Phil Brickell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Jun 2026 · Summit on Illicit Finance · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this vital debate, and on his comments about opaque property ownership. I said that this is a vital debate, but let us remind ourselves of the figures: £325 billion flows through the UK in illicit finance every year, which is more than 10% of this country’s GDP, and that figure rises to £780 billion annually when the Crown dependencies and overseas territories are included, according to the Finance Innovation Lab. In the short amount of time available, let me say this: when the summit comes, it will be a measure of our convening power with global south countries as we look to build to chairing the G20 in 2027. It will be an opportunity to harness the private sector’s technical expertise as a leading financial services hub. It will be a chance for our law enforcement agencies to share their knowledge, whether the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office or the City of London police, who I had the pleasure of visiting in their Guildhall offices only last week. On crypto, it will be an opportunity to encourage like-minded partners to roll out sanctions packages similar to the one that the Foreign Office recently launched for the A7 in Kyrgyzstan. I must commend the Minister for his leadership on that. Illicit finance touches more or less every facet of our lives and is a national security issue. Some £10 billion is laundered through the UK each year, by people traffickers, drug gangs and organised crime groups, and £6 billion of trade with Russia has been facilitated by UK overseas territories companies since 2022, including through sanctioned goods. It is also an economic issue, though. Let us remember that £325 billion is linked to corruption cases involving UK-connected services and that, each year, £33.4 billion is lost by the UK and almost $500 billion is lost globally to tax abuse. Illicit finance also distorts our property market, as we have already heard. Some £11 billion of suspicious wealth has been identified in UK property, and £1.5 billion of that was linked to individuals accused of financial crime or with connections to the Kremlin. It is also a transparency issue: £190 billion-worth of property has no clearly identified beneficial owner. We heard of the Norfolk cottage, but we all have properties in our constituencies up and down the country that are affected by this issue. There are 236,500 properties across England and Wales that are held through opaque trusts, and there have been £6 billion-worth of suspicious property purchases made via overseas territories shell companies, of which more than 90% went through the British Virgin Islands. That speaks to the scale of the issue at hand. Illicit finance damages our global reputation, too. Unless we tackle the issue both here in the UK and in the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, we will not address it in the full manner that it deserves to be addressed by all of us in this Chamber in order to do the right thing by my constituents. Let us recall the figures I mentioned at the start: each year, £788 billion flows through UK-linked systems, £10 billion is laundered and £33.4 billion is lost in UK tax revenue. The Minister knows those statistics and has heard me mention them time and again, but I am repeating them to drive home just how important this summit is, both to our country and around the globe, and to reiterate how crucial it is that we get the appropriate buy-in across Departments at the very top of Government. Therefore, set against the backdrop of a new anti-money laundering and asset recovery strategy, a new economic crime plan being published later in the year and the Crown dependencies implementing greater transparency around their company registers in the coming month, I have two asks for the Minister. What can he say to reassure me that the rescheduled illicit finance summit will be the genuine cross-Government priority it deserves to be, and that this Government will drive global leadership on the all-encompassing issue of illicit finance? Secondly, somewhat at a tangent, after some concerning reporting by Bloomberg about the potential return of golden visas, can the Minister reassure me that his Department will work with the Department for Business and Trade and the Home Office to ensure that this Government never introduce a loophole that allows oligarchs and kleptocrats to buy their way into the UK?

• 4 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State may know that I am a passionate white water kayaker and a firm believer in the healing power of time spent in, on and around water. England and Wales have some of the most restrictive rights of access anywhere in the world; less than 4% of inland waterways have an uncontested public right of navigation. Can the Secretary of State say a bit more about when her Department will bring forward the Green Paper on access to nature?

• 4 Jun 2026 · High Street Businesses: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on securing this debate. I want to focus on an important lever that the Government should pull to regenerate our high streets: tackling the illicit financial activity that is hollowing out towns and undercutting legitimate local businesses. That matters because these streets are the soul of our communities; they are where local traders serve their regulars, and where the greengrocer, butcher and corner café have always been part of who we are as a country. Despite all the pressures that our high streets face, brilliant independent businesses—whether new ventures like Hive in Westhoughton in my patch, or long-standing local favourites like Serendipity in Horwich, run by Chris and Kath Parbery—are still choosing to invest in our communities. But millions of us no longer recognise the high streets where we grew up. The bakery, now a barber shop, is somehow always empty. The greengrocer is now a vape shop. The pub on the corner is boarded up for the third time in five years. The Woolworths is long gone, replaced first by a pound shop and then by something called an “American candy store”. Now, just like all the empty barber shops, vape shops and mini-marts, the high street is silent. The number of vape shops in England has grown by nearly 1,200% in a little over a decade. The number of barber shops per 10,000 people in the UK has more than doubled in the same period. Meanwhile, the National Crime Agency assesses that at least £12 billion of criminal cash is generated in this country every single year, and our high streets have regrettably become a primary route for washing those proceeds. Behind some—not all—of the cheap shop fronts sits drug money, trafficking money and money stripped from the most vulnerable in society. The proceeds of human misery are being cleaned through card machines on high streets in every town represented here today. The all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, which I chair, has spent the past year speaking to individuals on the frontline with responsibility for tackling the explosion of cash-intensive businesses. Representatives from the banking sector told me that they hold significant data on suspicious cash flows but lack the legal architecture to share it usefully. Legitimate hard-working barbers being driven out by criminal operators told me that their trade is being tarnished in plain sight. Officials in local government told me that they watch shops close one week and reopen the next under a new name and a new nominee director, with the unpaid business rates simply written off. The NCA’s Operation Machinize has shown what is possible. In my constituency, Horwich Mini Market on Lee Lane was closed for three months last year after the seizure of almost 20,000 illegal cigarettes, hundreds of illegal vapes and 7 kg of illegal tobacco. The nearby Texaco service station on Chorley New Road was prosecuted in December 2024—the first prosecution of its kind in the north-west of England—with more than 7,000 illegal vapes seized across four visits. But let us be honest: Operation Machinize has visited more than 2,500 premises across two waves, and its initial wave produced only 10 permanent closures—that is 10 out of 2,500 businesses. Organised crime will absorb that figure as an operating cost and shrug it off by the end of the week. After years of austerity and inaction under successive Governments, I know that this Government understand the severity of the situation facing our country. Measures announced include a new £30 million high street organised crime unit, which I was proud to lobby the Chancellor for before last year’s Budget, and 75 new officers in the worst-affected regions, including the north-west of England. Trading Standards will receive £6 million, after a decade of cuts that halved its capacity. Other measures include a new cross-Government taskforce, 350 new His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs investigators, a new abusive phoenixism taskforce and a consultation on extending closure orders. All that shows real progress, and the APPG that I chair has campaigned hard for many of those measures, so it would be remiss of me not to thank the Minister and his colleagues across Government for their work over the last two years. But money alone will not finish the job. The criminals hollowing out all our communities have to know that they are no longer welcome, and that must mean three things. First, we should adopt a British equivalent to the Dutch Bibob regime. The officials in the port city of Rotterdam I met earlier this year told me how they have spent 14 years dismantling the organised criminal infrastructure that we are struggling against in the UK. Dutch officials in one Rotterdam suburb told me how their integrity screening regime reduced the number of firms from 111 to 65 without recourse to a single criminal prosecution, removing suspicious businesses en masse. We should learn from our Dutch counterparts and give our local authorities similar powers to refuse permits to applicants linked to criminal intelligence and to look through nominee directors for the real money behind them. Secondly, we should move to mandatory licensing for barbers, vape shops and the other high-risk sectors that have become criminal franchises in plain sight on our high streets. If someone needs a licence to sell a pint of beer, someone should need one to open a barber shop or a vape store. Thirdly, we should extend closure powers so that persistent offenders are shut down for good. Members of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute overwhelmingly back the idea: 98% support extending closure orders and 97% support permanent closure for repeat offenders. And let us remove, in a single line of legislation, the absurd £1,000 cash seizure threshold that lets criminals wave goodbye to trading standards officers with fistfuls of notes in their hands. Let officers seize every pound of ill-gotten gains from the till. Our high streets are where this country lives. They bind our communities together and they are where the next generation of British entrepreneurs will cut their teeth. Businesses like Hive, Serendipity and Blackedge Brewery are proof that there is still enormous pride, creativity and resilience in our towns. They are worth fighting for, so let us do so.

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

  More

  Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope you and the Leader of the House will join me in congratulating Bolton Wanderers on their promotion to the championship after beating Stockport recently 4-1 at Wembley. Bolton’s promotion has been a huge effort by the players, the staff and the fans, and the Wanderers’ turnaround has been made possible by the fantastic stewardship of Sharon Brittan, after the previous owners nearly drove the club into the ground. That is why I am proud that this Government have established the Independent Football Regulator, to make sure that what happened to Wanderers can never happen again. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising the vital contribution that clubs such as Bolton make to our social fabric?

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

  More

  May I take this opportunity to commend the Minister and her colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on the continuing ratcheting up of sanctions, whether it is on Russian hydrocarbons, crypto-networks or other illicit financial flows? I was not a Member of this House in the last Parliament, but I was proud as a British citizen to see that there was consensus across the political parties about the need to stand up to Putin’s barbaric and unlawful war of aggression and to support Ukraine for as long as it took. Regrettably, that is no longer the case in this place. Will the Minister and other colleagues join me in condemning the remarks by the Reform UK candidate in the Makerfield by-election, when he said that Putin’s Russia was “well within their rights” to annex Crimea?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Supreme Court Dillon Judgment: Policy Implications · Hansard source

  More

  As the proud son of a Northern Ireland veteran myself, I wish to put on the record my eternal gratitude to the brave men and women of our armed forces who served our nation in Operation Banner. With that in mind, can the Secretary of State reiterate to the House how many veterans have been convicted for offences committed during the troubles and how that compares with the number of paramilitaries who have been successfully prosecuted?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Supreme Court Dillon Judgment: Policy Implications · Hansard source

  More

  7. What assessment he has made of the potential implications for his Department’s policies of the Supreme Court judgment in the Dillon case [2026] UKSC 15.

• 21 May 2026 · Middle East: Economic Response · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Chancellor on this ambitious and comprehensive package of measures, supporting families across Bolton West. As a long-standing proponent of a fairer taxation system, I thank her for the measures she has put forward to close the tax loopholes that have been used by oil and gas firms to structure their affairs and avoid paying hundreds of millions of pounds into the Exchequer. That money will finance this package of proposals to support families. She mentioned the Competition and Markets Authority. Can she say a little more about what engagement she envisages having over the coming months to make sure that we do not see profiteering, going forwards?

• 20 May 2026 · Processed Russian Oil Products: Sanctions · Hansard source

  More

  As someone who has been sanctioned by the Russian state and worked on tackling financial crime in British business for more than a decade, it was apparent to me after only a cursory review of the gov.uk website that this is a new general licence to allow the roll-out of the new regime that the Minister has mentioned today. I thank him for coming to the House to set the record straight, but can he also assuage my constituents’ fears and say that, although we have heard a lot of rhetoric and bluster in the Chamber today, this really will be a new regime and it will be strengthened?

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister talked about his party’s ambition for new nuclear in this country, but can he remind the House how many new nuclear plants his party opened during their tenure in charge?

• 14 May 2026 · National Security · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his careful and considered remarks and for setting out very clearly in his statement that the safety and security of Hongkongers in the UK is paramount. I also thank him for his remarks about new legislation announced in the King’s Speech to tackle hostile state threats and about the two convictions under the National Security Act last week, which regard the activities of two individuals on UK soil who leaked to the Chinese foreign intelligence service. Hongkongers in my constituency live with the threat of transnational repression day in, day out, and they are petrified of the activities of Beijing and Hong Kong authorities on British soil. What assurances can the Minister give me that the activities of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office are being properly monitored and that the UK Government will not allow for that institution to be misused by Chinese or Hong Kong authorities to engage in that form of transnational repression?

• 14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point about Charminster library. I know that he is a terrific campaigner for his local community assets and I wish him all the best for success in that campaign. As a former Erasmus student, may I put on the record my heartfelt support for our re-entry to that programme? My time on the Erasmus programme in Hanover opened up a world of possibilities that were unimaginable to a young lad growing up in Bolton, expanding my horizons, teaching me new skills, preparing me for the world of work and giving me the confidence to go out and get full-time employment after I graduated. It is only right that the kids of today have the same access to the opportunities I had when I was growing up. The King’s Speech recognises a simple, inescapable reality: Britain is stronger when we work closely with our European partners. Businesses across Bolton and the north-west know the importance of strong European ties. Manufacturers, exporters and local employers all benefit when Britain has stable, constructive relationships with our nearest neighbours. The Conservative party wrecked our ties with Europe, damaged trade flows, hindered growth and frustrated co-operation. Businesses faced unnecessary barriers, opportunities were lost and relationships that took decades to build were neglected. Take the trailer supplier Indespension, located in my patch, a pioneering company snared up by Brexit-related red tape. I have been working with the Minister for Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), to cut through some of that duplicative bureaucracy, but the European partnership Bill should be the vehicle to clear away the very burdens imposed by the Conservatives, aided and abetted by their colleagues in Reform UK. What we saw under previous successive Conservative Governments, whether they were supported by the UK Independence party or the Brexit party at the time, was common sense sacrificed on the altar of ideological purity by a Government then more focused on pithy three-word slogans than on doing the hard yards to negotiate the best deal for Britain. My constituents know it, the members of my party know it and my colleagues on these Benches know it too. That is why this Government’s EU reset is about acting pragmatically in Britain’s national interest to secure the very best for our country. Taken together, this Government’s programme will build national resilience, spread opportunity and restore confidence that the future can be better for working people and their families: a Britain with stronger public services; a Britain where children in Bolton West with SEND receive the support they deserve; a Britain where young people in Westhoughton, Horwich, Bolton and Blackrod all have the chance to succeed; a Britain with clean, home-grown energy and stronger economic security; and a Britain that rebuilds its place in the world with confidence and purpose. There are no silver bullets after 14 years of decline. We must be honest about the trade-offs and investments required to rebuild our country. I am proud to support a King’s Speech that shows that Labour is getting on with the job for my constituents across Bolton West.

• 14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes a valid point about artificial intelligence and the world of work, which is increasingly changing and facing threats but also facing opportunities. I would like the Government to continue to work strongly with our further and higher education sector, to think proactively about what opportunities are coming down the line for work in the sectors that he is talking about, five or 10 years in the future. We have to be creative in thinking about what those opportunities look like, although artificial intelligence is not just about threats.

• 14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday’s King’s Speech showed that, despite all the noise from Opposition Members, this Government are determined to get their heads down and get on with the job that the British people sent us to Westminster to do. After years of drift, decline and short-termism under the Conservative party, this Labour Government are choosing a different path—one that restores hope to towns like Westhoughton, Horwich, Blackrod and Bolton in my constituency. As the electorate told us last week, and as the Prime Minister has acknowledged, the challenges we face need to be met with substantial systematic reforms. Families in my constituency are feeling the pressure of rising bills, stretched public services and insecure work, which is why I was proud that in the previous parliamentary Session, this Government passed landmark legislation on workers’ rights, protections for private sector renters, bringing rail back into public ownership, rolling out clean energy and achieving much-needed reforms to our policing system. This Session’s programme shows that the Government are prepared to act with urgency and purpose in order to build on the good work that has already been done. One of the most important priorities set out yesterday is ending the opportunity crisis facing so many young people and families across our country. I will focus most of the rest of my remarks on that topic. For years, families navigating the special educational needs and disabilities system have felt exhausted and ignored. At a roundtable that I held recently with concerned parents, I was told about the endless battles to secure assessments, support and specialist provision for children. Frankly, teachers and schools have been asked to do more with less, and children with enormous talent and potential have too often been denied the support they deserve. That is not acceptable, and it is not sustainable for this country. The education for all Bill represents an important step towards the meaningful SEND reform that is vital because, as Labour Members believe, every child deserves the opportunity to go as far as their talent and effort can take them. We all know, deep in our hearts, that it should not matter where children are from or how wealthy their families are, yet all too often the current system bakes in inequalities at a young age that stay with children for the rest of their lives. Alongside that reform, another vital commitment featured in the King’s Speech yesterday: our offer to young people, including this Government’s youth guarantee. For too long, too many young people have been locked out of work, training or opportunity, which is why the Government’s industrial strategy and apprenticeships plan matter so much. It is this Labour Government who are removing the barriers to economic growth that stifled innovation and creativity, and it is this Labour Government who are creating the much needed pathways into secure, highly paid jobs for the next generation of Boltonians.

• 14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, but he seems a little confused in his remarks. In the same breath, he is urging the Government to bring the Bill to tackle the broken SEND system before the House as soon as possible, and saying that the consultation has not run its full course and has not brought enough people in. Which is it? It cannot be both at the same time.

• 14 May 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I know that you will join me in wishing Bolton Wanderers all the very best in the second leg of the play-off semi-final at Bradford tonight, Mr Speaker. Solicitor Andrew Milne has been arrested by South Yorkshire police after allegations of fraud and blackmail from leaseholders up and down the country. In Horwich in my constituency, Milne bought freeholds on the cheap and threatened to take my constituents to court if they did not pay him thousands of pounds. After repeated engagement with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake), the Solicitors Regulation Authority has now imposed interim conditions on Milne’s licence after a separate stalking conviction. Regrettably, my constituents were never given the opportunity to buy their own freeholds before they were purchased by Milne. Will the Leader of the House make Government time available for a debate on the merits of extending first refusal rights to homeowners?

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

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a valid point. He is a noble campaigner on cleaning up the House and the public sector more broadly. The Opposition’s motion supposes that the PM may have misled the House due to statements he gave in this place about due process and about pressure. This is a complex topic. Given the forensic demolition of the motion by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) with reference to pressure, I will focus my remarks on due process. Before I speak more pointedly to process, as flagged by the Opposition, let me say this: I have no special access to information and I have not spoken to any of the individuals concerned regarding Mandelson in any way, shape or form since the Humble Address. I offer only my analysis based on the documents we have been given and statements made to the House by the Prime Minister and others when giving evidence before Parliament. I speak as a Member of the House who is determined to drive up standards in public life, to improve the integrity of our system of government and to work constructively with Members of all political persuasions to improve the standing of politics as a force for good in the country at large. That is why only last week I met the Ethics and Integrity Commission to give formal input into that body’s workstream to tighten rules about financial disclosures, lobbying and the operation of the business appointment rules as they relate to Ministers and senior civil servants. But first, let us consider ongoing proceedings. On 4 February, the House passed a Humble Address relating to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as His Majesty’s ambassador to Washington DC. It directed Government to “lay before this House all papers relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment…including but not confined to the Cabinet Office due diligence which was passed to Number 10, the Conflict of Interest Form Lord Mandelson provided to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office…material the FCDO and the Cabinet Office provided to UK Security Vetting” as well as, among others, “all information on Lord Mandelson provided to the Prime Minister prior to his assurance to this House on 10 September 2025 that ‘full due process was followed during this appointment’”. Subject to agreed redactions for national security and international relations purposes as agreed with the Intelligence and Security Committee, the first volume of material was published by the Cabinet Office on 11 March. Last Tuesday, the Foreign Affairs Committee took evidence from Sir Olly Robbins, the former permanent under-secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. On Thursday, the Committee heard from Catherine Little, the civil service chief operating officer and permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office. Earlier today, the Committee heard from Sir Philip Barton, the previous permanent under-secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, as well as from Morgan McSweeney, the former chief of staff at 10 Downing Street. There is also a separate live police investigation being undertaken by the Met into Mandelson, which the Cabinet Office will be keen to avoid prejudicing. It will require a delicate balancing of information to ensure that detectives are able to conduct their vital work without it being in any way overshadowed by ongoing parliamentary inquiries. This brings me to the reasoning for today’s debate brought by the official Opposition. The first limb is due process. To the best of my ability, my understanding is that the Opposition contend that due process was not followed, first, because UK security vetting took place after Mandelson’s appointment and, secondly, because his vetting decision was not escalated for discussion with No. 10 or the Cabinet Office. On the sequencing of events, let me set the record straight as I see it. When the Cabinet Office published its first volume of material after the Humble Address, it included a file note dated 11 November 2024 and marked: “Official Sensitive—Personal and Staffing. Advice to the Prime Minister, Options for His Majesty’s Ambassador Washington.” In that note, written to the PM by Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary at the time, it is laid out in very clear language that one option was a political appointment, as was undertaken when Ed Llewellyn was appointed as HM Ambassador Paris by David Cameron in 2016 and as HM Ambassador Rome by Boris Johnson in 2022, for which there was a clear process to go through. To quote Lord Case in that note to the PM: “If this is the route 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. A letter is then needed from the Foreign Secretary to the PUS to FCDO formalising the decision to make a political appointment.” That was in November 2024. Simon Case’s note was followed up by another note dated 11 December 2024 from the PM’s principal private secretary, Nin Pandit, noting that due diligence had been sought from the propriety and ethics team in the Cabinet Office on Mandelson—checks which were conducted by PET on 4 December 2024. After that, the PM’s chief of staff discussed Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein and noted that the PM’s director of communications was satisfied with Mandelson’s responses to questions about contact. Importantly, this was before further information came to light in September of last year, when it was identified that those responses were not truthful.

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

  More

  I am going to make some progress, if that is okay— [ Interruption. ] I am in the flow of things and I am not halfway through yet, so I have a long way to go. The PM’s PPS flagged that the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein would be gone over with the Prime Minister by his private office, and the principal private secretary noted that after a decision to proceed was made, only then would a decision be made as to when to make any appointment and announce it, and when the new ambassador would take up post, subject to a letter from the Foreign Secretary to the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, followed by approval by the King and then agrément being obtained from the US Administration. Correspondence from No. 10 to the permanent under-secretary at the FCDO, and from the FCDO PUS at the time, Sir Philip Barton, to the King’s private secretary, was disclosed in the first volume of material published following the Humble Address, which testifies to this sequence of events having taken place. On 20 December 2024, the private secretary to the permanent under-secretary at the FCDO emailed Mandelson congratulating him on his appointment and noting his onboarding, including regarding his “clearance”, which the head of the US and Canada Department of the FCDO noted on 23 December 2024 was an important “first step”. When Sir Olly Robbins came before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 3 November last year, he said in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson): “as is normally the case with external appointments to my Department and the wider civil service, the appointment was made subject to obtaining security clearance.” Moreover, Sir Olly confirmed in that very session: “we also went through the standard UK national security vetting process for DV… I am absolutely confident that UKSV undertook the process in precisely its standard way, doing all the checks it would expect to do, and we had ample time to assess and decide on the basis of its work.” In reference to the remarks by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), it was worth noting for the record that it was confirmed to the Foreign Affairs Committee that the high-risk concerns in SV were not Epstein-related.

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

  More

  May I start by saying that I take serious exception to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), who I see is just about to leave the Chamber? She complained about us spending an afternoon talking “laboriously” about process. It is process that is on the face of the motion that the Leader of the Opposition has brought to the Chamber today, and that is what we are debating. That is because of the hon. Lady’s party. I am more than happy to spend an afternoon talking about process, because that is what we are here to do. I speak in this debate on privileges with a unique perspective—one garnered from almost 15 years of experience working in a highly regulated sector, with responsibility for managing financial crime and reputational risk at two FTSE 100 firms, accountable for decisions made in managing conflicts of interest, promoting ethical codes of practice, training staff on when to do the right thing, testing the effectiveness of whistleblowing regimes and completing enhanced due diligence on individuals who posed heightened risk. That experience was gathered in the UK, the US, India, the UAE and elsewhere. I also speak as a recently departed member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who sat in Portcullis House only in November and quizzed Sir Chris Wormald, the former Cabinet Secretary, and Sir Olly Robbins, the former permanent under-secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, when they gave oral evidence to the Committee in the light of the sacking of Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to Washington. Let me say first that my thoughts are with the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s terrible crimes. Nothing we say or do today can take away from the unimaginable hurt and pain that that man caused and continues to cause for victims, survivors, and their friends and families. Today and all days, we must remember them and do all that we can to support them in their continued fight for justice. Secondly, I will confine my remarks to the specifics of the proposed referral to the Privileges Committee in the motion today. Mandelson’s appointment, what was recorded in the proprietary and ethics team’s due diligence report, and the UK Security Vetting process have all been debated on numerous occasions in this place already, and there remain live reviews under way that I do not want to preclude in any way. Thirdly, the Prime Minister has rightly recognised that appointing Mandelson as ambassador to Washington was a mistake. Mandelson’s behaviour has been contemptible, and we are in no doubt on the Government Benches that he should never have been appointed. It was a mistake for which the PM has faced significant opprobrium, and there have been consequences for him—let us not forget that. The honest truth is that we are all fallible. The PM made an error of judgment. For that, he rightly apologised in the House last Monday and sought forgiveness. As I will set out, to suggest that he has in any way misled the House is a political fabrication anchored not in truth but in a smokescreen of political mendacity that supposes a cock-up somehow equates to a conspiracy. The Opposition moved a motion to have the Prime Minister referred to the Privileges Committee—something that has not happened since Boris Johnson’s referral back in the early part of 2022. That case and the matters being debated today are like chalk and cheese. Johnson was referred to the Privileges Committee for the most egregious of lockdown breaches: partying in No. 10, in breach of the rules, while we all made daily sacrifices to contain the virus; denying that he had breached the rules; and then doubling down on his denials. Reading back through the Committee’s 108-page final report from 2023 gave me flashbacks, especially in recalling that Johnson misled the House on no fewer than six occasions, that he misled the Privileges Committee, that he breached confidence, that he impugned the Committee and undermined the democratic processes of the House and—perhaps most importantly—that he was complicit in a campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the Committee. I mention all that not to advance a political argument but rather to warn Conservative colleagues that the country has not forgotten what took place the last time the Privileges Committee convened to consider a PM’s conduct, and to advise them to take heed of that history.

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

  More

  I am correcting the hon. Member on the points mentioned here; I am not here to talk about the process—we will come on to that shortly. Chris Wormald, the former Cabinet Secretary, noted at the same session on 3 November that “the normal thing is for the security clearance to happen after appointment but before the person signs a contract” —as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) mentioned—and “takes up post. If we are recruiting a permanent secretary or similar from outside the civil service, that is normally what would happen: the security clearance process would happen after the announcement of the appointment but before the person takes up post, and the appointment would be subject to the security clearance being granted.” Mandelson was issued an FCDO employment contract with a start date of 3 February 2025. Section 17 of that contract, entitled “Security Clearance”, was explicit: “You must obtain the required level of security clearance as soon as possible and maintain the required level of security clearance throughout your employment.” Dated 30 January 2025, Mandelson’s offer of fixed-term employment with the FCDO confirmed his “security clearance has been confirmed by Vetting Unit and is valid until 29 January 2030.” I will not be selective in referring to evidence given to this House that favours one view or another, so let me be clear: Olly Robbins mentioned in his letter of 21 April to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee that the then Cabinet Secretary at the time of Mandelson’s appointment being proposed, Simon Case, recommended—the operative word—in November 2024 that vetting should have been completed before an announcement was made. But in the very same letter of 21 April, Robbins was also explicit in confirming that: “When the Prime Minister informed the House that the proper process had been followed in respect of NSV, he was correct.” Moreover, on the topic of vetting, Robbins stood by the letter he wrote with the Foreign Secretary to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 16 September 2025, in which he confirmed: “Ministers…are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome.” He went on to state in his letter on 21 April: “This position reflected long-standing practice and guidance, and correctly constrained our ability to share information beyond the vetting process then or later.” He noted that the FCDO “completed DV to the normal high standard”; that he, Robbins, met the director for the estates, security and network directorate and was briefed orally that Mandelson was “a ‘borderline’ case, leaning towards recommending that clearance be denied”; that the highest risks “could be managed and mitigated”, as recommended by ESND; and that UKSV acknowledged that the FCDO may wish to grant clearance. Robbins also confirmed that UK Security Vetting “did not ‘fail’ Mandelson and FCDO did not ‘overrule’ their decision”; that a risk-based decision was arrived at by the FCDO, taking into account the feedback from UKSV as a result of the full vetting process having been gone through; and that “DV clearance is a risk judgement.” Sir Olly was clear in his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee recently that no direct communication took place between anyone in No. 10 and himself, that the interaction between UK Security Vetting and the Foreign Office was “entirely standard”, and that clearance was granted subject to mitigations agreed following an FCDO security department assessment that could address the highest risks associated with Mandelson. Take the remarks from Cat Little, civil service chief operating officer and permanent secretary to the Cabinet Office, in her oral evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee. She was clear in her remarks last week: “My view is that due process was followed, and if I might explain why I believe that, it is because the process, as I have outlined to the Committee, is that UKSV makes a recommendation and the Foreign Office makes a decision as to whether to grant DV. That is the process, and that is the process that is agreed with the Foreign Office.” Furthermore, Cat Little was clear about vetting in her oral evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee: “I do have access to a number of emails that have been disclosed recently to me… What I can see is that there is a senior official from the Government Security Group who goes back to the Foreign Office security team and advises two things: one, that this is a decision for the Foreign Office, and two, that they would advise that developed vetting is sought.” She went on to say that “the Prime Minister did not know about the UKSV conclusion, and he did not know which specific risks were identified at the time of appointment.” Only this morning, former Foreign Office permanent secretary Sir Philip Barton told the Committee that he was confident that the appropriate process was carried out. Those are not my comments, but those of senior civil servants—a former Cabinet Secretary, two former permanent under-secretaries of the FCDO and the current permanent under-secretary at the Cabinet Office—and they all stand in direct contract with the motion before the House. They are all of the view that proper process was followed. I know whose words I would rather believe. Their remarks chime with those of the Prime Minister, who said: “for a direct ministerial appointment, it was usual for security vetting to happen after the appointment but before the individual starting in post.” —[ Official Report , 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 24.] Opposition Members might object to the process—they would be right to do so—but it was set out at the time of the appointment, and it was followed by the Cabinet Office, the FCDO, UKSV and, ultimately, the Prime Minister. As the Minister ultimately accountable for the decision, the Prime Minister has rightly changed the process so that appointments can be confirmed only once vetting has been completed. He has rightly appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead a review of security vetting to ensure consistency across Government in the way decision makers are informed of concerns ahead of appointments. The Prime Minister has rightly set up the Ethics and Integrity Commission and tasked it with improving processes around lobbying, the revolving door between Government and the private sector, and financial transparency. I commend him for those steps and for his commitment to introducing as soon as possible legislation allowing for the removal of disgraced peers—that is the right thing to do. I trust that the legislation will obtain support from across this House. Only yesterday, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister confirmed that “the Cabinet Office will have passed to the ISC all the material it has processed as part of the Humble Address and judged to be prejudicial to national security or international relations. This has amounted to over 300 individual documents. It includes a number that are relevant to the processes of Peter Mandelson’s security vetting, too.” —[ Official Report , 27 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 588.] We expect the second tranche of documents under the ambit of the Humble Address to be published after Parliament returns following Prorogation. As mentioned in yesterday’s ministerial statement on progress on the Humble Address, outstanding documents are either with the Government awaiting publication, with the ISC, or with the Metropolitan police, given the ongoing criminal investigation into Mandelson. The last time a Prime Minister’s conduct was referred to the Privileges Committee was during the covid pandemic. Boris Johnson was under investigation by the Metropolitan police for repeatedly partying in No. 10 during lockdown. He then misled the House by saying that rules had been followed when they had not. The police had issued fixed penalty notices for breaches of covid-19 regulations. I have mentioned the Cabinet Office’s vital ongoing work to review the documents within the remit of the Humble Address, the Intelligence and Security Committee’s work to review proposed redactions, the Foreign Affairs Committee’s public evidence sessions, and the wholly separate police investigation. My question to the Leader of the Opposition is: why bring this motion now? Why bring this motion when we have not had the full disclosure of the documents within the ambit of the Humble Address, including the private messages, WhatsApps, and the additional minutes and file notes that were not published in volume one back in March. Why duplicate the work that is already being undertaken by the Cabinet Office and the ISC under the Humble Address? Why not wait until after Prorogation, when the full documentary evidence is available, to determine whether a Privileges Committee referral is warranted? Why not wait until all relevant witnesses have given evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee? We are only just digesting the evidence given today. The Leader of the Opposition makes much of due process in her motion. My retort is simple: due process ought also to be followed in getting to the truth. Let all the documents be released, and then let this House determine the facts of the matter. The cynic in me would say that today’s privileges motion is nothing but a bare-faced political stunt by the Conservative party, which, with just over a week to go until the local elections, is clutching at straws. It politicises the important review process that is under way across Government and Westminster. Hard-working and dedicated civil servants are working alongside Ministers to ensure that the Humble Address is fulfilled as quickly as possible. My first obligation is to this country above all else. I owe it to my constituents to outline my rationale and my way of thinking, as I have done. I will vote with the Government today.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Happy St George’s day to you, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister set out what progress the Government have made in cracking down on fraudsters who seek to defraud the public sector and what success they have had in clawing back money on behalf of hard-working taxpayers?

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

  More

  May I wish you a happy St George’s day, Madam Deputy Speaker? Reform-run Lancashire county council, which borders my Bolton West constituency, has threatened residents with care home closures, put gritting depots on the chopping block and attempted to withhold money given by this Labour Government to support local nurseries. With vital local elections on Thursday 7 May, does the Leader of the House agree that my constituents will look askance at the chaos over the border in Reform-run Lancashire, listen to their neighbours and conclude that once voters have had a taste of Reform in power, they do not go back for seconds?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Mountain Rescue · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart); as a fellow Greater Manchester MP, I share her determination that our constituents should be able to enjoy the nearby countryside safely and responsibly. I hope she agrees that, whether it is the Peak district, on her side of Greater Manchester, or Winter hill, on mine, we have some of the best natural landscapes our country has to offer. As an officer of the APPGs on outdoor learning and on outdoor recreation and access to nature, as well as a passionate outdoor pursuits enthusiast, I know from my own experience that, sadly, mountain rescue teams do not always get the attention they deserve in this place. However, when things go wrong, it is local mountain rescue volunteers who are relied on to get people out of trouble—volunteers giving up their time, often in the worst weather, at all hours, day and night.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Mountain Rescue · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes an excellent point about mental health support for volunteers, and I will come to that shortly. Volunteers are giving up their time to keep others safe. Our mountain rescue teams respond to thousands of incidents every year, from missing persons to injured walkers, and support the response to floods and major incidents. As has been recognised, they are largely—almost exclusively—funded by donations. The same people who are rescuing others are out raising the very money they need to fund their vehicles and equipment and to support their training. That places a heavy burden on those volunteers and their communities. That is why I was delighted back in the autumn when the Chancellor confirmed she had heeded my calls and those of others here today to exempt mountain rescue vehicles from vehicle excise duty. That practical step will save each team thousands of pounds, show some recognition of the roles that teams play and allow them to rightly focus their fundraising efforts—in Bolton’s case, on the £60,000 a year it costs to maintain their vehicles and kit. I know from speaking to the brilliant Bolton Mountain Rescue Team, which is based out of an old stable block at Ladybridge Hall in Heaton, that that exemption will make a significant difference. Since its formation in 1968, Bolton mountain rescue has covered a wide and varied terrain: almost 310 square miles stretching from Darwen to Manchester airport and from Wigan to Manchester. Its work is not limited to remote moorland: the team is regularly called out to search for missing people, support police operations, respond to incidents in urban fringe areas and assist during severe weather events. Indeed, over the Easter weekend, it was on site at the annual Rivington Pike race, one of the most historic fell races in the country, which saw more than 350 runners from across the north-west and beyond participate in a sprint to the pike and then back down to the finish line on Lever Park Avenue in Horwich. Mountain rescue teams are on call 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Members hold down full-time jobs and have families and other commitments, and they drop everything when that call comes in. I hope colleagues will join me in recognising the brilliant and selfless work they undertake. Mountain rescue teams such as mine in Bolton have our back, so it is only right that we should have theirs. I would therefore like to gently press the Minister on four areas where she might work with colleagues across Government on additional support for mountain rescue teams. First, although I welcome the event healthcare standard, which was launched this month following the Manchester Arena inquiry and was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, I have flagged concerns to the Minister’s counterpart in the Department of Health and Social Care, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), that the requirements may have unintended adverse impacts on mountain rescue teams. Under that standard, regulated organisations that comprise healthcare professionals would need to register with the Care Quality Commission. Prior to that requirement, temporary sporting events such as fell races and local mountain bike events, which are covered by mountain rescue, were excluded. Mountain rescue teams will be brought within the regulated perimeter, with all the administrative requirements that come with that. Will the Minister therefore work with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that the new requirements on healthcare professionals, as they apply to mountain rescue teams, are proportionate and do not impose a disproportionate cost? I will happily share more information with her after the debate. Secondly, mountain rescue teams across England and Wales are collectively spending around £450,000 a year on insurance covering public liability, employer’s liability, vehicles, medical malpractice and trustees’ responsibilities. On top of that, individual teams often have to pay individual costs locally for buildings, equipment and extra personnel. That is a huge amount to raise through charitable means, and it is hard to justify when these teams are in reality part of our emergency response framework. Extending Crown indemnity, as has been mentioned, or a similar statutory insurance arrangement to mountain rescue teams would make an immediate difference. It would free up resources that could be directly reinvested in life-saving capability, helping my constituents and people across the country who find themselves in peril, often with no other emergency service able to reach them. Thirdly, let me flag rehabilitation. Mountain rescue volunteers operate in difficult and often dangerous environments, with steep terrain and frequent poor weather. They take part in physically demanding rescues, and the risks are real. If a police officer or member of the armed forces is injured in the line of duty, they have access to established services. Bizarrely, mountain rescue volunteers do not have the same support. Allowing our mountain rescue teams to access existing rehab services is a simple, practical step the Government could take to support them. It would not require new structures or significant funding; it would just recognise that these volunteers face comparable risks and deserve comparable support when something goes wrong. I urge the Minister to look into that proposal as a priority.