers to an attachment, which is pertinent to the subject of the Humble Address, but that document is not available. I could have been led to believe that that document may have been retained by the police, were it not for the fact that all attachments seem to be missing and all photos, voicemails and videos are also missing. I cannot help but feel that it has accidentally fallen out of the full disclosure. May we have some clarity on that? Let me turn to Peter Mandelson’s declarations of interest, which are one of the most important classes of document; they are perhaps the most important class of document that we are yet to see. We now know that something definitely does exist—first, because the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister told us on Monday, and secondly, because there are references to a back-and-forth about Mandelson’s contacts in the release. Mandelson pushed back on a number of occasions, saying, “I know a lot of foreign people. I have a lot of contacts. I cannot be expected to disclose everything. There was a suggestion from one official not to worry about it too much, just to get on with it and give them a list.” We appear also to be seeing an absence of documents, such as the mitigations that the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury, referred to—Collard’s document. If we add it all together—the absence of the declaration of interests, the absence of the mitigations designed perhaps to handle Mandelson’s relationships with his business contacts when in office, the fact that the documents of certain members of the Cabinet are entirely absent, and the business interests that we know Mandelson had—I think we can reasonably hypothesise about what the police are looking at. That would be—this is speculation—an abuse of his position in Washington to support the interests of his business relations. It is very unfortunate that we will not see that information for some time, because it goes to the heart of one of the problems with the appointment of Mandelson in the first place. [Interruption.] I think Madam Deputy Speaker is encouraging me to wind up, so that I will do. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I can understand why the Government do not want me to ask them any more questions. In conclusion, there are a number of things that we need of the Government. Most importantly, we need a slightly fresh approach to disclosure where we are told a bit more about what the police have: how many documents in each category, how many WhatsApps and emails of the Prime Minister, Peter Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney, and so on. It is important that the House understands where things have gone missing and can start to put that picture together in its head. I say to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee that, once the police investigations are complete, it would be interesting for the police officers involved to come before the Select Committee—it may fall to another Committee as well—to discuss what their approach has been and why, and what lessons might be learned for future disclosures to Parliament. I end by turning, rather unfortunately, to the last speech that Peter Mandelson ever made in the Lords, where he said: “I feel very deeply that there will not be anything like the systematic undermining of the Civil Service that we have seen in recent years…when government policy was conducted by private WhatsApp, rather than on properly considered Civil Service advice.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. 830.] This scandal has taken the jobs of the ambassador to Washington, of the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, of the Cabinet Secretary and of the chief official in the Foreign Office—and, ultimately, it will take the job of the Prime Minister.
- Hansard source
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address
The right hon. Lady is making an important series of points. Does she not also think that the fact that the vetting was not done before Mandelson arrived in Washington, as we now know, means that somebody was in post in Washington seeing highly classified information which he was not fit to see, because there were no mitigations in place, even though the process subsequently threw up the fact that he would need them? Of course, as she is saying, he probably should not have had the job, given that the mitigations were warranted.
- Hansard source
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address
I open my remarks by paying tribute to Sir Alex Younger, the former head of MI6, who we learned had passed away during this debate. He was an incredible public servant who gave an enormous amount to his country. He was incredibly wise and generous, and I know that everyone in this House will miss him very much. In all these parliamentary encounters, we have been talking about a seeping of a great poison. The evil of Epstein seeped into his relationship with Peter Mandelson, which seeped into Mandelson’s influence on Government, which is still seeping into the way in which the Government have allowed themselves to behave. It is time for that to stop. Although we are approaching the point when we might be able to draw a line, that point is still quite a long way away, because we are dependent on the police releasing their documents. With that in mind, I ask the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister to try a new approach: for us to build on what has already happened and go further, so that the House can be more reassured about what it is and is not being given sight of. As far as anyone can see, there is no good reason why the Government cannot tell the House more at the high level. As I said earlier, on Monday the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister gave us something more high-level in the four categories, but we can go further. There is no good reason why the information that has been given to the police cannot be given to the ISC. The Government could unilaterally decide to do that; they do not need to ask anyone’s permission. As has been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) who used to be Chair of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who is not in his place, who is a current member of the Committee, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who is still on the Committee, this House has complete trust in the ISC. It entrusts it with the most confidential material that the state has on offer—STRAP-level material—so I do not think anyone here would believe that sharing the material given to the police with the ISC would in any way run the risk of prejudicing a trial. Consequently, I genuinely invite the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister to give the House that. All of us, even those who are not members of the ISC, should be entitled to know a bit more. We should be entitled to know about the number of messages being withheld. We should be given a degree of detail, because there is no reason why that would prejudice an investigation or a trial. I will go through a few points and then I will sit down and let the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister respond. I want to return to the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister’s own messages, not because I think he has done anything wrong—I do not believe he has—but because he disclosed to us the other day that he had messages that he did not feel were relevant and I wonder if he could tell us about them. They are obviously not in the returns, but because the Humble Address required the disclosure of messages between Ministers and Peter Mandelson, we need to know the process that was gone through with messages that were not in the Humble Address returns. Were they deleted? Were they deleted after they had been shown to officials? Were they shown to officials and it was decided they were not to be disclosed? It would be very good to have clarity, because it might give us insight into how other such messages were treated. Secondly, on the question of Morgan McSweeney’s messages, which we know still existed in April this year when he talked to the Foreign Affairs Committee about them and said that they were already in the possession of the Government because of the inquiry that Wormald had done in September last year, will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister confirm that the process discovered those messages and consequently that Morgan McSweeney was telling the truth to that Committee? Do those messages exist? I do not think it prejudices an investigation or trial to know that those messages exist. Similarly, with Morgan McSweeney’s messages, the Prime Minister’s messages, the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s messages, and so on, we deserve to know how many messages are being withheld. There is nothing in that data that would prejudice an investigation or a trial. That is what we care about—I know that is what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister cares about—and if the Government were to co-operate in that way, it would show a willingness and a transparency that we have not previously had. Related to that is the issue that I and several Back Benchers raised about other forms of electronic communication, particularly pictures, videos, voice recordings and attachments, none of which have made their way into the Humble Address returns. It seems very unlikely that all of them have been retained by the police, particularly when the messages they are related to are in the Humble Address returns. It feels like they have slipped through the net. Can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister tell us a bit more about that? Lastly, to return to the point made by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and by my right hon. Friends, during the course of this debate I believe we have ascertained that the ISC did not see the mitigations. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee has not been able to detect any mitigations. I think we deserve to know whether there were any mitigations. Even if we cannot be told what they were, and even if we are told that they are being retained by the police, there is no good reason why we should not be told whether or not they exist. There is nothing in that information that would prejudice an investigation or a trial. It is time for the Government to take us to the next level of transparency. I very much hope that that is what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister wants to do, because ultimately, all of this will come out in due course. If it does, and it turns out that the Government were unnecessarily withholding information, the scandal will continue again and again and it will infect more and more people. It does not need to do that. Let’s clear this up now.
- Hansard source
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address
I just want to make sure that I understand—I hope the Minister will forgive me if I do not. In his case, was it his permanent secretary as the accounting officer who verified that the messages he had were not admissible to the process?
- Hansard source
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address
The reason I brought this up is that on Monday the right hon. Gentleman said: “I do recall having some limited exchanges with Peter Mandelson over WhatsApp, including those I have already discussed in the media”.—[Official Report, 1 June 2026; Vol. 786, c. 853.] I do not wish to push this point too far, but I do wish to understand: there were messages, so who decided that they were not to be submitted under the Humble Address? Please can he explain?
- Hansard source
Seasonal Hospitality Businesses in Coastal Areas
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour knows that the last Conservative Government created the coastal communities fund, which supported Hayling Island in my Havant constituency. Under the current Administration, there is not a specific equivalent fund to support employment, hospitality or the business community. Will he join me in calling on the Government to create a specific fund to make sure places like Hayling Island are properly supported?
- Hansard source
Draft Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. Before I start, I add my thoughts on Jo Cox. She was a dear friend right across the House, and had that often unique ability to bring the whole House together on certain topics of mutual interest. Some aspects of international development in Syria were certainly among those. I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. I do not intend to keep the Committee long, but I have a number of questions because further clarity would be helpful to the Committee and the House. I will come to those shortly, but I want to make it clear that His Majesty’s official Opposition recognise the suffering that has been endured by the Syrian people after years and years of conflict, repression and instability under the Assad regime. We all want to see a more peaceful and stable future for Syria. Sanctions relief in a fragile and uncertain environment inevitably carries risks, and Parliament is entitled to proper scrutiny of how those risks will be managed. The regulations revoke restrictions on the trade of gold, precious metals, diamonds and luxury goods, including automobiles, or cars. Given the obvious concerns about illicit finance, corruption and malign networks in post-conflict environments, I have to say that I was a little surprised that no formal impact assessment appears to accompany this statutory instrument. I listened to the Minister’s remarks, but will he explain why no impact assessment was considered necessary? What assessment have the Government made of the likely financial and economic effects of the changes in the regulations, both within Syria and internationally? Related to that, I would like to understand what mechanisms the Government will use to monitor the consequences of the sanctions revocations. In particular, how will Ministers assess where any resulting financial flows ultimately go? Who will benefit from them, and is there a risk that funds or assets could be diverted towards destabilising activity? Will the Minister say a little more about whom the Government expect the principal beneficiaries of the changes to be? The Government must surely have undertaken some assessment of which sectors or groups inside Syria are likely to gain most from the reopening of trade in high-value goods. They have suggested that sanctions easing may create opportunities for British businesses seeking to engage with the Syrian market, which is good, but if that is the case, what guidance will be issued to UK businesses to help them navigate what remains a highly fragile operating environment? Many firms will understandably be concerned about sanctions compliance and the risk of assets or investments ending up in the wrong hands. I also want to ask specifically about the provisions relating to petroleum products and kerosene-type jet fuel. Will the Minister clarify precisely what the Government seek to achieve through the amendments in the regulations? Are the measures intended primarily as technical corrections to civilian aviation measures, or do they carry wider security implications? Finally, while there have been some positive developments in Syria, serious concerns remain about sectarian violence and the protection of minority communities. We all want to see a stable Syrian state that is capable of countering ISIS and reducing wider regional instability, but progress must be accompanied by proper safeguards and oversight. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses. The Conservatives do not intend to oppose the regulations, but I hope he can provide the Committee with greater reassurance on how these measures will operate in practice.
- Hansard source
Milburn Review: Interim Report
Many young people take time to adapt to new jobs and simply have not proved themselves after six months, but with the coming into force of the Government’s Employment Rights Act 2025, the period for dismissal without fault will be reduced from two years to six months. Many employers have told me that this will make them much less likely to employ young people, because they fear that they will not prove themselves in that time period, and that it will be much harder to get rid of them after six months. This provision is not due to come into force until the beginning of next year, so at this very late stage, can I urge the Minister to look at it again? It will make a bad situation so much worse for young people.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T7. Small businesses across Yorkshire are really struggling with energy costs. We have talked about the local power plan, and the ability of communities to sell power to small businesses—the question just came up. That has to happen. We must do everything we can to lower the costs for rural and small businesses. Will the Minister make sure that that happens?
- Hansard source
Milburn Review: Interim Report
Returning to the important points about mental health made by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), I draw the Minister’s attention to paragraphs 424 and 425 of the report, which states: “It is mental health conditions that are now the most commonly reported health condition among NEET young people…This explosion has primarily been in mental health issues such as anxiety and depression, rather than in serious mental illnesses”. We can all have our different ideas as to what might be causing this upsurge—I think there has clearly been a loss of mental resilience among young people—but does the Minister agree that, given that this is such a large part of the problem, further detailed research and analysis need to be done on why so many young people are so much more anxious and feel that they cannot cope?
- Hansard source
Murder of Henry Nowak
Is it normal police practice to handcuff a person who is lying helpless on the ground and clearly offering no resistance? Given the Home Secretary’s admirable and utter rejection of differential treatment of people according to their race, will she undertake to examine and withdraw the policing policy document identified by the shadow Home Secretary as embodying precisely such differential treatment?
- Hansard source
Murder of Henry Nowak
I agree with everything the Home Secretary says. I agree that we should not weaponise this issue, but neither should we tiptoe around it. The truth is that many white people in this country feel that the police are so terrified of being called racist that they either underreact, as in the case of the appalling grooming scandal, or they overreact, as in this case, so there is a role for the Home Secretary now. She needs to summon in top police officers and say, “Things have got to change. We are all equal. Don’t be terrified of what people think about you—just carry out the law as you’re supposed to do as police officers.”
- Hansard source
Voluntary Carbon and Nature Markets
Does the Minister plan to allow clean community energy companies to sell power directly to households and businesses?
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
It was a pleasure to serve on the Select Committee, and I thank the Clerks and all those who made it run so smoothly. Today I will focus on one area. “I certainly think it is bizarre that there is not an English commissioner. That is 85% of the veteran population, while the other 15% have three commissioners to represent them. I would certainly support that.” Those are not my words, but those of retired Lieutenant Commander Susie Hamilton, the Veterans Commissioner for Scotland, in response to a question from the Minister for the Armed Forces on the Select Committee earlier this year, regarding whether there should be a veterans commissioner for England. The view shared by all three commissioners for Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland is that the circa 1.4 million veterans who live in England lack their own veterans commissioner. They believe it is vital that we have parity and consistency across the nations, and an independent statutory advocate for veterans in England, so today I once again call for a national veterans commissioner for England, as proposed in new clause 3.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
All experience of military life is valuable, but speaking as someone without military experience, I still think that something can be brought to the table by those who do not have such experience. However, I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I am sure the Scottish Government will have heard it put on record. The Royal British Legion launched a campaign to create the role of veterans commissioner for England back in 2023. The last Conservative Government accepted that request, and in 2024, the Office for Veterans’ Affairs began recruiting for the position. However, the 2024 general election was called shortly afterwards, and all progress was ceased. In the Select Committee, the response to that request was, “We now have an Armed Forces Commissioner, and Op Valour. That means that the role is not required.” We welcome former Air Commodore Polly Miller-Perkins CBE as the first Armed Forces Commissioner, and I wish her well in her role. However, that role was created to benefit serving personnel and their families. It will investigate general welfare matters in the armed forces. The Service Complaints Ombudsman will be abolished, and its functions and responsibilities will be transferred to the commissioner. Veterans would only be covered by the remit of the Armed Forces Commissioner if a complaint related to their time in service, when they were subject to service law. There are, however, time limits for submitting a complaint, so generally that will apply only to veterans who have recently left the armed forces. We recognise the Government’s £50 million funding for Op Valour, which is the national programme designed to increase veterans’ access to relevant charities, services, and support across the UK. However, if Valour was the answer to all veterans issues, why has the position of Veterans Commissioner remained for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales? There is still fundamental value in establishing a veterans commissioner for England too. It should be a question not of either/or but of both. What would the veterans commissioner do? They would serve as an independent advocate and voice for veterans and their families in England, signpost veterans and their families to relevant charities and services based on their individual need, produce regular policy recommendations based on unmet need, work closely with Government agencies to develop and refine policies and services, and promote the community, leverage their skills and highlight what they offer to society.
- Hansard source
Children: Development of Essential Skills
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Dr Allin-Khan, and may there be many more. I thank the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) for opening the debate, and for his thoughtful contributions that we have heard throughout. I know that he is a long-standing champion of this issue, for which he made his case, and I am sure we will hear more from him. I also thank all Members across the House who made contributions. In particular, I want to single out the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle), who I thought made a really valid contribution. Having just welcomed my third child, and having seen the sacrifice that mums make, I can attest to the fact that she made some very valid points, and she will certainly get a lot of sympathy from me. My good friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about screen time. With three children under five, I can tell him that the battle of the screen time has already begun; I know the anguish that parents face, so I have a huge amount of sympathy. While I am always careful not to talk about silver bullets in politics, I believe that education is a silver bullet that can transform a child’s life and their chances. School is an essential part of a young person’s development, equipping them with the skills they need to succeed in life. The academic lessons we learn in the classroom prepare us for the world of work, and the social lessons we learn in school teach us so much that will be needed later in life. The official Opposition are very clear that our children deserve a first-class education, and I am proud that the previous Conservative Government delivered a world-class curriculum to facilitate that. Under previous Conservative Governments, England became one of the top performing countries in education; children in England were named the best in the west for reading, and we were ranked the best at maths in the western world in 2023, according to international standards. At the heart of those results was the previous Government’s rigorous curriculum, which raised standards and helped pupils soar up the international league tables. This debate has centred on some of the softer but equally important skills that a good education can instil in a young person. While I believe that we cannot underplay the importance of academic rigour, this debate plays a vital role in getting our young people ready for life—or the school of life, shall we say. There is no doubt that so much more needs to be done to ensure that our young people are equipped with the right essential skills. I would like to go back a few years. I believe that the pandemic played a huge role in some of the outcomes that our young people are facing. Many of them spent time away from home and outside the classroom, which really impacted on skills. With that in mind, I invite the Minister to comment on whether the Government should be working to fill those gaps and ensure that those people are supported into adulthood. The Opposition are clear that a rigorous curriculum that demands high standards is vital to developing critical skills, which is important in areas such as maths and literacy, and the previous Conservative Government are really proud of our legacy of driving up standards. However, I am concerned about some of the changes in the curriculum review. While I agree with many of its principles, I worry that if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. I want to talk about the practical implementation of the curriculum to see whether the Minister can shed some light on it. We all want to see our children equipped with the skills that are needed in life. The hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) talked about getting our children ready for the digital age, especially with the onset of AI and the waves of disinformation we are seeing online. As a former tech Minister, I share those concerns. I invite the Minister to discuss what she thinks the new curriculum will do to ensure that our children are ready for the advent of AI, as it is already upon us. Does she worry that we risk diluting the core education that I mentioned, which underpins our academic success and those high standards? What will be sacrificed to deliver some of that extra work? This will also be incredibly important because, as has been mentioned, the Government have decided to push down the voting age to 16. If millions of young people are enfranchised in that way, how will the Minister be confident that they will have the skills to engage in our democracy? How will they be encouraged to critically analyse the information they are given? In addition, I would like clarity from the Government on the time being taken away from core education. How will they ensure that time is given to the new aspects of the curriculum review to ensure that high standards are achieved? When the Government have been challenged previously by Opposition Members, they have not been forthcoming on that issue. Parents and students are anxious about how the reforms will change their education in the long term, so I invite the Minister to give a bit more clarity, specifically on the citizenship curriculum. As for teaching, what training will teachers require to be ready for those changes? On financial literacy and education, we can all recognise the benefits of ensuring that young people enter adulthood knowing how to manage their money. In 2023, the “Building Beyond Barriers” report by the all-party group on financial education for young people found that more than half of teachers did not know that financial education was already part of the curriculum. As the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), made clear in a report last week, the importance of financial education cannot be overstated. That report found that “Four in ten people in the UK have poor financial literacy”, which is holding back our economy. The APPG’s report also found that one of the barriers to delivering financial education was a feeling that there is simply not enough time in the school year to deliver those lessons—a similar argument to the one I just made about citizenship lessons. So I ask the Minister: how will they be implemented? Other Members asked about the standards that will be expected. What assessments will be in place to make sure that the quality of the education is of the highest level? Focusing on core skills does make sense in this regard because good maths is a gateway to lifelong financial stability. That is not just my opinion; the programme for international student assessment found a strong correlation between performance in financial literacy and performance in mathematics. I have no doubt that our hard-working teachers are keen to play their part in delivering the skills education that we have discussed today in an appropriate way in the classroom. But a key part of that is innovation, and the Government’s compulsory curriculum risks inhibiting that innovation from teachers. The Government’s curriculum review praised innovation in teaching and made clear the benefits of flexibility for teachers, but I worry that the opposite will happen in practice. Lastly, in my regular meetings with stakeholders—both in education and industry— and when I have spoken to students, I hear time and again about the importance of better career support in schools. Understanding the world of work and what steps are needed to get to where a person wants to be in later life are essential. Young people are seeing profound and substantial changes in the world of work, none more so than the impact of AI on professional careers, such as accountancy and law. With that in mind, it is more important than ever that young people are equipped with the right skills to navigate a changing world of employment and the economy at large. I invite the Minister to elaborate on the work that she will do with the Department for Work and Pensions to make sure that young people get the quality career advice that they need. Children deserve a world-class curriculum that sets them up for the best possible chance in life. I support a knowledge-rich curriculum and will continue to urge the Government to answer some of the constructive questions that the Opposition have put forward. We all want to ensure that our young people have the best chances in life and also have the skills to live their lives and thrive.
- Hansard source
Murder of Henry Nowak
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. We in this House need to be careful about our response to what is a sad loss of life of a young man who was going to a vibrant university in a fantastic and welcoming city, with the rest of his life supposedly ahead of him. Notwithstanding what the Home Secretary has said—I am grateful to her for saying that the IOPC will receive full resourcing—has she done any thinking about what other investigations her Department might need to do into the conduct of Hampshire constabulary? Can she confirm whether the officers in question have been suspended, pending the investigation? Could she also outline whether she is currently looking at whether she needs to make changes to the exemptions to carrying knives for religious or cultural purposes?
- Hansard source
Murder of Henry Nowak
For the final question, I call Tristan Osborne.
- Hansard source
Points of Order
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order, and I understand that she informed the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) of it in advance. The House’s sub judice resolution is a significant self-imposed restriction on freedom of speech in this House. Its purpose is to prevent prejudice to individual cases, and to preserve comity with the courts. As the hon. Member notes, the Clerks in the Table Office are always happy to advise Members on the sub judice rule and its application to proceedings. It is, however, ultimately the Member’s responsibility to avoid infringing the sub judice rule, and to exercise freedom of speech responsibly.
- Hansard source
Points of Order
The hon. Member did not give me prior notice of her point of order. First of all, the Chair is not responsible for the content of speeches or contributions made by Back Benchers, let alone Front Benchers. I do not have to hand the information that she requires about those two issues, but no doubt the Clerks can provide it in a moment or two. As the hon. Member will know, the Government are responsible for the statements that they bring forward to the House. Armed Forces Bill (Programme) (No. 2) Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)), That the Order of 26 January in the last session of Parliament (Armed Forces Bill: Programme) be varied as follows: (1) Paragraphs 4 to 6 of the Order shall be omitted. (2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House on recommittal, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order. Committee of the whole House (3) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be taken on the first day and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the first day. Consideration and Third Reading (4) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken on the second day. (5) Any proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the second day. (6) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.—(Deirdre Costigan.) Question agreed to.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
I remind Members that in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Madam Chair”, “Chair” or “Madam Chairman” are also acceptable. Clause 1 Duration of Armed Forces Act 2006 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments 8 and 9. Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 6, line 37, at end insert— “343AZC Continuity of plans for special educational needs (1) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must make regulations to make provision for a plan for special educational needs awarded to a person who — (a) is a child of or dependent upon a person serving in the Armed Forces, and (b) becomes ordinarily resident in another part of the United Kingdom when posted. (2) The regulations made under subsection (1) must ensure that, if a person is required to move from one base to another as part of their service in the armed forces, any plan awarded to their child or dependent under subsection (1) must be automatically transferred to the relevant authority. (3) A person to whom subsection (2) applies shall have reasonable time to negotiate a named school for their plan under subsection (1) with the relevant authorities. (4) Under this section, “a plan” means — (a) in England, an Education and Health Care Plan; (b) in Wales, an Individual Development Plan; (c) in Scotland, a Co-ordinated Support Plan; (d) in Northern Ireland, a Statement of Special Educational Needs.” This amendment would allow serving families, with a child for whom they have been awarded an Education and Health Care Plan or equivalent Special Educational Needs support, to transfer that support without penalty if they are required to move bases, for operational or other reasons, from one area to another. Amendment 3, page 6, line 37, at end insert— “343AZC Continuity of adoption and fostering arrangements (1) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the continuity of adoption and fostering arrangements for a person who— (a) is a serving member of the Armed Forces, (b) has entered into negotiations about potentially adopting or fostering children, and (c) is required to move base as part of their military service. (2) Regulations under subsection (1) must ensure that if a service family is required to move from one base to another, for operational or other reasons, any adoption or fostering arrangements they have made with their existing local authority should be appropriately transferred to the appropriate new local authority. (3) For the purposes of this section, “appropriately transferred” means any adoption or fostering arrangements shall not be disrupted as a result of the transfer from one local authority to another. (4) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for minimum residency requirements for adoption or fostering in a local authority to be waived for any service family which is required to move from one local authority jurisdiction to another, for operational or other reasons. (5) Service families to which this section applies shall have an opportunity to renegotiate potential adoption or fostering arrangements with the new local authority, including prior to transfer to their new posting.” This amendment would require adoption and/or fostering processes being undertaken by a service family to be automatically transferred to the appropriate local authority if that family is required to move bases as part of their service in the armed forces. Amendment 4, page 6, line 37, at end insert— “343AZC Continuity of NHS secondary care services (1) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the continuity of secondary care treatment for a person who— (a) is a dependent of a member of the regular or reserve forces who is receiving secondary care services from a health body in one part of the United Kingdom, and (b) becomes ordinarily resident in another part of the United Kingdom when the member of the armed forces to whom that person is dependent is posted. (2) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for relevant health bodies to take reasonable steps to ensure that any course of secondary care treatment being provided to the dependent is transferred to an appropriate health body in the area to which the dependent relocates, and— (a) the dependent’s treatment or place on a treatment waiting list is maintained upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies, and (b) the dependent will not require a new referral form from a general practitioner or other primary care professional as a condition for continuation of treatment upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies. (3) Regulations under this section must include a requirement for a national authority to issue guidance on— (a) the transfer of patient records, (b) the continuation of treatment pathways upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies, and (c) the preservation of waiting list placement upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make provision for NHS secondary care services to be appropriately transferred where a person who is dependent on a member of the armed forces must become ordinarily resident in an area for which a different NHS body is responsible for care. Amendment 88, page 6, line 37, at end insert— “343AZC Communication regarding armed forces pensions (1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the effectiveness of communication with former service personnel about their armed forces pension. (2) An assessment under subsection (1) is not limited to but must include— (a) a review of the number of armed forces pensions which have been unclaimed, (b) the impact of the current armed forces pensions system on former service personnel, and (c) an assessment of the effectiveness of introducing an annual letter distribution service to inform former personnel of their pension entitlements. (3) For the purposes of this section, “former service personnel” means a person who has completed their services in the armed forces. (4) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review current practice for communicating with former service personnel about their armed forces pension entitlements. Amendment 89, page 6, line 37, at end insert— “343AZC Transfer of medical assessments (1) The Secretary of State must review current practice for the transfer of medical records and services for armed forces personnel upon their transfer to the reserve forces. (2) A review under subsection (1) is not limited to but must include an assessment of— (a) the time and costs associated with current practice, (b) the costs and benefits of introducing a case-by-case approach for determining whether a reassessment of armed forces personnel’s medical records and services is required upon their transfer to the reserve forces. (3) Within one year of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review current practice regarding the transfer of armed forces personnel’s medical records and services upon their transfer to the reserve forces. Clause 2 stand part. Government amendments 10 to 24. Clause 3 stand part. Government amendment 25. Clause 4 stand part. Clauses 5 and 6 stand part. Government amendments 26 to 30. Clause 7 stand part. Clauses 8 to 11 stand part. Amendment 90, in clause 12, page 29, line 6, at end insert— “115C Duty to refer sexual offences and domestic abuse to civilian police (1) This section applies where a service police force or the tri-service serious crime unit is made aware of an allegation that a person subject to service law, or a civilian subject to service discipline, has committed a relevant offence in the United Kingdom. (2) The Provost Marshal of the relevant service police force, or the Provost Marshal for serious crime, must immediately refer the allegation and transfer the investigation to the relevant civilian police force. (3) In this section— “relevant civilian police force” means the civilian police force for the area in which the alleged offence took place; “relevant offence” means— (a) any offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, (b) an offence involving domestic abuse within the meaning of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, or (c) an offence of attempting or conspiring to commit an offence within sub-paragraph (a) or (b). (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify further offences which are to be treated as a relevant offence for the purposes of this section.” This amendment requires the Service Police and the Defence Serious Crime Command to refer all allegations of sexual offences and domestic violence to the civilian police forces for investigation and subsequent trial in the civilian justice system. Clause 12 stand part. Government amendment 31. Clause 13 stand part. Clauses 14 to 19 stand part. Amendment 5, in clause 20, page 34, line 27, at end insert— “(iii) a retired holder of such a rank.” This amendment would add retired officers to those qualified for membership of the Court Martial. Clause 20 stand part. Government amendment 32. Clause 21 stand part. Clauses 22 to 24 stand part. Government amendments 33 and 34. Clause 25 stand part. Clauses 26 to 28 stand part. Government amendments 35 to 37. Clause 29 stand part. Clauses 30 to 32 stand part. Government amendments 38 to 41. Amendment 1, in clause 33, page 54, line 43, at end insert— “69C Prevention of recall for persons in reserved occupations (1) The Secretary of State may make regulations to define certain categories of civilian work as reserved occupations. (2) A “reserved occupation” under subsection (1) is any category of civilian work which the Secretary of State deems as vital for defence purposes. (3) Persons undertaking a reserved occupation may be exempted from a recall order under section 69A for which they would have otherwise been liable.” This amendment would allow persons undertaking civilian work which the Secretary of State deems vital for defence purposes to be exempt from a recall order under section 69A. Amendment 6, page 54, line 43, at end insert— “69C Notice periods for recall (1) Those reservists in Army Reserve Group A, or its equivalents, shall, following the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, have their standard notice reduced from readiness category R9 (180 days) to R8 (90 days). (2) For the purposes of this section, “Army Reserve Group A” has the meaning defined in the Reserve Land Forces Regulations 2026.” This amendment would increase the readiness requirement for reservists in Army Reserve Group A from 180 days to 90 days. Clause 33 stand part. Clauses 34 to 41 stand part. Government amendment 42. Clause 42 stand part. Clauses 43 to 51 stand part. Government amendments 43 to 46. Clause 52 stand part. Government amendment 47. Clause 53 stand part. Government amendment 48. Clause 54 stand part. Clause 55 stand part. Government new clause 4. New clause 1—Exemption from the European Convention on Human Rights for Deployed Members of the Reserve Forces— “A member of the reserve forces who has been deployed for operations under this Act may not be subject to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights for the duration of that deployment.” This new clause would make provision for the members of the reserve forces who have been deployed under this Act to be exempt from the European Convention on Human Rights for that period of deployment. New clause 2—Laying of the Defence Investment Plan— “Within one month of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay a Defence Investment Plan before both Houses of Parliament.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay a Defence Investment Plan before both Houses of Parliament within a month of the passage of this Act. New clause 3—National Veterans’ Commissioner (England)— “After section 366 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 insert— “366A National Veterans’ Commissioner (England): establishment (1) Within 12 months of the passing of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must appoint a National Veterans’ Commissioner for England (“the Commissioner”). (2) The Commissioner shall act independently in carrying out the functions of the office. (3) The Commissioner’s functions shall include but are not limited to— (a) promoting the interests of veterans in England; (b) monitoring the operation and effectiveness of the Armed Forces Covenant in England; (c) reviewing the effect of public policy and public services on veterans and their families; (d) identifying barriers faced by veterans in accessing housing, healthcare, employment, education, and other public services; (e) making recommendations to the Secretary of State and to public authorities on improving support for veterans. (4) In exercising the functions under subsection (3) the Commissioner may — (a) carry out reviews and investigations into matters affecting veterans; (b) consult veterans, service charities, public authorities, and other relevant organisations; (c) publish reports and recommendations. (5) The Commissioner shall prepare an annual report on the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions. (6) The Commissioner may at any time prepare a report on any matter relating to the interests of veterans in England. (7) The Secretary of State must lay any report prepared by the Commissioner under this section before both Houses of Parliament. (8) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for— (a) the provision of staff, accommodation, and other resources as they consider necessary for the Commissioner to carry out their functions, and (b) the publication of the Commissioner’s reports under this section. (9) The Commissioner is to be appointed for a term of three years and may be reappointed for one further term. (10) The Secretary of State may remove the Commissioner from office only on grounds of — (a) incapacity, (b) misbehaviour, or (c) failure to discharge the functions of the office. (11) In this section— “public authority” has the same meaning as in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998; “veteran” means a person who has served in His Majesty’s armed forces.”” This new clause would require the Government to appoint a National Veterans’ Commissioner for England and sets out its functions. New clause 5—Waived fees for indefinite leave to remain for spouses or dependants of serving or discharged member of the armed forces— “(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows. (2) In section 68, after subsection (11) insert— “11A Fees may not be charged No fees may be charged in respect of a serving or previously serving member of the armed forces or their family members applying for indefinite leave to remain under the Immigration Rules Appendix HM Armed Forces.”” This new clause would amend the Immigration Act 2014 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications for the spouses or children of any current or previously serving members of the armed forces. New clause 6—Overseas operations and the European Convention on Human Rights— “After section 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998 insert— “14A Duty to consider derogation in relation to overseas operations (1) Where the Secretary of State considers that any overseas operation is, or is likely to be, significant, the Secretary of State must consider whether it is appropriate for the United Kingdom to make a derogation under Article 15(1) of the Convention. (2) In this section— “overseas operations” means operations of Her Majesty’s forces outside the British Islands in the course of which members of those forces may come under attack or face the threat of attack or violent resistance; “Her Majesty’s forces” has the same meaning as in the Armed Forces Act 2006 (see section 374 of that Act).”” This new clause reinstates a duty, removed during passage of the Overseas Operations Act 2021, requiring the Secretary of State to consider derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights during significant overseas operations. New clause 7—Assessment of the reserve forces estate— “(1) Six months after the passage of this Act and every three years thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the conditions of the reserve forces estate. (2) An assessment under subsection (1) is not limited to but must include an assessment of— (a) catering provisions, (b) personal hygiene provisions, and (c) support for existing and new reserve forces. (3) The Secretary of State must consult the RCFA in conducting an assessment under subsection (1). (4) Under subsection (1) ‘reserve forces estate’ refers to all properties managed by the RFCA. (5) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of each assessment under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament an assessment of the reserve forces estate six months after the passage of this Act and every three years thereafter. New clause 8—Review of Schedules 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006— “(1) Within 12 months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must review offences included under Schedules 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006. (2) A review under subsection (1) must consider whether any offences pertaining to domestic abuse which have been classified under Schedule 1 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 may be instead classified as an offence under Schedule 2 of that Act. (3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the review under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the classification of offences under Schedule 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006; it would create a specific requirement for the classification of domestic abuse offences to be considered. New clause 9—An armed forces retention strategy— “(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State lays before Parliament the Ministry of Defence Votes A paper seeking Parliamentary authority for the maximum numbers of personnel to be maintained for service with the armed forces in the following financial year. (2) The Secretary of State must lay alongside the Votes A paper an armed forces retention strategy. (3) The retention strategy must include— (a) an assessment of the current rates of retention across the regular and reserve forces, (b) an explanation of the steps the Ministry of Defence is taking to improve retention to meet the maximum numbers of personnel set out in the Votes A paper, and (c) an assessment of the findings of the most recent Armed Forces Continuous Attitudes Survey and its findings regarding satisfaction with service life.” This new clause would require the Government to lay an armed forces retention strategy alongside the annual Votes A paper on the maximum number of personnel to be maintained in the armed forces. New clause 10—Independent review of Armed Forces recruitment and retention— “(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the processes for recruitment and retention across His Majesty’s forces. (2) The review under subsection (1) must, in particular, consider— (a) the efficiency and consistency of recruitment processes across the Royal Navy, the regular army, the Royal Air Force and the reserve forces, (b) the effectiveness of steps being taken to improve diversity and inclusion within His Majesty’s forces, (c) the impact of the quality of defence housing (including single living accommodation) on the retention of service personnel, and (d) the impact of the medical discharge process on retention and transition to civilian life. (3) A report of the review must be laid before each House of Parliament no later than 12 months after the day on which this Act is passed.” This new clause requires the Government to commission an independent review into recruitment and retention in the armed forces and lay the report of the review before Parliament. New clause 11—Duty to provide medical records on discharge— “(1) This section applies where a person ceases to be a member of the regular forces or the reserve forces. (2) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a complete copy of the person’s service medical records is provided to the person no later than one month after the day on which the person is discharged or otherwise ceases to be a member of those forces. (3) Those regulations may specify the manner and form in which service medical records are to be provided under this section, including provision for records to be transferred directly to a civilian health body with the person’s consent. (4) In this section— “health body” has the same meaning as in section 343AZB; “service medical records” means any records relating to the person’s physical or mental health care and treatment created or maintained by or on behalf of His Majesty's forces during the person's period of service.” This new clause places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that all service personnel leaving the military receive a complete copy of their medical records within one month of their discharge date. New clause 12—Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer— “(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows. (2) After section 343C (Establishment and functions of veterans advisory and pensions committees) insert— ‘343CA Establishment and functions of a Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer (1) The Secretary of State must appoint a person to be the Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer. (2) The general function of the Officer is to oversee the mental health care and treatment provided to veterans by the health bodies specified in section 343AZB. (3) In exercising their function, the Officer must, in particular, monitor and assess the extent to which health bodies are complying with the duty imposed by section 343AZA (Duty to have due regard to the covenant) in relation to the mental health and well-being of veterans. (4) The Officer may require a health body to provide such information as the Officer considers reasonably necessary to discharge their functions under this section. (5) The Officer must prepare an annual report on the exercise of their functions and the general state of veterans’ mental health care and treatment in the United Kingdom. (6) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the Officer’s annual report before each House of Parliament. (7) In this section, ‘veteran’ means a person who has at any time been a service member.’” This new clause establishes the statutory role of a Veterans' Mental Health Oversight Officer. New clause 13—Single living accommodation standards— “(1) The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 is amended as follows. (2) In section 101 (The standard of MOD accommodation), after ‘service family accommodation’, in each place it occurs, insert ‘and single living accommodation’. (3) In subsection (10), at the appropriate place insert— ‘single living accommodation’ means any building or part of a building which is provided for the use of a person subject to service law or a civilian subject to service discipline as living accommodation, but which is not service family accommodation;”. This new clause amends the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 to ensure defence housing standards apply to single living accommodation. New clause 14—National Standards, Funding and Monitoring of the Armed Forces Covenant Duty— “(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows. (2) After Section 343AE (Sections 343AA to 343AD: guidance) insert— ‘343AEA Armed Forces Covenant Duty National Standards (1) The Secretary of State must issue statutory guidance establishing clear and consistent national standards for the discharge of the duties imposed under section 343AA to 343AD (“the Covenant Duty”). (2) The national standards must— (a) set minimum requirements for compliance by relevant public bodies, (b) promote consistency in the quality and accessibility of services provided to members of the armed forces community across England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and (c) require relevant public bodies to demonstrate due regard in a manner capable of objective assessment. (3) Relevant public bodies must have due regard to the standards issued under this section. 343AEB Funding and Support for Delivery (1) The Secretary of State must ensure that sufficient funding is made available to support the effective implementation of the Covenant Duty. (2) The Secretary of State must establish and maintain a dedicated Covenant Duty Training Programme, which shall— (a) provide accessible training and guidance to relevant public bodies, (b) promote awareness and understanding of the purpose and scope of the Covenant Duty among staff and decision-makers, (c) support the sharing of best practice between relevant public bodies, and (d) include provision for capacity-building where required. (3) In determining the allocation of funding under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to variations in local demand and the particular needs of the armed forces community. 343AEC Reporting and measuring framework (1) The Secretary of State must establish a framework for the monitoring and evaluation of compliance with, and impact of, the Covenant Duty. (2) The framework must include— (a) defined performance indicators and outcome measures, (b) requirements for relevant public bodies to collect and report data relating to the Armed Forces Community in a consistent manner, (c) annual independent review of the effectiveness of the Covenant Duty, and (d) mechanisms to identify and disseminate learning and best practice.’” This new clause would create a requirement for guidance that sets national standards of Covenant Duty delivery across the country, for funding and resources to support delivery and to require monitoring of compliance with the duty. New clause 15—Armed Forces Covenant report: required content— “(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows. (2) In section 343A (Armed forces covenant report), after subsection (5) insert— ‘(5A) An armed forces covenant report must— (a) include an assessment of compliance with armed forces covenant duty national standards under section 343AEA, (b) include analysis of outcomes for the armed forces community, and (c) include recommendations for improvement.’” This new clause, which is consequential on NC14, would require the Armed Forces Covenant report to include detail on compliance with national standards, outcomes for the armed forces community and recommendations for improvement. Government amendments 49 to 56. Schedule 1. Schedule 2. Government amendments 57 to 84. Schedule 3. Schedule 4. Government amendments 85 to 87. Schedule 5. Schedules 6 and 7.