Matt Western MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 25 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Following the attack on the Prime Minister’s home and car, what measures are being taken to protect recently resigned or other senior leaders of Government?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  This is a most bloody conflict, and the Foreign Secretary was right to say that rape is being used as a weapon of war. What steps is the Minister taking with international partners to ensure that the belligerents and those culpable are brought to justice?

• 25 Jun 2026 · National Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  Having spoken to ambassadors from various nations, such as the Scandinavian and Baltic states, as well as to the high commissioner of Canada, I understand that so many of these countries are now planning for dual-use infrastructure, for instance by expanding the width of motorways so that they can be considered for use by military aircraft in future conflict. Will the Minister update the House on our thinking in that domain?

• 18 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  It was great to see so many Lionesses honoured in the recent King’s birthday honours, including Jess Carter, who hails from Warwick and started her career at Warwick juniors. As we celebrate Pride Month, we do so, I fear, at a time that has dark echoes of the 1930s. Sadly in Warwickshire, the Reform UK council leader George Finch has said that libraries are promoting “contested gender ideology” and has promised “a comprehensive policy” to combat that trend. These libraries simply had Pride Month books and displays. We should be under no illusion: this is clear dog-whistle politics against the LGBTQ+ community. May we therefore have a debate on the crucial role of our councils in delivering community cohesion, not division?

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The world has clearly entered a new era of geopolitical volatility, with technology and strategic competition for resources driving an increasingly contested and competing world. This has not just happened since July 2024. It has been on the horizon for a good many years, and that intensifying and escalating rivalry between states is now the new normal. The United Kingdom must adapt to this new world, not cling to a dying world order, and this Bill is the latest recognition from the Government that they must and will adapt and respond, and that they will always put the national security of the UK first. Today, I will centre my remarks on the state threats we face, on the Bill and on the wider response that is needed to tackle those state threats. The three greatest state threats facing the United Kingdom are from Russia, China and Iran, and they each pose a distinct and unique threat. Only this week it has been confirmed that Russian proxies set the Prime Minister’s house and car on fire. We need to urgently grasp the seriousness of that. It was abhorrent political violence targeted against the elected leader of the United Kingdom—our country—but that was not all. The individuals spread disinformation, whipped up community tensions and paid for far right posters to be put up and for “Stop Islam” graffiti to be sprayed. We must not tolerate this. That was not an isolated event. We have heard about the assassination of Litvinenko, the attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal, the attack on the warehouse in east London in March 2024 by the Wagner Group and many other suspicious attacks on these shores. These include the cyber-attacks on Jaguar Land Rover, on Marks & Spencer and on the British Library, which still has not recovered from the attack several years ago. In October 2025, the director general of MI5, Ken McCallum, said that state threats had risen by a third over a year and were now equal to or even greater than the threat of terrorism. In the last year alone, there has been a 35% increase in state threat activity. For example, between 2022 and 2025, the UK prevented 20 Iran-backed plots, all of which were potentially lethal threats. Meanwhile, Chinese espionage and cyber-attacks are a continual threat. With China’s thousand grains of sand theory, every piece of information, no matter how small or seemingly unimportant, is of value. In May 2024, the director of GCHQ said that the service “devotes more resource to China than any other single mission” and that China poses a “genuine and increasing cyber risk” to the UK. Those three countries present three different ideologies and three different strategies, but they all represent an intensifying and rapidly evolving threat to the United Kingdom. The Bill is another important step following the critically important National Security Act 2023 to protect the United Kingdom from these state threats. It will introduce a new power to designate bodies involved in foreign power threat activity, as we have heard, and create a new offence of supporting, assisting or benefiting from designated bodies. Of course, that follows the review by Jonathan Hall KC into whether existing terrorism powers could be used to address state threats. He found that the terrorism proscription charges would not be appropriate, so instead this legislation will now designate bodies, including proxies, such as the IRGC or the Wagner Group. It was clear from the inquiry by the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy into the China spy case that while the 2023 Act was a big step forward, the ever-evolving threat landscape means that it would need to evolve, be improved upon and be amended, just as we are doing today. I am pleased that the Government have taken up the recommendation and acted in the national interest. The designation of certain bodies should and must send a clear message to our adversaries that the person will be held responsible for it, with a maximum of 14 years in prison for such an offence. It is slightly unusual for a Bill to be expedited in this way, but I recognise the urgency and thank the Department for its continued engagement with the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. However, I do have one area of concern. The impact assessment outlines a potential long-term consequence that I would like to focus on. The assessment says that a long-term impact may be “Detrimental impact of foreign policy objectives/bilateral relationships”. On the risks to bilateral relationships, my immediate thought is, of course, China. The Chinese state does not take kindly to accusations of espionage, as we saw with the collapsed China spy case whereby, under the last Conservative Government, the deputy National Security Adviser was unable to describe China as the enemy due to Government policy, despite the security threat—this tricky tightrope that we continue to have to walk. We have to engage with China. Its economic might and, quite frankly, our dependence on it, which we have to reduce in the long term, means that ignoring China is not an option, but how does the Minister plan to mitigate the risk to our national security while avoiding damaging that relationship? It seems that the contradiction here is yet to be fully resolved. Could the Minister assure me that there are clear contingency plans for an incident like that and that all civil servants, police forces and intelligence services are clear on the Government’s position regarding China? I am pleased that this Labour Government have already taken a raft of measures to keep us secure and safe, with today being the latest piece of legislation to meet the moment. Of course, there will be other piece of legislation because the threats will become greater and even more diverse. The Representation of the People Bill, the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill and the Bill before us are all interlinked and should be seen as a co-ordinated effort, but there is more to be done. We need to explain this very real threat to the public and build resilience in our institutions and businesses, and throughout the country for each and every individual. We need a national conversation with the public because the Government cannot do this alone. In this new era of state threats, legislation is crucial, and the Government have an integral role in keeping us all safe, but so does the public. We need to explain that and not shy away from the realities before us.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Business without Debate · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise with you my concern about comments attributed to the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), who I understand has described my right hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) as acting like a Gestapo officer—I think that is the term she used. This is extremely alarming, particularly on this day of all days. In recognition of Jo Cox’s assassination, I just ask that all of us around this place temper our comments and calm down the rhetoric. I simply ask your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how to take that matter forward.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I accept the point about the plethora of businesses in the food supply sector, but my amendment simply seeks commonality with what the European Union has pushed for. Why can it not be the right thing for the UK Government to do as well?

• 16 Jun 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I concur with the points he made on Jimmy Lai and Jagtar Singh Johal and, more widely, about the internet of things. I think of Norway and Denmark, which suddenly realised that hundreds of buses they had imported from China had kill switches, meaning that their entire public transport networks could potentially have been disabled, just like that. That is the reality of these new technologies, and we need to face up to it and have our eyes wide open in the contracts and deals that we sign. On Second Reading five months ago, I welcomed the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, but even in the short time since then, the world has become an ever more dangerous place, and the cyber-threat has only intensified. I commend the Government on their hard work in the intervening period, and in my remarks today I want to focus on the cyber-threat landscape, my two amendments—new clause 21 and amendment 28—and the need for a national conversation on national security, which of course includes cyber-security. Let me start with the cyber-threat landscape. The UK is the most cyber-attacked nation in Europe and the third most cyber-attacked nation globally, with three in four businesses having suffered a cyber-attack in the past year. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) talked about the attacks on Jaguar Land Rover, Marks & Spencer, the Co-op and others. Having spoken with those businesses with the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy and individually, I know of the scale of the impact that was felt within their operation and how affected they were by these attacks. It is unimaginable, even for the most seasoned business and industry leaders, to suddenly find themselves under such attack, and the repercussions for the economy have been very significant. In April, the CEO of the National Cyber Security Centre, Richard Horne, laid out the scale of cyber-attacks: on average, the NCSC deals with around four nationally significant incidents a week—that is not the hundreds of incidents that are occurring every day, but the really serious, significant ones. The threat of cyber-attacks will only intensify. Continued state-backed cyber-attacks from Russia, China and Iran, either directly or via proxies, are being fuelled by technological advancements in AI and quantum computing, increasing the complexity and sheer volume of such attacks. The reality is that major cyber-attacks are no longer rare one-offs but an operational reality facing every business and organisation—public and private—across the UK, as they are globally. It is important that we secure our systems to make them more robust and deter such attacks, so that those who wish to do us harm will go after others. It is in this context that the Bill has been introduced, and it takes serious, robust steps to increase the resilience of the UK. However, given the escalating threat picture, I continue to have concerns about the scope and breadth of the Bill. That is why I have tabled new clause 21 and amendment 28, which I hope the Minister will reconsider. New clause 21 would bring those in the food supply chain within the scope of the NIS regulations and regulate them as “operators of essential services”, while excluding smaller businesses, to avoid an unnecessary administrative burden. I understand that the Minister addressed this on Second Reading, explaining that essential services would only include those sectors “the failure of whose network and information systems poses imminent threat to life to the British public.” —[ Official Report , 6 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 225.] I would gently suggest that the collapse or disruption of the food supply chain would pose an imminent threat to life. I say that in an honest and not patronising way. Those of us who have had conversations behind the scenes about what happened during the pandemic, and Opposition Members who were far closer to that when in government, will realise that the health threat was one element, but the collapse of society—not just the economy, but society—with the potential for civil unrest and rioting, due to the lack of food and toilet rolls on shelves and so on, would have been the most urgent and pressing issue. It is worth noting that the European Union’s NIS2 directive does include food distribution in its regulation, so it is feasible and recognised internationally as important. The Bill does grant the Secretary of State powers to bring in new sectors. Could the Minister reassure me that the Department will give this due consideration today and in the future? Secondly, amendment 28 would ensure that relevant managed service providers do not provide services to manage the technology systems for a number of customers that exceeds a critical risk threshold within the same sector or subsector. The rationale behind this is simple: it is about building resilience and ensuring that if one RMSP fails or is breached, a whole sector is not hamstrung by it. I can envision a situation whereby one particular RMSP dominates a large category or small subsector that may be a crucial part of a supply chain, thereby crippling the whole chain. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West cited the UK Government’s dependency on AWS and Microsoft as an example. Will the Minister please consider that? Aside from my two amendments, it is clear that the Bill, in itself, is not the only answer to our cyber-resilience; multiple approaches are needed. Given that the Bill does not include large swathes of the economy or local government, it is even more important that we explain to businesses and the public the very real threats that we face. That brings me to my final point, which is on the need for a national conversation on national security. We can have the best crafted and tightest legislation and regulation, but unless we have a real cultural shift and acknowledgment of the cyber-threat and its impacts, from board level to entry-level positions, all of this will be wasted. I once again encourage the Department and the whole machinery of government to go further and faster in explaining the threat posed and the steps we can all take to boost resilience, because resilience starts with the mobile phone in our pocket, and cyber-security is only as strong as its weakest link. The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, which I chair, has begun its inquiry into building national resilience through a national conversation. It is clear from the evidence we have heard from Taiwan, the Netherlands and other European nations I have spoken to that we need to explain the threat to people, build a stronger cultural sense of resilience and explain that we all have a role to play; it is not simply the state’s responsibility. I will update the House on our findings in due course, and I hope the Minister and the Government will find that useful when considering their plans for national resilience. To conclude, this Bill is a substantial and serious step forward in protecting the UK from cyber-attacks. It makes us more resilient and strengthens our collective security, but there are areas where I encourage the Government to be more ambitious—namely, by bringing the food supply chain into the essential services classification, as Europe is doing; setting critical risk thresholds for RMSPs; and expanding the scope of the Bill to encompass more of the economy.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Household Energy Bills · Hansard source

  More

  A good way of reducing bills is to reduce consumption. In Germany, about 12 years ago, subsidised mortgages were introduced to help reduce the cost of installing triple glazing in houses. However, in conservation areas in this country, such as in my constituency, people are prevented from installing even secondary glazing, so they cannot reduce their bills, even though they would desperately like to. Will the Minister meet colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to get this issue sorted?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Preparedness for National Emergencies · Hansard source

  More

  Last year was monumental in terms of the number of events suffered in the UK and internationally; think about the economic damage to Jaguar Land Rover and Marks & Spencer, and there were power outages across Spain and Portugal for 10 hours. There is a real need for wider resilience. Certain other countries have made further progress on the issue, ensuring that each individual has, say, a “go bag” that will give them seven days’ provisions to ensure that they survive any natural catastrophe or other such event.

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

  More

  Any cases that are clearly a real risk to national security should alarm everyone around this House. I think back to some of the questions that I put to then Prime Minister Johnson, as you will recall, Mr Speaker, about his relationship with Alexander Lebedev, for example. We have heard about the case of Oleg Deripaska with George Osborne and Peter Mandelson, as well as other characters, which is deeply concerning. Let me land on a point about the non-corporate communication channels and IT systems. I am delighted to hear that the Government are reviewing those, but this is a matter of urgency, because it has become the norm for civil servants and those in Government, including in previous Governments, to use the likes of WhatsApp as the normal operating system. When will that review be published?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Defence Procurement · Hansard source

  More

  Those of us interested in subsea cables will have been delighted to hear the news announced over the weekend about the AUKUS arrangement, which the Government spoke about, and the development of new technologies with unmanned drone vehicles for subsea capability. Beyond that, will the Minister look at drone capability in this country, specifically at companies such as Skycutter and our other sovereign capabilities, to ensure that we get the right investment with the investment plans into those companies and ensure that they stay here in the United Kingdom?

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

  More

  My first concern is about the number of WhatsApp and other channels that have been used for very informal but important communications between officials and Ministers—a practice that seems to have started very actively under the Johnson Government and continued thereafter. My second concern is about the use of low-level IT systems for quite serious documents of record. Can the Minister update the House on what is being done to tighten up those important channels?

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). I agree with the point he made about representing all our constituents, whether they vote for us or not. I thank His Majesty for the Gracious Speech earlier, and I place on record my massive appreciation for the speech given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah). I think Members from all parts of the House would agree that it was a truly inspirational and uplifting speech. Likewise, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for his typically amusing but informative speech. May I say just how well he represents the good people of Harlow? In the last parliamentary Session the Government passed 50 pieces of legislation, including the Employment Rights Act 2025 and the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. We banned no-fault evictions, and brought four rail companies into public ownership. While we were doing all that and introducing much more legislation, we increased the minimum wage above inflation, reduced the number of children in poverty by 450,000, and brought NHS waiting lists down by 500,000. So much has been done, but people would not realise that from reading the papers or listening to the media. Let me just add that we also launched 676 family hubs across England, which are hugely welcome following the loss of the children’s and family centres that we had before. I welcome the King’s Speech. It recognises the dangerous world in which we live, and the necessity of building security and resilience throughout our lives. I welcome the emphasis on security—economic, national, energy and defence—as well as the reform and renewal of public services: the NHS, the police, justice, immigration systems and, indeed, water. It also proposes long-term investment in housing and to strengthen infrastructure. It mentions 37 Bills that will improve the country in the long term. I was encouraged by the Prime Minister’s announcement about British Steel in Scunthorpe and by the legislation to be introduced for its nationalisation, which shows real ambition on the Government’s part; I hope it is an indication of where we will go in the future. The Prime Minister referred widely to the status quo today, so perhaps I can start with how I think we got here. Let us first think back to nearly 20 years ago, and the 2008 global financial crash. That was followed by austerity, which I believe was the wrong political decision, and subsequently by the EU referendum; and then, of course, we had the pandemic. All those elements have contributed to a stasis in the UK economy. Let us now think back to what we had in the run-up to 2010, when the economy was beginning to emerge from the global financial crash, before the move to austerity frustrated the nascent growth in our economy. Austerity meant that investment was cut while interest rates were at record lows. Any investor worth his or her salt would have been investing in this country, in infrastructure, when we had interest rates at 0.5%. If I had had the money I would have been investing it, and that is certainly what the Government of the time should have been doing. When we look at the infrastructure today, after 14 years of austerity, we can see the cracks, and they are not just in the roads or the schools and hospitals. Let me now say something about what happened to the economy following Brexit. UK in a Changing Europe has said: “By 2025, we estimate that UK GDP per capita was 6-8% lower than it would have been without Brexit. Investment was 12-18% lower, employment 3-4% lower, and productivity 3-4% lower.” Between 2009-10 and 2024, incomes grew by just 0.5% a year on average, or 7% over the whole 14-year period. Income growth over the 14 years prior to 2009-10 was more than five times as strong, at 38%. We can see the huge loss in real earnings that was suffered by citizens—by our workforce—as a result of austerity and then Brexit. According to the Office for National Statistics, average UK real household income has remained broadly unchanged between 2007 and 2022. This has left the UK woefully unprepared to deal with the crisis that we face in a more dangerous world. War is raging in Europe and the middle east. The Iran war is forecast to cause a decline in employment of 0.4%, with construction and manufacturing the worst hit. J.P. Morgan has predicted that the price of Brent crude will average $96 per barrel throughout 2026, so there is no respite on the horizon when it comes to oil prices and, of course, the contribution that they make to all our costs, to the cost of living and to the economy. Despite all that, we saw growth return when the Labour party returned to government in 2024 and through to the beginning of this year, and there was optimism. Consumer confidence was returning and business investment was improving, but then we got hit by the Iran war. Given the constraints of what is going on globally, the Government’s push to build closer relationships with Europe is so important. As I understand it, the legislation that is being proposed will see the introduction of a dynamic alignment mechanism to reduce trade friction and the burdens on business. As I said, because of Brexit, UK GDP is now 6% to 8% lower than it would have been by last year, and employment and productivity are both around 4% lower. What is essential is that the partnership Bill will aim to reduce costs for businesses, and to increase trade and co-operation, and it will ultimately be better for consumers. Given that the EU accounts for 42% of UK exports, with automotive accounting for £29 billion of exports, the EU is a massive market for my constituency of Warwick and Leamington, which has a very large automotive presence. We have to think about the Bill in the wider sense of partnership through broader legislation, international law and maritime law, but as others have said, we also need to recognise how important some of the proposals are, particularly on the Erasmus programme and the benefits that it will bring to young people. The energy independence Bill will be important to our resilience. We need to move our economy away from fossil fuel dependency, and setting more ambition on energy infrastructure and generation will improve our resilience. That is important for my constituency, and not just because National Grid is headquartered there and we have a major Siemens Energy operation, although they will clearly be beneficiaries of the ambitions that the Government are setting out on increasing grid capacity and the adoption of clean energy technologies. It is vital that we reduce our dependency and avoid external shocks, as we have seen most recently with the Iran war and over the last four years or so as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. That is really important not just for wider society but for businesses, because we have traditionally had such high energy costs. The Government are looking to introduce a small business protection Bill, which will have a particular emphasis on late payments. I commend the Federation of Small Businesses for the work that it has done for many years on this front. Late payments cost the UK economy £11 billion per year and cause 14,000 businesses to close annually. The introduction of the Bill is fantastic news, and I really welcome it. I am also impressed by what I am hearing about the SEND reform Bill. I held a roundtable on 5 September last year, where I listened to practitioners and families talking about their lived experiences and what we needed to do. I am encouraged by the proposals, including on the delivery of integrated SEND partnerships and tiered support models. The critical thing is that we should reduce waiting times and improve the quality of service that families currently experience. I want to talk about the impact of cyber-attacks and cyber-security on businesses, which we have heard about. In the last year, we have seen significant impacts. The attacks on Jaguar Land Rover cost around £2 billion. They hit not just Jaguar Land Rover, but the UK economy. A year ago, Marks & Spencer and the Co-op were hit too. As we have heard, the number of attacks that we are suffering is huge. We are the third most cyber-attacked nation in the world, and the most cyber-attacked in Europe, and it is really important that the Government get to grips with it. The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, on which I sit, has identified this as a really important area for the Government to address. In a similar vein, on defence and security, I welcome the Government’s comments in the King’s Speech. It is vital that we get the defence investment plan. I hope that, through bonds or an investment bank, we can get this plan going and get it the funding it desperately needs. We need to improve our security and increase our spend, but we also need to develop our sovereign capacity, with the fantastic businesses and partnerships that this country offers, with others, in some of the new spheres of defence. On the Representation of the People Bill, I think the legislation that has been put forward is really encouraging. I have tabled some amendments to it, and I hope that we can create a very comprehensive piece of legislation, because democracy—not just here in the UK, but of course across the world—is under threat. It is really vital that we tighten up the Bill and put in protections to ensure that our democracy, which is a fragile thing, is defended. I welcome the water reforms that the Government have been talking about. In my constituency, the River Avon and the River Leam are badly polluted as a result of the discharges made by Severn Trent Water. Through some of the proposals being made, including for the new integrated water regulator, I hope we will see such changes and a tightening up of the regulations. I want to talk about the Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Bill. I understand that the expected provisions will cap ground rents at £250, reform the commonhold system and bring an end to forfeiture. This is so important because, on so many of the new estates built in recent years, so many residents are angry about what they have been mis-sold, as they see it, in buying those new properties. More widely, on digital ID, I disagree with the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). We should seize this huge opportunity, as so many other nations have done, because of the advantages that digital ID is bringing. Ultimately, it has to be a good thing. The Northern Powerhouse Rail Bill is so important for rebalancing our country. Yes, the tourist tax is a good thing, but I hope the Government will also look at introducing a VAT break for tourists in this country, because at the moment we are losing tourists to other countries where they do get VAT breaks, and that is impacting on our tourism sector. I welcome the ban on conversion therapy practices and the private hire legislation being considered. As the Prime Minister said earlier, UK economy and society have not been adequately prepared and are not resilient enough. We cannot continue with the status quo. We have to reform our systems and structures. We need to address reform in the NHS, and in our energy systems and water utility infrastructure. We must also hold the cost of living as the fundamentally central issue of the time, because that is what is really hurting so many of our residents, but also our businesses. Last week’s elections really showed that there is impatience across the country—people believe that the system is not working for them—and we need to show greater urgency in the work being done. Once more, we are in yet another global economic and political crisis, after so many of them, as I illustrated earlier in my speech. We have two wars, but we have the social and security challenges more widely, so we have to seize the moment. We have to demand boldness of the Government and a more radical approach if we are indeed to build a better society, and I stress that we must do so as a matter of urgency.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Ernest Bevin · Hansard source

  More

  Ernest Bevin was a Bristol barrow boy who became our Foreign Secretary. In between, he became not just a trade union leader, but the head of the largest union in the country. He then went on to play a vital role in the wartime cabinet as Minister of Labour. A titan of the labour movement, some suggest that he was Labour’s Churchill. In this debate, to mark the 75th anniversary of his death a fortnight ago, I will examine his achievements and their relevance today. Bevin’s accomplishments are made only more impressive by his humble beginnings. Born into great poverty in a remote Somerset village, he was orphaned at eight and began working as a labourer at 11, then as a delivery lad on the streets of Bristol. In his 20s, he attended lectures at the Bristol adult school and the Workers Educational Association, beginning his lifelong commitment to education. Soon after, he would become the national organiser for the Dock, Wharf, Riverside and General Labourers’ union. That informal education, and his life experience, made Bevin a formidable political operator. In 1922, alongside 13 other unions, Bevin led the formation of the Transport and General Workers’ Union. The amalgamation conference was held in Leamington Spa.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Ernest Bevin · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Bevin was a really significant figure and one of the most underestimated by history in terms of what he achieved for this country. He once said: “I’m going to be at the Ministry of Labour from 1940 until 1990”, and he would be proved right. It was not until Margaret Thatcher that certain of these rights would be removed, and as a union leader he was ambitious for change and saw the opportunity to be an MP and would prove a staunch ally to Clem Attlee. Bevin’s abilities caught the eye, too, of Winston Churchill. In 1940, under the coalition Government and despite their previous battles, Churchill insisted on appointing Bevin to Minister of Labour, saying: “He is the Labour man I want.” Bevin led the full-scale mobilisation and demobilisation of industry and the country while simultaneously advancing wages, conditions and the equality of the working class. He understood that compulsory work orders should only be used in exceptional circumstances, and his experience in the unions had taught him that workers with high morale would be more willing to contribute to the war effort. In the early years of Bevin’s tenure, there was a serious debate regarding his voluntaryism, but by 1944 a third of the civilian population was engaged in war work, including over 7 million women, who played a crucial role in the war production.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Ernest Bevin · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we should commemorate that day. At the time of that amalgamation, the membership stood at 300,000 workers, but in just 15 years, Bevin would lead it to becoming the largest union in the country, with over 650,000 members. During that time as trade union leader, Bevin accelerated the rights, conditions and pay of the working class. His achievements included the introduction of a 40-hour working week, expanding holiday pay to 11 million workers and redefining the relationship between unions, Government and industry. Bevin truly was a visionary and a moderniser of industrial relations and left his mark on the UK’s political economy long after his tenure.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Ernest Bevin · Hansard source

  More

  I will try and raise my standards to the level of oratory that my hon. Friend would now expect. The role of women in the war effort proved decisive, and the mobilisation proved decisive to the overall war effort and gave Britain an advantage over Nazi Germany. As striking was the effect of demobilisation on a peacetime economy. It was all this work that led Bevin’s Labour Ministry to be likened to Roosevelt’s new deal, a theme to which I will return. Following Labour’s victory in the 1945 election, Bevin was appointed Foreign Secretary, a move that surprised many. Attlee’s justification was simple: he thought that affairs were going to be pretty difficult and that “a heavy tank” was going to be required “rather than a sniper.” Bevin did not disappoint. His achievements were truly considerable. Bevin understood the threat of Stalin and his strategy sooner than any other leader, and Bevin’s intervention to secure Marshall aid in Europe, the recognition that western Europe needed political and economic unity, and his refusal to bow to Stalin’s demands must rate at the very top of all diplomatic successes. Bevin and Attlee’s decision to allow US B-29 bombers to be stationed in the UK sent a clear message to Stalin that the UK and US were resolute in the defence of West Berlin and Europe. Although Bevin understood the importance of US support, he recognised the need to be independent and insisted on the UK securing its own atomic bomb with a “Union Jack flying on top of it.” However, perhaps his greatest achievement was the formation of NATO. It was largely his own initiative, as he drove forward the eventual signing of the treaty in 1949 through sheer determination. I should take this moment to acknowledge that Bevin was a man, as well as a phenomenon, who had his faults and misjudgements: his staunch imperialism, manifesting itself in the rejection of Indian independence, his handling of Israel-Palestine or the Malayan uprising, and his antisemitic views were all wrong. I do not excuse him, but there is much to recognise in his vision of the wider world and its relevance to today. As he saw in the 1930s and in 1945, we now see order crumbling around us and certainties of the past no longer hold true. What are the lessons to be learned from the great Bevin? He showed that Governments need to cajole, convince and collaborate, they cannot dictate and they must have dialogue with the public—let us call it a national conversation. They need to be honest about the reality of the threat, the necessity of public partnerships, both with industry and the workers, and the sacrifice that may be needed. That is why the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy has launched its inquiry into a national conversation on societal resilience that seeks to raise awareness and build a deeper understanding of a whole of society approach to our security and our resilience. Secondly, Bevin’s approach to foreign policy was rooted in his ideals, but he understood that to be a player, not a spectator, the UK needed a grand strategy built on hard power, resources, strategic partnerships and ultimately based on the national interest. He grasped that reality in 1945 and it propelled western Europe to a stronger, more unified place. That is how important he was. He did not cling on to the dying world order—he built a new one. All Bevin’s achievements were made possible only by his energy, ingenuity and his ability as an organiser. Take the Marshall plan: Bevin seized on a speech delivered by George Marshall on helping Europe. He would co-ordinate a joint European response by all those nations. Marshall aid was secured and western Europe got the lifeline it needed to survive. It was so significant, but without his drive, the grand strategy and the ideals would never have materialised. To conclude, in 2024 the Prime Minister said: “We must mobilise what Bevin called our ‘collective moral and material force’.” He was right. As Ernest Bevin, labourer, trade unionist, Minister and world statesmen would say, we need “action this day.” Ernest Bevin was a colossus. His achievements have few parallels, and we should celebrate his life.

• 23 Apr 2026 · National Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  Happy Warwickshire day and St George’s day, Mr Speaker. Clearly resilience is multifaceted and goes beyond subsea cables, which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) referred to. We are the third most attacked nation globally when it comes to cyber-attacks, as the Minister will know. What steps is the Department taking to raise public awareness generally?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank you for granting my point of order and apologise for not giving you due notice of it. Given the events of recent days and some of the debates that have been called, when can we get an update from the Intelligence and Security Committee on the work it is undertaking and on its findings regarding the Mandelson papers?

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

  More

  In a moment—I am just beginning to make my speech. There is the point about some sort of conspiracy or cover-up at No. 10 on which I can disabuse the Leader of the Opposition. The point is to differentiate between the team around the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister himself.

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

  More

  I will bring in the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) shortly to ease your patience, Mr Speaker. When the Prime Minister sacked Morgan McSweeney, it was because he realised that there were problems within his team at No. 10. The Leader of the Opposition may claim that somehow the No. 10 leadership was the worst in living memory. I am not sure how far back living memory goes for her, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) said, we do not have to go back very far. I would say 2022, with a certain Liz Truss and her No. 10 operation, or that of Boris Johnson and the three years of his pathological lying that we endured in this place. The Leader of the Opposition said that the biggest decision a Prime Minister can make is about the security of this country. Just a few short weeks ago, she was talking about how the United Kingdom should be drawn into the war in Iran, and in that she was proven absolutely wrong. I will give way to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey). On the point he made latterly about the economic situation we find ourselves in, I would say that the Prime Minister is absolutely focused on that, and has been from day one. There are these distractions—it would be great to move on from them, but of course we are entitled to the debate—but I do believe that the Prime Minister wanted to bring order to our trade arrangements, and that was why he was persuaded into appointing Peter Mandelson. I am not a big fan of Peter Mandelson—I assure the House of that—but just a short year ago many people in the House and around the world were fêting him for the deal that he had managed to strike with the United States. There are many questions about the deal struck by Peter Mandelson, but for the purpose of this debate I want to turn to some of the points made by the Leader of the Opposition. I did not intervene on her because I felt it was absolutely fine for her to continue, but yesterday she amply demonstrated that she was not capable of prosecuting an argument. She emphasised process, but if there is one thing I would say about this Prime Minister, it is that he is absolutely rock solid when it comes to process. [ Laughter. ] Conservative Members may laugh, but for those of them who backed Boris Johnson and accepted his lies in this place, or who accepted the word of Liz Truss and that catastrophic kamikaze budget, there is a question of judgment. On process, this Prime Minister is absolutely rock solid. Secondly, the Prime Minister is a man of the utmost decency who would never, ever lie, because he knows that his credibility rests on that.

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

  More

  I am not close to those operations. I have never been a Minister—that is the honest truth—and to answer the hon. Gentleman’s point, I do not wish to be one either. I am not close enough to that, so I cannot answer that honestly, but what I can say is that I heard from Sir Olly Robbins this morning about how he was leant on and also what documents he may have had access to, including the vetting report. What we have heard today is that the chief of staff leant on the Foreign Office, whether it was about Matthew Doyle or the appointment of Peter Mandelson. That is the issue. The Prime Minister, in my experience of having known him since 2017, is absolutely as straight as a die. He may have accepted the advice and maybe that advice has now proven to be wrong, but he has been let down by those around him. He made a mistake. He understands and has accepted that.

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

  More

  I want to allow others in. The Prime Minister clearly delegated responsibilities to his chief of staff. It may be that the Leader of Opposition missed the fact that the Prime Minister sacked that— [ Interruption. ]