Ben Obese-Jecty MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Jan 2026 · Ajax Programme · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend again, and I absolutely concur. With the delays to Ajax, we can no longer afford to fail to upgrade Challenger 2 to Challenger 3. The fact that the timeline of that has slipped to indefinite is a serious concern for our armoured capability. A successful export programme would fuel development of the platform and allow it to improve over multiple iterations. It would enhance our own capability, and allow us to benefit from the first-mover advantage of adopting a common vehicle platform that can be expanded with the addition of an IFV and a mortar variant, putting us in the vanguard of armoured development in the drone age. But that cannot happen without the vehicle proving its capability—first with the soldiers, then with our allies. In a crowded field, that should be a top priority. In “The Iliad”, Ajax loses a competition to Odysseus and, distraught by the result and conquered by his own grief, plunges his sword into his own chest, killing himself out of shame at his own failure. The irony should not be lost on any of us. Fix Ajax, and fix it quickly. There is a war coming.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policy · Hansard source

  More

  In February, at Second Reading of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, I raised the issue of the generous financial and accommodation package that is advertised on the Government’s own website under “Asylum support: What you’ll get”, which outlines the provision of an asylum support enablement—ASPEN—card with £49.18 of cash loaded on to it each week, on top of free accommodation, even if someone has been refused asylum. The cards can be used for gambling and have been over 6,000 times, according to a freedom of information request. In May, I raised this issue again when I asked the previous Home Secretary what she planned to do to address the pull factors of free cash and a free home. Can this Home Secretary now commit to address my previous calls that these pull factors must be mitigated to create a deterrent, and will those on section 4 or section 95 support have the benefit withdrawn under these measures?

• 27 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Alan Marnes is a constituent of mine in Southoe who has staunchly campaigned since 2002 on the issue of the lack of indexation for pre-1997 pension rights, having been one of 140,000 people who lost their occupational pension. I wrote to the Secretary of State more than two months ago asking whether the newly revived Pensions Commission will address the issue of failed pension funds and I have still not received a response. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and Alan to provide some much-needed clarity on such a long-standing issue?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  The now former ambassador to the United States has been sacked due to the nature of his relationship with a convicted paedophile—a relationship that has come as no surprise to anybody except the Prime Minister, it would appear. The Prime Minister and the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), knew of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein, yet his appointment was felt to be worth the risk. That is despite warnings from President Trump’s co-campaign manager Chris LaCivita, who criticised the replacement of the former ambassador, Dame Karen Pierce, as replacing a “professional universally respected ambo with an absolute moron”. Even the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who was effusive in her praise for Lord Mandelson, asked for him to come before her Committee to “allow my colleagues to hear directly why the Prime Minister has appointed him”. —[ Official Report , 14 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 143.] With her face pressed up against the Cabinet Room window like Tiny Tim out in the cold, I am surprised that she could be heard, but the Minister for the Overseas Territories, who is looking sheepish in his place on the Front Bench, was emphatic. He stated: “We are absolutely convinced that Lord Mandelson will do an excellent job as our representative in Washington”. —[ Official Report , 14 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 143.] Yet that whole time, the Government were aware of the security warnings that Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein crossed the line of what is acceptable and failed to meet the standard expected of what is arguably our most critical ambassadorial appointment. The President of the United States arrives for his second state visit tomorrow, yet we now suffer the embarrassment and indignity of having had to sack our ambassador for his proximity to a man found guilty of soliciting prostitution from a child—a man whose girlfriend was convicted in 2021 of sex trafficking, conspiracy and transportation of a minor for illegal sexual activity. Indeed, an aspect of this matter that remains unclear is the nature of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell. The New York Times has described this issue as “a stinging embarrassment” that “casts a shadow over the planned state visit”. How has the Prime Minister allowed this to happen, ignoring the advice from his security assessment to appoint him anyway, embracing the risk then having it blow up in his face? Prior to entering Parliament, I worked for Barclays bank. In 2021, the bank’s CEO Jes Staley resigned amid a regulatory probe into whether he mischaracterised his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. I actually raised a complaint with my managers, which was roundly ignored and never advanced beyond managing director level, such was the squeamishness that surrounded the story. I was furious that Barclays still paid Staley his £2.4 million salary and £120,000 pension contribution while being defenestrated for his relationship with Epstein. That is not privileged information—it was widely reported—yet while the financial world saw fit to wash its hands of Staley, this Labour Government welcomed Lord Mandelson with open arms. Those linked to Jeffrey Epstein who maintained a relationship with him after his conviction and who many times visited his island, where the crimes took place, have long since been deplatformed and deemed too toxic to hold positions of power, yet the hubris of the Prime Minister saw him ride roughshod over such glaringly obvious concerns. Being the Prime Minister is to take the mantle of the UK’s decision-maker-in-chief; it is to own the responsibility of making not just difficult decisions, but the most difficult decisions. Appointing an ambassador to the United States is not the political banana skin that should bring down the Government, yet here we are. The Government are teetering on the brink. Yesterday the Prime Minister gingerly began climbing down over his handling of the Mandelson sacking. When he came to the Chamber last Wednesday, he robustly defended Lord Mandelson and played to the baying crowd. He even had the chutzpah to claim that the Conservative party has a leadership contest going on—was it not interesting to see him in the Smoking Room last night between votes? [Laughter.] Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister stated that “full due process was followed during this appointment”. —[ Official Report , 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 859.] He said that twice. If that is true, the Prime Minister knew the full scope of Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. If he did not know and new information subsequently came to light, either the vetting standards of the Government are incompetent or the claim of “full due process” is inaccurate. The Prime Minister also said that “I have confidence in the ambassador”. —[ Official Report , 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 860.] He said that twice, too. The Prime Minister’s explanation yesterday stated that there were three reasons for his tergiversation: “The nature and extent of the relationship being far different to what I’d understood to be the position at the point of appointment, the questioning and challenging of the conviction, which…goes to the heart and cuts across what this government is doing on violence against women and girls and the unsatisfactory nature of responses from Peter Mandelson last week to the inquiries made of him by government officials – I took the decision to remove him.” Can the Government lay out precisely what was the full due process that was followed? The Prime Minister claims that he did not learn the content of the Bloomberg emails until after his robust defence at PMQs, so did Lord Mandelson fail to disclose that information during his vetting interview? Was there even a vetting interview, or did Lord Mandelson disclose everything and the Prime Minister is displaying wilful ignorance?