Road Safety
I call Anna Dixon, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Road Safety
Order. Members will know that two debates are scheduled this afternoon, which will necessitate a very tight time limit of three minutes from the get-go.
- Hansard source
Road Safety
Order. After the next speaker, I am going to have to drop the time limit to two minutes, because there is a very important debate on Gaza that I would like to start by 3.30 pm.
- Hansard source
Road Safety
That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Third sitting)
What consideration has been given to the potential conflict between data centres’ contractual obligation regarding customer confidentiality and mandatory rapid reporting? What assurance can the Minister give us that data centres will ensure that the conflict does not impact their future business?
- Hansard source
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Third sitting)
On the growth of this industry, and with 78% of UK enterprises relying on cloud-based services, 96% of companies expected to use public cloud services, 35% of UK businesses outsourcing IT support and, as of last year, 63% of organisations planning to continue or increase their IT outsourcing over the next 12 months, does my hon. Friend the shadow Minister agree that greater consideration—or at least elaboration—must be given to the vulnerability of the supply chain of large load data centres?
- Hansard source
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Third sitting)
Does the shadow Minister agree that the Government should heed the message of Chris Dimitriadis, the chief global strategy officer at the Information Systems Audit and Control Association? He said: “The era when cyber regulation could focus solely on critical national infrastructure is over. Today, every major employer is part of the digital economy—and therefore part of the threat landscape.” Surely the Government should heed that message.
- Hansard source
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Third sitting)
The risk and the threat from hostile states is plain to see. Does my hon. Friend have any sympathy for the ten-minute rule Bill that I introduced a few months ago on the Floor of the House? We need to strike a balance between the risk that bureaucratic administration poses to small businesses and the very real risk that cyber-attacks pose to the economy in general. The Government should have the private sector in scope and look at setting a threshold that does not become burdensome on smaller businesses. My proposal was for any company that turns over £25 million or more to be scope, in order to not bear down too heavily on small companies that would otherwise find the process, the risk and the burden of reporting too onerous.
- Hansard source
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Third sitting)
Will the Minister give way?
- Hansard source
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Third sitting)
Given the blurring of boundary lines between cyber-attacks and financial crime, I can see the compelling reasons why the amendment has been tabled, but does the shadow Minister agree and acknowledge that fraud detection often requires a different skillset from standard network security, so it is important to strike the right balance?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, on Monday the Procedure Committee is due to give a statement on its report on call lists. As that is not a day for Backbench Business debates, a motion from the Leader of the House will apparently be required to allow the statement to take place, and I hope that he will enable that to happen. On Thursday 12 February, there will be a Select Committee statement on behalf of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on its recent report. On Thursday 26 February, if we are given the day, there will be a debate on St David’s day and Welsh affairs. In addition, the business in Westminster Hall next week will include, on Tuesday, a report on the Independent Water Commission’s final report and, on Thursday 12 February, a Select Committee statement on behalf of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, followed by a debate on Government support for healthy relationships—just in advance of Valentine’s day—and a debate on onshoring in the fashion and textiles industry. On Tuesday 24 February, when we return from recess, there will be a debate on Government support for the healthcare system in Gaza, and on Thursday 26 February, there will be a debate on Eating Disorders Awareness Week, followed by a debate on the impact of VAT on independent faith schools. Eagle-eyed individuals who follow the Order Paper will know that there will be no second debate in Westminster Hall this afternoon, and I should explain why. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) was granted that debate three weeks ago, and the Government were given notice that it was being held. On Tuesday, however, the Minister with responsibility for public health, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), apparently informed the hon. Member that she would not be available to answer the debate. As the Leader of the House will know, it is not acceptable for the Government to determine that only one Minister can answer a debate. Another Minister, or even a health Whip, could have answered. We must give the Government 48 hours’ notice of debates, and we offered the slot to five individuals, but unfortunately they could not change their plans for this afternoon. I am sure that Members will want to defend the right of Back Benchers to hold the Government to account. Fly-tipping in Harrow has been a scourge for most local residents. I am pleased that the council has taken many steps to combat it, including fly-tips being reported within 24 hours, free bulky waste collection, enabling multiple trips to the waste recycling centre and CCTV at fly-tipping hotspots. Recently, though, an illegal waste dump was set up on private land. Harrow council officers have been through that waste, and they have been able to identify it as the waste of 40 individuals, who have been issued with fixed penalty notices for giving their waste to illegal waste collectors. This is a warning that people should not do that. However, there is now a problem across the country with illegal waste collectors using private land to carry out these criminal actions. Can a relevant Minister make a statement on what action the Government will take to support local authorities in opposing these waste collectors, and warn individuals that they should not use them?
- Hansard source
Sudan
Over the last two-and-a-half years, there has hardly been a week when we have not had an urgent question, statement or debate on the situation in Gaza, yet the situation in Sudan has often been overlooked, despite the fact that at least three times as many people have been killed in Sudan as in Gaza. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, but the key here is to ensure that an arms embargo exists across the world. Can she update the House on how many of our allies have agreed to such an arms embargo? What action will be taken against those who are frankly not our allies to try to prevent those arms from getting into Sudan?
- Hansard source
Sustainable Drainage Systems
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on securing the debate. He spoke passionately about this issue, the impact of heavy rainfall and flooding in his constituency, and the consequences for residents when developments do not adequately address the need for sustainable drainage and for SuDS to be maintained. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) made some important points, particularly about the need for more skilled professionals in this area. The previous Government’s plan for water, published in 2023, recognised that sustainable drainage systems are an effective means of reducing surface water flooding, and committed to their use in all new developments. The current Government are continuing that approach through the publication of national standards for sustainable drainage systems. As I understand it, although the Government are yet to make a final decision, they are pursuing a planning policy-based approach to SuDS, rather than commencing schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act, which would require all developments to include SuDS in order for planning approval to be granted. If schedule 3 is implemented, developers will be required not only to include SuDS in new developments, but to ensure that designs are approved before construction begins. As the Government’s national standards are non-statutory, the Minister will be aware that questions have been raised about enforceability. There is a concern that developers may seek to identify ways to evade the guidance. Is the Minister therefore concerned that, however well-intentioned, the non-statutory guidance may not achieve its intended purpose? I note that although there are calls for clarity on the adoption of multi-property developments by an appropriate authority, there is no clarity about which authority that should be. Is the Minister’s Department looking at that, or would it be willing to clarify that? I turn briefly to developments that have been built but have not yet been adopted. The Minister may be aware that research from the Home Builders Federation, published in October 2025, found that in developments of 10 or more homes built in the past three years, 97% of new sewers and 98% of SuDS remain unadopted. The research also found significant inconsistencies across local authorities. As the Minister knows, local authorities are reluctant to adopt roads until sewers are formally adopted. I want to briefly mention two examples from my Chester South and Eddisbury constituency that illustrate the issues all too clearly. Saighton Camp, which is just outside the city of Chester, and the Wychwood estate in Wybunbury both have unadopted incomplete infrastructure. Residents have been left in limbo, with developers moving on, the water company refusing to adopt the sewerage system until the developers complete the work and the local authority refusing to adopt the road until the sewers are formally adopted. Alongside this, there are frequent issues with the swales, which are meant to provide sustainable drainage yet are ineffective. With that in mind, what assessment has the Minister made of the issue being a procedural one? Does she believe there is scope to make the adopting process more consistent to provide clarity for residents? The Government have set a target to build 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, but given their current performance, no one really believes they can possibly achieve that. The Government’s own figures show that in their first year in power the net number of new additional dwellings and the number of new homes built both went down. Can the Minister provide assurances that the Government will not abandon their approach to SuDS, and will recognise them as a continuing priority that will not be traded off for other land uses in pursuit of their top-down housing targets? When businesses are facing increased financial pressure and costs as a result of the Government’s disastrous economic policy, what assessment has the Minister made of the effect of those policies on SuDS, which may add further costs to new homes? On the topic of development, it would be remiss not to mention the role that farming can play in water management and sustainable drainage. Nearly 300,000 homes have been built on prime farmland, with an extra 1,400 hectares used for renewable energy projects, despite more than enough previously developed brownfield land waiting for regeneration. Under the previous Conservative Government, through the countryside stewardship scheme and sustainable farming incentives, farmers were encouraged to implement practices that would mitigate the risks and consequences of flooding. Can the Minister provide assurances that water management grants will be part of the SFI scheme when it finally reopens? Internal drainage boards do a fantastic job of managing water levels and reducing the risk from flooding within their districts. Their work involves maintenance and improvement, and they currently play a significant part in advising on planning applications regarding SuDS. Can the Minister provide assurances that IDBs will continue to have a prominent role in the planning process? Furthermore, as the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) has called for, have the Government considered the merits of bringing flexibility to the relationship between the Environment Agency, IDBs and land managers? In 2024, the previous Government provided IDBs with £75 million to modernise and upgrade resilience assets for farms and rural communities. Is the Minister working closely with her colleagues in the Cabinet Office to monitor the consequences of the recent storms and the related funding of IDBs? I know that all Members here today, and Members from across the country, will have constituents who are affected by flooding. We know how damaging and disruptive it can be. It is therefore important that the Government set out a clear approach as to whether SuDS are viewed as best practice or a standard approach. Clarity is needed so that the industry knows where it stands, and our constituents can have confidence in the legislation and guidance that is provided to developers. Part of that will involve ensuring a prominent role for local risk management authorities, such as IDBs, so that the best possible sustainable approaches can be implemented to mitigate the risks and consequences of flooding.
- Hansard source
Road Safety
There are schools and nurseries in my constituency, such as Jigsaw nursery on Wrexham Road and Delamere Academy, which is just off the busy A556, where children have to navigate fast-moving traffic. Does the hon. Lady agree that proximity to schools and nurseries should be treated as an essential consideration when determining safe speed limits on roads?
- Hansard source
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Third sitting)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, although we support the intent behind the Bill, clause 2 does a lot of framing work but does not necessarily consider the extensive perimeter that is coming through and how proportionality will be applied in practice? I suggest that the Committee keep that in mind as we move through the detail.
- Hansard source
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Third sitting)
Clause 4 relies heavily on capacity as the trigger for regulation. I understand why that is attractive: it is measurable. But capacity is not the same as criticality, and a high-capacity facility used for redundancy can present less systemic risk than a smaller, highly concentrated one. I simply put on record that the way this threshold is applied in practice will matter more than the number itself.
- Hansard source
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Third sitting)
My hon. Friend is making a very good point, which also applies to improving board awareness and ensuring that the enforcement of the regulations incentivises boards to take the issue seriously and make sure that they are equipped to understand the commercial reality of cyber-security for their businesses. Enforcement is an important part of that.
- Hansard source
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Third sitting)
Clause 7 is definition-heavy, and rightly so; these terms decide who is regulated and who is not. My only observation is that cloud models are, as the Minister knows, evolving quickly because of the AI revolution. Definitions that track architecture too closely will age fast, so the Committee should be alert to whether these terms will still make sense in five years’ time and not just today.
- Hansard source
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Bringing MSPs into scope is the right direction of travel, and MSPs sit at points of concentrated risk, but they are not all the same and the real risk is not size alone but the level of privileged access and cross-customer dependency. Proportionality will be critical under these provisions if we want better security, not just box-ticking.
- Hansard source
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Fourth sitting)
I think my hon. Friend is about to reference the commercial impacts on MSPs. We have already referenced the fact that they are of many different sizes. One of the concerns the Committee will need to consider is whether new contracts will need to be written. The level of uncertainty being created may render the existing frameworks within which they operate redundant.
- Hansard source
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Fourth sitting)
On my hon. Friend’s point about the lack of clarity in the Bill, there is a real possibility that firms will find that an MSP has one view of an issue while their client has another. Unless there is sufficient clarity in the wording of the Bill, we will have issues.
- Hansard source
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Fourth sitting)
The clause merits close scrutiny, because it is the point in the Bill where risk is supposed to be addressed beyond the individual operator and into the supply chain. In plain terms, clause 12 will allow the regulator to designate a supplier as critical where disruption to that supplier would have a significant impact on the delivery of an essential or digital service. The trigger is impact, not size or sector. That approach is sensible, but I want to stress-test how it works in the context of operational technology. Across power, telecoms, transport, water and industry, many essential services rely on the same family of industrial control equipment. Substations, signalling systems and industrial plants may look different, but they often run on identical controlled devices and firmware supplied by a very small number of manufacturers. The risk is not hypothetical. A single vulnerability in widely deployed OT equipment can create a common mode failure across multiple sectors at the same time, even where each operator is individually compliant with its duties. At the moment, the Bill places obligations squarely on operators of essential services, but in OT environments, operators do not control the design of equipment, the firmware, the vulnerability disclosure process or the remote access arrangements that vendors often require as a condition of support. As Rik Ferguson highlighted in written evidence to this Committee, uncertainty about how and when suppliers might be brought into scope can lead to defensive behaviour and late engagement. The risk is amplified in OT, where suppliers may discover vulnerabilities before operators do, and where one operator may report an issue, while others in different sectors, using identical equipment, remain unaware. There is also a traceability problem. OT equipment is frequently sold through integrators and distributors. Manufacturers may not have a clear picture of where the equipment is ultimately deployed. Without that visibility, national-scale vulnerability notification and co-ordinated response become very difficult. UK Finance has also drawn attention to the complexity of multi-tier supply chains and the need for clear accountability when regulatory reach extends upstream. The clause recognises that reality, but its effectiveness will depend on how consistently and predictably designation decisions are made across sectors. My concern is not about the existence of the power. It is about whether, in practice, the power will be used early enough and clearly enough to address shared OT risks before they become cross-sector incidents. Operational resilience today depends less on individual sites and more on the security practices of a relatively small— I would say very small—number of OT suppliers that sit behind them. The clause has the potential to address that, but only if its application is focused on genuine systemic risk and supported by clear signals to suppliers and operators alike. For those reasons, the clause warrants careful consideration as the Bill progresses.
- Hansard source
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Fourth sitting)
The clause is drafted broadly, which is understandable, but in practice many of the supply chains, as my hon. Friend has ably demonstrated, involve several layers of providers and sub-providers. I would welcome clarity on how regulators are expected to approach designation in these cases, so that responsibility is clear and preparation can happen upstream, rather than only after an incident.
- Hansard source
Female Genital Mutilation
Many of the practitioners who sell the heinous crime of female genital mutilation also sell exorcisms of children. Thousands of children have died from these so-called exorcisms over the past 10 years, including from the black African community here in the UK. Does the Solicitor General have any consideration of what needs to be done in the law to protect these children?
- Hansard source
Armed Conflict: Children
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) on securing this important debate. I also thank colleagues across the Chamber for their thoughtful contributions and interventions, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), who is not in her place now, but served as the special envoy for girls’ education during the last Government. I thank her for that. Children are not incidental victims of war. Increasingly, they are its deliberate targets. Whether through forced deportation, indoctrination, recruitment into armed groups or the destruction of schools and healthcare, children are being used as instruments of conflict. That should shame us all and it should compel action. I want to start with Ukraine, where the abuse of children has been systematic and calculated. Thousands of Ukrainian children—some estimates put the figure at more than 20,000—have been forcibly taken from their families and deported into Russia or Russian-occupied territory. Some were taken from orphanages and others removed from parents at gunpoint. Many are subjected to so-called re-education—stripped of their identity, language and nationality. Behind every statistic are a child, a family torn apart and a future placed deliberately out of reach. The UK has rightly condemned these crimes, but condemnation alone is not enough, so I ask the Minister these questions. What practical steps is the UK taking to support efforts to identify, track and return abducted Ukrainian children? Through which international partners are the Government principally working? What progress has been made on sanctions enforcement against the individuals and entities responsible for these deportations? We know that evidence exists, so what is holding up further designations? Finally on Ukraine, will the Minister update the House on how the UK is supporting international accountability mechanisms, including the ICC, to ensure that those who have committed crimes against children are brought to justice—not in theory, but in practice? I now turn to the middle east and an issue that requires care, seriousness and balance. Israel faces a real and ongoing security threat from Hamas, a terrorist organisation that cynically embeds itself among civilians and has itself committed grave abuses against children, including hostage taking and indoctrination. At the same time, children in Gaza have suffered enormously. Many have lost family members, homes and access to education. If we are serious about breaking cycles of conflict, we must look beyond the immediate crisis to what comes next. I want to touch on reconstruction and education. Schools are not just buildings; they are foundations of stability and hope, so what is the UK doing to press for the rebuilding of schools in Gaza once conditions allow? Which organisations and mechanisms are the Government principally working through, and how are they ensuring that planning for education recovery is happening now, rather than being left to become an afterthought? Education must never be a vehicle for hatred. There have long been serious concerns about elements of the Palestinian curriculum that risk inciting violence or glorifying extremism. UK taxpayers rightly expect our aid not to entrench these problems, so I ask the Minister this directly today. What pressure is the UK applying to the Palestinian Authority to secure root-and-branch curriculum reform? What specific benchmarks are being used, and what evidence, if any, is there of meaningful progress to date? How are UK-funded education programmes monitored to ensure that they promote peace, tolerance and co-existence? I now turn to Sudan and a crisis that all too often slips from the headlines but which represents one of the gravest humanitarian catastrophes in the world today, particularly for children. Children in Sudan are being killed, displaced, recruited by armed groups and denied access to basic healthcare and education. We know that girls face heightened risks of sexual violence. Entire communities have been uprooted. Humanitarian access remains dangerously constrained. The UK has spoken about leadership on Sudan, so I ask this. Where is that leadership now, and what concrete steps are the Government taking to secure humanitarian access? More broadly, across all these conflicts, children are paying the price for impunity. I ask the Minister about the Government’s overall approach to children in armed conflict: how is the UK ensuring that the protection of children is embedded in its diplomatic, development and defence policy—not siloed, not rhetorical, but operational? Finally, what assessment have the Government made of the long-term consequences of failing these children, not just for them but for global stability? Children who are denied safety, education and justice today are far more likely to inherit conflict tomorrow. The Conservative party has long been clear that protecting children in conflict is not optional; it is a moral duty and a strategic necessity. The UK has the diplomatic weight, legal expertise and moral standing to lead. Leadership requires consistency, urgency and follow up, and I urge the Government to match their words with decisive action.
- Hansard source
Lord Mandelson
I will touch on vetting in my contribution later, but as someone who was vetted by the Foreign Office many years ago, I would like to seek clarity as to whether Peter Mandelson went through the full vetting process that a normal member of the diplomatic service would undergo ahead of taking up such a post, or did he simply undergo what is known in political terms—in Chief Whip terms—as the “pet process” undertaken by the Cabinet Office, because full vetting takes a long time?
- Hansard source
Lord Mandelson
Does my hon. Friend agree that this boils down to judgment, whether it is the Prime Minister’s or that of others on the Government Benches? So much was known about Peter Mandelson even before he was appointed. Surely someone should have got their head out of the sand and said, “Hang on, folks. This isn’t right.”
- Hansard source
Lord Mandelson
All things being equal, would the hon. Gentleman have gone through the Aye Lobby or the No Lobby if a Division was called on the motion?
- Hansard source
Lord Mandelson
I think our motion was and is very clear, and we know how evidence and information are brought forward when it comes to the ISC. My question was very clear: would the hon. Gentleman have voted with us on the motion, or against it?
- Hansard source
Lord Mandelson
At the start of this afternoon, I sat through Prime Minister’s questions and did not really have any intention of taking part in this Opposition day debate. I quite often take part in what we call Oppo day debates, but I had other commitments in the diary. [Interruption.] This is not a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was asked to speak, was I not? Officials are looking at me rather perplexed. I had no intention of speaking in this debate. I sat through Prime Minister’s questions and listened to the Leader of the Opposition asking the Prime Minister direct questions. With each question that went by, it became clear that there were many questions that were not being answered and that the Government were attempting simply to sweep this issue to the side, and to deflect to other matters around the periphery. First, let me come to the Humble Address. I have not been in this place as long as some of my vintage colleagues—I say that in a very kind way—but I have a few scars to bear from my time as Chief Whip. [Interruption.] I never lost a vote, mind. The reason that I make that point is that I, like others in this place, know the significance of a Humble Address. A Humble Address is not used on a normal Opposition day debate. It is not used regularly and it is not used lightly. It is used to indicate that this is a very serious matter that we have brought to this House today. Initially, there were to be two debates, but because of the demand from those on the Opposition Benches to have the issue debated and discussed, the usual channels agreed to allow the debate to take all afternoon. Most scrutiny has come from Conservative Members, but I pay tribute to those on the Government Benches who have had the decency to explain to their Front-Bench team how they feel about this important matter. We heard earlier about the issue of national security. In opposition, when the Prime Minister was shadow Brexit Secretary back in 2018—I remember those days well—he proposed three separate Humble Addresses, and none of them included exemptions for national security. There was a suggestion that we got this wrong, but that is just not the case at all. I am pleased that the Government have listened, yet again, to their Back Benchers and brought forward a manuscript amendment, but were it not for Members on both the Opposition and Government Benches pushing them to do so, I do not think we would be in this position now.
- Hansard source
Lord Mandelson
My hon. Friend is just so right, and I will come to that point a little later. The core of this debate is the fact that we want answers. There are huge questions about the judgment of the Prime Minister and his appointment of Mandelson. Members from both sides of the House have talked a lot about the victims, and it is right that they have, but if we are to stand up for the victims and for the people who put us here—we should never forget that we were sent to this place—we need to ask the questions, and we deserve the answers. Opposition Members will continue to keep asking those questions, because that is what the public and the victims deserve. They deserve transparency and accountability. Earlier I made an intervention about the vetting process. I am not an expert on this at all, but it does seem strange to me that, arguably, Peter Mandelson did not appear to have been fully vetted—instead going through some strange checking process involving one piece of paper.
- Hansard source
Lord Mandelson
Absolutely. I will share something with the House today. I never set out to be a politician. I never in a million years expected to sit on these green Benches, but I did it to stand up for my local community, because I felt that they needed a voice. I might not get everything right—none of us do—but one thing I will do is strive to be a voice for those who put me in this place, and let us never forget that we were put here by others. Turning back to vetting, I would like the Minister to explain to us whether Peter Mandelson went through the exact same vetting process that a normal diplomat would have gone through if they were to take up the post in Washington. The role of UK ambassador to the US is one of the most important roles in our Foreign Office.
- Hansard source
Lord Mandelson
My right hon. Friend makes a really important. This is about probity and evidence and making sure, for the reputation of this country, that we are appointing the right people. I should declare that I once was a member of the diplomatic service, and I know that the people who serve our country as diplomats are of the highest integrity, and they have my trust. When it comes to making political appointments, as today’s debate has shown, there are still questions that need to be asked. The other thing that is rather strange is that everyone seemed to know that there were questions around Peter Mandelson. There were questions about the sort of person he was—I think he was once featured on “Spitting Image” as the Prince of Darkness—but where was the Prime Minister, and where was his judgment? Was his head stuck in the sand? We Conservative Members are aware that the Prime Minister had been glowing about the talents of Peter Mandelson. Only in February, he said at the British embassy in Washington: “Peter is the right person to help us work with President Trump and to take the special relationship from strength to strength”. We are aware that Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, pushed for Mandelson to become ambassador, sidelining long-serving experienced diplomats. We are aware that Keir Starmer assured MPs that “full due process” was followed—
- Hansard source
Lord Mandelson
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was getting a bit carried away there. The Prime Minister assured MPs that “full due process” was followed in his appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador. He appointed Peter Mandelson despite it already being in the public domain that Peter Mandelson had discussed issues relevant to his ministerial position with Jeffrey Epstein while Epstein was in jail. I could go on. Why did the Prime Minister choose to ignore all that, at a time when Members on both sides of the House know that the public are often scathing about politicians? They say that we are all the same, but I can assure them that we are not. They question our motives and our integrity. Some even refer to Members of this place as members of the establishment, which is something that I will always rail against. [Laughter.] No, no, I can absolutely see why they might say that. [Interruption.] Labour Members may mock, but the point is about integrity.
- Hansard source
Lord Mandelson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but you just get used to that sort of thing when you have been here for a while. We should never forget the people outside. We should never forget the Nolan principles. Conservative Members have explained the Nolan principles and their importance, which was perhaps needed by certain Labour Members. I urge the Government to do the right thing.
- Hansard source
Lord Mandelson
That is exactly the point. I do not think it is for me to answer those questions; it is for the Prime Minister to do so, but I will continue to question his judgment. How on earth did he come to appoint Peter Mandelson to this role? It is not just Conservative Members who are asking that; today, we have heard Labour Members asking questions. The Government Benches are quite full now, but the Conservatives led the charge on this topic. In Opposition day debates, I expect to see the Government Benches full, and I expect Labour Members to take points up, debate with us, and defend the position of their Government. How much have we seen of that today? Very little indeed.
- Hansard source
Lord Mandelson
It absolutely beggars belief. If we want to clean up politics, this sort of thing should not be allowed to happen. We know that politics are difficult, but this was down to the judgment of one person—or was it the judgment of others around that person? I urge Labour Members to do the right thing this evening and stand up for democracy, Parliament and decency.
- Hansard source
Postal Services: Rural Areas
I beg to move, That this House has considered postal services in rural areas. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Residents of rural areas such as South Shropshire deserve access to good postal services, which keep families and friends connected, businesses alive and people informed. The cost of a first-class stamp has almost doubled since 2020, and is now £1.70 a stamp, but my constituents believe that they are paying more and getting less for their services. I will therefore approach the debate in two parts: post offices, which are vital to my towns and villages; and the delivery services of Royal Mail. I will start with the Post Office, which is a vital part of the rural economy in South Shropshire. It provides a lifeline for many towns and villages. In some areas, the post office is the only shop for miles around and, increasingly, given banking closures, the only way to access cash. Post office services are available in branches such as Acton Burnell, Broseley, Alveley, Aston-on-Clun and Bishops Castle, as well as many more of my towns and villages. They play a central role in keeping rural communities connected. Since the election, I am delighted to say that I have campaigned successfully against the planned closures of post office services in South Shropshire, including Clunton and Clunbury—beautiful areas.
- Hansard source
Postal Services: Rural Areas
I look back fondly on the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and I realise that this is a problem across the country. It is a nationwide issue, as he rightly pointed out. I have also campaigned for the resumption of postal services in Cleobury Mortimer, which were closed in 2023, leaving the town without vital services. News on this front comes in no small part thanks to the efforts of a local resident, Ruth—I was delighted to meet her at an advice surgery recently. The efforts of Ruth and many others secured hundreds of signatures for a petition to keep the post office open in Cleobury. I am delighted to say that it was successful. The post office network is relied on to fill the gaps left by bank closures. As many services shift online, the post office has served as a lifeline for residents in rural areas who are not able to use the internet to pay bills or to access cash. A post office is vital for our nation’s elderly, helping the 2.3 million without internet access to stay connected to their family and friends. I will also continue to campaign against bank closures, and I look for more banking hubs in areas such as Church Stretton, which has just lost its Yorkshire building society branch and could really do with a banking hub. A few days ago, I was pleased to meet the residents group in Broseley. They wanted to discuss the changes that have happened to the post office on the High Street, which are concerning local residents. There have been a lot of changes, and the people of Broseley told me that they believe that the changes have had an impact not only on safety, in particular for elderly residents when withdrawing cash, but with a reduction in services, on the number of trained staff on the premises. I am asking the owners of Post Office to meet me and the Broseley residents to discuss that in more detail. I want to point out to the Minister that I have concerns about the Government consultation on post offices, which could have unintended consequences. That open-ended consultation, which closed on 6 October 2025, could remove the minimum branch requirements and leave the size of the network up to the Post Office. The last Labour Government cut the number of post offices by 38%: 7,166 post offices were closed between 1997 and 2010—more than one every single day. I have already said that they are a lifeline for my constituency and many others. The Conservative-led Government then introduced a 11,500 minimum service requirement in 2010. Since then, the post office network has remained at roughly 11,500. Now that Labour is back, it looks like our post offices could be under threat again. The Government’s consultation could lead to half of Britain’s post offices closing, including 19 individual branches in South Shropshire. The proposed changes could remove the requirement for 95% of people in rural areas, such as South Shropshire, to live within three miles of a post office. The changes could also phase out part-time mobile outreach services, which are vital in my constituency. They typically make up 14% of the total network in the areas that they serve, although they are open on average only seven hours per week.
- Hansard source
Postal Services: Rural Areas
The hon. Gentleman makes a brilliant point about an issue that affects rural areas, and I will come on to how Bishop’s Castle was impacted. There is no resilience in the system. If somebody is ill for a week, that area will not get those services. Data published by the Financial Conduct Authority shows that 93.5% of people in rural parts of South Shropshire live within three miles of a post office, but that falls to 86.8% when the mobile outreach branches are excluded. If those services are cut even more in my 700 square mile constituency, that will leave a huge gap.