Phil Brickell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Mountain Rescue · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes a very good point; we do not have lowland rescue in Bolton, but I do not see why not. Those volunteers are also hard-working and deserve similar support when they go through a traumatic episode. Finally, on medical supplies, teams such as Bolton mountain rescue are required to carry a full complement of drugs to treat casualties in the field. However, because incidents are unpredictable, a lot of that stock expires before it can be used. Every year, that means more fundraising to replace perfectly good medication that has simply reached the end of its shelf life. There is already an arrangement for swapping out medical gases; extending that to drugs, by allowing unused supplies to be exchanged through the NHS, would save thousands of pounds, reduce waste and ensure that teams always have safe, in-date medication available. Again, I know this falls outside the remit of the Department for Transport, but can the Minister look into that issue with her DHSC counterparts? Taken together, those proposals would make a real, tangible difference to teams on the ground. At the moment, frankly, too much of the burden still falls on volunteers and their communities. Teams such as Bolton mountain rescue are doing extraordinary work, often with limited resources, because they are committed to helping others. We should be helping them.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Businesses in my constituency including trailer manufacturer Indespension are labouring under a mountain of repetitive, costly and unnecessary paperwork because the last Government failed to negotiate a regime for mutual recognition of conformity assessments. What progress has the Foreign Secretary made, with the Paymaster General, in removing the Brexit barriers to trade that are holding back British businesses abroad?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  When Sir Olly Robbins came before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 3 November last year, he was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) whether, in the context of vetting, Lord Mandelson’s appointment was escalated. Citing a need to maintain the integrity of the vetting system, Sir Olly replied: “I certainly cannot comment on that, I’m afraid”. Does the Prime Minister not find it perverse that, when specifically asked by Members of this Parliament about Mandelson’s vetting, Sir Olly declined to discuss the very topic we are now debating in this House?

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

  More

  There are almost 26,000 unpaid carers in Bolton, providing vital support to individuals across the borough who would otherwise struggle to manage. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the hard-working staff and volunteers at the local charity Bolton Carers Support? They include Melanie and Georgette, who provide much-needed support to carers and who I met in Horwich earlier in the month. Will he also acknowledge the vital work done by unpaid carers to support my constituents across Bolton, Blackrod, Horwich and Westhoughton?

• 13 Apr 2026 · North Atlantic Submarine Activity · Hansard source

  More

  Building on the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg), I commend my hon. and gallant Friend on his statement and encourage him to do all he can to continue to raise awareness of the subversive actions of Russia, whether in the grey zone or through hybrid activities. Does he agree that the recent success of our armed forces in the north Atlantic rebuffs the Leader of the Opposition’s recent remarks—which she has still failed to apologise for—about our armed forces simply “hanging around”? What we have seen is that, whether at sea, in the air or on land, our armed forces work day in, day out to keep our homeland safe, and we should be proud of all they do.

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the £4.8 million of extra investment that this Government have put in to support SEND adaptations in Bolton, but also acknowledge the recognition that came from parents at my SEND roundtable last week that this cannot just be about extra investment in the system? Reform is now long overdue.

• 26 Mar 2026 · National Savings & Investments · Hansard source

  More

  I have very fond memories of the National Savings & Investment savings account that I held as a child—I regularly paid money into it at Little Lever post office. I understand how important it is for the Government to right historical failings at NS&I, and to reassure my constituents. I commend the Minister and the Treasury for the decisive action that they have taken, including the appointment of a new NS&I chief executive who is well respected across this House. What more can the Minister say to assure savers in Bolton West that NS&I will get to grips with the issues that he has mentioned today? In the light of his comments about false reporting in The Daily Telegraph , and given the extreme sensitivity around bereavement and funds, what more are his Department and officials doing to dispel the false information that has been put out by newspapers?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  In Bolton West, my constituents are concerned that proposed funding for a section of link road called Park Avenue has been trumpeted as unlocking a further 4,000 homes near Westhoughton. The link road will only take traffic so far, causing congestion elsewhere. My constituents do not object in principle to new house building, but developers have a track record of building homes first and then completing infrastructure as an afterthought. In the meantime, my constituents continue to endure what is now a decade of frustration with insufficient roads, school places or GP capacity. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate in Government time to discuss the importance of an infrastructure-first approach to local development?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics · Hansard source

  More

  As an individual who has dedicated my life to tackling corruption in all its forms and as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for Security, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), for their commitment to addressing foreign interference in our politics, as well as thanking Philip Rycroft for his review. I am grateful for the immediate measures that the Government have announced today on crypto donations and the size of donations made by British nationals abroad. They are very welcome and very much needed. May I press the Secretary of State on three particular questions? First, to what extent can he assure the House that the Electoral Commission is sufficiently supported to monitor and police the perimeter of the new announcements that have been made today? Secondly, will he confirm that, contrary to the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State, there was ample opportunity for political parties of all stripes to feed into the review? Thirdly, on “know your donor” checks and the risk factors that will be introduced through the Bill, there is a recommendation in the report that they should be more aligned with the anti-money laundering requirements that have been in place for quite some time for banks and other financial services firms. Will the Secretary of State commit to working with other regulators—for instance, the Financial Conduct Authority—to understand how those would best be implemented, working with parties?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his constructive engagement with me over the past few weeks on Royal Mail’s poor services in my Bolton West constituency. I know that he shares my utter frustration at the current service provision. May I flag with the Minister a letter that I sent to Horwich constituents on 13 February, updating them on the progress that I had made with the Minister on this matter? A constituent got in touch to say that the letter was only received on 25 February, some 12 days later, alongside missing correspondence from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the NHS and the Department for Work and Pensions. Another constituent in Bolton received a Christmas card on 7 March that had been posted before 14 December. When will my constituents see an improvement in Royal Mail services?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak to new clause 4 in particular, and to the wider issue of tax dodging and enforcement in this country. I make these remarks as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax. I begin by congratulating the Government on the action they have already taken to tackle tax avoidance and evasion. The measures brought forward by the Chancellor and the Treasury team to strengthen HMRC’s powers, invest in enforcement and crack down on abusive tax schemes represent an important step in restoring fairness to the system. They have sent a clear signal that in Britain, the rules should be the same for everyone. The same rules should apply to the multinational company and the market trader, to the billionaire and the builder, and to those with the most expensive accountants and those who simply pay what they owe. More broadly, I also welcome the Government’s wider economic plan, which, despite global headwinds outside the Chancellor’s gift, is beginning to restore stability after years of uncertainty and drift. After 14 years in which economic instability and mortgage-spiking kamikaze Budgets became the norm, restoring stability is no small achievement. It is the foundation on which everything else must be built—investment, growth and confidence that the system is working in the interests of ordinary working people. I turn to new clause 4. As a financial crime compliance officer in a previous life, in which role I spent many years dealing with the practical realities of financial crime controls, anti-money laundering systems and tax compliance, I recognise the principle that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) is pursuing—that of cracking down on the enablers of crackpot tax avoidance schemes. We have all seen the rise of so-called online finfluencers promoting dubious arrangements. These schemes are dressed up as clever financial advice, but in reality, they promise something that should always ring alarm bells: something for nothing. I make no judgment on the merits of my hon. Friend’s new clause, and I would welcome further discussion about it with her after today’s debate. My sincere hope is that HMRC is already fully alert to the risk posed by these schemes, and is monitoring the promotion of them closely. I hope the Minister will be able to comment on that when he winds up. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has, on a fundamental issue in this country, hit the nail on the head. In many ways, aggressive tax avoidance and tax evasion have become decriminalised, not through any change in the law but through something far more corrosive—a lack of enforcement. Laws can exist on the statute book, offences can be created and powers can be granted, but if those powers are not used and those laws are not enforced—if those who break the rules rarely face consequences—the signal that is sent is unmistakeable. I am afraid to say that much of this decline occurred on the watch of the Conservative party. For 14 long years, we saw enforcement weaken, complexity increase, and a culture emerge in which some individuals and firms appeared to believe that paying tax was optional so long as they could afford sufficiently inventive advice. At the same time, the Conservatives drove the tax burden to the highest level in 80 years while turning a blind eye to those who simply refused to pay it. In response to an intervention earlier from the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), who unfortunately is not in his place, it was the Conservative Government in 2023 who scrapped the Office of Tax Simplification. Now, the official Opposition have the audacity to talk about making £47 billion of cuts, which is the equivalent of firing every police officer in Britain twice over. It is simply not credible. Members may recall my speech on 27 November last year, during the Budget debate. For those who do not, in my remarks I referenced one of the more surreal examples of tax avoidance that has surfaced in recent years, which is the elaborate mollusc-based wheezes used to avoid business rates. These are schemes so convoluted that they led one high-profile individual to acquire more knowledge than anyone should ever reasonably possess about snail fornication, snail gestation, snail feed and—rather disturbingly—snail cannibalism. You really could not make it up: slimy advisers, snail farms and shell companies, all deployed in the service of dodging a lawful tax bill. It sounds absurd, and in many ways it is, but it also illustrates something deeper and more troubling. The creativity deployed in designing these schemes—the ingenuity, complexity and sheer effort involved—is often directed not towards creating wealth or innovation, but towards avoiding a basic civic responsibility. That is why I welcome clause 156, which prohibits the promotion of tax avoidance arrangements, with civil penalties and criminal offences built into the Bill to tackle the unlawful promotion of such initiatives. On enforcement, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has highlighted just how far things have fallen in recent years. Prosecutions against enablers of tax evasion dropped by around 75% between 2018 and 2024, and HMRC has not fined a single enabler of offshore tax evasion or non-compliance in five years. That is a dramatic decline that sends the wrong signal. It also risks creating the impression that while most people must play by the rules, those with the right advisers can simply play around them. Since the introduction of a new corporate criminal offence of failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion in the Criminal Finances Act 2017, we have seen very little enforcement. When prosecutions are rare, deterrence weakens; when enforcement is inconsistent, compliance declines; and when those who break the rules see others doing so without consequences, the entire system begins to fray.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about shell companies. Does she agree that it was really concerning that so many loopholes were left open by the previous Government, who allowed foreign money to reach the highest levels of our politics, often hidden by those very same shell companies? Indeed, this loophole was used by the Conservatives to accept hundreds of thousands of pounds from foreign-based donors, including £550,000 from Britannia Financial Group between 2019 and 2022. Company accounts show that in 2020—the year the firm donated more than £350,000 to the Conservatives—its ultimate controlling party moved from the UK to Switzerland. Does she agree that is a serious concern?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Local journalism is the lifeblood of our democracy, but the defamation laws in this country make it difficult for investigative media outfits—like The Londoner , The Manchester Mill and their parent company Mill Media—to speak truth to power. The Government’s own anti-corruption strategy recognises this threat to free speech, and has outlined a priority commitment of comprehensively tackling all strategic lawsuits against public participation, but it sets 2029 as the target date for action. Will the Leader of the House support my calls for a statement from the Ministry of Justice outlining what steps it is taking now to address SLAPPs?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Russian Influence on UK Politics and Democracy · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is making a good point about foreign interference and money in politics. Could she confirm today whether she has submitted her thoughts to the Rycroft review, which is under way at this time?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Russian Influence on UK Politics and Democracy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I declare an interest as an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on Russia and democracy, and as chair of the APPG on anti-corruption and responsible tax. Let me say at the outset that the most important step at this juncture is to provide input into the ongoing Rycroft review of foreign interference in our democracy. I look forward to meeting Philip Rycroft later this week. If colleagues have yet to do so, I encourage them to submit their views to his team as soon as possible. I would like to make the case for a wide range of reforms that we desperately need, including measures to address glaring weaknesses in our lobbying framework, improvements to controls in this House and the other place, and further measures to work closely with the private sector. However, as a considerable number of colleagues are keen to contribute to the debate, I will restrict my remarks to the changes that I would like to see in the Government’s forthcoming elections Bill. I will begin with the repeated red flags linking Reform UK, or individuals closely associated with it, to Russian money, Kremlin-aligned networks and their vehicle of choice for influence: cryptocurrency. Vulnerability to foreign influence is a cross-party issue, but when it comes to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I notified him, Mr Pritchard, that I would mention him—and the people he chooses to surround himself with, the pattern is hard to ignore. Reform UK presents itself as the party of ordinary people, the party of patriotism and the party that claims to stand up for Britain, but the public deserve to know where its money comes from. Again and again, the individuals bankrolling, advising or orbiting Reform appear to sit far too close for comfort to networks that raise serious national security concerns. Let me start with one of the most serious cases of all and, I suspect, the reason why six out of the top 10 constituencies by signatories to the petition are in Wales. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) mentioned, Nathan Gill, the former leader of Reform UK in Wales, was sentenced to more than 10 years in prison for accepting money in exchange for making pro-Russia statements in the European Parliament. Having dedicated my working life to tackling bribery and corruption in all its forms, I found the Gill conviction of profound concern. Yes, justice was done, but that case should have prompted a moment of deep reflection for Reform UK. Instead, we saw Reform attempt to brush it off and to distance itself from “one bad apple”. But the public are not fools. If Gill was one bad apple, let us take a look at the rest of the bushel. Arron Banks’s links with Russia are well-documented, despite his attempts to silence journalists trying to report on his activities. Banks was allegedly offered financial incentives by Russian interests, including a stake in a gold mine, an offer he claims he refused. The New York Times reported that after Banks met President-elect Trump in Trump Tower in 2016, he returned to London and went straight to the Russian ambassador to discuss the visit. The point is not whether every allegation is proven beyond doubt; it is that the same names, the same networks and the same proximity to the Kremlin keep reappearing around the same political project. We cannot pretend that that is normal. Let me also mention Chakrit Sakunkrit—sound familiar? I can see blank faces around the Chamber. I will use his old name: Christopher Harborne. Harborne donated £9 million to Reform UK—the largest single donation ever made to a British political party. He has lived in Thailand for more than 20 years, and he made his money from the cryptocurrency stablecoin tether. The National Crime Agency has explicitly warned that tether has been used for sanctions evasion and money laundering, including in relation to organised crime and Russia-linked networks. That is not to say that Harborne himself is complicit in any wrongdoing, but the fact is that we now have a large political party bankrolled by an overseas billionaire whose wealth is tied to a cryptoasset that our own law enforcement agencies have flagged as a tool used in Russia-linked illicit finance. I used to work in anti-bribery and anti-corruption at two major UK banks. Let me summarise what I have just said in six short words: red flag, red flag, red flag. That brings me to Reform UK and cryptocurrency, which is currently a permissible vehicle for donations into UK politics. The hon. Member for Clacton announced that his party would be taking crypto donations at the Bitcoin 2025 conference—a conference held not in Clacton, London or even Manchester, but in Las Vegas. We should ask ourselves: how many permissible donors were in the room at the time? I find it profoundly disturbing that the leader of a British political party is being funded, promoted and platformed by the same international ecosystem of crypto money and political influence operations that have been repeatedly linked to Kremlin-aligned interests. This is how foreign interference works in the modern era. It is not George Smiley and Karla battling it out in trenchcoats, and newspapers with eyeholes, but money flows, opaque financing, crypto networks, conferences, and so-called influencers paid to shift political narratives. Now let me speak about George Cottrell, a key Reform fixer. He has acted as a fundraiser for UKIP and the Brexit party and served as chief of staff to the hon. Member for Clacton, who described him as “like a son”. Cottrell served time in prison in the US after being accused of offering money laundering services on the dark web; he ultimately pleaded guilty to wire fraud. His mother, Fiona Watson, donated £750,000 to Reform, making her one of its biggest donors at the time. Cottrell has been linked to offshore crypto and gambling networks. He appears to be based primarily in Montenegro, where he has funded political campaigns and been accused by local police of running illegal crypto ATMs. Offshore finance, crypto, money laundering risk and Russian proximity—to my mind, there is only one reason why anyone would court crypto-linked individuals’ donations so aggressively: if they have something to hide. I have sought to paint a picture of the current funding landscape and the egregious means by which certain individuals have sought to circumvent electoral law in order to pump money into our democracy. Let me turn to the principal legislative vehicle that can address these risks: the Government’s forthcoming elections Bill. First, I have to say that I was disappointed that the Government’s election strategy contained no concrete proposals to ban crypto donations to political parties. The Electoral Commission has recently issued some belated guidance, but its hands remain tied without Government action. Cryptocurrency donations into our politics should be banned completely. I am no luddite. I recognise that there may be some value to cryptoassets in certain circumstances, but they are inherently high risk. In my opinion, neither the Electoral Commission nor political parties themselves will ever be able to keep up with that risk. Crypto is designed for anonymity, speed, cross-border movement and weak oversight, and Reform has chosen to host its cryptocurrency payment provider not in the UK, but in Poland, away from the prying eyes of the Financial Conduct Authority. Dare I ask why? Against that backdrop, we know that crypto is widely used for sanctions evasion, organised crime and illicit finance. As I have said, our NCA is concerned about tether’s role in Russia-linked laundering, so we cannot pretend that this is some sort of theoretical debate. Secondly, no one person should be able to bankroll a political movement overnight. Chris Harborne’s £9 million donation is not democratic participation; it is political domination. The terrifying reality is that, under current rules, someone with that scale of wealth could make such donations again and again until a general election is called and the regulated period begins. That is not a level playing field. It is a plutocratic arms race—one set against an outdated concept of long and short campaign periods that has long been left behind in the modern world of 24/7 campaigning. Finally, we must restore the independence of the Electoral Commission. If we want proper enforcement, proper scrutiny of permissibility and real deterrence, the Electoral Commission must be truly independent. Reform may claim to be the party of patriotism, but patriotism is not surrounding yourself with people repeatedly accused of Russian proximity. Patriotism is not building a political machine that thrives in the shadows of opaque money. Patriotism is defending British democracy from foreign interference, whoever it comes from and whichever party benefits. I urge the Government, in the forthcoming elections Bill, to deliver three reforms that Britain urgently needs to protect our democracy from foreign interference: a cap on political donations, a ban on cryptocurrency and full independence for the Electoral Commission.