John Whittingdale MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Jun 2026 · Steel Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can Minister state what assessment he has made of the grades of steel that are simply not produced in this country? What is his message to companies such as C&M Precision Ltd in my constituency, and all those mentioned this afternoon, that face an immediate increase in their costs, because they have absolutely no alternative except to import their steel?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords]: Revival · Hansard source

  More

  I will make a couple of points to my hon. Friend. As I have said, I not only served as a trustee, but sat on what is called the conflicts committee. The conflicts committee has a majority of independent members—not of seat holders—and it is there to ensure that any decisions taken are done properly. While it may be the case that conflicts exist, that in itself is not a problem, so long as there are proper mechanisms in place to ensure that the current situation is not abused. Certainly no evidence has ever been suggested, as far as I am aware, of seat holders seeking to take decisions for their own benefit, rather than for the good of the hall. If they did do that, the Charity Commission would come down on them rapidly, so there is an existing control around that issue. My hon. Friend is right that concerns have been voiced about how the hall operates. When the Bill went through the House of Lords recently, an amendment was passed relating to the resale of tickets, which is the other issue that some Members have raised. It was suggested that seat holders, if they wished to sell their seats, should be required to do so through the hall’s own ticket resale mechanism. Many do choose to do that, but the problem with that is twofold. The first is how the resale mechanism works. It pools the takings and redistributes them among all seat holders. If not all seats are sold, that could end up costing seat holders money. The second problem, which is more fundamental, is that these are property rights. It is the legal right of the seat holder to decide whether to use the seat himself or herself, to pass it to somebody else, or to sell it. It is a fundamental property right. To meet the concerns that were expressed, and the amendment that was made in the House of Lords, the hall offered an alternative undertaking, which is that each year those trustees who are seat holders and had sold tickets during the course of the year would have the amount of money that they obtained as a result made public. Through that, there would be greater transparency, with anyone able to see that those seat holders who become trustees are not exploiting their position in that way. That undertaking was accepted by the panel of the Committee on unopposed Bills, and hence that undertaking is now being given by the hall in place of the amendment. This Bill is about one question alone: the ability of the hall to go on with the present practice, whereby seat holders go above and beyond the number of events or days where they agree to give up their rights and put more into the pot to the benefit of the hall and the public. If the Bill does not pass, there is a real risk that the entire model on which the hall operates will be undermined.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords]: Revival · Hansard source

  More

  We are talking about very few events where tickets are sold at a much greater price than their face value. There will be some. The problem with what the hon. Gentleman suggests is that, at the end of the day, we are talking about somebody’s right as a legal owner of a property to decide what to do with it. The seat holders have been extremely generous in the level to which they agree to support the hall. [ Interruption. ] The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and I agree with each other on many other occasions—we sit next to each other on the Foreign Affairs Committee—but on this we are on opposing sides. She has suggested, for instance, that the hall has benefited unfairly from the Government and the taxpayer because it received a loan of around £20 million during the covid pandemic. I was a Minister in the Department of Culture, Media and Sport during covid. The cultural recovery fund amounted to £1.5 billion. If that had not been put in place, the entire cultural landscape of this country would have collapsed. In the vast majority of cases, the funding was grants. Cultural institutions—theatres, museums, galleries and music venues—were given grants by the Government, ranging from the Royal Opera House through to the Hot Box in Chelmsford, which I occasionally attend to see up-and-coming bands. All of them were beneficiaries, but the difference was that in the case of the Royal Albert Hall, it was not a grant, but a loan, and it is repaying that loan. The great thing about the Royal Albert Hall is that for 150 years it has provided one of our greatest cultural assets, and at almost no cost to the public purse. Apart from that covid loan, there has been no cost to the public purse at all, and it remains the case that, unlike so many others, it does not receive a grant. If this Bill does not pass, a model that has been so successful for 150 years is at risk of being undermined. If the consequence is that the hall has to withdraw from a lot of its charitable activities—reaching out to put on events for young people and for communities—and becomes solely focused on having to raise money, the communities will lose out. There must be a real risk that ultimately, if that model is no longer sustainable, it will be the taxpayer who is asked to step in in place of it. Let me say this to Members on both sides of the House. When we come to consider the Bill, it will have undergone scrutiny, and can continue to undergo scrutiny. I am aware of the concerns that the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) is about to express. Let us have a continuing dialogue with the hall about those concerns, but the Bill is only about sustaining the present mechanism, which is clearly of benefit to the hall, to everyone who goes there, and to the country. I hope very much that it will be allowed to be revived and to pass into law.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords]: Revival · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Lady give way?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords]: Revival · Hansard source

  More

  I should add that while the Government gave the hall £20 million as a loan, as it gave loans to so many institutions across the country, the seat holders—the members of the Royal Albert Hall —put in £2 million above and beyond what they had to provide under the arrangements normally, as support. The seat holders have been extraordinarily generous, and it is not the case that they have somehow exploited the Government. They put in their own money to the tune of £2 million to get the hall past covid.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords]: Revival · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to support the revival motion before the House today. It is about 11 months since I moved Second Reading of the Bill last year. At that stage, it had already completed its passage through the House of Lords, and it was given a Second Reading without opposition. It then went into the Committee on unopposed private Bills, and the panel met in March this year under the chairmanship of the Chairman of Ways and Means. The Committee approved the Bill subject to an undertaking given by the Royal Albert Hall, which I will come back to. I do not want to repeat all of the speech I made on Second Reading, but I do want to set out again why the Bill is so necessary and beneficial, and not just to the Royal Albert Hall but to the many people who enjoy performances there. The Royal Albert Hall is one of our most important cultural institutions. There can be few people in this Chamber, or indeed the country, who have not enjoyed performances at the hall—either live or broadcast—including the last night of the Proms, the Festival of Remembrance, Cirque du Soleil and, tonight, Elvis Costello. I should declare that I served as a trustee of the Royal Albert Hall, appointed by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, from 2018 to 2020. I was one of five independent trustees, and I also sat on the conflicts committee, which is an extremely important part of the management of the hall, and to which I will return. As a result, I gained a good understanding of the way in which the hall operates, and I saw how the council works to fulfil the charitable purposes of the hall. The hall has operated successfully for 150 years, and to explain why this Bill is necessary, it is important to appreciate its history and the model on which it is based. The hall was the idea of Prince Albert. Sadly, he died before he could see it completed, but the corporation was set up in 1867 in his memory, and the hall was built and opened by Queen Victoria less than four years later. The initial funding for the building of the hall came from the commissioners of the Great Exhibition, but it was insufficient, so the remainder—the gap that needed to be filled—was met by payment in return for seats in the hall. It is perhaps a unique model of public-private partnership. The hall has around 5,500 seats, of which around 1,250—just under a quarter—are privately owned. Those seat holders are members of the corporation, and in some cases those seats have been passed down through families across generations. Others have been bought by charities, companies and individuals when they have come up for sale. Ownership of a seat brings with it the right to attend certain performances—but not all—and the members elect from their ranks 18 out of the 23 trustees who run the hall. They also make a significant financial contribution each year through what is called the seat rate, which is currently around £2,250. That is an ongoing commitment of the seat holders to the continuation and the costs of the hall. On top of that, it has always been the case that seat holders agree to forgo their tickets for events held in the hall on just over 100 days each year. By giving up that right, the hall therefore has the tickets available either to offer to the promoter or to use for its own purposes. By doing so, it can attract higher artists, so it is of considerable financial benefit to the hall that the seat holders behave in that way. The practice of agreeing to forgo the right of using a seat is not covered expressly by the constitution of the hall; it is voted on and agreed by the members that they should do that. However, there has been a suggestion of legal challenge from a very small number who do not like the fact that a majority of the seat holders have voted accordingly to give up the right, so there is now legal uncertainty and a risk as to whether the Hall can continue to offer as many tickets as it does to what are called exclusives, where all the tickets are available for use by the hall. That legal uncertainty has resulted in several options for the hall, none of which is particularly palatable. It could continue to operate on the present basis, but it risks defeat in the courts, should that legal challenge be sustained. Indeed, failure to pass this Bill may encourage those seeking to challenge the current situation. The alternative is that the hall could revert to having exclusive performances only to the number permitted under the existing constitution. That probably means losing around 40 exclusive lettings in a year out of perhaps 150. The Bill is necessary to allow the existing practice to continue, to the benefit of the hall. If the Bill does not pass, the chief executive has calculated that it is likely to cost the Royal Albert Hall around £1.8 million.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords]: Revival · Hansard source

  More

  I think the hall’s representatives would be only too happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry); indeed, they have asked to speak to her several times, without success. As has been pointed out, this is a very narrow Bill—it has a very restrictive title—and it is essential if the hall is to continue. We should continue to talk to the hall, but we should not stand in the way of this Bill, which is absolutely vital if the hall is to continue.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Russian Shadow Fleet · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment and welcome the action in the channel. He will be aware that last night saw one of the biggest attacks yet on civilian buildings and people in Kyiv, and included damage to the historic cathedral there. He will also be aware that dual-use technology is still arriving in Russia via third countries. We heard today from the Ukrainian Speaker about washing machine microcircuits that were supposedly going to Kazakhstan being found in Russian missiles falling on Kyiv. Will the Secretary of State look again, with his colleagues, at what further action we can take to stop this technology being used to kill more people in Ukraine?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Digital Safety: Children · Hansard source

  More

  While I welcome the Government’s belated intention to act in this area, does the Minister agree that there would be no need to wait for legislation if the social media companies actually started to enforce their existing age requirements for participating online? Many children under the age of 13 are able to create accounts and interact, despite the fact that that is completely against the terms of the platforms.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Russian Attacks on Civilian Infrastructure · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her reply. She will be aware that on Tuesday night, one of the largest aerial attacks so far during this war took place against Kyiv and other cities. It left 22 dead, including two children, and 130 injured. In Dnipro, there was the use of cluster munitions and, indeed, a so-called double-tap attack against one of the civilian protection units. Ukraine has developed some of the best technology in the world against the use of drones, but Russia is stepping up its use of ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. Can she say what the Government will do to try to boost Ukraine’s air defences, particularly through the supply of Patriot anti-missile defences? Can she confirm that records are being kept of the attacks carried out by Russia that constitute war crimes, and that Russia will be held to account for them, through the establishment of a special tribunal to prosecute Russia for the crime of aggression? Can she confirm that Russia will be made to pay for reconstruction of the damage, through the use of frozen assets? Finally, will she now look at formally designating Russia a terrorist state?

• 4 Jun 2026 · Russian Attacks on Civilian Infrastructure · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the recent deliberate attacks by Russia on civilian infrastructure, including residential apartment buildings and other non-military targets.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), we have seen in the first tranche the box note that was sent from the Prime Minister’s private office to the Prime Minister setting out the issues and asking whether Peter Mandelson should be appointed, but that piece of paper bears no comment. When I asked the permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office about this, she said that she would have expected there to be a record of the Prime Minister having written a comment or held a meeting to discuss it. There is apparently no record of either. Is the Minister saying that it does not exist, and if it does not, why not?

• 21 May 2026 · Hospitality Industry · Hansard source

  More

  12. What steps his Department is taking to support the hospitality industry.

• 21 May 2026 · Hospitality Industry · Hansard source

  More

  Despite what the Minister says, hospitality businesses in my constituency, and the constituencies of my hon. Friends, are reeling from the impact of higher energy costs, and increased national insurance contributions and business rates. These businesses are making it clear that if there are any further increases, they will simply not survive. Why are the Government pressing ahead with another tax in the form of the overnight visitor levy, and will she talk to businesses before proceeding with that?

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

  More

  I completely agree with the hon. Lady. It is somehow being suggested by Labour Members that this was about people advising the Prime Minister—I think one speaker earlier said that the Prime Minister had been persuaded to appoint Peter Mandelson. Well, I worked for a Prime Minister, and she coined a phrase: “Advisers advise; Ministers decide.” In this case, as the hon. Lady says, it was the decision of the Prime Minister. Sir Olly Robbins also pointed out that by the time he took up his position, he was essentially presented with a fait accompli. He set that out to us—he said that “I took over as PUS on 20 January”, and that due diligence had already been completed. We know that that process, which included an interview with Morgan McSweeney, had revealed the ongoing relationship between Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, but that it was ignored. We were told that approval of the appointment had already been given by the King, it had been announced publicly to the press, and agrément had been given by the United States. Sir Olly Robbins made clear that agrément is not just a formality; it was a very significant development. Lord Mandelson had also been given access to the FCDO building and IT access, and finally, he was being granted access to highly classified briefings on a case-by-case basis. I asked Sir Olly Robbins whether, given that all that was already in place, it would damage our relationship with the United States of America if he were to have the appointment withdrawn. He replied very clearly, “Yes, it would.” As my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) set out, we already had a very good ambassador in Washington, but Downing Street had nevertheless said to the US Administration that it wanted Lord Mandelson to be appointed, and the White House had given its agreement through the agrément procedure. For Sir Olly Robbins to then withdraw the appointment would have caused real damage to our foreign policy. One can argue that if Sir Olly Robbins were told that the UKSV process had resulted in a clear recommendation of denial, he might—or perhaps even should—still have done so, but he also told us this morning that he was not told that. We were told that he did not see the UKSV report, and that he did not even know that the report has a red box saying “deny” with a tick in it. He said that he had never seen those documents before, and that that would be normal, because access is very restricted for the reasons that the hon. Member for Halesowen set out. All that Sir Olly Robbins was told was that there had been a leaning towards refusal, and that it was a borderline case. Whether or not that was an accurate reflection of what the report actually said is another matter, and we can perhaps debate at what stage, or how far, the message from Downing Street—“We want this person to be appointed”—had been transmitted, to try to make that appointment as possible as it was. However, we are told that after Sir Olly Robbins had arrived as permanent secretary, he was subjected to regular calls from No. 10 saying, “Get it done.” He also told us that the message was not, “Get it done subject to security clearance,” which in his view, it should have been. The press release announcing the appointment of Lord Mandelson did not say “subject to security clearance”—that was never mentioned. This was announced as a decision that had already been taken. Why was the decision taken? That is a matter that is open to conjecture. There is a view among some Labour Members that it was somehow a reward for services given in getting the Prime Minister his job. The leader of the Liberal Democrats said that it might have been an attempt to cosy up to President Trump, although as my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington pointed out, our previous ambassador had done a really good job in representing this country to President Trump. We may never know, but what we do know is that the Prime Minister was absolutely determined that that appointment should be made. Even after the appointment was made, when all of these things began to be revealed—in particular, the ongoing relationship between Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, which the Prime Minister said he was unaware of the closeness of and he was very angry when he was told about—inquiries had already been made. Journalists had been ringing up No. 10 and saying, “We have been told that Lord Mandelson failed his security vetting,” and No. 10 put out a denial. With journalists calling up and asking, “Is it true that he did not pass the UKSV assessment, and it recommended denial of security vetting?” one would expect that before saying, “No, that’s complete rubbish,” No. 10 might actually begin to ask questions. People in No. 10 might say to the Prime Minister, “You should be aware that we’ve had an inquiry about this.” Apparently none of that happened, or if it did, it was simply swept under the carpet. The end result of this process is that for more than a year we had someone representing this country at the most senior level in America, which is our closest ally, who the security agencies had concluded was a security risk. We do not know the full extent of the damage that may have been done during that time.

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

  More

  This morning’s Foreign Affairs Committee session lasted for two-and-a-half hours. It was certainly one of the more remarkable sessions that I have attended, and I have been involved in a number of quite controversial Select Committee hearings over the years. It showed the Select Committee system at its best, and Members across the House worked together. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), a fellow member of the Committee who spoke earlier. I share his view that Sir Olly Robbins, who gave us evidence, put in an impressive performance. He is clearly angry at the way in which he is being treated; he has a distinguished career that has been brought to a premature end, and he is clearly very upset by that. In his evidence, he made some extraordinary revelations. He had given evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee in November last year, when, as the Chair of the Committee suggested in her introduction, we may have heard the truth and nothing but the truth, but probably not the whole truth. This morning, we heard a lot more of the whole truth. What became absolutely clear, which had already been suggested in the previous hearing, was that No. 10 Downing Street was absolutely determined that Lord Mandelson should become the ambassador of his country to the United States. Sir Olly told us that his predecessor, Philip Barton, had strongly advised that that should not happen until after the developed vetting process had been completed. Despite that advice from the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, he was ignored—indeed, we are told that the Cabinet Office went on to suggest that developed vetting might not even be necessary. This was not just a routine appointment, and it was not routine for two reasons. First, it was the appointment of probably the most important ambassadorial post that this country has. Secondly, and very unusually, it was a direct ministerial appointment. Most of the time, ambassadorial appointments are made from within the civil service, and people have already had the vetting procedure. This was somebody being brought in from the outside who had not been vetted and already had a track record of having had to resign from Government twice.

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

  More

  I am afraid that Madam Deputy Speaker is coughing at me, so I will not give way. I fear that there is still more to come. I hope that I can say on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee that we will continue to pursue this matter.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  The result of the Prime Minister’s terrible failure of judgment is that for over a year this country’s interests were represented in the United States by someone that our own security services deemed to be a security risk. Will he assure us that an investigation will take place into all aspects where our national security may have been damaged, and that the results of that will be made available to the Intelligence and Security Committee and, where possible, to Parliament?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. My constituents in Maldon have, for more than 30 years, been promised a new health hub in the town to replace St Peter’s hospital, a building that is over 150 years old. In the first round of new neighbourhood health centres, the integrated care board put forward the case for Maldon, but it was unsuccessful. May I press the Government to include Maldon in the second round? Will the Secretary of State meet me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) to discuss this matter?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  How does the Minister expect local authorities in Essex to be ready for elections for unitaries in a year’s time, while at the same time undertaking local government reorganisation, creating a new Greater Essex integrated care board for the NHS, dealing with unprecedented demand for social care, and implementing the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill? As Essex county council has said, the breakneck speed of change across the board is simply unmanageable. Will the Minister even now rethink this proposal, and call off elections for the new unitaries next year?

• 19 Mar 2026 · International Development · Hansard source

  More

  I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary’s decision that the UK will once again co-chair the global Media Freedom Coalition, but will she match that with financial support for independent media organisations and journalists in the growing number of countries where media freedom is under attack and US support has largely been withdrawn?

• 4 Mar 2026 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Africa is of huge importance, and if ever we needed a reminder of the risk posed to the values we hold dear from hostile powers, in particular China, we had a perfect demonstration in the statement earlier today. Thirdly, I want to touch on media freedom, which I am delighted that the Minister has specific responsibility for. I welcome the commitment he has already shown to it. The Media Freedom Coalition was established under the last Government by the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt). It is great news that the Foreign Secretary was able to announce in Munich recently that the UK will take back the chair of the coalition. It is even more important today than it was when it was set up. I hope that taking back the chair will not just be symbolic but matched by a real commitment to promoting media freedom, which is under huge threat in a wide range of countries. We have seen journalists threatened with imprisonment, harassed and, in some cases, murdered. The UK has a very important role to play in promoting media freedom and taking a lead on such things as the introduction of visas for journalists who are under threat and sanctions. I was pleased to see that we have just placed sanctions on Georgia— [ Interruption. ] You suggest to me that other Members wish to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will just say that I hope the Minister will be able to say more about those three areas in his response.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. He is right about the importance of the work, which is not always fully visible, including in established countries—I have a particular knowledge of and interest in the Baltic nations, which are on the frontline against Russia. Latvia especially has a Russian minority population that is subject to a constant barrage of attempts by Russia to influence it. That is an area where the British Council is very active, and I am concerned by reports that it may be forced to withdraw from its activities in the Baltic nations. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, Russia and China are active in other countries that are of huge importance strategically but at risk of tipping back into the orbit of hostile powers. The British Council can play an important part in seeking to prevent that.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful for the opportunity to debate the future spending of the Foreign Office. The Foreign Affairs Committee, which I sit on, shares the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) about the impact of the settlement, which will result in significant reductions in headcount within the Department. We have tried in vain to discover exactly how that will impact on its different activities, but at a time when the world is becoming an ever more dangerous place and when the need for British diplomacy and soft power is increasing, it seems utterly extraordinary that we should be cutting back spending on the Foreign Office. I fully support the Government’s ambition to increase spending on defence—indeed, I press them to go further—but soft power is as important as hard power. That is the area in which this country has built an extraordinary reputation for effectiveness, yet we are potentially going to cut it back exactly when it is needed most. Will the Minister say specifically what the future is of the Soft Power Council, which was set up by the previous Foreign Secretary and was something I strongly welcomed? The Foreign Affairs Committee took evidence about the work of that council, but it has gone very quiet in recent months, and I hear disturbing rumours that it is no longer regarded as a priority by the Department. I hope that in his response, the Minister will be able to assure me that that is not the case. I want to touch on three areas of Foreign Office funding. The first, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Rotherham, is the BBC World Service. The need for reliable, trusted information around the world is greater than ever before, yet we are seeing America withdraw from that. Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia have all been cut right back, leaving a gap that I was told this morning is being filled by Russia and China. That makes the BBC World Service even more important as virtually the sole reliable source to which people can turn, yet I understand that it has still not been told how much money it will get in 2026-27. I was allowed to attend the Public Accounts Committee a few weeks ago when the director general of the BBC and the director of the World Service told us of the impossibility of planning ahead in such circumstances. Here we are, just a few weeks before the beginning of the financial year, and they still have not been told. I ask the Minister to confirm whether the BBC World Service can find out how much it will get, and I also press him to increase that money. Originally, the BBC World Service was told that it should plan for a real-terms freeze or a possible cash cut. That comes at the same time as the licence fee is under pressure and the BBC is reducing its contributions to the World Service through the licence fee. So the World Service is subject to a double squeeze. I have considerable sympathy for the World Service, but the right mechanism of funding is through the Foreign Office, and I support the BBC’s request that the Government consider returning to the position of the World Service being fully funded by the Government. Secondly, I want to touch on the British Council, which we know faces huge challenges, principally as a result of the loan that was advanced to it during the time of covid. Unlike many other organisations that were given loans and not required to repay them, the British Council is being required to repay the loan even though it appears to have almost no prospect of being able to do so. At the moment, the British Council’s outgoings are greater than its income, so it cannot pay the loan and nor is it viable. I thank the Minister for the briefing that I and the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee have been given about the future of the British Council, and I urge him to press ahead with drawing up a plan that will both meet the existing challenges and set out a route forward that will put the British Council on a firm footing. It does incredibly important work, especially in those parts of the world where malign forces seek to influence democratic elections and people’s attitudes.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  On Saturday, Prime Minister Carney said: “Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.” Why was our Prime Minister not able to make the same statement? Was Prime Minister Carney wrong?