Tessa Munt MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Jun 2026 · Russian Shadow Fleet · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Defence Secretary to his position and thank him for his statement. Sanctions are ineffective unless they are fully enforced, and I join the Lib Dem spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), in pointing out that we cannot allow loopholes to undermine our sanctions regime against Putin’s war machine. Numerous shell companies, as well as flags, are used as shields to disguise operational control of Russia’s shadow fleet, but Russia is also making extensive use of non-military, dual-use manufacturing and the global commercial supply chain to support its war. What action is the Secretary of State taking to prevent Russia using dual-use manufacturing; to boost the UK’s manufacturing expertise, so that it can identify potential dual use, and prevent Russia using commercial supply infrastructure to support its war; and to ensure sanctions are fully enforced?

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

  More

  A constituent of mine who runs a small specialist defence and security business in my patch carried out £250,000 of work on a nationally significant submarine disposal programme for the Submarine Delivery Agency during a contract renewal period. The work was accepted and used, as has happened at contract boundary times on seven occasions in the past four years, but this time payment has not been made on the grounds that no purchase order was issued. Would the Leader of the House ask the Defence Secretary to look into the agency’s failure to pay for this work, which was delivered and accepted, even though it is the agency lead and all operational stakeholders have said that the work was of value and should be compensated? Could he also arrange for my constituent and me to have a meeting with the relevant Minister to resolve the matter of this outstanding bill?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister may be aware that in December, for the first time in over three decades, Defence Ministers met the families of those killed in the 1994 RAF Chinook crash on the Mull of Kintyre. The Ministry of Defence promised “ongoing dialogue” with them. Is he also aware that, despite receiving pages of new evidence presented at that meeting that show the Chinook was not airworthy, the MOD chose not to keep its word and contacted instead the Press Association, saying that no new evidence had been presented about the cause of the crash? The Prime Minister knows, because the families have written to him, as the MOD knows too, that the families are seeking not a public inquiry into the cause of the crash, but to know the reason why their loved ones were placed on board an aircraft which, according to the MOD’s own test pilots and engineers, was described as “positively dangerous”, “unairworthy” and “not to be relied on in any way whatsoever”? Will he agree to meet the families, to rebuild trust and to offer the promised dialogue that the MOD clearly finds so difficult to achieve?

• 19 Mar 2026 · International Development · Hansard source

  More

  I am proud to have been part of the 2010-15 Government, when Michael Moore and others took us to 0.7% spending for aid. I think my Labour-voting constituents will be utterly stunned to hear the contents of the Foreign Secretary’s statement today. I do not understand the disconnect between this Government and the Blair and Brown Governments, whose aim it was to make poverty history. Could the Foreign Secretary say when she believes her Government will return to 0.7%, as she mentioned earlier?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in connection to WhistleblowersUK, a not-for-profit organisation. I am concerned that we still have no conclusion to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. It seems to be stuck on amendment 23, which still is being discussed. I am not sure how the Government will ensure that there are credible sanctions, maybe against Ministers who fail to whistleblow. Will the Minister commit to protecting whistleblowers by establishing a new independent office of the whistleblower, so that members of the public understand that they can have legal protections and so that they have much greater awareness of their rights about whistleblowing?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before I asked the Leader of the House my question this morning, I believe I should have declared that I am the new chair of the all-party parliamentary group on myalgic encephalomyelitis. I apologise to the House for omitting to say that—I was in a bit of a rush, because everyone was being hurried along.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Armed Forces Chaplains (Licensing) Measure 2025 (HC 1454) Abuse Redress Measure 2025 (HC 1455) · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Mundell. I asked a question—I wonder if I might have the courtesy of a reply.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Armed Forces Chaplains (Licensing) Measure 2025 (HC 1454) Abuse Redress Measure 2025 (HC 1455) · Hansard source

  More

  My question was whether the hon. Lady, as the Second Church Estates Commissioner, will receive a progress report herself from the Archbishops’ Council, perhaps on an annual basis. Can I have clarity on that, please?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Armed Forces Chaplains (Licensing) Measure 2025 (HC 1454) Abuse Redress Measure 2025 (HC 1455) · Hansard source

  More

  May I ask the Second Church Estates Commissioner whether there is something in place to allow for the Archbishops’ Council to report, perhaps on an annual basis, to her on progress with the scheme?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Armed Forces Chaplains (Licensing) Measure 2025 (HC 1454) Abuse Redress Measure 2025 (HC 1455) · Hansard source

  More

  It would be incredibly relevant, bearing in mind that I and any number of others have constituents who have waited decades and decades for this. It is not beyond the Church to defer and to delay. It is important that the hon. Lady is fully aware of the impact of this Measure and that the Church reports to her.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q We have had the Nolan principles of public life since 1995. If I were to pick out four of those seven principles, it would be: integrity, openness, honesty and accountability. Where are we now with the Bill in comparison with that? What is going to change the culture? Professor Waters: I have written various messages recently to Martyn Oliver, the chief inspector of Ofsted, quoting those Nolan principles. I have received replies that apologise for his insensitivity and promise empathy. I have not asked for empathy, sensitivity or a performance of those; I have asked for honesty, but that clearly does not work. Ofsted has a code of conduct, which they kept quoting in the inquest, but the coroner clearly found that that code of conduct did not apply. There are the Nolan principles, codes of conduct, accountability hearings, and even an offence of perjury, but none of them seem to work—they are too easy to slip away from. A statutory duty of candour with the possibility of criminal sanctions is sadly what is needed—it beggars belief, but that is what is needed to make public bodies be honest. Deborah Coles: I think the thing that people find quite shocking when we are talking about the Hillsborough law is that you have to effectively legislate to get people to tell the truth. I support what Professor Waters says about penalties, but is also about monitoring and evaluation, because the Hillsborough law will only be as good as its implementation. As I said, up and down the country, there are families going through legal processes that are so defensive and traumatising that the injustices that you heard expressed today by the Hillsborough families—and you will hear more later—about the lying, victim blaming, delays and denials are still being faced by families going through these processes today. That is why the Bill is so important.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Very good; I did not know that. There are also subcontractors of subcontractors, because it is commonly the case that we are looking not just at the first-tier contractual relationship, but at the second, third and sometimes fourth-tier relationships. There is a question about that. There is then another issue. Some of you might want to comment on the fact that in March this year—I think I am right in saying this—His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs introduced a whistleblower reward scheme for reporting fraud, and on where that scheme might go and how useful it is. I have no idea how successful it has been—I do not have any figures for it—but one senses that it might be successful. Ron Warmington: In a sense, that is where this all started, isn’t it? I mean, there were defence contracts in the United States and someone thought, “I’m going to blow the whistle on such and such a corporation, which has been ripping off the Defence Department by $100 million. Therefore, I’m going to get something out of it.” Actually, that is quite healthy, until it goes horribly wrong; it is a double-edged sword. On the point about subcontractors, yes, we felt quite exposed when the Post Office tried to—in fact, did—implement draconian contractual terms. That was extraordinarily risky for myself, and for my fellow shareholders and directors. The only time that we could speak safely was when we had parliamentary privilege in situations such as this one. All the rest of the time, we did not; if we spoke up, we were at enormous risk. That did not stop us, as it happened. It is not necessarily a good thing to say that an investigation firm such as my own, which is contracted to look into something that is going wrong or that has gone wrong, should be hugely protected in some way, because then it would not be trusted to do the work in the first place. You somehow have to strike a balance between the client relationship—not that the client ever should be the subject of the investigation—and some sort of protection. At the moment, the process does not work. It only worked in this case because we didn’t give a damn. As far as we were concerned, we did not really need the work, and did not need the money and did not mind being fired. But not many firms are in that lucky situation.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I know. I salute your courage. Thank you both for saying what you did. On whistleblowing, what do you feel there might be in the way of protections within this scenario? What protection should there be for whistleblowers? Professor Waters: Speaking just from my own experience—not as a lawyer or anything—in the last nearly three years since Ruth’s death I have been contacted by various people within Ofsted who shared some really quite disturbing information about its behaviour and its rewarding of certain members of staff who were associated with Caversham primary inspection and other appalling cases. When I have asked if they will speak out, they have said that they do not dare. They have to sign some form of the Official Secrets Act 1989. I have been contacted by numerous headteachers who have been traumatised by Ofsted inspections and have lost their jobs, health and nearly their lives. They have not been able to speak out because they were made to sign non-disclosure agreements in order to get some money to support their families. It just seems that at every level mechanisms are put in place to do the absolute opposite of what inquests and inquiries should be doing, suppress legitimate concerns and defend people who are causing active and ongoing harm. The stronger the defence—the protections—for whistleblowers, the better, and maybe, finally, all the people from Ofsted who have contacted me will be able to go public with the things they have told me. Deborah Coles: The only thing I would add to that is that, in the context of the Hillsborough law, we are talking about trying to effect legal, cultural and practical change. If we can help rectify the culture of cover-up, obfuscation, denial and defensiveness that occurs when things go wrong—we are talking across inquests and inquiries not only when people have died, but for other injustices—one would hope that that will help victims in the long term, because it will enable honesty and truth telling. Hopefully that will permeate across the system to those who have important evidence to contribute to inquiries and inquests.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Sudan: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  Returning to the conference, is the Minister absolutely certain that all the actors in the region were part of the conference? There has been reference to the United Arab Emirates, and there are other actors in that region who did not seem to be on the list of people she mentioned who might have been here in April.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Sudan: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way, on that point?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Sudan: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 23 Oct 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Chinook Justice Campaign presented a petition to Downing Street this week asking for transparency about the Mull of Kintyre crash in 1994. The Ministry of Defence at Boscombe Down grounded these Boeing Chinooks before the flight, but the special forces pilots were blamed by the RAF, only to be exonerated fully and given a posthumous apology by the Defence Secretary in 2011. Can the Leader of the House press the Defence Secretary, the Justice Secretary and the Victims Minister, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), to have compassion and meet the families, so that they can finally gain an understanding of what happened all those years ago?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Criminal Courts: Independent Review · Hansard source

  More

  I want the Minister to respond to the point about experts who will not or cannot work to legal aid rates and the legal funding that is not granted in time, which causes such a long delay when defence solicitors cannot get the access they need to experts.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Extending the Ukraine Permission Extension Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Could we ask the Minister for clarity about the women who have dependent children or elderly relatives, who are often unable to meet the income thresholds required under settlement routes such as the skilled worker visa or the global talent visa? Could we also ask for clarity for their children, who have learned English so that they are so fluent and who have had their education here, as they cannot look forward to going to college or university because they do not have a visa that will see them through that course?