Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting)

   Q You are about to see that even though there was a south coast derby between Southampton and Portsmouth, we still can talk very politely, Ms Vaz—it was very boring, ending 0-0. Welcome back, Mayor Brabin; I wanted to ask about some of the evidence we heard earlier from the District Councils’ Network. There was a concern that the legislation could undermine some of the traditional links between the public and their parish and town councils. I will ask for a brief answer, because I am aware that there are other Members who want to ask questions. For the two existing mayors, can you give an example of how you have managed to encapsulate the views of town and parish councils to help to guide you through your mayoral term, and whether there are any lessons that could be learned? Donna, have you started to think about how you will encapsulate that and make sure that people are listened to on a ground level politically? Tracy Brabin: We have not been subject to much of that larger reorganisation, but we are determined to listen to the voices of others, whether through mayor’s question time, going out to the public, where councillors and individuals can ask any question, or “Message the Mayor” on the BBC, where anybody can ring in and ask any question. That also includes working with our voluntary, community and social enterprise sector, whether that is on the mayor’s cost of living fund, or working with smaller organisations on the impact in their communities, towns and villages. I would hope there would be a consensus in West Yorkshire that people felt heard. I know for a lot of people there will be a sense that there is potentially a power grab and powers are going in the wrong direction. I absolutely believe that this is localism in its pure sense, because these people are elected by the public—275,000 people voted for a Labour mayor in West Yorkshire. You have that mandate. We have skin in the game. We know our communities, businesses, further education colleges, universities, innovators and entrepreneurs. We can definitely deliver for villages, towns and cities in our patch. Ben Houchen: The honest answer is that, with the development of combined authorities and regional mayors, and a lot of reorganisation going on at county council level, as well as lots of unitaries—Teesside was one of the first unitary areas, many years ago—there are a lot of people looking over their shoulders at what reorganisation might mean. I say this as a previous town councillor and a former unitary councillor: I am not hugely convinced of town and parish council involvement at a regional level. There is a more fundamental question that should be asked around the modern need for town and parish councils in their current form. That is obviously well above my pay grade, and I am sure you will be considering that at some point in the future. It is not something I personally foresee getting much traction or involvement at a combined authority level.

   Hansard source
2. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting)

   I thought you might say that—thank you. Donna Jones: I have represented my two counties, with 2.2 million people, for four and a bit years now. It is tough, because I have two large geographical counties; it would take me three and a half hours to travel from north to south of my patch, and I know colleagues have the same issue. If you are doing your job well and you are delivering, the press—the media, radio and TV—is your best friend. The power of being able to work with the press to get out the good news of what you are doing is very impactful. For mayors who have police under them, if the police are delivering and helping, that is another way of getting messaging out there. On parish and town councils, I think that in my area, the rub will come with local government reorganisation, which thankfully is a year or two behind devolution—or planned to be one year behind it. I am trying to very clearly separate the two: this is about spending and more power to our elbow in Hampshire and the Solent, and that is about how we save money through local government reorganisation. If I was still a unitary authority leader, facing the prospect of moving from 15 councils in my area to perhaps four or five, I would be consulting on parish and town councils, if we did not have them in the area that I represented. When you have four very large unitary authorities across a county such as Hampshire, which has 1.8 million people, the nucleus of your council becomes much further away from the village or town that you live in. Therefore, from a democratic perspective, getting things at that lower level to give real buy-in will be key.

   Hansard source
3. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting)

   Hear, hear! Professor Denham: So I am familiar with town and parish councils, and there are some very good ones, including in Mr Holmes’s constituency. But they are not uniform everywhere within the area, so a single prescriptive approach is unlikely to work. There has also been, in the last 10 or 15 years, a transformation in our understanding of deliberative, participative engagement with local communities by many local authorities. We need both the strategic authorities and the unitary authorities to set out, in a document that should be challengeable, how they propose to do that. I think that would be useful. Secondly—I will embarrass her—Zoë has written the best policy paper on local public accounts committees, so I will not say any more about that, except that I agree with Gareth Davies in an earlier panel: the challenge here is not local council audit, but the whole of public spending across a mayoral area. I was delighted to see the new Secretary of State backing the concept of total place, which is something I was involved in as a Minister 15 years ago; but, if that is going to work, you cannot combine that with upwards accountability to departmental accounting officers. Local authority scrutiny has very good people, but it is not up to the job. You have to create a new local institution, the local public accounts committee and, picking up on what Mayor Houchen said earlier, make the chief executive within the area the local accounting officer. So you have a complete audit model at local level that is not then channelled upwards through departmental accounting officers. I think that is what we need to work towards. Those two things would not only empower local people, but ensure that you have local scrutiny of what is being spent and what is being done with their money.

   Hansard source
4. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting)

   Q Minister, welcome to your role. I know that you have not been in it for very long, so well done for getting through today; it has been a joint effort, I think. Do you think that you have inherited a disjointed mess from your predecessors? On the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and now this Bill, all parties on the Committee—the Liberals, the Greens and us Conservatives—had concerns, quite frankly, about the disjointed nature of some of the reforms brought forward by this Government. For example, it is arguable that the Government are giving power to regional mayors, but taking power away from planning committees. There has been a hard target of half a million in local government reform, but now that is a soft target, and planning is being devolved, but also centralised on an unprecedented scale by the Government in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. I would like to angle in on two issues. I think it is fair to say that most witnesses today have said that there has been confusion and doubt about the benefits, and there have been some concerns about the disjointed nature of planning reforms. I do not think I have seen before a Government bring forward two major pieces of legislation that, maybe unintentionally, deliver completely different things. My first question is: has your Department done any analysis or assessments on how much will be saved in local government from the unitarisation and devolution measures that you are introducing? Miatta Fahnbulleh: First, no, I do not think I have inherited a disjointed mess from my predecessor. Candidly, we are having to fix 15 years of another Government making a complete mess of the local government landscape. To the extent that these are big reforms and that we are having to drive through some big changes simultaneously, that is a function of where the Conservative party—and the hon. Member and his colleagues—left us. On the specific question about local government reorganisation, yes, savings are part of this, but it is much bigger than that. Ultimately—I think this came out really clearly in all the evidence sessions—this is about delivering better services and better outcomes for communities. It is about dealing with the fact that the landscape of local government is currently fragmented. It is about dealing with the fact that we do not have sufficient alignment around different types of services that we need to bring together in order to deliver the outcomes for communities. It is about ensuring that we are aggregating our resources and driving through efficiencies. It is about all of that. Candidly, when you speak to communities, they do not know who in their local area is responsible for what, so we have to strengthen that sense of accountability. The reforms go back to what works in service of communities. That is driving us. We are very clear that where we are is not where we need to be. If you speak to communities, they are clear that the landscape does not serve them in the way that they need it to, and that is what these reforms are trying to drive though. Yes, it is about efficiency savings, but it is a much bigger agenda than that.

   Hansard source
5. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting)

   Q Thank you, Minister. On the point about 14 years of the last Government, the situation that was left by them was that planning committees, elected by local people, were still making decisions on behalf of the people who elected them. That is questionable under both aspects of the major legislation going forward. Can I just drill down again, as you have not answered the question: has your Department done any analysis on estimated savings from the unitarisation of local authorities across England, and the devolution measures that you have put forward to the House today? Miatta Fahnbulleh: There is a big evidence base that sits behind the proposals, and an impact assessment that sits alongside this piece of legislation. Ultimately, we have taken an approach of asking places to come forward with proposals. That is the right approach because, in the end, it is about places and communities. A locality must make the decision about what works for their communities. It is quite hard to have a full and comprehensive assessment until you have that set of proposals. It is a function of the approach that we have taken, but I do not think a single Committee member would say that we should have just imposed boundaries across the country rather than go to communities and say, “What is the boundary that makes sense for you that will deliver the outcomes that we need for your communities?”

   Hansard source
6. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting)

   Q Thank you, Minister. The Government’s stated aim is to unitarise every local authority in England, so I would have thought there would be some indication of the savings for the Government, because there is a set level for the number of layers of government across England—

   Hansard source
7. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting)

   I have one more question, if I may. We will move on, because it is clear that there was no assessment of the spending. On 16 December 2024, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) sent a letter to local authority leaders setting out a target of 500,000 people per local authority. On 3 June, he said that that was a set principle and that any local authority that wanted to go above or below it would need to set out a clear rationale. On 20 July, he said that he continued to be asked about the 500,000 target, indicating the concern and confusion among local government leaders. Do you think that the Government have behaved in the right way to ensure an efficient and streamlined consultation process for local government leaders in the country? Miatta Fahnbulleh: Councillor Craig summed it up perfectly: the 500,000 was an indication of the type of scale that we thought makes sense for the outcomes that we are trying to achieve. I go back to the need to deal with fragmentation, the alignment of services and, fundamentally, the impact for communities on the ground. Ultimately, though, there has to be some give within that. It has to be aligned with the existing institutions and with what local communities believe is the right geography to deliver the outcomes they want. I think that we have been consistent, and I understand that my predecessor was pretty consistent. People ask whether it is 10,000 or 1 million; the 500,000 gives an indication. But part of the devolution process is about empowering places to use their judgment to come up with the right outcomes, and that is what we are trying to do. We have given an indication but, ultimately, we want proposals to come forward from places that say, “We can achieve the scale in the geography that makes sense to deliver the outcomes for our communities.” In the end, that is what this is all about.

   Hansard source
8. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (First sitting)

   In case we do not get to it this afternoon, Donna Jones, one of the witnesses, is a personal friend of mine.

   Hansard source
9. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (First sitting)

   Q Good morning, everybody. I want to go back to something that was touched on by the previous panel. We are going through simultaneous restructuring of local government and setting up the strategic authorities, and in her questions the Minister has outlined that the 500,000-people target for LGR was never a hard target; it was a soft target. That is not my recollection of when local authorities were approached in quite a speedy way to make sure we went through the LGR. My question is for all three of you: has there been a change of emphasis on that target from the early conversations that you had with a Minister, albeit a previous one? Do you think there has been a change in Government emphasis on the size, and how has that added to the confusion and the challenges of setting up these strategic authorities as the Bill goes forward? Kevin Bentley: Yes, I certainly thought that was a hard target. Most colleagues thought it was a target to hit. It changed. It is important that we listen to people; lobbying was done around that and the Government listened to people. Those who do not change their mind never change anything, as Churchill would say, so it is important that the change took place, but it did cause confusion about what they meant. For me, evidence leads the way. When we went into this in Essex, I was very clear that the evidence would tell us the shape and size of unitary authorities, and we would not set the number of unitary authorities and then make the evidence fit. That is what we have done. We are certainly doing that in the business case, and I believe other colleagues have done the same thing. It did cause confusion, and there was a lot of head scratching in the system to see whether we could test whether it was below, on, or above 500,000. To me, rules are there for the guidance of wise people, and the evidence leads the way. Bev Craig: In my recollection, the Minister was always clear. Some of the questions arose with the conveying of that from colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. At times, the sector felt desperate for a literal prescription, because until that point that was the kind of relationship we had had with Government. It had been quite some time since the Government had come to us and said, “Hey, come and be creative in terms of how these needs reflect your place.” The 500,000 figure has helped people to understand that the programme of reform does not work if what is created is even more local authorities, each with 180,000 people. So we have taken on the guidance but it has become more clear as we move through the programme that this is indicative rather than prescriptive. I think the reality is about having sensible footprints, where services can be delivered at an economy of scale that helps services to perform well, can work with the strategic authority, and still speak to a sensible place that people can identify with. That is complicated; if it were easy, we would have done this before 1974. Matthew Hicks: The size of the new unitary models really does matter; it is critical. Half of the members of the CCN are unitary authorities, and we see the benefits that this has brought, including large recurring savings, which is a big consideration. It also puts in place more sustainable structures. Back in February, the CCN supported the guidance in the invitation letters; we saw this as a means of reorganisation, with the numbers and the scale being about right for a sustainable long-term future. I do think that some elements have been undermined by inconsistent messaging over recent months. The stated ambition for new unitary councils was that they would cover a population of about half a million or more. We saw similar issues coming up around social care and using existing council boundaries. There have been mixed messages around the building blocks of the new unitaries. That inconsistent and slightly unhelpful messaging has led to a situation that will probably make life harder for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, because we are now seeing a significant increase in the number of business cases coming forward, and that will make it more difficult for MHCLG to scrutinise. If we look at Suffolk now, we are going to have one application for three unitaries of 250,000 each, which is really very small, with new boundaries. So I think the mixed messaging will create more work for MHCLG, because it is important that it looks at the detail and the data, and that its decision is based on evidence, not just politically driven.

   Hansard source
10. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (First sitting)

    Q I have a quick follow-up question, particularly to Councillor Hicks: would it be fair to say that the policy on the local government reorganisation is a soft target, certainly, but it was portrayed as a hard target to local authority leaders at the time? Matthew Hicks: We certainly felt in the beginning that Suffolk, with a population of 750,000, was right in the middle of the range and would be an ideal candidate for one unitary.

    Hansard source
11. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (First sitting)

    Q I am pleased that you have mentioned the GLA, Ms Riddell, because it relates to a question that I want to ask you both. Mr Fletcher, you are absolutely right to say that this, as well as local government reorganisation, was not in the governing party’s manifesto. I therefore think that it is right that we try to make the policy work as best we can through scrutiny mechanisms such as this Committee. In London, there are structural and spatial planning powers and business powers that are currently operable and invested in the GLA and the London mayoralty. For example, the GLA has a scrutinising mechanism and a housing role, and the mayor has business retention powers and spatial planning powers. We have seen housing delivery fall under the current administration in London, and we have seen recent announcements that London is essentially a no-go investment area for many relevant organisations. Given the—I would argue—perceived failure in policy delivery in London, what lessons can we learn when the Government are attempting to replicate a structure in London that is not working elsewhere? Ion Fletcher: In general terms, it is helpful that London has its London plan and its spatial development strategy. The London plan was also the first to acknowledge the important role of build-to-rent housing—housing developed and managed specifically for rental purposes—and was a pioneer in protecting logistics in industrial space, so it does have those positives. The other side of the coin is that the London plan, in the view of our members, has become too long and too repetitive of policies that already exist either at a national level or at a local borough level. One of our members recently did some analysis and worked out that you could consolidate or eliminate roughly half the policies in the London plan in the latest iteration, so there is definitely scope for simplification. The lesson I would draw is that the new strategic authority should be focusing on the strategic stuff rather than getting too much into the development control side of things, which ultimately adds uncertainty and cost to the planning process. Catriona Riddell: I totally agree. The national decision-making policies that will soon come forward will help to strip out a lot of what is in the London plan. The idea behind spatial development strategies—this new model—is that they will be very high-level, they will not be very long, and they certainly will not be the London plan model. There is still a difference in terms of governance and decision making in London, and there still will be after the Bill. The decision making for the spatial development strategy in London—the London plan—sits with the mayor. I think a two-thirds majority of the GLA is needed to overturn that, whereas under the strategic authorities it would be a majority vote in most cases. There is a difference with the mayors under the Bill, and other places will have less power. One of the challenges for London and many other parts of the country is that the planning system has been overburdened with a lot of red tape and regulation that sits not within planning, but within building control or other regulatory systems. That has been one of the big blockages for the market in London. There is no doubt that that has had a knock-on impact right across the board. Stripping out some of the regulation that does not sit within planning, and making planning simpler, will help. I think the London plan has changed things significantly; in its 25 years, it has shown that it has actually been able to deliver. I do not think that it is the London plan that is the problem; it is the delivery end of things, which the mayor is facing at the moment. That is where the challenge is.

    Hansard source
12. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Nick Timothy

    Ambassador to the United States

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
13. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Ambassador to the United States

    Order. We have a substantial speaking list and this debate is time-limited to three hours, so Back Benchers are on a six-minute speaking limit. I call John Slinger.

    Hansard source
14. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Ambassador to the United States

    I call the Father of the House, Sir Edward Leigh.

    Hansard source
15. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Ambassador to the United States

    Order. Colleagues—there are children in the Gallery. Let us keep our language tempered and ensure that we are being moderate in everything we say.

    Hansard source
16. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Ambassador to the United States

    Order. I assume that everyone who is bobbing wishes to contribute—there seems to be a lot of movement in the Chamber.

    Hansard source
17. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Ambassador to the United States

    Order. I remind Members to temper their speeches. We do not, at any point, accuse other Members of dishonesty. I know that the next Member to speak will get that right.

    Hansard source
18. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Ambassador to the United States

    That is the end of the Back-Bench contributions. Colleagues who have spoken should be making their way back to the Chamber.

    Hansard source
19. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Ambassador to the United States

    Order. I can barely hear the Minister speak.

    Hansard source
20. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Ambassador to the United States

    Is it really a point of order?

    Hansard source
21. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Ambassador to the United States

    That is not a matter for the Chair. It is entirely up to the Minister if he wishes to give way or not.

    Hansard source
22. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Ambassador to the United States

    I hope it is a proper point of order.

    Hansard source
23. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Ambassador to the United States

    I have heard enough. That is not a point of order.

    Hansard source
24. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Ambassador to the United States

    I call David Davis to wind up the debate.

    Hansard source
25. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Sentencing Bill

    That is the end of the Back-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister.

    Hansard source
26. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Sentencing Bill

    Order. “You” and “your”—it has to stop, Dr Mullan.

    Hansard source
27. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Sentencing Bill

    I see that we have a fresh Minister, whom I congratulate and welcome to the Dispatch Box. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

    Hansard source
28. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Police: Professional Standards

    Mr Shannon, I was beginning to get a little bit anxious, but finally you are on your feet.

    Hansard source
29. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Ambassador to the United States

    Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this important emergency debate, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) on securing it. My right hon. Friend made a series of excellent points, as did the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). I agree with all those points. It is extraordinary that, on the eve of the President’s state visit, we are talking about the US ambassador who has been sacked in scandal. There are many unanswered questions, and I will be asking many of them, but today the Prime Minister needs to do three things. The Prime Minister needs to come clean about what he knew and when he knew it—not send his junior Ministers to cover for him. The Prime Minister needs to publish the Mandelson-Epstein files in full. The Prime Minister needs to take responsibility for the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to Washington. But the Prime Minister is not here, because he is hiding from Parliament and hiding from questions. I know that he is a busy man, but confidence in him and in his Government rests on him being able to account for what happened, and so far no one is taking any responsibility. We have had our ambassador in the US sacked over his relationship with a man convicted of child sex offences. What is more—this tells us everything we need to know—this was an appointment apparently forced through by the Prime Minister and/or his chief of staff. We have seen a political ally pushed ahead of qualified candidates because the Prime Minister and Morgan McSweeney admired his talent for mixing with the rich and powerful, despite his known links to a man who was publicly known as a convicted paedophile and a convicted sex trafficker. Given the speeches we have heard and everything that is in the public domain, it is now very clear that Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed. It is now also clear that the Prime Minister knew that there were major concerns when he came to this House just last Wednesday. Instead of taking action, the Prime Minister expressed confidence in him. Why on earth did he do so? Was he poorly advised, or was it just his own poor judgment? In every single one of his Government’s scandals to date, far from being the decisive man of conscience he promised to be, the Prime Minister has shrivelled from leadership, he has dodged responsibility, and he has hidden behind others, just as he is doing today, and he has come to this House and hidden behind process and lawyerly phrases. The Prime Minister has shown no courage, no judgment, no backbone. If he cannot see it and Government Members cannot see it, I can assure them that the British public can. The Prime Minister has turned out to be everything he claimed to abhor. This is a Government of sleaze and scandal, and Labour MPs know it. I will be interested to see how many of them stand up to defend their Government. The British public and, especially, the victims of Jeffrey Epstein deserve the Prime Minister, for once, to be straight and honest with us. He must immediately do three things. First, he must apologise to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein for ever having appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador. How is it that this has still not happened? There has been no apology. Secondly, as I said, he must publish the Mandelson-Epstein files in full—all the information he had at his disposal, both when he made the appointment and when he came to the House last week to express full confidence in Mandelson. Thirdly, he must make sure that someone takes responsibility. Everyone now agrees that Peter Mandelson should not have been appointed. We have heard so much from my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington about endless scandal and conflicts of interest with China and Russia, so why was he appointed? Was it a failure of vetting? Was it that advisers hid information from the Prime Minister? Or was it that the Prime Minister knew and made the decision anyway? Someone needs to take responsibility.

    Hansard source
30. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Ambassador to the United States

    I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. The story is that of the frog and the scorpion, and it is one of my favourite childhood stories. Everyone knew what Lord Mandelson had been up to. It is simply not tenable for any Member on the Government Benches to hold the line on this one, burying their heads in the sand and hoping that it goes away, least of all the Prime Minister. We now know that the Prime Minister was aware of the compromising emails last Wednesday at Prime Minister’s questions, yet he came to the House and said that he had confidence in his ambassador. Many on the Labour Benches cheered, but now they are all looking at their phones, and most of them do not have the courage to look me in the eye. They were cheering last week, and now they are full of shame. [Interruption.] Sorry, are they proud? No, they are not. I will continue. Why on earth did the Prime Minister do that? At any point did he ask his staff what more information might surface? That morning Lord Mandelson was saying that more information would surface. Did the Prime Minister receive a briefing about that ahead of Prime Minister’s questions? It is inconceivable that he did not. Ministers are now claiming that new information subsequently came to light—new information that they did not have. The story is all mixed and messed up, and they know it. What information appeared that was not in the original vetting? We would like to hear that when the Minister responds. There are still more questions to answer. When did the Prime Minister’s chief of staff speak with Peter Mandelson last week, and what did they discuss? Do the Government have the courage to tell us that? We are told that Morgan McSweeney spent hours on the phone to the ambassador at the same time that Lord Mandelson was dodging calls from the Foreign Office. What were they talking about? Those are questions about what happened just last week, but how did all this come to happen last year? The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee has asked some excellent questions. But I ask the Minister this: what led to Lord Mandelson’s appointment in the first place? How was it that a man with known links to a child sex offender came to be appointed?

    Hansard source
31. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Ambassador to the United States

    The hon. Gentleman asks a very good question, and I hope the Minister can provide an answer, because all of us across the House want to know. We want to know how Lord Mandelson’s appointment happened in the first place. As I see it, there are only three possibilities. The first is that it was a failure of vetting, but are we really supposed to believe that this is the fault of the security services? I do not think so. Did they not drag up the intimate relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, which was discussed last week? The second possibility—a bit more likely—is that the Prime Minister’s advisers kept information from him. If that happened, it would be incredibly serious.

    Hansard source
32. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Ambassador to the United States

    My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This is a Prime Minister who hides behind everybody else; whether his advisers, his junior Ministers or his Back Benchers, that is what he does. If he wants to blame advisers, which one was it? Who kept it from him? Why have they not apologised and resigned? No one is taking responsibility. Thirdly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington alluded to, the most likely but most worrying reason of all is that the Prime Minister had plenty of information to suggest that Lord Mandelson should not be appointed but chose to appoint him anyway. Even at the time, eyebrows were raised about this appointment and there were many critics; I remember it from the time. Now we read in the papers that the Prime Minister overruled security advice not to appoint Lord Mandelson. Is that true? The Minister should tell us. It is time for the Prime Minister to come clean. He needs to come out of hiding. This issue will not go away. The Government cannot play for time as we will be back here again and again until all these documents are published. We will be back until someone takes responsibility. This is a political crisis on top of an economic crisis all of the Government’s own making. They are distracted now, but they came into office with no plan for the country, no idea what they stood for and no vision for what they wanted to achieve. Because of that, they have been lurching from disaster to disaster, with winter fuel, tax rises, welfare chaos, scandal, and the Prime Minister’s failing leadership rebooted after just one year. The only plan they came into office with was a promise they made again and again to the British public: that they would restore honesty and integrity to Government. That was their defining mission, that was their grand plan, and it is in tatters. So far, in one year, we have had an anti-corruption Minister sacked for corruption, a homelessness Minister sacked for evicting tenants, a Housing Secretary sacked for dodging housing tax, a Transport Secretary sacked for fraud and a director of strategy—apparently the speechwriter—lost only yesterday in scandal.

    Hansard source
33. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Ambassador to the United States

    The Minister shakes his head—he should be shaking it in shame. I have not said anything that is not true. Now, finally, we have a US ambassador sacked for his links with a known child sex offender. The Government claim to care about violence against women and girls, until they actually have to do something about it. Where is the apology to those victims? I know the Prime Minister does not like difficult questions, but it is his judgment that is being called into question. He owes it to the country to come clean.

    Hansard source
34. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Ambassador to the United States

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
35. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Ambassador to the United States

    We did not need any new information to know that it was an unsuitable appointment. The Minister is making a doughty defence of Lord Mandelson, but the truth is that this debate has been about the Prime Minister’s judgment. When I was a Secretary of State and questions were asked about judgment, I did not send junior Ministers to answer my questions; I faced the House and I explained what had happened. The Prime Minister is not doing so. Will the Minister commit now to answering all the questions that I asked in writing? Will he also take this opportunity to apologise to the victims? He has not done so and the Government have not done so. The debate is nearly over. Will he take this opportunity to apologise to the victims for the appointment of Lord Mandelson?

    Hansard source
36. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

    Child Poverty Strategy (Removal of Two Child Limit)

    Before I begin, I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for introducing the ten-minute rule Bill today. While we may not agree on the Bill, I believe that this House is at its best when Members argue for what they believe in, and I am glad we have the opportunity to do so today. My Conservative colleagues and I cannot support this Bill. We oppose it because we fundamentally believe in two core principles: fairness and personal responsibility. I believe that this Bill undermines both. Let us be clear: this debate is not about the principle of child benefit. As the eldest of three children from a single-parent family, I know from my own lived experience the challenges faced by those in genuine poverty—having to scrabble around at the end of the week to find enough money to keep the electricity meter running, having to go next door to borrow a cup of sugar to make it to the end of the week, and having to go without the basics at school that most of my friends had. Every child deserves the best start in life, and we should support that, but what is being proposed is something entirely different. The Bill seeks to remove the two-child benefit cap—a cap introduced by the previous Government to address a spiralling bill in a welfare system that was, at times, being abused. Such a cap is fair to the hard-pressed taxpayer. Why should individuals already in receipt of state support gain additional benefit for having yet more children, while working families who get up early, pay their taxes and take full responsibility for their lives do not? Removing the cap would not foster fairness. Instead, it would penalise the people we should be championing: working families who play by the rules. It is only the Conservative party that is standing up for those families, promoting individual responsibility and protecting the country’s fragile finances. Meanwhile, Members on the Government Benches—not content with the chaos they have recently inflicted on the nation—are now competing to be the most socialist, declaring their support for scrapping the cap despite knowing full well it will cost the country an eye-watering £4.5 billion a year. We must be honest with the British people: removing the two-child cap is a massive unfunded commitment that does not reward people for doing the right thing. Simply put, I ask the House: why should a small business owner in Mid Leicestershire, who is already burdened with additional taxes, be asked to pay even more to support someone else’s children, especially when they are struggling to support their own? At the heart of this matter is a philosophical debate. As Conservatives, we believe in incentivising work, not penalising those who seek it. We do not consign people to a life of state dependency; we encourage them to strive, to achieve and to be the best they can be. Unfortunately, it is not just those on the Government Benches who are promoting this recklessness. The Green party wants to spend £40 billion on its radical net zero agenda while still backing the two-child cap’s removal, and the SNP wants to add billions to their welfare bill by pursuing an open borders immigration policy paid for by hard-working Scots. Most surprisingly of all, though, is Reform UK’s position. Many of their hon. Members are proud Thatcherites—or so I thought. They appear to have undergone a damascene conversion and are now, I believe, backing scrapping the cap—a policy that would hammer hard-working ordinary white van men across the country. As we approach what would have been Mrs Thatcher’s centenary, I can only imagine what she would have to say about such an anti-aspirational and profligate approach to the public finances. Politicians simply cannot claim to want to reduce the welfare bill while pursuing policies that would push that bill up by billions. Let me speak directly to the British public, who are inherently conservative-minded: if your political beliefs are rooted in economic freedom and low taxation, can you really support parties that want to take your hard-earned money and hand it to those unwilling to take responsibility? Only the Conservative party stands with you. We believe in letting people keep more of the money they have earned. We believe in addressing poverty at its roots, not just by writing cheques but by reforming the system that traps people in dependency. Our approach is clear. A future Conservative Government will stop sickness benefits for foreign nationals, fix the UK’s sick note culture and reintroduce face-to-face assessments to stop people gaming the system, as the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), has said. We need to bring about a cultural shift where work, personal responsibility and self-reliance are once again core to our national ethos. As I said at the Work and Pensions Committee last week, we should not blindly throw money at the welfare system. We must instead highlight the importance of getting a job, promote better financial management and uphold a meritocratic system where hard work always triumphs over idleness. The Conservatives will vote against this Bill. We are the only party telling the uncomfortable truth about our out-of-control welfare system and the serious financial realities facing our country. We owe it to our constituents to protect the public purse, we owe it to hard-working families to uphold fairness, and we owe it to future generations to build a society built not on entitlement but on effort, enterprise and aspiration. Question put (Standing Order No. 23).

    Hansard source
37. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    London Fashion Week: Cultural Contribution

    As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting) on securing this important debate and all hon. Members for their contributions. I welcome the Minister to his new role and I wish him well in government. London Fashion Week has been a regular part of Britain’s cultural calendar since it was first held in 1984. In four decades, it has grown to become one of the world’s leading fashion events, standing alongside Paris, Milan and New York as one of the big four fashion weeks. It is now firmly established as an international institution, but one that is rooted in Britain’s traditions of creativity, design and craftsmanship. We can look at London Fashion Week’s contribution through several different lenses. There is the economic impact that we have heard about already today, which is unsurprisingly substantial. There is its international reach and the way it helps to shape Britain’s reputation abroad. As we heard from the Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), there is its role in supporting education, training and careers for young designers. There is its influence on sustainability, innovation and regional economies. Perhaps most importantly, there is the less tangible but equally vital contribution it makes to Britain’s cultural life and identity. It is important to begin with the economic dimension. The fashion industry, as a whole, directly contributes close to £30 billion annually to the UK’s economy and supports nearly 900,000 jobs across the country. London Fashion Week plays a central role in that wider success. Each season, it brings together hundreds of designers, buyers, journalists and photographers from around the world. The event is not only about catwalk shows; it is also about deals and contracts that sustain designers and businesses throughout the year. Many small and medium-sized companies rely on the exposure that London Fashion Week provides. It gives them the opportunity to secure international orders, attract investors and build long-term relationships with global retailers. The economic impact also extends into the hospitality and tourism sectors. International visitors attending London Fashion Week stay in our hotels, eat in our restaurants, use our transport system—when it is working—and support our local shops. The event generates millions of pounds of spending, providing a much-needed boost of inward investment for the wider London economy. Importantly, as the title of this debate makes clear, London Fashion Week is not simply an economic generator; its cultural importance is equally significant. Fashion, at its heart, is a form of cultural expression. It reflects the values, identities and moods of a society. What people wear and how designers present clothing speaks to wider cultural trends, although I must admit that I am not that up on fashion. My sister got all the fashion genes in our house, so she tries to steer me in the right direction when I am looking particularly scruffy. British fashion has long been known for its creativity and originality. From the craftsmanship of Savile Row tailoring to the rebellious punk energy of the 1970s and the dramatic visions of designers such as Alexander McQueen, British fashion has always had a distinctive voice. London Fashion Week provides the stage on which that voice is heard. At each event, designers bring together traditional materials and skills with new ideas. Tweed, tartan and wool, for example, are reinterpreted for new generations. Alongside them, we see collections that make use of digital technologies, sustainable fabrics and innovative production methods. London Fashion Week is therefore both a guardian of tradition and a hub for creative experimentation. I have had the pleasure of seeing that when I am out and about in Old Bexley and Sidcup—I will not name all the boutiques that operate in my constituency, as I am bound to forget one and get myself in a lot of trouble. We also have arts students at the likes of Bird college and Rose Bruford college, a big part of whose work involves costume design that feeds the west end and a lot of the talent we enjoy in London. One of the most striking aspects of London Fashion Week is its global reach. It is reported in newspapers, magazines and online platforms across the world, as we have already heard. Images from the catwalks are shared instantly on social media, reaching audiences far beyond those who have the privilege of attending in person. That means that London Fashion Week plays an important role in shaping how Britain is seen internationally. It presents Britain as creative, innovative and outward-looking. It demonstrates that our country still has something distinctive to contribute to global culture, and it acts as one of the best forms of cultural diplomacy. Just as our music, theatre and sport project Britain’s identity abroad, so too does London Fashion Week. A vital part of London Fashion Week’s contribution lies in its links to education and training. Britain has some of the world’s most highly regarded fashion schools, including Central Saint Martins, London College of Fashion and the Royal College of Art. These institutions attract students from across the globe, and many of the designers who now show collections at London Fashion Week began their career in their classrooms and studios. The pipeline from education to the catwalk is clear. Students are trained in technical skills, encouraged in creativity and given the chance to develop their own design identity. London Fashion Week then provides a platform where they can present their work to international audiences. The pathway is vital to sustaining Britain’s long-term success in fashion and those vital careers that we all want to see flourish. Linked to that is the emphasis that London Fashion Week places on supporting emerging talent. As we have already heard, the British Fashion Council’s excellent NEWGEN programme provides opportunities for new designers to show their work, gain visibility and build their careers. Many of today’s established names first appeared through such initiatives. That commitment to new talent ensures that London Fashion Week remains dynamic and forward-looking. It prevents the event from becoming static or predictable and keeps Britain at the forefront of global design patterns. Young designers tend to be even more eco-conscious than their predecessors, and London Fashion Week has made an important contribution to sustainability. Globally, the fashion industry has faced growing questions about its environmental footprint, from the use of resources in production to the disposal of clothing. Many British designers and retailers lead the way in exploring sustainable practices, including the use of recycled fabrics, investment in traceable and transparent supply chains, and the development of circular economy models in which garments are reused and repurposed. London Fashion Week has become a stage on which such ideas are shared around the world. On that point, I wish to give a shout-out—which I do not always do—to my local council, which works with an organisation called Traid to recycle textiles in the London borough of Bexley. I would like to see other boroughs roll out that important initiative for recycling fashion, alongside the work of charity shops and others. By promoting sustainable practices, London Fashion Week not only addresses environmental concerns but shapes the cultural conversation about fashion. It shows that creativity and responsibility can go hand in hand. As that makes clear, fashion does not exist in isolation. It intersects with many other areas of the creative economy. Film, television and music all rely on fashion for costumes, styling and identity. Sports stars and musicians frequently collaborate with fashion designers, and their influence shapes trends in turn. As much as I would like footballers to be more focused on football, a lot of them are budding fashionistas on their social media profiles. London Fashion Week strengthens such connections, contributing to a wider ecosystem of cultural activity. London Fashion Week has been held for almost 40 years, and its longevity is a sign of its importance. Over time, it has adapted to new technologies, consumer habits and cultural movements, yet it has retained its identity as a showcase for British creativity. The balance of continuity and change is a great part of its success. London Fashion Week makes a significant contribution to the United Kingdom. Economically, it generates income, supports jobs and boosts tourism. Culturally, it showcases creativity, reflects our traditions and helps define our new identities. Internationally, it strengthens Britain’s reputation and influence. It supports education, encourages new talent, promotes sustainability and even sustains regional industries. It is not simply a series of shows; it is a major cultural event that brings together tradition, innovation, creativity, commerce, national identity and international reach. In conclusion, I again thank the hon. Member for Kettering for securing this important debate, and thank hon. Members for their contributions.

    Hansard source
38. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Child Poverty Strategy (Removal of Two Child Limit)

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 7 April, with the shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office, I tabled a question to the Minister for the Cabinet Office about updating guidance for Ministers on declaring hospitality and meetings with social media platforms. As this is the last sitting day before the six-month anniversary of tabling that question, may I ask you whether there has been any indication from the Government that they intend either to answer that question on the Floor of this House or to write to me in the near future?

    Hansard source
39. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

    Court Backlogs

    With your permission, Mr Speaker, I pay tribute to my predecessor, who is mentioned on the face of the Order Paper, who was killed in 1940. The Justice Secretary keeps referring to the previous Government, and I sort of get that, but I remind him that the new Government have been in post for some 14 or 15 months—over a year—and at some point, that particular argument is going to wear very thin. Is he aware of the extraordinary length of time that victims of serious sexual assault and crimes must wait in the Shropshire courts, particularly Shrewsbury Crown court? It is double the 363 days that we have just heard from the Lib Dem Benches. What will the Justice Secretary do to help those victims, as well as the defendants who may, on occasion, be innocent?

    Hansard source
40. 16 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

    Ambassador to the United States

    I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He will know that members of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament are subject to extremely deep vetting. There is also a double check, which is that Parliament has to give its agreement to the appointments to the Committee, once nominated by the Prime Minister. Does the Mandelson case not strengthen the argument for pre-confirmation hearings by the relevant parliamentary Committees of this House in order that candidates can be cross-questioned? At the moment, the Cabinet Office advises on only about 1,000 regulated public appointments for this House, ahead of appointment. None of them is a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office appointment. Is it not now time to make that change, whether they are political appointments or senior civil servants?

    Hansard source