Baby Loss
Order. The hon. Gentleman will know that we do not refer to Members by name in this place. That is the third time he has referred to the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest by her name.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Baby Loss
Order. The hon. Gentleman has had more than three minutes, and I want the Front Benchers to have some time to respond. I call Dave Robertson.
- Hansard source
Baby Loss
Order. That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions, which will perhaps be in the region of eight minutes each.
- Hansard source
Baby Loss
Order. I am sure that the hon. Lady will want to conclude her remarks very quickly.
- Hansard source
Baby Loss
Order. The hon. Lady must have misunderstood what I meant by “quickly”.
- Hansard source
Baby Loss
I call Andy MacNae to wind up.
- Hansard source
Long-term Empty Homes
8. What steps he is taking to bring long-term empty homes back into occupation.
- Hansard source
Long-term Empty Homes
I welcome the Minister to her new role. Will the Government consider introducing a policy whereby long-term empty properties brought back into use as homes will count towards a district’s housing target?
- Hansard source
Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case
The Government say that they want to take a long-term and strategic approach to China, but that is exactly what China does, whether we are talking about it increasing control over supply chains to gain leverage over the west, the belt and road programme, or the debt-trap diplomacy with which it is associated abroad. This is nothing less than a concession to an authoritarian regime, and it plays into China’s hands, as it wants to continue gaining economic and military leverage over the west. The head of the CPS said that he requested evidence from the Government to allow the case to proceed, but the Government did not provide that evidence. Why not, and is it still the Government’s view that it is impossible to argue in court that China is a threat?
- Hansard source
Digital ID
I am wholly opposed to this policy, as I know are many of my constituents. While the Government have talked about the so-called economic benefits of accessing services and digitalising how we interact with Government, my constituents are concerned about infringements on liberty and the shifting relationship between the individual and the state. The state must always be accountable to the individual. Can the Secretary of State rule out this system ever becoming one through which the Government can track location, consumer spending habits or social media activity?
- Hansard source
Manchester Terrorism Attack
In the wake of the terrorist attack in Heaton Park, I am very proud to say that Belmont shul, in my constituency, hosted a Shabbat service following a meeting of the Harrow Interfaith council at which representatives of all religions stood together with the Jewish community to say that hatred will not be allowed to win. On the previous Friday, however, I was horrified to receive frantic phone calls, just before Shabbat started, saying that none of the synagogues had had contact from the police about what would happen the following day. After some frantic phone calls, the police said, “We can do drive-bys and various other things, but we can’t have a permanent presence at the shuls on Shabbat.” The reason was the Palestine Action demonstration in central London, at which the police knew they would have to arrest perpetrators supporting proscribed organisations. My constituents, and those across London, are fed up with paying for these hate marches and hate demonstrations to take place. In addition to changing the routes, the meeting places and the times that these demonstrations can take place, how about another suggestion? If people want to organise these hate demonstrations, let them have the bill for the policing.
- Hansard source
Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case
The problem that the Government have is that the story keeps changing, either each day or within a day. The right hon. Gentleman, who is obviously stating the Government’s position now, is giving us a view that completely contradicts the messages given by Ministers over the weekend. He has clearly referred to a huge number of meetings at which—I say this with the greatest respect—he was not present. Can he agree now that the content of all those meetings, and the minutes of those meetings, will be published, so that everyone in the House can understand what has happened? If that has to be done under certain rules so that the public do not have access to the information, fair enough; but the reality is that until such time as the Government come clean, the stench of this will continue.
- Hansard source
Digital ID
The people of Mid Bedfordshire, in response to my survey, said that they do not want digital ID, and nor do I. Does the Secretary of State agree that the individual freedoms of British people are an unacceptable price to pay for failures to enforce existing laws, protect our borders and stop illegal working? Will she please answer how much this will cost? If she does not know at this moment in time, is it responsible of her to be pushing it?
- Hansard source
Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case
Last month, the Security Minister came before the House and stated that he was not happy with the decision not to prosecute. I asked him why the Government were dithering over formally challenging China, having excluded it from the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, and he suggested that they were not doing so. Subsequent revelations have suggested that the Government have yielded to Chinese threats to withhold investment, and to offers to waive the outstanding debt owed to Jingye. Would the Minister like to correct the record and explain why China is not in the enhanced tier, given that we are discussing spying for China? Can he clarify what role the National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, has played in deciding that China should not be classified in the enhanced tier alongside Russia and Iran?
- Hansard source
Digital ID
I am firmly against the Government’s plans to introduce digital ID, which is alarming state overreach. This pledge—seemingly made on a whim, given that it made no appearance in the Labour manifesto and there is no mandate for it—seems to be a desperate attempt to shore up Labour’s moribund pledge to smash the gangs. There appears to be little appetite or enthusiasm for this proposal on the Government Benches, and the claim that it will curb illegal immigration, when we are still offering asylum seekers somewhere to live and an asylum support enablement card of £49.18 a week, is not supported by the evidence. Having received a huge amount of correspondence on this matter, I ask the Secretary of State what guarantees she can give my constituents that the scheme can be afforded, that their data will be safe, and that the scheme will be never used to track their use of services.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Residents of Rutland overwhelmingly want to join Stamford, but the council is pressing ahead with an unwanted Leicestershire merger; residents of South Kesteven do not want to join a mega Lincolnshire council, but are being pushed towards it; and in Leicestershire my constituents do not want a Leicester city takeover. What reassurance will the Government give that democracy will not die under these reforms, and that local people’s voices will be heard?
- Hansard source
Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case
The integrated review refresh, which stated that the Chinese Communist party posed a threat to our people and our security, was in fact published the very day that these two men were arrested. But that in itself is a red herring, because the Bulgaria case proved that it is for a jury to decide whether a country is or could be a threat, and it is not for the Government alone to prove that. The Minister told the House in response to our urgent question that the Government demanded that the Chinese chargé d’affaires come in for the démarche. Did a Minister do that, or did an official do it? Secondly, given that the House has been told how disappointed the Government are with this outcome and that they seem to be quite clear about the evidence of guilt, what repercussions are they choosing to put on the Chinese Communist party? Will they be cancelling the joint economic and trade commission? Will they be putting in place sanctions? Will they be banning the embassy? If they will not act, why not?
- Hansard source
Ambassador to the United States
Let us be crystal clear: this emergency debate is about honesty, integrity and the credibility of this Labour Government. It is about what the Prime Minister knew about Lord Mandelson’s links to Jeffrey Epstein, and when he knew it. The public deserve the truth, but instead they have been treated to evasion, delay and, as my constituents have been clear, a cover-up. The decision to appoint Lord Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to the US was extraordinary. The links between Mandelson and Epstein were well known, as we have heard this afternoon. The vetting process surely should have raised red flags, yet the Prime Minister—yes, the Prime Minister—oversaw the appointment. Where is he today? He is perhaps happier to talk to the BBC than at the Dispatch Box. The Prime Minister told us himself that he had “confidence in” Lord Mandelson, even as the questions mounted and the damning Bloomberg emails were about to surface. That surely was not an accident; it was a choice, and one that goes to the heart of the Prime Minister’s judgment. Let us remind ourselves what the emails revealed: Mandelson offering words of support to a convicted paedophile. Those were not casual contacts but sustained and deeply troubling links. Yet when the Prime Minister was pressed on what he knew, his story shifted: first, perhaps ignorance; then an awareness of media inquiries; and then the claim that he had not seen the contents of the emails until the last moment. All the while, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff was in touch with Lord Mandelson for “much of the day” before PMQs. Which is it? The House deserves answers to the most basic questions about a scandal engulfing the Prime Minister and his former ambassador. The lapse is not isolated, however. Two of the Prime Minister’s most senior appointments have unravelled in recent weeks. It seems to me that Labour likes to lecture us all about integrity, but in little more than a year in office it is mired in scandal, putting loyalty to insiders ahead of the basic decency that the public rightly expect. While the Government tie themselves in knots, our country faces grave challenges. Last week, Russian drones crossed into Polish airspace, testing NATO’s resolve. Bond rates here at home have hit their highest level in 30 years. Illegal migrant boat crossings reached record numbers in 2025. In the west midlands, bin strikes roll into their sixth month, while Labour MPs from that city and region sit silent. In my constituency, swathes of our precious green belt are under siege because of Labour’s planning reforms. Those are the issues that my constituents expect this place to be focused on. Instead, the Prime Minister is distracted by a scandal of his own making. To get back to the central question, what must happen now? I think the answer is simple. The Mandelson-Epstein files must be released in full, urgently and without caveats. That means the two-page vetting document and the evidence behind it; all correspondence between the chief of staff and Lord Mandelson; the communications between the Foreign Office, No.10 and our embassy in Washington about the Bloomberg files; and any other documents presented to the Prime Minister in making the appointment. This House and the public we serve have a right to see them. Recess will be upon us within hours, but this scandal cannot and must not be sent into recess in the hope that this failing Government can sweep it under the carpet. The longer that Labour refuses to publish the files, the more damning the conclusion becomes, and the more damaging it is to democracy in our country and to the trust of the public. The Labour party went into last year’s election on a slogan of change, but every day it is demonstrating that it is change for the worse. At a moment when we should be projecting clarity, strength and integrity on the world stage, we are instead led by a Prime Minister who is distracted by scandal and paralysed by poor judgment. It is time to end the rumour, publish the files and finally put the country before narrow party interests—nothing less will do.
- Hansard source
Employment Rights: Impact on Businesses
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the flaws in the impact assessment—there has been wider commentary supporting that point. Does he agree that one of the issues is the accumulation of different aspects of the Bill? For example, not only will there be more hooks for grievances to be based on, but the removal of the 50% threshold for strike action makes it easier for strikes to follow as a result of those grievances. That is at odds with what Ministers themselves have said. For example, when the British Medical Association went on strike, the Health Secretary criticised the low turnout in the ballot, yet this Bill makes it easier to take strike action on some of those more dubious grievances.
- Hansard source
Employment Rights: Impact on Businesses
I join colleagues in welcoming the Minister to her place. She said in her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) that there would not be an additional cost, but the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services has raised concerns about the additional costs and the funding gap, given that it will fall on local authorities and will therefore, in turn, require Government support. Could she clarify what she expects to be the extra cost of the Bill in terms of social care?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Prison officers at Whitemoor prison in my constituency have raised concerns that the recruitment process for staff is not working effectively and is unduly bureaucratic. Will the Secretary of State write to me with his assessment and look at what changes could be made?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
As Ministers will know, some rogue builders take thousands of pounds from people, wreck their homes and leave them while they go on to do the same to other victims, yet victims are told that no crime has been committed. Will the ministerial team look at the notion of fraud when a pattern of such behaviour can be evidenced?
- Hansard source
Ambassador to the United States
Does my right hon. Friend recall that on 21 November last, the Prime Minister was challenged to rule out appointing Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the United States on the grounds that he had said Ukraine would have to give up all the land Russia had occupied and that it must give up any hope of ever joining NATO in return for some unspecified security guarantees? The Prime Minister said he would not be tempted to comment on the possibility of his being appointed ambassador, and as he said it he had a very noticeable little smirk on his face. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister is not smirking about this matter any more?
- Hansard source
Ambassador to the United States
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have seen a rapid transformation from the Prince of Darkness into a grovelling Lord Yum Yum? One has to ask, why was the British Prime Minister surprised? Had he never heard the tale of the turtle and the scorpion that meet at the side of the river? Should the Prime Minister not have realised that the poor old scorpion simply cannot help what is in its nature?
- Hansard source
Ambassador to the United States
Will the Minister give way?
- Hansard source
Ambassador to the United States
Given that the Minister is such a decent Minister, who enjoys respect on both sides of the House, I am tempted to repeat the advice that Lloyd George gave to Churchill during the Norway debate of 1940, which is not to make himself an air raid shelter to protect his colleagues—in this case, the Prime Minister—from the splinters. If the Prime Minister’s case is as strong as the Minister makes out, can he explain why, if I remember correctly, only a single Labour Back Bencher has made a speech in the Prime Minister’s favour?
- Hansard source
Sentencing Bill
I was struck by the example that my right hon. Friend gave of someone who committed a vicious assault getting only 12 months, and now getting no months and no prison time at all. Of course, it could work the other way round: it could be that when a judge is forced to confront the fact that if he gives a sentence of only 12 months for a vicious attack the prisoner will walk free, he will feel that he must make the sentence somewhat longer—in which case the Government’s plan to free up a prison space will not even work, will it?
- Hansard source
Sentencing Bill
Naturally, I had assumed that if people were not going to serve short sentences, in many cases they would be tagged. It is worrying to hear what the hon. Member is saying about Serco’s performance. Is he saying that effectively the people being tagged are not being properly monitored? In which case, does that not bring the viability of the whole system into question?
- Hansard source
Sentencing Bill
Will the hon. Gentleman just remind the House with whom the Conservatives were in coalition for several years when they started their 14-year term?
- Hansard source
Sentencing Bill
Despite the party political edge to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s remarks, I want to ask him a serious question. Presumably there need to be safeguards to ensure that when people are deported before they have served their sentences, those sentences will be served in the country to which they are deported. Can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House what sort of guarantees there will be that these people will not get off scot-free after deportation? I am sure that there must be some such safeguards.
- Hansard source
Sentencing Bill
I am trying to go along with the thrust of the hon. Lady’s argument, but I just wonder whether it is as absolute as she suggests. Admittedly, people who undergo short sentences may be repeat offenders, and that is particularly true of shoplifters, for example, as we have heard. However, if a store is a victim of the same shoplifter over and over again, to be relieved of that shoplifter raiding the premises even for a period of eight or 10 months must be some sort of salvation, must it not?
- Hansard source
Ambassador to the United States
There have been some powerful speeches from both sides of the House, and it is apparent that everybody is agreed that Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed as ambassador to Washington. It matters because ambassadors are critically important to our nation. They are the leaders in projecting our soft power. They are viewed as embodiments of the United Kingdom, and it is them who influence very largely how the UK is perceived. As has been said, we have had some really good ambassadors to the United States, going back to the late Sir Christopher Meyer, who I knew well and who did a terrific job, Lord Kim Darroch, and Dame Karen Pierce. Sometimes there have even been good political appointments. There was a certain amount of controversy when Peter Jay was appointed US ambassador—he was the son-in-law of the Prime Minister—but he did a reasonable job. Ed Llewellyn became our ambassador to Paris, and now to Rome, and has done a terrific job. As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), pointed out, because Ed Llewellyn’s appointment was a political one, he was interrogated by the Select Committee. As she said, the Committee, on which I serve, has attempted numerous times to have Peter Mandelson appear. We were told, in the Foreign Office’s most recent letter to the Chair, that the Committee would have the opportunity to talk to him on a visit to Washington. I was at both meetings, so I can say that the first was a briefing about the state of American politics when we first arrived, and the second was a breakfast at which he hosted opinion-formers to discuss with us what was happening in the US Capitol. At no stage did we have any opportunity to cross-examine or ask Peter Mandelson the questions that we would have asked had he appeared before the Committee. It is ridiculous to suggest that those meetings somehow compensated for his failure to appear.
- Hansard source
Ambassador to the United States
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It was important that we had that opportunity. Had we done so, the questions being asked now could have been asked then, and we could have explored rather more why the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson was taken—it is still causing bewilderment to a large number of people. As has been said, it is now apparent that he should never have been appointed. I will not recap what my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and many others have said about his record, his previous resignations and his unsavoury links, all of which should have rung every alarm bell.
- Hansard source
Ambassador to the United States
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Actually, the two are related, because we can determine the lessons learned and decide what to do in the future only if we know what went wrong this time. In order to know, we must obtain the answers to our questions. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee set out and ran through a number of important questions in her contribution, and we have now had an answer from the Foreign Office. She referred to the letter that was sent to her. What we know from the letter—it does not tell us much—is, first, that the Foreign Office had nothing really to do with this. It says that the appointment was carried out following the propriety and ethics committee investigation, which was carried out in the Cabinet Office. The Foreign Office was then told of that and instructed to appoint Lord Mandelson as ambassador. After his appointment was announced, the FCDO started the ambassadorial appointment process, including national security vetting. National security vetting—deep vetting—has been referred to. We need to know what that says, but we are told by the Foreign Office that national security vetting is independent of Ministers, who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome. Essentially, the Foreign Office appears to be saying, “Well, we were told about his past, but we were not told anything about what was uncovered, about the questions that were asked or about his answers.” Yet this is someone who already had very serious offences against him, which had caused him to resign twice, and real question marks about his record as European Commissioner and about some of his friendships. All of those questions must, one assumes, have been asked during deep vetting, yet he passed. The final outcome was, “Fine, he can be appointed.” The Foreign Office was told that but was not given any other detail. Frankly, I find that completely astonishing. It raises even more serious questions about the deep vetting process and what it showed, and why, if Ministers were not given any detail about what the process uncovered, they did not ask any questions about it. I look forward to the Minister addressing that in his response.
- Hansard source
Ambassador to the United States
I give way to another fellow member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
- Hansard source
Ambassador to the United States
The hon. Gentleman asks valid questions. We need to have the answers to them all. I know that he will join me in urging the Foreign Affairs Committee to continue pressing this case. It may well be that another body—perhaps the Liaison Committee, which has the opportunity to interrogate the Prime Minister—will also pursue these matters. As has been said several times, this will not go away. There is real anger across this House and across the country, and people will demand answers. The Committee attempted today to try to put those questions by summoning two members of the Foreign Office and the Cabinet Office, but we were told that neither was available. I can tell the House that I have some experience in summoning people who do not wish to appear before Select Committees—there is a procedure—and I hope that, when we return after recess, the Committee will pursue these matters and will require Ministers to appear, and that if they refuse, we will see what other actions can be taken. These are very serious matters. The questions have been asked, but the answers have not been forthcoming so far. We will go on pursuing this until they are.
- Hansard source
International Day of Democracy
I remind Members that they need to bob to catch my eye—I can see they are already doing that. Let us try to get everyone in by limiting the length of speeches. I will not set a limit; I will leave that to Members’ discretion. I call Liz Saville Roberts.
- Hansard source
International Day of Democracy
I am going to call people for the wind-ups just before 10.30 am. You can see what time it is, so let us try to get everyone in—be powerful and pithy, please.
- Hansard source
International Day of Democracy
I call Tom Morrison. Pithy please, Tom.
- Hansard source
International Day of Democracy
I call Lizzi Collinge. There are two after you, Lizzi, so bear that in mind.