David Davis MP: speeches

Speeches

• 19 May 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I press the Minister on his lack of answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). When it became apparent that Mandelson posed an obvious and serious security risk to the state, it was said that ongoing mitigations were put in place to control that risk. Will the ISC see those ongoing mitigations? And if not, why not?

• 19 May 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, given that this applies directly to the Minster, I draw the House’s attention to the motion tabled by the now Prime Minister on 4 December 2018 following non-compliance with a previous Humble Address. It starts: “That this House finds Ministers in contempt for their failure to comply with the requirements of the motion for return passed on 13 November 2018”. —[ Official Report , 4 December 2018; Vol. 650, c. 668.] That motion was passed by this House. We have just debated an area where the Government may potentially be in contempt of the House; indeed, the obfuscation we have heard looks like that. It is important that the House and the Government know that there is precedent in this area. I give notice that if, after we have received the next tranche of documents, the Humble Address has not been met in full, or if we have not been told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I will seek to table such a motion.

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  It is interesting, because the hon. Member’s Government and his Secretary of State have claimed, “All these green policies are reducing the cost of our energy. Not using oil and gas is reducing the cost of energy.” What is the consequence? The highest energy costs in the world. I will be interested to hear if he can explain that when he makes his speech. The other issue is that growth, or the loss of growth, has a material impact on the public finances. To give the House a measure of that, a 1% change in the growth rate is £10 billion to £11 billion in the first year and then more money in the consequential years, so when we lose that growth, we lose that amount of money. But even if we imagine that we could get that growth back, it still would not be enough. It would not be enough to pay the bills that we need to pay. So what can we do? I am afraid that, because of the size of the debt, we have no choice but to cut welfare costs. I am a great believer in our welfare system, but it should be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice. People who can work should work, and the public have little sympathy for those who choose benefits over a job. It is true today, and it has been true since I was a child on a council estate, that the British working class, who Labour used to think of as its own voters, hate it when they see one of their neighbours choosing to sit at home spending the taxes that they have earned. Low growth handicaps our ability to solve our citizens’ problems.

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  No, not for the moment. Neither does it explain the increase in borrowing costs, which are higher than any other G7 country’s and virtually double Japan’s. That is nobody’s fault but the Chancellor’s, and the horrific consequences for our public finances have been laid out already by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). The real brake is Labour’s own policies: high taxes, massively burdensome regulation, high business rates and high energy costs. What on earth do we expect from our businesses when we saddle the country with the most expensive energy in the developed world, or indeed with the national insurance increases that the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens mentioned?

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  That is pretty obvious.

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  I will be careful how I answer the right hon. Member because I have an interest to declare here: I have a disabled grandchild, and her mother is one of the people who suffers the stress he talked about. As I say, we need a humane system that deals with people properly. Our current system for supporting disabled people and people looking after disabled people is incredibly bureaucratic, unpleasant and nasty to deal with. That is not the area of welfare that we need to deal with; it is principally the area of employment that we need to deal with. We want to get people back to work, because there is no better way out of poverty than employment, rather than, as it were, being on the dole. To come back to the thrust of my argument, what is it that we are talking about paying for? I will pick three issues—I could pick any number, but the top three issues that matter to my constituents are healthcare, education and defence. Our health service needs radical reform. I know we have a Bill in this King’s Speech, but it does not look to me like it will have a sufficiently radical impact. For some reason, we do not actually speak enough about the fundamental aims of our health service. Healthcare must be free at the point of delivery—that is an absolute—but it also must do its job of saving lives, and we turn our face away from that too often. Too many Britons are dying early and avoidably under a system that swallows money without delivering the outcomes. Every year, 125,000 deaths are listed officially as avoidable, and the situation has worsened in recent years. It went from 129 deaths per 100,000 people to 156 in the course of a decade. That is a huge increase and, as a result, we have an avoidable death rate that is higher than all our comparator nations. I am not just talking about rich nations like Japan; we are even worse off than countries like Portugal that are much poorer than we are. It is an extraordinary problem that we have to face.

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  That is absolutely right. My concern is that the reason we have so many excess deaths is not poor doctors or poor nurses, but poor management. We have really, really poor national health service management. To put it starkly, poor management effectively kills 15,000 people a year. If we improved that number, we could get within range of our comparator nations. That is a huge number of people, and we could do quite a lot about it if we set our mind to it. Experiments within the health service now demonstrate that. Just over the river at St Thomas’, a high intensity theatre programme triples the number of people who can be put through an operating theatre or under the hands of one surgeon in a day. That means we can do something like 17 hernia repairs rather than five, or 12 hip replacements instead of four—those are the numbers they measured. A lot of lives are saved rather than lost, because people are put through the system and are not effectively left waiting until they die, as has happened to a number of my constituents. We need to reflect that efficiency in the management of the health service. It requires a complete change in how we select, train and organise the senior management of the national health service. For the moment, they are not up to the job and we need to put that right, but I do not see anything in the King’s Speech that will do that. My second point is about education. A number of speakers have already said that there is an intergenerational problem in our society today, and education is where that crystalises. We are failing both very young children and young adults. Evidence shows that one in four children are not sufficiently literate or mathematically capable by the age of 11 to get any benefit from the next stage of education. To put it another way, the state has failed a quarter of our children by the time they get to 11. For poor children—those on free school meals and so on—we can double that number; in fact, we can more than double it. When I grew up, I was lucky to be at the peak of social mobility in this country. This was one of the world’s leading meritocracies, but that is no longer the case. That is a shame on our nation and we must put it right, starting at the bottom. We must do something about it, and we can. Uniquely, using AI and software, we can do quite a lot to help children at the bottom of the scale, but we do not currently do that, and the Department for Education is not up to it. It is not under this Government and it was not under the preceding one—I spoke about this at the time, and we need to put it right. It is not just the very young who we are letting down; a whole generation in higher education is being failed. The transition to student loans and tuition fees by the Blair Government has been an unmitigated disaster, shackling a whole generation to mortgages without houses and futures without jobs. I opposed it when it came in, I opposed my party’s decision to uphold it when we came into government, and I oppose it today. It takes away much of the point of university, because at least one in five courses do not give youngsters opportunities that will pay for their education. That means that we have to write off their loans, and in the next 50 years, the Government—the state—will pay £430 billion in unpaid loans in cash terms. From what I have seen of the calculations, I am pretty sure that that is an underestimate. In my view, we should revise the whole policy radically, and perhaps look again at grants for certain courses—I think the Liberals have talked about this—with a 2% graduate tax to offset it, or something like that. That is better than what we have now, which leaves a loan hanging over people for their entire adult life—a loan they may never pay back. We could have grants for science, technology, engineering, mathematics, medicine, architecture and design—courses that will contribute to the economic growth of this country—and take the rest from there. We need radical reform, but we will not see it in this year’s education Bill. Finally, I want to talk briefly about defence. There has been much criticism of the Government, rightly, for taking too long over enlarging the expenditure we put into defence, and the simple truth is that we will face challenges that will materialise much faster than we expect. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) spoke in an earlier question about peace being better than war, and since Roman times we have known that being well armed is the best way to prevent war. Nobody wants warfare. At the moment, our military is depleted beyond value and would struggle in a major war, and obviously we must address that. In addition, we must ensure that our strategy and management are right. Frankly, the management of the Ministry of Defence is a disgrace—to be honest, I cannot pick a better word. I always think that it is symbolic of the extraordinary priorities of the MOD that we have 134 admirals to oversee 63 ships, many of which are not able to set sail at any point in time—Nelson must be spinning in his grave. That is symbolic, but similarly the UK currently maintains an Army of just over 70,000 people, and the Ministry of Defence employs roughly 60,000 civil servants—a ratio that defies logic. Of those civil servants, just under a quarter are employed in procurement, operating a system that is among the worst in the world. If hon. Members need to, they should look at the Dragon, the Type 45 ships, or the Ajax. If the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee were sitting here now, he could get up and given me a dozen cases of disgraceful scandals in procurement in our Ministry of Defence, and we need to put that right. If we are to maintain effective armed forces, we must also maintain the morale and spirit of our soldiers. The simple truth is that the first step towards that is to treat those soldiers decently, and we are not doing that. The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which has been carried over into this Session, is exposing soldiers who fought in Northern Ireland to being dragged through the courts, sometimes three times over the course of five years, as with Soldier B in the Coagh case. They are in their 60s, 70s and 80s. Honourable people who fought bravely for their country and did nothing wrong are being punished in their old age. That is a disgrace. The excuse that the Government used when they started the Bill was that the previous legislation was illegal—that is what a lower court found. Last week, however, the Supreme Court overturned that judgment in the Dillon case. There is now no legal basis for the Government’s policy, yet still we are pressing on. I asked the Prime Minister, and he said that they are still pressing on with it, effectively psychologically torturing people who served this country. That is morally wrong, but moreover it is causing people to leave the SAS in numbers—this is now in the public domain and I can say it. Our best and most active regiment is being depleted and destroyed. The regiment of which the rest of the world is envious is being undermined by the Government’s strategy, and they should walk away from that policy and drop it. We should bin that Bill. I do not want to take any more of the House’s time. I have picked three subjects, but there are many other important issues that the Government need to address. I say again that I hope the Prime Minister succeeds in resetting the Government and giving them new dynamism. At the moment, however, the only attractive part of the King’s Speech for me was the last line, which always says the same thing: “Other measures will be laid before you.”

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister quite rightly prioritises the defence of the country. We have depended for decades on the courage, honour and loyalty of our soldiers. However, some of our best units are now losing soldiers, because this Government are undermining them and allowing them, under the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, to be prosecuted and persecuted for alleged crimes—that were not carried out—from decades ago.

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  I think the answer to the question is, “No, it didn’t,” but the hon. Member should be aware that it was only two months ago that a Labour Member described me as the MP who is never knowingly on message, which is a label I espouse—I do not mind that. No Government have got this right. We need a welfare system that looks after the disabled and people who have no choice about what they are suffering, but not one that makes it an even choice to be on the dole or in a job.

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  During the privileges debate, I told the House that I had hoped, a couple of years ago, that the Prime Minister would make a success of his new job. Unfortunately, this House is now debating against the backdrop of a Labour psychodrama, but that psychodrama would not have happened except for the fact that the Government have failed, and failed very clearly. In his now infamous speech, the Prime Minister said that he was going to undertake a reset. I don’t know about the Labour party, but the country certainly needs a reset. What he said, in describing his reset, was that he needed to “explain” things better. That is not a reset; that is a re-spin of what they are doing. We need a proper reset. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) was exactly right when she said that Labour must be “judged on actions and not just our words”. As a number of people have said, including the new leader of the SNP group, the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), Labour came into office promising that its No. 1 mission was economic growth. It was right to do so, because without growth we do not have the money to do anything else, yet the consequences of its own policies in the last couple of years have been that growth has been suppressed. The IMF has literally just reduced the UK’s growth forecast by half a percentage point. That is the largest reduction in the G7. It is not just the Opposition who are concerned about growth. I recommend that the House reads the Labour Growth Group report called, “An Honest Day”, which is aimed directly at this problem. While I do not agree with everything in it, there are a lot of good ideas that the Government should have already taken on. When Labour took over, inflation was bang on 2%—that is something it cannot claim was disguised in any way—and now it is 3.3%. Again, Labour and the Prime Minister will try to blame somebody else, and no doubt at the moment the blame is on the strait of Hormuz. That explains energy costs in the future; it does not explain the increases in food costs in the past, or indeed a number of other costs.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  That is entirely true, and in fact, the current Trump Administration made the same point to the Government before the nomination of Peter Mandelson. That perverse logic led to the most obviously unwise public appointment in modern times, and the implied message, unfortunately, was clear: “Government appointments rest on networks of patronage; great offices of state are perks to be handed out to friends.” It is systemic. They even tried to secure an ambassadorial appointment for Lord Doyle, a man so unsuitable that he has even had the Whip withdrawn. Mandelson’s unsuitability was evident before vetting began. It would have been surprising had the vetting service not found grounds to reject the appointment. I suspect that No. 10 knew that, and leant on the Foreign Office to ensure that the outcome was secured quickly and without question. One Member—I cannot remember his name, or see him in the Chamber—tried to suggest earlier that pressure on time was different from pressure on outcome, but when vetting is involved, it is not. My first positive vetting took six months. Now, I know I have unreliable friends, but I have fewer, I think, than Lord Mandelson. It would have taken quite a long time to get to the bottom of all the issues relating to Lord Mandelson. Saying “You’ve got to do it quickly” is the same as saying “You’ve got to do it shoddily.” Let us not lose sight of that.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  In a debate about misleading the House, it makes me wonder when Members of this House accuse others of not voting on a motion that did not lead to a vote, so I will not take an intervention. I will certainly not take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman. He is a noise maker, not a truth issuer . On the evidence before us today—contradictions, procedural failures and an emerging pattern of conduct—there is plainly a case for referral. Where doubt exists, it should be resolved through proper scrutiny. Where a case exists, it should be tested. This case should go to the Committee of Privileges, and go today.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  Sometimes the wisdom of the House is crystallised in the comments of us ordinary Back Benchers. That was particularly evident today in the brave speech of the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) and, indeed, the intervention of the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) on the Leader of the Opposition. Both Members said, in effect, that what we have lived through in the last several months is a tragedy—not just for the House, not just for the Government, not just for the Labour party, but for the trust in government, and in our democracy among ordinary people. At the risk of expulsion from my own party, I will admit to having hoped after the election that this Prime Minister would succeed, because it was in the interests of the country that he did so, but in some ways even more importantly, it was in the interests of our democracy. There is already extant throughout the western world a corrosion of belief in democracy; that goes on and on, and this will make it worse. We are here today for a simple reason. Statements made by the Prime Minister in this Chamber are at odds with those provided by the civil service on the material issue of Peter Mandelson. This matters. It is not a stunt. Honesty between Ministers and Parliament is fundamental to our democracy. Without it, scrutiny fails. Without it, accountability fails. Without it, trust fails. The responsibility for absolute honesty rests most heavily on the Prime Minister, so the standard that should be met by the Prime Minister is even higher than that applying to others. Recklessness with the truth from any Minister is unacceptable; from the Prime Minister, it is indefensible. All political parties have their inherent flaws—and I am not going to spend a whole day talking about mine—but the origins of this situation lie in a stance often taken by Labour MPs, which is that good intentions somehow justify bad decisions. It is a case of saying, “We mean well, so our mistakes do not matter” or, worse, “We mean well, so we should be forgiven for anything”, whether it is freebies or wrong appointments or whatever. That mindset, which I am afraid constitutes a sanctimonious arrogance sustained by a habit of believing their own propaganda, is precisely what led to the appointment of a deeply unsuitable individual as our ambassador to Washington: a man twice dismissed after scandal; a man now under formal investigation by the European Union’s anti-fraud office; a man who had an extraordinary relationship with a convicted paedophile; a man driven, above all, by a pursuit of glamour, money and status; a man who turned amorality into an art form—and, in addition to that, a man plainly compromised by over-close relationships with the proxies of both the Russian and the Chinese Governments. Together, those facts should have made this appointment unthinkable, yet the concerns were brushed aside. The head of the diplomatic service, as we heard this morning in the Foreign Affairs Committee, was not even consulted. Why? Because within the London establishment, a ludicrous self-deception had taken hold—that the peculiarities of the Trump Administration could be countered by the peculiarities of Peter Mandelson.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is exactly right. Indeed, it is worse than that, because this post is the nexus of the entire Five Eyes intelligence co-operation. Our service is not like that of the Americans. In the American embassy, the CIA is freestanding; the ambassador does not matter. In our service, the ambassador runs the local secret service element, as it were, so he or she is entirely responsible and has entire access. That is an issue with the Americans in particular, because they are incredibly sensitive about the corruption, or the undermining in any way, of the security of that arrangement, so we could actually have put the whole Five Eyes co-operation arrangement at risk—but my right hon. Friend has led me off on a completely different tangent. I come back to the general point. Sir Philip Barton was asked this morning about delay, attitude and pressure; when asked at the Foreign Affairs Committee if he recalled “any dismissiveness in No. 10 about the importance” of Mandelson’s vetting, Sir Philip—Sir Olly Robbins’ predecessor—described No. 10 as “uninterested” in his security clearance. The evidence that Sir Olly Robbins gave was that, throughout January, there was “constant pressure” and an “atmosphere of constant chasing”. Yesterday, Ian Collard, the former head of the Foreign Office security team, corroborated Sir Olly Robbins’s account. Just this morning, again, Sir Philip Barton repeatedly emphasised that there was pressure to secure Mandelson’s vetting clearance within a “very compressed timescale”, yet the Prime Minister told this House only a week ago that “no pressure existed whatsoever”. If that was the only issue, it would justify being referred to the Committee of Privileges—in order to resolve what the exact truth was—but it was not the only issue. Plainly, if the Foreign Office is right, the Prime Minister is wrong—and, on that timetable, actually, deliberately wrong. Let us take some other occasions. On 4 February this year, the Prime Minister gave an unambiguous impression, when asked about Epstein’s coverage in the security clearance, that he had seen Peter Mandelson’s security vetting file, but in April he told the House that on 14 April he “found out for the first time” that Mandelson had been granted “developed vetting clearance, against the specific recommendation of the United Kingdom Security Vetting that developed vetting clearance should be denied.” —[ Official Report , 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 23.] Those two statements are incompatible—again, a free-standing failure of the rules. What is more, that chaotic clash of opinions reinforces the impression that, far from “following due process”, as the Prime Minister has maintained on a number of occasions, No. 10 was effectively making it up as it went along. As we have already heard from the Leader of the Opposition, the then Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, issued explicit advice on 11 November 2024: secure the “necessary security clearances…before confirming your choice.” That was reinforced this morning by Sir Philip Barton, who said of the correct process: “The normal order is vetting and then announcement.” Normal due process was clear, but the Prime Minister did the opposite. Claims that this was normal defy common sense. For career ambassadors, developed vetting happens for every new post. If someone goes to become the ambassador in Tehran, they are DV-ed. If they then go to become ambassador in Washington, they are DV-ed again—but at that point, the vetting is an update, so it is lower risk. By definition, our ambassadors are, generally speaking, low-risk security personnel anyway. That is plainly not the case for a high-risk figure like Peter Mandelson. Indeed, frankly, it is hard to imagine a higher-risk appointment to a post that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) said, is of the utmost sensitivity. To appoint first and vet later is not due process, and it is certainly not prudent. It is a gamble with national security and a risk to our single most important alliance. There are three instances where the Prime Minister made questionable statements: his insistence that there was no pressure, when there evidently was; the two versions he gave of when he saw the vetting file; and his assertion that due process was followed, when it clearly was at odds with the process described by both the Cabinet Secretary and the permanent secretary for the Foreign Office. The Prime Minister made a deeply questionable decision. We cannot know for certain whether it was due to cronyism, a misunderstanding of the role or excessive leniency towards a member of his own party—something he would never have tolerated, and quite rightly, from any other party. Whatever the explanation, the conclusion is unavoidable: the decision was wrong. To implement it, established procedures were bent out of shape. The civil service was placed under extreme pressure to deliver outcomes that sat on the margins of propriety. When concerns were raised, they were not confronted but sidestepped. As usual in No. 10, an attempt was made to place the blame on somebody else. Even in this week’s New Statesman , which is traditionally a banner carrier for the Prime Minister, there is a quote—I think it is in Tom McTague’s article—from a senior Government official who goes on at length against the Prime Minister and ends by saying: “Ask Chris. Ask Sue. Ask Morgan. Ask Olly. He will say he takes responsibility, but then he makes everyone else pay.” That is what we are looking at. Rather than addressing concerns directly, the Prime Minister proceeded regardless, and only later sought to justify his decision with answers that were, I am afraid, frequently misleading. As a former Director of Public Prosecutions, he should have known better. What began as a mistake evolved into something more serious. A failure turned into a defence, a problem became a pattern and, ultimately, the situation now looks like a cover-up. But as we have already heard from my Front Benchers and a number of other speakers, today is not about determining guilt; it is about determining whether there is a case to answer. Finding the truth and adjudicating guilt is the task of the Committee of Privileges, which has both the time and the access required to examine the evidence in full. Much has been made of Boris Johnson’s appearance before the Committee of Privileges, and I am famously a fan of Boris Johnson. When a similar motion was brought to this House on whether the matter should go to that Committee, it was clearly recognised at the time that we were not delivering a verdict, but deciding whether there was a case to be answered. At the time, I made it very plain to our Whips Office that I would not countenance any attempt to block a proper investigation into a House of Commons matter. I was by no means alone; a number of other colleagues made the same argument. As a result, the Government of the day accepted that it was a House of Commons matter. It is improper for the Government to intervene in such a matter to try to guide the House. Accordingly, the motion passed without a Whip, and without a Division. Interestingly, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) thought otherwise.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over) · Hansard source

  More

  I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and, given what I am going to say, to the fact that I was a trustee of the SAS Regimental Association for two decades up until a few years ago. This Bill was sold to the House and the country on the premise that it would deliver human rights and the rule of law. As the House knows, I pay great attention to human rights and the rule of law—so much so that I defeated my own Government in court on exactly that issue—but what we have here is neither human rights nor justice. It is a perversion of rights and a travesty of justice. The Government clearly have made promises to Sinn Féin, to IRA families and to would-be rewriters of history, including the Irish Government, putting those ahead of the interests of our soldiers. The recent revelation that the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, pursued cases against our soldiers, despite knowing that the allegations might be false, is indicative, I am afraid, of the attitude of this Government to the rights of our soldiers, as was the Secretary of State’s response to my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). The attitude is one of undermining our soldiers at home while they fight abroad, and the same will happen under this Bill. We have already had a rehearsal or a preview of what is to come. This month’s Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Soldier B in the Coagh firefight is a perfect illustration. The shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), read out some of the judge’s comments in that case; I will take things a little further. What happened in the Coagh firefight was that the IRA plotted to murder an Ulster Defence Regiment soldier. In the process of doing that, they were hit by an SAS patrol. The IRA terrorists all died, and an inquest found that the SAS actions were all entirely lawful. So what happened? One of the IRA members’ family used taxpayers’ money—legal aid—to force a judicial review. The judge threw that out, stating: “In this challenge, this Court is being asked to slow the passage of time down, to analyse events in freeze-frame… It is ludicrous to suggest that this court should analyse the events of the day in question in that manner”. He went on to say: “I cannot conclude this judgment without expressing my surprise that legal aid funding was made available to mount such a challenge”.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over) · Hansard source

  More

  No, but it is simply the rule that in Northern Ireland, it is easier to get legal aid for these issues. I can see that there was a reason for that in the past, but it has, in effect, perverted the course of justice in a case where soldiers did nothing more than their duty. That is what is going to happen under this Bill, too, because the case went on to appeal. If anything, the judge struck down that appeal in even more robust terms than the previous judge. A brave, patriotic, honourable soldier was dragged through three courts over several years, in gratuitous actions that were funded by the taxpayer. I say “brave”, “honourable” and “patriotic”; these are not casual words. I have known Soldier B for 30 years. As well as being a brave soldier, he is a firm believer in the rule of law. He does not believe that there should be exemptions. He believes that there should be proper rule of law, which is not provided by the Bill. Indeed, given his history and his views, I would say that he has a better claim to have defended justice in our country than anyone in the House, and certainly than those on the Government Front Bench. What happened in that case is just a rehearsal for what will come if the Bill goes through. If it is passed, hundreds more—and I mean hundreds—will follow. This Bill puts the interests of the Irish Government, Sinn Féin and IRA apologists above those of our veterans, and would put rewriting history ahead of providing proper justice. It is unpatriotic, disingenuous and dishonourable. It satisfies no one. It solves nothing. Everything it touches, it makes worse. I note that the Minister for the Armed Forces is not here for the vote, and I entirely understand why: he wants to avoid association with this disgraceful legislation. If he cannot vote for it, neither should we. We should reject this disgraceful Bill out of hand.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a rather more mundane point of order. Last Thursday, my website, provided by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, was compromised. Malicious links were inserted, redirecting users to south-east Asian gambling websites. I guess it could be worse. We took the site down immediately. It was restored, but then came under a sustained distributed denial of service attack traceable to China. In just 24 hours, the site was hit with 142 million requests, consuming nearly 800 gigabytes of data. This is not a minor nuisance; it is direct interference with a Member of Parliament carrying out his duties. What are the House and the House authorities doing to prevent these kinds of attacks on Members’ websites, and to help MPs protect themselves against interference by a foreign state?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Contaminated Blood: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister and I welcome what he has just said, but the infected blood scandal left thousands of people with severe lifelong injuries. Many of them have waited decades—some nearly half a century—for justice, and with every week that passes the likelihood that any of them will die goes up. As I am sure he is aware, IBCA announced last week that it will contact 100 people a week to begin claims, but that is not quick enough for the 18,000 people involved. It has dealt with roughly 3,000, who have been paid already, but 15,000 of the 18,000 are still waiting. Victims and families deserve compensation, and quickly, so what can he do to speed up that process?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Contaminated Blood: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  6. What steps his Department is taking to ensure people impacted by contaminated blood receive appropriate compensation.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  St George’s day is certainly a day to celebrate patriotism. This morning, The Daily Telegraph reported that the Attorney General, when he was in private practice, voluntarily gave advice on the pursuit of British soldiers over alleged war crimes—allegations that turned out to be bogus. The article says that he realised those claims could be bogus early on in the process. That brings into question his impartiality in advising the Government on matters of human rights law as they apply to soldiers. He should therefore recuse himself from giving advice on those matters generally, but especially on the Northern Ireland legislation, which as it stands will victimise more British soldiers. Can we have a debate on Government legal advice and the shameful misuse of human rights law in pursuit of our soldiers?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  I came in to watch the Committee. Sir Olly actually said that the advice he was given by his director of intelligence was “borderline”. One issue that was not clear was whether the pressure from No. 10 was simply on him or on all members of the channel, down to lower levels.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  That is the public information. If the hon. Gentleman wants to get into the argument between UKVS, which we are now told was saying the risk was marginal, and No. 10, who are saying that the strike-off is a red, he can do that. I am talking about public data, and about what we should know before we start the process—

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  No, no, the hon. Gentleman has had his go. Sit down. No. 10 has chosen to ignore these things, and that is critical. We have heard about the pressure that was being put on the Foreign Office over and over again. Forgive me again, Mr Speaker, for this direct quote, because it is obscene. The Select Committee Chairman recounted today how Morgan McSweeney called Sir Olly’s predecessor and told him to, “Just fucking approve it.” Speaking in the Committee, Sir Olly made it clear that he was under “constant pressure” in an “atmosphere of constant chasing”. Why? We already know that it was not because Mandelson was a materially better candidate than Karen Pierce, the brilliant, well-established, highly regarded incumbent with excellent connections to the White House. It was because Mandelson was a leading member of the new Labour aristocracy, full stop. It was not talent, but connection. It was not even in the national interest. Plainly it was not even in the Labour interest. It was in the interest of a Labour clique. Mandelson’s appointment was a decision made with complete disregard for the known risks, which explains the Prime Minister’s lack of curiosity about the vetting. It was not a lack of curiosity; he did not ask because he did not want to know. The former Cabinet Secretary warned the Prime Minister that he should secure Mandelson’s security clearance before any appointment. He was warned on 11 December 2024 by the Cabinet Office about Mandelson’s public past. On 11 September last year, No. 10 was asked by a journalist whether Mandelson had failed developed vetting. No. 10 knew. It is as plain as a pikestaff. So where do we go from here? We have a Prime Minister and a Government in power who are making decisions in the interests of their own clique within their party, and in doing so they are putting the United Kingdom at explicit risk. The Prime Minister should resign.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  Our ambassador in Washington stands at the nexus of the Five Eyes, with more classified intelligence crossing his desk than crosses the desks of most Cabinet Ministers. It is obviously one of the most important appointments the Prime Minister makes, but it is also one of the most sensitive. A security failure in that post could seriously jeopardise the Five Eyes relationship—the Americans are notoriously twitchy about security—so the appointee’s conduct before the appointment must be beyond reproach and their trustworthiness must be impeccable. One of our best ambassadors, Karen Pierce, was already in place. She was highly regarded by the State Department and the White House; indeed—contrary to what the Lib Dem leader said—so much so that President Trump called the Prime Minister to urge him to keep Pierce while expressing concern about Mandelson in one of three calls from the White House on her behalf and against him. She was a high-class, high-performance, zero-risk choice. Against that, we had the London establishment’s view that Mandelson’s amoral dark arts would somehow make him a good ambassador—a view typically espoused by people with no idea of what makes a good ambassador. Among the questions before us in assessing the Prime Minister’s judgment is whether Mandelson was a better appointment than Karen Pierce and, if so, whether the benefit of that appointment was sufficient to outweigh the clear risks. Of course, the answer to both those questions is an emphatic no. It was abundantly clear to anyone taking that decision that he was a significant security risk. He was a man who had twice been forced to resign from Government and who had known links to a paedophile. Mandelson was also closely associated with the Russian oligarch Deripaska, a man who had been responsible for the deaths of 100 people and was personally responsible for murders and extortion. Mr Mandelson—Lord Mandelson, as he was then—spent weekends with Deripaska in his dacha and in Moscow. He did this at weekends, of course, because the EU does not record where its commissioners are at the weekend. That is the sort of background we are talking about. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), the leader of my party, Mandelson was also a non-executive director of Sistema, a Russian arms dealing company led by a Putin ally. When he stood down from his role at Sistema, he took a large shareholding, which he kept for some time. All of this is in the public domain. It was in the public domain before Mandelson was appointed. There were links to China, too. I can list them over and over again: TikTok, which is owned by the Chinese state; and Shein, which is based on Uyghur forced labour. Of course, he also called time and again for closer Anglo-Chinese relationships. When appointments such as these are made, it is not a judgment beyond reasonable doubt. It is not even a judgment based on the balance of probabilities. It is a judgment on significant risk. Are we going to take a significant risk with the Five Eyes relationship? Of course we are not. It should be clear, on public data alone, that this man is, or was, a significant risk. Indeed, the propriety and ethics team in the Cabinet Office flagged to No. 10 most of the issues I have just described before this process started. Mr Speaker, forgive me for being so direct, but we should remember that Peter Mandelson is a man who has proven that he is greedy for money, greedy for glamour, greedy for status and greedy for power, and that he is willing to break the rules to get them. That is the key point: he is willing to break the rules to get them. Such a man is a classic security risk in the face of Russian or Chinese kompromat, not to mention the risk posed by his known involvement with Epstein.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister rebuffed first the Leader of the Opposition and then the leader of the Liberal Democrats for saying that the then Cabinet Secretary’s advice to the Prime Minister was to get the clearance before the announcement. I will read one sentence from a document entitled “Options for HMA Washington”, from the Cabinet Secretary of the day to the Prime Minister personally. It states: “If this is the route that you wish to take you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest or other issues of which you should be aware before confirming your choice.” The House does not want to hear about what Mr Wormald said a year later. That was the advice then; why did the Prime Minister not follow it?