Maternity Commissioner
I am grateful to Members for bobbing to indicate they would like to take part in the debate.
5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Maternity Commissioner
Order. It might be helpful to know that some Members have approached me to say they have spoken to Mr Speaker, as they may need to move around. They will ask to intervene if they want a Member to give way, and Members can give way if they are specifically asked.
- Hansard source
Security Vetting
The Prime Minister has spoken about process, the reviews, and trying to put that which went wrong right. That is to be supported, but he is asking the House and the country to believe that notwithstanding a front-page media splash saying that Peter Mandelson had failed the vetting process, there was nobody in No. 10 or in any Government Department who even thought to say, “Is there any truth in this? Could I have a briefing on that? We need to knock this story down.” If nobody asked, that is the shameful thing; does it not say to the Prime Minister that the operation of his Government, which seems to be, “Process, strategy, review, never my fault,” is not sustainable, or welcomed by the country at large?
- Hansard source
Security Vetting
The Prime Minister is repeatedly telling us that either he was not told, or he was not allowed to be told, but what culture has he created around him and across the civil service that meant that no one felt that they could or should tell him this sensitive information?
- Hansard source
Apprenticeships
Apprenticeships should be the building blocks of a stronger economy. That is why the Conservatives are pledging to double the number. If the Minister has done his homework, he will know that any increase in apprenticeship numbers is due to the last-minute rush to do level 7, which this Government cancelled. In fact, if level 7 apprenticeships are stripped out of the figures, apprenticeship vacancies are at their lowest since 2020. With youth unemployment at an all-time high and apprenticeship vacancies at their lowest, it is time for the Minister to come clean: this Government are failing young people, are they not?
- Hansard source
Cost of Living: Students
As the Minister said, on 23 March the Department told universities that weekend courses do not qualify for funding. The Student Loans Company’s own guidance changed only this year, and the issue affected 20,000 students, including those in key professions, such as nurses. The Secretary of State has been taken to court by nine universities, the National Union of Students is demanding that she halt her clawback, and Martin Lewis has said that this is an almighty mess. I heard what the Minister had to say, but I know that this Government always find someone else to blame, so will he confirm that any aggressive debt collection will absolutely be stopped and that payments will not be demanded from innocent students?
- Hansard source
Security Vetting
I wonder whether the Prime Minister knew the difference between the due diligence information from the Cabinet Office and the security vetting that had not taken place when he appointed Peter Mandelson on 18 December.
- Hansard source
Antisemitic Attacks
Last week, I had the privilege of visiting Auschwitz, on a visit organised by March of the Living UK. I joined 200 members of the British Jewish community there, and almost 8,000 people from around the world. We marched between Auschwitz and Birkenau. Many of those there were Holocaust survivors. I heard their stories, from the 1930s and 1940s, and from today. Many told me that they have an exit plan. We were escorted by security the whole time. Will the Minister provide much-needed assurance to our Jewish community in the UK by explaining what steps are being taken to address rising antisemitism here, and will he commit to taking action that is significant enough to reassure British Jews that they do not need a plan B?
- Hansard source
Security Vetting
Seven months ago, a national newspaper ran the story that Mandelson had failed security vetting, so how is it even possible that no one in No. 10 knew until last week?
- Hansard source
Security Vetting
In the box note to the Prime Minister dated 11 November 2024, the former Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, advised the Prime Minister that before announcing a political appointee, he should get security clearance. The Prime Minister ignored that advice. The Prime Minister’s response in that box note is redacted, so I ask him a very simple question: what was his answer on that box note, and will he publish what he said?
- Hansard source
Security Vetting
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. His reputation is at stake, and everyone is watching, so it is finally time for the truth. Earlier today, Downing Street admitted that the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House. The Prime Minister has chosen not to repeat that from the Dispatch Box. I remind him that, under the ministerial code, he has a duty to correct the record at the earliest opportunity. The Prime Minister says he only found out on Tuesday that Peter Mandelson failed the security vetting. The earliest opportunity to correct the record was Prime Minister’s questions on Wednesday, almost a week ago. This is a breach of the ministerial code. Under that code, he is bound to be as open as possible with Parliament and the public in answering questions today, so let me start with what we do know. We know the Prime Minister personally appointed Peter Mandelson to be our ambassador to the United States. We know that Mandelson had a close relationship with a convicted paedophile. We know that he had concerning links with Russia and China—links that had already raised red flags. We know that the Prime Minister announced the appointment before vetting was complete—an extraordinary and unprecedented step for the role of US ambassador. The Prime Minister says that it was “usual” because it was a political appointment, so I remind him, and the rest of the Labour Front Bench who are heckling, that Peter Mandelson was a politician who had been sacked twice from Government for lying. That meant he should have gone through the full security process. We also know that when Peter Mandelson failed the security vetting, he was allowed to continue in the role with access to top secret intelligence and security information. This goes beyond propriety and ethics; this is a matter of national security. Let me turn to what we do not know. We still do not know exactly why Peter Mandelson failed that vetting. We do not know what risks our country was exposed to. We do not know how it is possible that the Prime Minister said repeatedly that this was a failure of vetting, went on television and said things that were blatantly incorrect, and not a single adviser or official told him that what he was saying was not true. At every turn, with every explanation, the Government story has become murkier and more contradictory. It is time for the truth. There are too many questions to ask in the allotted time, so I will ask the Prime Minister just six. I have taken the unprecedented step of providing these questions to the Prime Minister in advance, so he has them in front of him. I have asked for these questions to be put online for the public. They and I expect him to answer. The Prime Minister appointed a national security risk to our most sensitive diplomatic post. Let us look at how this happened. The right hon. and learned Gentleman told me at PMQs in September 2025 that “full due process was followed”—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 859.] in this appointment. We now know that in November 2024, Lord Case, the then Cabinet Secretary, told him that this process required security vetting to be done before the appointment. He did not mention any of what Lord Case said in his statement earlier. First, does the Prime Minister accept that when he said on the Floor of the House that “full due process was followed”, that was not true? Secondly, on 11 September last year, journalists asked his director of communications if it was true that Mandelson had failed security vetting. These allegations were on the front page of a national newspaper, and yet No. 10 did not deny the story—why? Thirdly, will the Prime Minister repeat at the Dispatch Box his words from last week: that no one in No. 10 was aware before Tuesday that Mandelson had failed his vetting? Fourthly, the Prime Minister says he is furious that he was not told the recommendations of the vetting, yet on 16 September, a Foreign Office Minister told Parliament that “the national security vetting process is rightly independent of Ministers, who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome.”—[Official Report, 16 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 1387.] That was the Government’s stated process, so why is the Prime Minister so furious that it was followed? Fifthly, on 4 February 2026, the Prime Minister told me from the Dispatch Box that the security vetting that Mandelson had received had revealed his relationship with Epstein. How could the Prime Minister say that if he had not seen the security vetting? Finally, Sistema is a Russian defence company that is closely linked to the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin’s war machine. Was the Prime Minister aware before the appointment that Peter Mandelson had remained a director of that company long after Russia’s invasion of Crimea? Everyone makes mistakes. It is how a leader faces up to those mistakes that shows their character. Instead of taking responsibility for the decisions he made, the Prime Minister has thrown his staff and his officials under the bus. This is a man who once said, “I will carry the can for mistakes of any organisation I lead.” Instead, he has sacked his Cabinet Secretary, he has sacked his director of communications, he has sacked his chief of staff, and he has now sacked the permanent secretary of the Foreign Office. All those people were fired for a decision that he made. The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s defence is that he, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, is so lacking in curiosity that he chose to ask no questions about the vetting process, no questions about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein and no questions about the security risk that Mandelson posed. Apparently, he did not even speak to Peter Mandelson before his appointment. It does not appear that he asked any questions at all. Why? Because he did not want to know. He had taken the risk and chosen his man, and Whitehall had to follow. It is the duty of the Prime Minister to ensure that he is telling the truth—or does the ministerial code not apply to him? I am only holding the Prime Minister to the same standard to which he held others. On 26 January 2022, he said from this Dispatch Box to a previous Prime Minister: “If he misled Parliament, he must resign.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 994.] Does he stand by those words, or is there one rule for him and another for everyone else?
- Hansard source
Peter Mandelson Appointment
Mr Speaker, I seek leave to propose that the House debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration—namely, that this House has considered the matter of the Government’s accountability to the House in connection to the appointment of Peter Mandelson. This is a matter of national security, because the Prime Minister has admitted appointing a known serious security risk to our most sensitive diplomatic post. This goes beyond Mandelson’s close relationship to a convicted paedophile. Today I raised deeply concerning ties to the Kremlin and China, which the Prime Minister admitted he knew about before the appointment. Despite the Prime Minister’s statement today, there remain serious questions about what he knew and when. He has hidden behind process at every turn and failed to take responsibility. It is quite clear that the spirit and letter of the Humble Address, which this House voted for, have not been met. That is disrespectful to this House. There remain serious inconsistencies in the Government’s position, inconsistencies with the accounts of officials involved in the process, and inconsistencies with the Members of this House and journalists who sought to scrutinise the appointment at the time. There are also questions to be asked about the Prime Minister repeatedly sacking senior civil servants, on a whim, for his own decisions, and leaving the taxpayer with financial liabilities. The British public deserve to know the truth. Members on all sides were not satisfied with the answers the Prime Minister gave today. I even gave him my questions in advance and still I did not get proper answers. Tomorrow, the former permanent secretary of the Foreign Office will appear in Parliament. The House should also have the chance to debate what he says at the earliest opportunity. That is why the House should be able to debate this before the forthcoming Prorogation. At its core, this matter pertains to the Prime Minister’s catastrophic judgment. It pertains to his lack of grip and his failure to ask the relevant questions. It would be unfair of him to palm this debate off on to a junior Minister who does not have the information and did not take the decision. This whole saga has been about the Prime Minister’s leadership. A real leader would come here and answer these questions himself.
- Hansard source
Draft Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 2026
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. Today, the Minister will be pleased to know that the Opposition are fully and wholly supportive of his measures to deregulate this sector. Bringing young people into any industry is essential if we are to adapt to the modern world and deliver the services customers deserve into the future. The industry deserves the fresh impetus that is often brought by young people looking to establish themselves. The National Skills Academy data used by the Government for their proposals show that fewer than 3% of train drivers are currently aged under 30 and, with countries across the continent having an age limit lower than our own and operating safely, these measures are welcome. The last Government wisely brought forward the consultation on this issue, which this Government are building upon, engaging with industry and finding widespread support among key stakeholders. In principle, there are clearly compelling reasons to back these regulations. Bringing them forward represents confidence in the next generation; bringing people into the workforce is essential if we are to have the skills necessary to operate the railways well into the future. I am glad for the explanations the Minister has provided on how this will work in practice, and some of the things he mentioned relating to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the other place. There are still some concerns around the gap between the actual licensing regime and whether this policy will, in fact, lead to some of the numbers needed to meet the challenges the Minister has outlined. I ask him to address a couple of points. The Government have said that the industry is working with Skills England to reduce the apprenticeship age of entry from 18 to 17 and a half, but there appears to remain a slight lack of detail regarding support for those aged 16 and 17 looking to establish themselves in the sector in future, given that by that age many may have already chosen different educational paths. Can the Minister update us on that, or perhaps write to me about it to say what the Government aim to do to ensure that the widest number of young people, from whatever background, are able to get into the sector? That would be very much appreciated. At the same time, it is very good to hear about the foundation apprenticeships for some of those earlier age groups. However, it has been pointed out that if the Government truly want to ensure the widest possible profile of a workforce, they may need to consider other working practices that need changing in future, such as Sunday working and other restrictive measures regarding the use and training of drivers. I also ask the Minister to reflect on why this is limited to trains. I absolutely agree with him that the 20 years of age threshold is an arbitrary barrier. That is the same for other parts of the transport sector, which we should also be looking to encourage young people into, particularly where there are skills shortages. The last Government also published a consultation, started when I was a junior Minister in the Department for Transport—it seems to have gathered dust somewhat—on allowing bus and coach drivers to undertake longer journeys starting at an earlier age, to provide them with better career prospects and enable them to get into their desired profession. I fail to see why a younger person might be allowed to enter a cab and learn to prepare to drive a five-car class 802 train that could weigh well over 250 tonnes and travel at speeds of more than 100 miles an hour, but not get comparable freedoms to drive buses over slightly longer distances. This question is particularly important given the comparable challenge of the demographics of both parts of the transport sector. The average age of a bus or coach driver is currently around 52. Why is reducing the age limit for train drivers going full steam ahead, yet we do not seem to get the full zip from the Department when it comes to bus and coach? The Government talk about the importance of the interconnectedness of transport, but they do not seem to have extended that in this sector at the moment. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say on that, but overall I very much welcome these proposals and hope they are implemented effectively so that young people can access these schemes. However, this is just one of many steps that we must take to open up opportunities to young people across transport. We need this attitude across the entirety of the DFT, ensuring that those who can contribute and help our sector are not curtailed by long-standing and unhelpful working practices.
- Hansard source
Free Childcare: Providers
14. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of 30 hours of free childcare on early years providers.
- Hansard source
Free Childcare: Providers
I recently met several early years providers, who told me that the 30 hours funded childcare scheme is placing real strain on their businesses because the policy does not take into account the setting up time, the packing away time, and the time spent training and dealing with compliance issues with their staff. Combined with the recent national insurance rises, this is threatening the financial viability of these businesses. Will the Minister agree to review the policy’s implementation so that providers, particularly smaller ones that rely on that funding, are kept financially viable and can provide their services to the people who need them?
- Hansard source
Security Vetting
If, as we have been assured, there was no law that prevented the permanent under-secretary from telling the Prime Minister the outcome of Mandelson’s developed vetting, then presumably by the same token there was no law that prevented the Prime Minister from asking. Can he be very clear with the House on one point? Did he as Prime Minister ever ask the question, “Did Mandelson fail his vetting?” and if he did ask that question, who did he ask it of and when did he ask it?
- Hansard source
Security Vetting
My question to the Prime Minister is straightforward: did Morgan McSweeney or any of the Prime Minister’s advisers—past or present—know about this issue before last Thursday?
- Hansard source
Antisemitic Attacks
I am proud to represent Lancashire’s only synagogue, St Annes in my constituency. Many of the members of the congregation tell me about the difficulties faced, and the fear and intimidation felt, by their friends and family around the country, as UK Jews. They are not interested in new strategies and plans and initiatives; they are interested in seeing handcuffs slapped on those who preach antisemitic hatred on our streets—not after the attacks have taken place, but pre-emptively—and who spill that bile on hate marches and in mosques across the country, and in extremist content. What action will the Government take to increase the number of arrests of those preaching hate, before it is too late?
- Hansard source
Security Vetting
The Prime Minister dissembles over what he knew about Sistema and Mandelson, but the Cabinet Office due diligence report sent to the Prime Minister on 11 December 2024 stated: “Mandelson served as a non-executive director of the Russian conglomerate Sistema, which is itself the majority shareholder of RTI, a defence technology company…Mandelson remained on the board until June 2017, long after Putin’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.” Will the Prime Minister finally confirm that he knew that Mandelson was a director of Sistema long after the invasion of Crimea, but appointed him anyway?
- Hansard source
Antisemitic Attacks
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The attacks on our Jewish community have become a national emergency. In recent weeks, we have seen multiple attacks against cultural sites and synagogues. The Jewish community has been targeted again and again. As a result, many Jewish people are, tragically, considering leaving the UK. When the shadow Home Secretary visited the community in Golders Green just after the attack on the Hatzola ambulances, he was told that they feel abandoned by the Government. That morning, he spoke to a young mother who said she was afraid to send her children to school. Matt Jukes, the Met police deputy commissioner, said this morning: “We’ve…seen hate crime in our communities before…but now what we’ve got is the prospect of a foreign state actually using that as a mechanism to sow discord…and to create anxiety in our communities”. Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia, an Islamist militant group with links to Iran—indeed, many would say it is a proxy for Iran—has claimed responsibility for five incidents targeting Jewish sites in London, including the firebombing of the Hatzola ambulances in Golders Green and the attempted drone attack on the Israeli embassy. Vicki Evans, the senior national co-ordinator for Counter Terrorism Policing, told reporters on Sunday: “As the conflict in the middle east continues to evolve, Counter Terrorism Policing and our partners remain alive to the threat of Iranian hostile activity in the UK.” How much more Iranian action on our UK soil is needed before the Government act to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps? In opposition, Labour Members, including the then shadow Home Secretary—now the Foreign Secretary—said they would do this, but almost two years after winning power, they have done nothing. Many other countries have acted by proscribing the IRGC, including the USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and earlier this year even the European Union did so, so why have this Government not delivered on their election promise to proscribe the IRGC? If emergency legislation is needed, the Minister will have our support to get it rapidly through Parliament. Will he accept our offer now from the Dispatch Box? If Iran is behind these recent attacks, large numbers of Iranian diplomats and those suspected of being Iranian spies in the UK must be immediately expelled, as happened to Russian diplomats and spies after the Salisbury attack. That would send a powerful message and degrade Iran’s ability to act on UK soil. Besides foreign-directed attacks, there has been a sickening tidal wave of domestic antisemitism. As the Leader of the Opposition has said: “As a black woman in this country, I have never seen the level of racism, discrimination, intimidation and attacks that have been directed at the Jewish community.” She has said that “if people were firebombing black churches, the way that synagogues have been attacked, people killed…ambulance services being firebombed…there’d be a national emergency.” This should be considered a national emergency. Of course, antisemitism often goes hand in hand with Islamist extremism, a threat we know all too well. Some 75% of MI5’s terrorism caseload relates to Islamist extremism and 94% of terrorist murders in the last 25 years have been perpetrated by Islamist extremists, yet only 10% of the Prevent caseload is Islamist. When we discussed the Hatzola attacks a few weeks ago, the Security Minister said the Government are looking at what they can do about what he rightly admitted was the “mismatch” in Prevent caseloads. Can he update the House on the progress he has made since saying that? Will the Government commit to using counter-terrorist surveillance techniques to disrupt antisemitic attacks before they occur? Will they also commit to deporting any foreign national who expresses extremist views, sympathy for violence, terrorism, antisemitism or any other such religious hatred? In October, the Home Secretary said that she was reviewing the use of the power under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 and promised to update the House, but we have heard nothing since. Will the Minister please update the House today? Antisemitism is a stain on our society. Warm words are no longer enough. Real action is needed.
- Hansard source
Crime and Policing Bill
Once again, I thank the other place and right hon. and hon. Members across the House for their work on this Bill. The Government had an opportunity with this Bill to create a safer society and to protect people from harm. As I outlined previously, I would like to have seen them tackle off-road bikes and dodgy shops and take a tougher approach to those who carry knives. The first duty of any Government is to protect the public and to crush the crimes that make people’s lives a misery. I will begin by speaking to Lords amendment 11. Fly-tipping is a scourge on our communities, ruining our environment and our countryside. Today we are asked to consider whether the law as it stands is sufficient to tackle this scourge, or whether we are prepared to admit, as communities across the country already know, that it is not. More than a million fly-tipping incidents are recorded each year, yet only a tiny fraction result in any meaningful enforcement. Vehicle seizure, which is one of the most effective tools in our armoury, is vanishingly rare, so when Ministers tell us that powers already exist, the obvious question is this: if they exist, why are they not being used? The answer is simple. It is because a power that is fragmented, unclear and buried across multiple statutes is not a power that works in practice. It is a power that sits there, too complicated to implement, while fly-tipping continues to blight our communities. Lords amendment 11 would address that failure directly. Let us not forget that for most offenders it is their vehicle that enables the crime. That is the means and method by which they are able to act and profit. Remove the vehicle and we disrupt their criminality immediately. Fail to do so and we send a different message: that this is a low-risk, high-reward activity where the chances of serious consequences are low. That is the message that the system is sending, and our communities are paying the price. Ultimately, this is about whether we are content with a system that works in theory, or whether we are prepared to put in place one that works in practice. For that reason, we on the Opposition Benches support the amendment, and I urge right hon. and hon. Members to do the same.
- Hansard source
Crime and Policing Bill
My hon. Friend is entirely right. Rural communities across the country know only too well the consequences of hare coursing, and making an example of it and that being seen in our community sends a real message to those who would offend in such a way. Lords amendment 359 relates to proscription of the IRGC. There is simply no suitable argument as to why the Government should refuse to proscribe the IRGC and associated organisations. I am sure that the Home Secretary and Ministers will once again, as justification for inaction, point to the fact that the previous Government did not proscribe the IRGC. The reality is that the international situation is now radically different from when we left office almost two years ago. Even before the current conflict began, it was clear that the IRGC was ramping up aggressive activity. It oversaw the deaths of more than 40,000 protesters, and overseas it has continued to extend its influence through the backing of terrorist cells. In 2025 alone, the security services tracked more than 20 potentially lethal Iran-backed plots. The IRGC is a dangerous and lethal organisation.
- Hansard source
Crime and Policing Bill
I could not agree more. When such evil and such vileness is on display, we need to act, and we need to act in our national interest to protect our people from some of the horrors that we have seen perpetrated abroad by these sick individuals.
- Hansard source
Crime and Policing Bill
We have seen significant developments on that front. Only this afternoon we were debating the issue of antisemitism and where that has got to, and the real-world consequences for people in this country of the actions of the IRGC and associated groups—in other words, state-backed terrorism. The Government need to act. They need to wake up. In fact, they could just vote for the Lords amendment this evening. In 2025 alone, the security services tracked more than 20 potentially lethal Iran-backed plots. The IRGC is a dangerous and lethal organisation. We must act against groups that pose a threat to our national security. Ministers have said that the proscription of the IRGC will be kept under constant review, but given the situation that we face now, that is simply not good enough. Many other countries have acted to proscribe, including the USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and even the European Union. Let us remind ourselves of our Government’s record. When it was in opposition, the Labour party said that it would proscribe the IRGC. The now Foreign Secretary said that it was behaving like a terrorist organisation and must be proscribed—“must” not “might”; not “We will keep it under review”; not “should.” What has changed is that those who once demanded action now sit on the Government Benches and have chosen inaction. Now we are told that it is too complicated. Now we are told that it is legally difficult. Now we are told that it would be symbolic. We are told that there are challenges because the IRGC is part of a state, but the whole point of proscription is to confront organisations that operate through intimidation, violence and terror, regardless of the flag behind which they hide. We are told that sanctions are enough, but sanctions have existed for years and the IRGC continues its activities: intimidation, plots, proxies and repression. Let us be clear: Lords amendment 359 does not ask the Government to take a leap into the unknown; it asks them to do precisely what they themselves argued for, repeatedly and on the record. If it was the right policy then, why is it not the right policy now? If the IRGC met the threshold then, why does it not meet it now—or was that position merely convenient Opposition politics? Today the Government have a choice: they can stand by their previous convictions, or confirm that those convictions were never truly held at all. I urge Members to support the Lords amendment. The Bill is a missed opportunity to take back our streets. Perhaps that is no surprise from a party that has already removed 1,318 police officers from our streets and begun releasing criminals from prison early, but we can still improve the Bill by supporting these sensible, pragmatic amendments to crack down on fly-tipping and strengthen our national security. Given that these Ministers are so used to U-turning, I hope that they will do it again today.
- Hansard source
Crime and Policing Bill
Of the million fly-tipping offences that take place in the country every year, how many does the Minister think end in the seizure of a vehicle?
- Hansard source
Crime and Policing Bill
I will explain more than that. I was delighted to put forward an amendment in Committee proposing just that, and the Ministers sat on either side of the Minister—the Under-Secretaries of State for the Home Department, the hon. Members for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) and for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp) —voted against penalty points for that offence. I do not think the Minister heard me when I asked this question before: how many of the million fly-tipping offences that take place in this country does she think result in the seizure of a vehicle? In a year’s time, when we come back and have this discussion again, how many does she think will have been seized?
- Hansard source
Crime and Policing Bill
Was the Foreign Secretary wrong when she said that the IRGC must be proscribed?
- Hansard source
Security Vetting
We have now established that the Prime Minister did indeed know that Peter Mandelson had been a director of Sistema when he appointed him. Why on earth would the Prime Minister be so reckless with our national security as to do that?
- Hansard source
Apprenticeships
3. What steps she is taking to promote apprenticeships as an alternative to university education.
- Hansard source
Apprenticeships
New figures reveal that 73% of teachers think there is not enough focus on preparing young people for employment while they are still in school. A good apprenticeship can bridge that gap, but the number of starts has fallen for those under 19 in the past year. Will the Minister change course and lead a real change, and shift away from dead-end university degrees to high-quality apprenticeships for every young person across the country who wants one?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
We learnt last week that in the tragic Southport case, when the headteacher warned about the killer’s increasing extreme behaviour, the social worker accused the headteacher of racially stereotyping the pupil as “a black boy with a knife”. The result was that the warnings were rewritten in many cases. And that was not a one-off. We know it also happened in the Sara Sharif case, where “race was a bar to reporting possible child abuse”, and we saw the failure repeatedly with the grooming gangs scandal. Being too scared of causing offence means children are being harmed, so I ask the Secretary of State directly: what concrete action is she taking to stop repeated cases of political correctness overruling the safeguarding of children?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
If the Secretary of State wants to start keeping children safe online, then we will stop our objections—but she is refusing to do that. In another example of so-called progressiveness, local authorities across the country are, unbelievably, trying to stop exclusions when children are bringing knives to school. This is happening right here in London, with Sadiq Khan’s inclusion charter, and in Sheffield, where the policy led to the tragic stabbing of Harvey Willgoose, whose killer had previously brought an axe into school and was not excluded. Will the Secretary of State condemn the spread of anti-exclusion ideology and support schools to exclude when knives are brought on to the school estate?
- Hansard source
Security Vetting
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked this question, but I do not believe that she received a response. Was the Prime Minister aware that Peter Mandelson was a director of Sistema before he was appointed?
- Hansard source
Security Vetting
The Times reported last week that the Prime Minister repeatedly sought assurances from the FCDO that Peter Mandelson had passed security vetting. Is this correct, and when did he seek those assurances?
- Hansard source
Antisemitic Attacks
In Germany in the inter-war period, university students protested for months before violence erupted against the Jewish community. Why are we allowing these patterns here, and modern-day pogroms on the streets of London, and why are we then surprised when violence erupts? History tells us what the outcome will be if this is not stopped. Will the Government commit to taking swift action? Why will they not ban the IRGC?
- Hansard source
School Food Standards
I am concerned that we do not serve more British-sourced food in our schools. Indeed, it is estimated that between 20 million and 40 million chickens are imported each year from China. That number has gone up 172% since the general election. What are the Government doing to ensure that our young people are eating British-sourced foods?
- Hansard source
Security Vetting
The Prime Minister has said various things about Peter Mandelson’s vetting process over the past weeks and months that have now turned out not to be true. Does he accept that he inadvertently misled the House of Commons?
- Hansard source
Apprenticeships
12. What steps she is taking to promote apprenticeships as an alternative to university education.
- Hansard source
Apprenticeships
At an awards ceremony in Scotland last month, apprentices said time and again how they were told throughout their school careers that their grades were good enough to go to university, and that they should think again about going into an apprenticeship. Apprenticeships create not just jobs but careers, so what can the Department do to help in Scotland where the Scottish Government have wrecked so much of Scottish education? Can they be prevented from destroying apprenticeships as well?
- Hansard source
Security Vetting
The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that he should have been shown the recommendation of UKSV. He knew he had not seen it, so why did he not ask for it?