[0:00]about pre-investments in research and development as part of procurement of defense systems. So will the minister commit to continuing to work with companies like Falcon Works that support
[0:10]huge amounts of jobs in file and across Lanasher? >> Can I join him in commending Falcon Works and BA systems for their innovation? As a government, we have uh
[0:19]established UK defense innovation, a 400 million pound annual budget to support innovation that is making a difference in bringing uh more innovation to the
[0:29]market and also with dual use potential as well. We'll continue to invest in that just as we set out that 10% of our equipment budget will be spent on novel technologies helping drive the latest kit and equipment for our troops.
[0:41]>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know what interest the minister rightly says that the need to focus on drone production is something that's gaining more and more ground. But can he tell me are we
[0:53]anywhere near understanding with an MOD the sheer size and numbers of drones and counter drones that will will need to be produced both now and in the future and
[1:04]on a mass scale should any conflict break out. Is can you give assurance to the house that is understood with the demo? Uh yes, I can. Uh one of the key uh pillars of the uh strategic defense
[1:16]review is learning the lessons from Ukraine and that is when it comes to autonomous systems and drones, not just the continuing investment that we are making in those high-end drone capabilities, both ISR uh one-way strike
[1:28]and other capabilities, but also how we can deliver mass effect as well. uh due to the rapid iteration of drone technology, it doesn't necessarily always make sense to have a warehouse full of millions of drones. But having
[1:39]the ability to produce millions of drones with uh recognizing the shortages in the supply chain, especially around motors and magnets and cameras, for instance, is the way that we can uh enhance our capabilities and enhance our
[1:51]deterrence. So, it is something we're actively working on. >> Judge McLar. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. >> I regularly meet with defensememes and they tell me the same thing. Without a defense investment plan, investment
[2:02]decisions being delayed, expansion plans are being put on hold, and opportunities risk being lost overseas. British firms stand ready to grow, hire and strengthen our national resilience, but continued
[2:14]delays from government are creating undamaged uncertainty across the sector. So can the minister tell me has his department or indeed any other government department conducted an
[2:23]economic assessment of the impact the delay on Brit is having on British businesses of the publication of the defense investment plan and if not will he commit to publishing one?
[2:34]>> I can tell him what the 1200 contracts have signed since the general election because we're not waiting for a defense investment plan to sign contracts with companies large and small. They're producing new jobs and new
[2:44]apprenticeships, more demand for skills, new technologies being uh used by our frontline forces and exported to our allies. All the work that he suggests is part of our bigger picture of the
[2:54]defense investment plan. We know that the increased defense spending will produce more UK jobs. We're spending more with British companies. We'll continue to do so. And I will stand up for our armed forces and our defense
[3:06]industry. And I hope that he will be able to talk our defense industry up rather than talk it down as he has today. Wendy Chamberlain. >> Question eight. Mr. Speaker, >> Mr. Speaker, with permission, I'd like
[3:17]to answer questions eight and 14 together. This government's making the biggest increase in defense investment since the end of the Cold
[3:28]War. This year alone, we have more than 11 billion more in the defense budget than in the last year of the last government. And as the prime minister
[3:39]said in February, we're going to have to spend more faster and we will. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Building our military capability is vital in this world of increasing
[3:51]instability where Putin continues to wage war in Europe, as we've heard, and Trump rips up the alliances that once kept us safe. Investment in deterrence is far better than fighting a war
[4:01]unprepared. key to getting UK bu businesses access to the security action for Europe program is vital. So can the minister confirm if talks have restarted with the EU in this regard and if so
[4:12]what progress has been made? >> Um m Mr. Speaker, I mentioned this in a previous answer. We are indeed looking
[4:22]to participate and be able to take advantage of the European Union's loan scheme for Ukraine. This is a way that
[4:30]we could accelerate good kit into the hands of the Ukrainians and ensure that British made British made kit and British firms can make a big
[4:41]contribution to that. >> Victoria Cotton. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My constituent Fraser puts it best when he says, "At a time when the world is increasingly dark and uncertain and when the UK's defense
[4:52]capability is well below the level required, defense bonds are surely one which would gain support across the political spectrum. I know that I would happily invest." Mr. Speaker, with all of us here in the United Kingdom also
[5:04]paying the price every time we check out or pay a bill, the Liberal Democrat calls to issue 20 billion pounds of defense bonds would be an injection of funding in our security, but also our economy. So I'd like to know what are
[5:15]the government waiting for? >> Well, Mr. Speaker, I remember for at least six months after the last election, she and her party were urging
[5:24]us to raise decre defense in uh spending to 2.5% of uh GDP by 2030. Uh we've done better
[5:33]than that. We're hitting 2.6% next year, three years before uh anyone expected, including her party. uh we will go further and I look for her support when
[5:44]we do. >> The select committee. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Some right honorable members have advocated for defense bonds but as the secretary of state will be aware that the defense
[5:54]committee has examined in detail various defense financing options including the defense security and resilience bank for which the Canadians have stolen the
[6:04]march on us. Even though the idea was developed by a former British army officer, there are multilateral defense mechanisms and other nations have opted
[6:14]for a loosening of the fiscal rules just for defense. Obviously, this is not an eitheror option, but given the increased threats and the level of volatility, we
[6:26]must accelerate investment in defense 2 3% GDP spend in this parliament. Yeah. >> So given that context, Secretary of
[6:36]State, what is the government's uh option? What is its pursued course of action? Because we cannot keep plotting along at the current pace. We must meet
[6:47]the moment. >> Um with all due respect and I have a great deal of respect for my honorable friend, his description of the biggest increase in defense spending since the
[6:58]end of the cold war is hardly a plotting path. I'd say to say to him this, I welcome his committee's uh inquiry and its report into defense investment. I
[7:09]know Gordon Brown, the former prime minister that has been commissioned by the prime minister to look at multinational financing of security in the future will use his report as an
[7:21]important part of his work which I welcome. But I just say to him, he will be aware. He will be aware that the prime minister in February in his Munich speech said, "We must build hard power
[7:31]because that is the currency of the age. We know we must spend more faster." And I just say to him, we will >> speaker. >> With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should
[7:45]like to answer questions nine and 13 together. This year we have provided £480,000 to part fund 130 armed forces day community events up from 85 last
[7:55]year. The national event on the 27th of June will be an older shot and farra celebrating and thanking our armed forces who are doing a brilliant job keeping the UK secure at home and strong
[8:05]abroad. Armed forces day has an important purpose to reconnect society with our armed forces and to communicate why strong defense matters. follow
[8:17]>> that reply. Uh to celebrate Armed Forces Day this year in Rodale, we'll have not only the usual flag raising ceremony at Rodale Town Hall, but also on Saturday
[8:28]the June the 27th, we'll have a free community picnic with live music from local bands and from military vehicle displays uh at Deanhurst Park. Would the minister join me in thanking Adam Treny
[8:39]of Get Together After Serving known as GTAas in Rodale who has put on this marvelous event and also thank him for all the work he does all year round?
[8:49]>> Um absolutely. Um this government is very proud to support Veterans in Rodale and I'm so pleased that we've been able to provide funding for what sounds like a fantastic armed forces day event. Um
[9:00]and a huge thank you um to Adam Trinary and Gas Gas for the amazing work that he's doing to support our service people and veterans. Whether the armed forces day flag raising ceremony that he refers
[9:11]to at Rodale down town town hall or the military breakfast. I know that we are very proud to support our service people and veterans and our communities for the contribution they make to our society.
[9:21]You on standby. >> Armed forces day is as important as ever and I look forward to attending Fal's Armed Forces Day on the 4th of July in Calendar Park. It is important that Falott's veterans are heard there and
[9:32]every day. I met with both Valley veterans together last week and heard from many brave men and women who served their country that they feel politicians have not been listening for a long time. A perception we must serious take
[9:43]seriously and seek to reverse. What will ministers do to support veterans voices being heard before, after, and during Armed Forces Day? So, um, the new Valor program, um, as
[9:55]well as making it easier for veterans to access the care and support that they deserve, will also crucially improve how we make sure that they have their voices
[10:04]heard. We have um opened the first 14 Valor centers um just in March, just gone, and applications for round two for further centers are currently open. Uh
[10:15]in addition to valor we also have the wider services support such as op courage for mental health or op restore for physical health as well as op fortitude for those at risk of homelessness and opposend for employment
[10:26]support. All of these veterans can access and I welcome any feedback on this >> I fear I know the answer to this question in advance but I shall ask it
[10:37]anyway. Would not one way of >> reconnecting society with the armed
[10:46]forces at Armed Forces Day be to revisit the testimony given to the then defense committee in March 2017 by four eminent
[10:57]professors of law showing how it's possible to protect veterans from being hauled before the courts for using lethal force against terrorists in the
[11:09]act of committing terrorism. That testimony deserves revisiting. It shows it can be done. Will the government re-examine it and reinstate
[11:20]the immunity and the investigative uh processes which enable it to be done?
[11:29]Um he is very well aware of how strongly I believe that is important that those who have been victims have a right to have investigations and this includes into the murders of British service
[11:40]personnel. I do take his point and I'm sure people are very well aware of the point that he makes. >> Josh, >> thank you Mr. Speaker. This Armed Forces
[11:49]Day will mark the first that Eastborne uh commemorates uh without Staff Sergeant Pauline Cole uh a local veteran
[11:58]who died last year. Uh Pauline uh received military compensation for injuries she received during uh her service. Uh but she had her pension
[12:08]credit cut uh because her uh compensation was considered as income. So this armed forces day to mark it, will the minister review that
[12:20]arrangement so that we can make sure that our veterans are not punished for their service to our country? >> Um, and I thank you for raising um this
[12:31]important issue. Um, and I'm I'm very sorry to hear that about Pauline. Um, as I'm sure he is aware, the interplay between benefits that are available to the general public and military benefits
[12:41]can be complex, but I do think it is important to state that there are mechanisms to ensure that no veteran is left out with how those benefits into
[12:51]play. Um, if he's able to write to me with the specifics, I will be able to clarify if the correct processes were followed. >> Picture
[13:01]question number 10, please. Minister, >> on the 21st of May, I visited the London
[13:12]Oretry School to meet with cadets and announce the first ever National Cadetses Week, which will take place in October 2026. This week, we'll celebrate the cadet forces, which are one of this
[13:22]country's most effective youth organizations, and a new cadet action plan will set out the government's long-term vision to deliver on the strategic defense review recommendation to expand our cadet forces.
[13:34]thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the announcement of the first national cadets week, and I look forward to the new cadet's action plan and the long-term vision for cadet forces. The figures released last week show that more more than 1 million young people
[13:46]are not in education, employment or training are deeply worrying both for young people themselves and for the wider society. Cadet forces can help meet that challenge by giving young people confidence, discipline, skills,
[13:57]structure and a sense of purpose, supporting them to succeed and thrive. How will the minister ensure that cadet opportunities are not only maintained but expanded so that young people in communities such as Doncaster East and
[14:09]the Isle of Absom continue to benefit? Um he is absolutely right to highlight how fundamental the cadetses can be particularly for those who are at risk
[14:21]of not going on to further education, employment or training. Cadet Forces provides a fantastic opportunity for young people to have a go at something that isn't school and to gain confidence
[14:31]and find out what it is that they want to do. The cadet action plan um will have three key aims. Firstly is to how we can recruit and support adult volunteers without whose amazing work we
[14:42]wouldn't have the cadetses at all. Secondly to make sure that we have the correct support including support to infrastructure for our cadetses and thirdly to make sure that every young person in this country is aware of the amazing things that they can gain from
[14:53]the cadets. >> But generally for a town like Newark the establishment of a combined cadet force at the Newark Academy was an incredible step forward. It brought discipline,
[15:04]respect, training opportunities and a sense of pride. It it was very unfortunate that the Department for Education chose to cut the funding so that is more difficult for other
[15:15]schools, particularly ones like this in working-class communities to establish new combined combat forces in the future. What can the minister say to ensure that the funding is in place so
[15:27]this is not just a preserve of those with grammar schools or public schools but that all communities like the one that I represent have the opportunity to have condined cadet forces in the
[15:37]future. >> I'm sure he'll be well aware that we've committed an additional 70 million pounds to fund the expansion of the cadet something that his government never did
[15:48]>> back number 11 please Mr. Speaker. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. SMMES are crucial to our success. Uh through the Office of Small Business Growth, we're cutting red tape and getting our
[15:59]ambitious theme target to additional 2.5 billion by summer 2028. Last week, we announced uh with Sweden the Griffin contract for 500 million pounds benefits
[16:09]shared not just by large companies, but by small businesses across the United Kingdom, reinforcing that defense is an engine for growth. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can I associate myself with the remarks the secretary of
[16:21]state made in relation to Romania? Last week I visited Romania with the armed forces parliamentary scheme and met with armed forces personnel who are part of the NATO air policing mission. The
[16:31]incident with the drone from Russia shows just how important that mission is and the good work that our armed forces personnel are doing in Romania as we speak. Uh turning to my substantive
[16:40]question, I recently visited Permali and Cherry and White in my constituency of Gloucester. They are two localmemes working in the defense industry and doing an excellent job. Both are important local employers and are keen
[16:52]to expand their businesses. Will my honorable friend agree with me that we should be doing everything we can to support Britishmemes like Kamali and Cherry and White through defense procurement and will he agree to visit Gloucester and meet with these brilliant
[17:04]businesses? >> Uh can I thank my friend for his uh words around our armed forces and the typhoons that we have in Romania doing their policing roles? absolutely essential and with a NATO first approach, we'll continue to do that. Uh
[17:15]I'm I'm very happy uh meeting with him to talk about Cherry and White and Permali, two outstanding companies providing communication systems and composite materials to defense. There's a real lesson for uh many othermemes
[17:27]wanting to supply into defense to look at the success of companies like that and be very happy meeting him to discuss their interest. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. um defensememes are key supporters and indeed organizers
[17:37]of Somerset Armed Forces Day, but the day won't be a success if the glitches in the uh application software are not resolved uh alongside volunteer veterans
[17:48]having to should tens of shoulder tens of thousands of pounds of debts uh in the given the way the funding works. Would the ministry be willing to meet with me uh and with the organizers so that uh these challenges could be
[18:00]resolved and Somerset Armed Forces they can go ahead? >> Uh I I'm not that minister but I the correct minister has heard his please and we'll be very happy meeting him to discuss that further. >> Peter Prince.
[18:11]>> Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh question number 12 please. The Royal Navy in collaboration with the Joint Maritime Security Center maintains constant surveillance of the UK waters
[18:23]to uphold maritime security and deter threats with a combination of surface subsurface vessels, maritime patrol aircraft and autonomous assets ready to support as we transition importantly to
[18:34]a hybrid navy. We'll see the surveillance increasingly augmented by autonomous systems. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. We are ready and willing to respond robustly to threats and defeat them if required.
[18:46]Mr. Speaker, off the uh tranquil coast of Suffukk lie critical pieces of infrastructure, communications cables, electrical installations.
[18:56]There are alarming reports of munitions capable of creating giant tidal waves threatening our coastal communities and indeed our nuclear facilities. Can the secretary of state outline what steps
[19:08]the government is taking to truly protect the coastal waters from hostile foreign activity and safeguard our national security? >> My honorable friend makes a very
[19:19]important point. Uh Russian surface and subsurface activity is increased by 30% and the first duty of any government is to protect our people. We're absolutely committed to advancing our work against
[19:30]hostile states and ensuring national security. And I'm sure whilst those coasts may be tranquil underneath 247 there are British Royal Navy protecting both our territorial waters, our
[19:40]international waters and our international interests. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Like me, I know the entire front bench welcomes the news of the regulating for growth bill which will enable modernization of regulations
[19:52]for maritime autonomy testing and the creation of regulatory sandbox powers. Now, this is vital, Mr. Speaker, for the unmanned vessels that we need to protect our coastal waters. But defense firms
[20:03]like those in my constituency cannot afford unnecessary delay due to the um parliamentary timetable. Otherwise, we risk losing ground to international competitors. So, what conversations is the department having with colleagues
[20:15]across government to speed up the progress of the bill through parliament? And I am planning on asking the leader of the house question. So, I couldn't agree more uh with the honorable member that we need to do much
[20:26]more to deregulate the use of all types of autonomous systems. Uh I always drone on about drones. Maritime capability is absolutely essential. We've seen a navy without a navy defeat a navy in the
[20:37]Black Sea. We want to be at the very forefront of this and I encourage uh the honorable friend to write to the leader house to bring this forward as quickly as possible. >> Food topical questions.
[20:46]>> Topical number one please, Mr. Speaker. >> Mr. Speaker, with deep regret, I should inform the House that a training accident occurred in northern Iraq
[20:57]yesterday in which a service personnel from the British Army has died. The family have been informed and have asked for a period of grace before further details are released. I know the
[21:08]thoughts of the House will be with the family and with the unit at this desperately sad time. >> Mr. Speaker, in this era of growing threat, hard power and strong alliances
[21:18]help make Britain safer. At the weekend, I was in the Shangrila summit in Singapore with the US Secretary of War Hex and Deputy Prime Minister Miles of
[21:29]Australia. Together, we announced the first ever Orcus 2 pillar project, signature project. Uh together we are now producing the various highest
[21:39]technology sensors and weapon systems for our underwater drones. Together we will get these capabilities into our war
[21:49]fighters hands before the end of next year. Emma food. >> Thank you Mr. Speaker and firstly can I associate myself with the remarks of the secretary of state. Um the veterans minister joined me recently in meeting
[22:01]several women veterans in my constituency where they spoke exceptionally powerfully about the specific challenges and barriers that they experience accessing appropriate
[22:10]support having left the armed forces. Now, the Valor program is incredibly welcome. H, but I wonder whether the Secretary of State can assure me that as part of the second round of funding, uh,
[22:21]whether he'll be looking at how women veterans access gender informed services reflecting their particular needs and experiences. >> I I can indeed, Mr. Speaker, and I pay
[22:32]tribute to my honorable friend's support for the successful North Umbrea bid uh in the first round of the Valor uh funding that will that will help cover her constituency. And when one in eight
[22:44]of our ex forces are female veterans, we'll ensure the veterans strategy reflects those concerns and we will ensure that any round two funding as a
[22:54]result of the new application for um uh bids is recognized as well. Just remind members not to walk in front when the minister is answering the question.
[23:06]>> James C, please shut the secretary of state. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And um can I echo the secretary of state in respect to the sad news from Iraq and on behalf of the opposition send our condolences
[23:17]to the family concerned. Very sad news indeed. Uh simple question for the secretary of state. Has the Treasury signed off the defense investment plan?
[23:27]Um, the honorable gentleman may not have heard me when I answered before and I can say to him very clearly, the prime minister is determined that we publish the defense investment plan before the
[23:38]NATO summit. [laughter] >> Well, Mr. Speaker, no wonder the defense investment plan is so late. Labour still haven't worked out how to pay for it,
[23:50]Mr. Speaker. But the good news is others have. Lord [snorts] Robertson, former Labour defense secretary, said, "We cannot defend Britain with an everexpanding welfare budget." And Tony
[24:02]Blair himself warned last week that by the end of this decade, we could be spending more on incapacity and disability benefits than on defense. No serious country can do that. Isn't the
[24:13]truth that whoever becomes the next Labor Prime Minister must do one thing above all else to boost defense? Cut welfare and spend the savings on the
[24:22]British Armed Forces. Yeah, >> Mr. Speaker, the honorable gentleman has brass neck. Uh, >> I have to say there is no recognition of
[24:33]the fact that we are increasing defense spending by a record amount since the end of the cold war. No recognition that this year the defense budget will be 11
[24:44]billion pounds greater than in his last year in government. no recognition that there are contracts in place, including the Orcus Pillar 2 contract, which we've
[24:55]we've signed and he didn't when he was the minister, responsible. >> I welcome the government's commitment to defense procurement that supports
[25:06]British jobs. However, Mr. Speaker, tens of thousands of jobs in Lancashier are reliant on fast jet production. Britain needs new jets and we need to maintain
[25:16]the skills um for these next generation of jets. So, will the Secretary of State commit to protecting jobs, maintaining these critical skills and providing the jets that we need for our country's
[25:27]defense by ordering Britishmade Typhoons for the RAF. Uh >> this government's proud to support typhoons. We've announced a 500 million pound upgrade for typhoons, including
[25:37]new radar, and we've helped secure the uh export deal for 20 Typhoon jets to Teia. We're continuing supporting the brilliant jobs at Watton Salsbury and across the United Kingdom in Typhoon
[25:47]production and h expand into more autonomous craft as well supporting Typhoon for many years to come. >> Still looking forward to the next order though. Dr. Ben Spencer. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What is his
[25:59]assessment of the extra investment in defense and the extra kit Ukraine will need as a consequence of his handing Minister Putin due to relaxation of oil
[26:08]and gas sanctions? Um, as the member will know, we're increasing sanctions on Russian oil.
[26:19]>> We're increasing sanctions. I entirely appreciate how the opposition has decided to depart from the principle of cross party support to play party political games, but doesn't stop it being true. We're increasing sanctions
[26:31]on Russia. >> An addiction. >> You Mr. Speaker, I recently met with defensememes in Shipley. They want to recruit young talent including engineers and programmers for designing and
[26:42]building technologies used in drones. Um can the secretary of state uh say how we ensure that there are opportunities for young people from all backgrounds to aspire to careers in defense and what is
[26:53]the government doing to invest in the skills we need to protect these aisles and secure our future. >> First of all uh Mr. Speaker, we're directing defense investment first to
[27:04]British firms that increase British jobs, increase apprenticeships and skills and opportunities for young people. Secondly, we're opening up uh recruitments to the armed forces for direct entry for those with cyber
[27:16]skills. The first cohort have already been recruited. They're deployed much quicker than the normal route and they early reports from every one of their units is overwhelmingly positive. So,
[27:27]we're moving in now to recruit the second trunch of those direct cyber recruits. >> Chris Caldwell. >> Mr. Speaker, last year almost 4,000 non-commissioned officers, an entire
[27:38]brigade left the British army. One of them, an infantryman with four tours of Iraq and Afghanistan, told me that the reason he was leaving was because whatever the policy says, in practice,
[27:48]late entry officers are almost always only employed in administrative, not combat roles. Will the minister meet with me to explain why we are losing hundreds of our most experienced
[27:58]soldiers entirely unnecessarily? >> Uh throughout my tenure, I've worked with many late entry officers in combat roles. Uh I'll I'll take the issue away
[28:08]and look into it in detail, but I'm pretty sure that's a misrepresentation of the totality of late entry officers across armed forces in the Navy, Army,
[28:16]and Air Force. Nashabakan >> not here. >> Adrien Ramsey. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The joint
[28:27]intelligence committee report described ecological collapse and climate breakdown as posing catastrophic and irreversible risks to UK security, including conflict, food and water
[28:38]insecurity, supply chain disruption, and forced migration. Does the minister agree that the destabilizing impact of climate and nature crisis is one of the biggest security national risks facing
[28:50]Britain? And what steps is the Ministry of Defense taking to coordinate critical actions across government? >> Uh yes, we do. Um we know that climate change is driving a number of increasing threats. We also know that as a
[29:01]department we're cutting our carbon emissions and supporting nature recovery. We do that not just because it's the right thing to do, because it increases our warf fighting readiness. We know from Ukraine a diesel generator
[29:10]can be seen by uh an ISR drone many many uh kilometers away. We know that uh if we continue with the use of fossil fuels, we're at a strategic disadvantage on the battlefield. That's why we continue to invest in new technology in
[29:22]this regard. >> Murphy. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Basin Stoke is home to a number of vibrant and successful cadet forces, air, army, and sea cadets, as well as a number of
[29:32]combined cadet forces at the Castello and the Vine Schools. Would the minister join me in paying tribute to these fantastic cadet forces set out what she is doing and the government is doing to
[29:43]support them and perhaps commit to a visit to meet some of the wonderful cadets in Basin Stoke. >> I thank the honorable member for highlighting the fantastic work that the cadet groups are doing in Bazing Stoke.
[29:55]They exemplify the confidence, independence and community spirit fostered by MOD cadets across the UK. Um we are launching the first ever national cadets week in October 2026 and
[30:06]crucially developing a cadet action plan to expand the cadet forces. Firstly by improving the offer to our wonderful adult volunteers to ensure that they have the right support and resources
[30:17]including infrastructure and making sure that we are selling the offer to our young people for the amazing things they can get from the cadets and I would be happy to visit when my diary allows. >> Rebecca Paul. >> Thank you Mr. Speaker. There were
[30:28]concerning reports at the weekend about GCAP being delayed. We know the funding for Edwing agreed in April is due to run out this month. Can he guarantee that a new deal will be signed and in place
[30:40]before the end of June? >> Um I appreciate the honorable Ellie's question. Uh we support GCAP as a government and will continue to do so in
[30:49]the months and years ahead. >> Paul, Mr. Speaker, across the country, young people build confidence, independence,
[31:01]and learn the value of community engagement through participation in cadet groups. >> Thongs army cadets in my constituency demonstrate why cadets are such an
[31:11]important part of our community and I thank the young people and their leaders for their dedication and hard work. Can the minister outline in more detail what measures the government is taking to
[31:21]support groups such as thornsbridge army cadets? I thank the honorable member for rightly highlighting the wonderful work that the Thongsbridge Army cadets do. As he
[31:32]rightly says, they exemplify the wonderful things that young people can gain uh in the mod cadets across the UK um as well as in his constituency. So I can we're launching the first ever
[31:43]national cadets week in October 2026 and developing a cadet's action plan to expand the cadet forces. Firstly by improving the offer to our amazing adult volunteers, ensuring they have the right
[31:54]resources including infrastructure and making sure we rightly communicate to our young people the amazing things they can gain from the cadets. >> Thank you speaker. Can I just associate myself with the words of the chair of the defense committee earlier on the
[32:06]need to get to 3%. And could I just ask the secretary of state given that we are one of only two countries in the European continent to run a uh nuclear program. Does he agree with me that when
[32:18]you knock out the nuclear program, we're actually spending more like 1.7 1.8% on our conventional defense. That compares rather more with Spain than it does with countries like Poland or Estonia that are spending more like four or five.
[32:30]Does he therefore agree that we need to uplift immediately? >> Um, Mr. Speaker, >> we must spend more. We must spend faster. We will, as the prime minister
[32:42]has said, and on our nuclear deterrent. Uh I'm proud that this is a government that is putting 6 billion pounds in this parliament to increase the productivity
[32:52]of our ship our submarine building to raise levels of production and to increase the pace of the build of submarines in future.
[33:03]>> I welcome that since the government took office defense funding has increased by more than 7 and a half%. Ukraine maintaining its sovereignty against Russia is vital for European security and therefore British security. I
[33:14]therefore ask the minister if the government is committed to increasing the proportion of defense spending going to Ukraine to align with the increase in defense uh spending more generally. Minister,
[33:26]>> Ukraine is doing a valiant job holding back the illegal Russian uh invasion. There's 4.5 billion of UK military support for gone to Ukraine and a total commitment of 21.8 billion. It's really important it goes to the right place and
[33:38]that's why we've reviewed where that money is going to make sure that the maximum amount of impact can be derived from every pound that goes to Ukraine. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Following the
[33:47]recent challenges deploying HMS Dragon to the Middle East at short notice, will the defense readiness bill mentioned in the SDR urgent urgently review how more
[33:58]of our type 45 destroyers can be made more readily available to defend against aerial attacks? Yes,
[34:10]>> thank you, Mr. Speaker. When the Secretary of State orders those typhoons from Lancasher, will he commit to ensuring that they are fueled by SAF
[34:18]made in Northern Lincolnshire? >> We've set out our intention to increase the amount of sustainable aviation fuel that the RAF uses. Far from it being a sign of weakness, it's a sign of our
[34:30]increasing security and sovereignty over our f our fuel supply. Recognizing the changing world that we live in, making sure that RAF will continue to fly whatever the constraints on fuel in the future.
[34:42]>> Jungl. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I recently visited Wiltshire Cadets in Old Serum and I very much welcome what the minister said about cadets week. Would
[34:52]she ensure though that all the schools particularly in pride in place areas like the one in Ssbury will be made aware of the transformational
[35:02]opportunities of attending uh cadetses because I think that would be a great way of expanding the uptake which I'm sure she's aiming for. >> He makes um a very good point um and I'm
[35:13]commuting with the department for education because it's absolutely vital that we communicate the amazing things that uh cadets can do to complement the education delivered in schools. Mars. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the
[35:24]government's announcement to select Blackpool and File College as a defense technical excellence college. This will build a skilled workforce and offer
[35:34]stable employment and opportunities in my constituency. But without a typhoon jet order of our own, we risk losing the
[35:44]ability to build our own faster jets. This is about our national security. Germany, Italy, and Spain. Under >> one of us is going to sit down. It's not
[35:54]going to be me. [laughter] >> Can just gently say I totally agree. We do need this order. Absolutely. Lure MPs are fully committed, but when we're on
[36:06]topics, we've got to shorten the original question down. I'm sure the minister will have got the drift of why we need the order. >> We're proud to support Typhoon and I was proud to be in her constituency uh to
[36:16]unveil the Defense Technical Excellence College. has some brilliant students undertaking uh amazing training that will give them the skills to work in BA systems producing typhoons for um our
[36:26]allies and uh potentially other craft in the future. Uh we'll continue to support Lancaster and their aerospace sector. >> And thank you, Mr. Speaker. On Thursday, I was on the water with Kingsland sea
[36:37]cadets and Royal Marine cadets. >> As the will know, the Army and Air Force cadets are funded wholly by the Ministry of Defense. But what provision will the
[36:48]Royal Navy make in order to fund vital equipment such as the new boats that those cadets need? >> Um I I appreciate he understands the the
[37:00]um the new funding arrangements that the Cadets have and they they are rightly proud of of their history and traditions that make it so. Um I completely take his point and uh understand that we must do what we can to support them in getting the kit, the training and the
[37:12]volunteers needed to deliver and keep delivering their fantastic activity. >> Bond. Uh thank you speaker. As uh my ministerial friends know MBDA who make the storm shadow missiles used in Ukraine have doubled their workforce
[37:23]since 2010 in my constituency Stevenage and are investing4.8 million pounds annually in training. So what more can uh the secretary of state do to support businesses in the training and
[37:32]resilience of their workforces? Um we set out in the defense industrial strategy 182 million pound package to invest in skills uh not only supporting
[37:43]people entering defense for the very first time creating a lifetime of opportunity ahead of them but also supporting people retraining throughout their skills. Uh the companies in Stevenage are great examples of using
[37:53]that training money well I'm very happy talking to him about how we can go further with that. >> Thank you Mr. Mr. Speaker, Oraf Ben Fenson Primary School in my constituency is struggling with a temporary reduction
[38:05]in its roles as a result of the scrapping of the Pummer fleet. Will he meet with me to discuss how that school can continue to thrive into the future as we anticipate the new medium
[38:15]helicopter coming online? >> One of our ministers will meet with the honorable gentleman. >> Elizabeth colors. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government's plan for defense technical excellence colleges in the east and west
[38:26]of Scotland will give the young people of my western Bartonshire constituency training opportunities. Can I ask the minister if the Scottish government has responded or agreed to match our ambition with their share of funding for
[38:37]our colleges? >> Thank him for his question. Uh myself and the uh Scotland secretary wrote to the Scottish government now a number of months ago. We've still had no reply to
[38:48]our offer of having two DTEKs in Scotland. I hope that the Scottish uh National Party MPs present will be able to hurry on this their Scottish government to give us and their young people in Scotland the detects that they
[39:00]deserve. >> Mr. Speaker, now the SDR acknowledges that a significant proportion of the reserves work within the NHS and if they were to be deployed, there would be significant issues. Given defense medical services and the NHF have to
[39:11]work together, can the government set out what plans they are putting in place for this? >> Good question. Our work to re re reinvigorate the strategic reserve is absolutely vital and it is an issue that has not previously been thought about in
[39:23]the detail that it needed. This government is utterly committed to making sure the strategic reserve is ready to meet the demands that may be placed on it including as she says workforce implications. [clears throat] >> Thank you.
[39:34]>> My constituent David Huitt was dismissed from the RAF just days before the armed forces lifted the ban on LGP ser uh service personnel. He was dismissed
[39:45]simply for being gay. He is still years later waiting for the restoration of his rank and financial address. What can the minister do to expediate this process?
[39:56]And does she agree with me on this first day of Pride Month? How unacceptable that legacy is? >> Um I completely echo his sentiment at
[40:05]how unacceptable our LGBT um service personnel were treated. Um, as he will know, the LGBT FRS scheme has made significant progress um, but has not yet
[40:16]completed. If he's able to write to me with details of his constituent, I will look into it as a matter of urgency. >> For the best. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, last month the government announced that it has finally taken delivery of the 47th uh,
[40:28]F-35B, u, thus completing our initial trunch of of the order. Um, however, that's not strictly true because two of those planes, uh, ZM177 and ZM179 are currently stranded in the Azors and have
[40:38]been there since March the 9th. Um that's nearly 3 months. Can the minister explain why the planes are stranded there and who holds responsibility for completing their delivery? Is it Loheed Martin or is it the Ministry of Defense?
[40:49]>> I think for a gentleman who has so many PQs, I'm surprised he's not kept up with the uh the those two planes. I'll be sure to write to him giving him the full details or get another PQ which he will be able to inform himself of the
[41:01]information there. >> Mr. Speaker, Boington Camp in South Dorset has a long list of outstanding repairs. pothole ridden streets, persistent fly tipping, and no working
[41:12]street lights on King George V Road, just to name a few. So, will the minister work with me to ensure the defense infrastructure organization carries out much neededed repairs and
[41:22]fulfills their most basic maintenance responsibilities? >> Oington's an important base for me and I recognize the concerns that the honorable gentleman mentions. Uh, I'll be very happy meeting him to discuss how we can resolve those.
[41:33]>> M. >> Thank you, Mr. Mr. [clears throat] Speaker. I wonder if the minister could tell me the date on which the very first documents were closed in relating to the
[41:45]Chinuk air disaster and why it is that ministers seem to have absolutely no overall oversight or responsibility or accountability when those decisions are
[41:56]made to close documents to the public. >> Um uh I would generally say I I will write to her with specific information. I know she's put questions into my office about
[42:06]this issue uh as well, but I I would just gently say that there are some very important provisions that govern the uh these documents, including the uh protection of personal data. Um I I
[42:17]would just like to state for the record how seriously I am taking this issue. Um I have the deepest sympathies for the families of the Chinuk um crash. Um and I understand they have their search for
[42:29]justice. cannot comment in too much detail but I I would like to state I'm very sympathetic. >> The government strategically recommended an increase in the army
[42:39]reserve by 20% but at the very same time the government is closing Grantham's Prince William of Glouester Barracks which trains 70% of all army reserveists
[42:49]in the country. Will the defense secretary review this decision so that we have the capacity to train new army reser recruits? I'm sure he will understand that
[43:02]decisions about uh which activity is conducted where are taken across the UK. Um but I will write to him with further detail about the um barracks he mentions. >> Thank you very much Mr. Speaker.
[43:12]Investment in the UK defense sector especially defensememes is desperately needed. What will the government do to build and drive forward
[43:22]investment for defense procurementmemes? >> Well, thank him for his question for championsmemes. We've established the defense office of small business growth that stood up at the start of this year
[43:31]and is supporting uh dozens of thememes uh already. Uh we are also uh increasing direct spend withmemes and reducing contracting time to enablememes to bid for more defense contracts.
[43:43]>> Minister, >> tomorrow is the 32nd anniversary of the Shinuk disaster when we lost so many of our highranking anti-terrorist security
[43:54]experts. And yet the families of those individuals still crave the truth. >> With a saga where the department came
[44:05]for years it was pilot error only to having to reverse that decision and yet we still don't have the truth. We still
[44:14]have documents locked away for 100 years and we have a situation where families are crying out for the truth. They hear talk about Hillsbor law and judy of cander. Why is the government continuing
[44:26]to cover up on this issue particularly on the on the question of mechanical unfitness? >> You've met >> um uh he's absolutely right. Tomorrow marks a very sad anniversary and I'm
[44:37]sure he will be aware that members of my own core sadly lost their lives in that crash. Um myself and my colleague we have met with the families um and I have heard their um challenges that they have
[44:48]faced and I am very sympathetic to them. I would gently say that where documents um are closed for personal information reasons that is something that we do have to respect. There are other people here. But I would just like to say I'm
[44:59]very sympathetic and um I I continue to meet with them as required. >> Adam, final question. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Israel's illegal invasion of Lebanon is continuing and
[45:09]abated. Uh millions have left their homes and millions of refugees have fled to the north. Minister, it's happening all over again. People are suffering. Civilians are dying. What is he therefore doing to suspend all military
[45:20]cooperation with Israel so they stop the dification of Lebanon? >> Mr. Speaker, we're urging both sides to uh scale down their activity to respect
[45:31]the ceasefire and for that to be part of the current ceasefire agreement in the wider Middle East to be translated into a permanent peace including between
[45:41]Israel and the Lebanese Hezbollah. questions. Let from men change over. We come to a business statement. I'd
[46:16]like to acknowledge there has been significant public interest in the case involving the murder of Henry Novak. >> The case is legitimate legitimate
[46:27]interest to the house and I note that sentencing will take place today. My understanding and agreement is that the [clears throat] government will bring forward a statement on this matter
[46:37]tomorrow. It is for the same reason the statement is not forthcoming. I look favorably on attempts to bring the issues raised by this case before the house by other means if not. I now call
[46:48]the leader of the house. >> Thank you uh Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, with permission, I'll make a short business statement about the remainder of this week's business. The business
[46:58]for tomorrow, Tuesday the 2nd of June, will be committee of the whole House of the Armed Forces Bill. The business for Wednesday the 3rd of June will be a general debate on the government's response to the humble address on the
[47:10]appointment of Lord Mandelson. The business for Thursday the 4th of June will be a general debate on Pride Month and I will announce further business in
[47:19]the usual way on Thursday. >> Shady of the House Jesse Nolman. >> Thank you very much indeed Mr. speaker and I thank the leader very much for that business update and also for the
[47:30]news of the uh debate on Wednesday. Uh that will be an opportunity for backbench members to uh uh put debates and matters in the record. But for
[47:41]scrutiny of the government actually by far the best way is to have the questions that we're about to follow this discussion. And I'm afraid Mr. speaker that the Mandlesson files were
[47:51]released publicly only at 2:00 p.m. and 1,500 pages. No backbench member can be expected to have mastered this since those files could have been put in the
[48:01]public domain at 9:30 this morning. Mr. Speaker, could I just register with the leader that I think as he recognizes the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, we're all owed a slightly higher quality
[48:12]of scrutiny than this has received. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Uh Mr. Speaker, I I I do acknowledge what the right honorable gentleman is saying, but that's precisely why I just announced that we're having Wednesday's
[48:23]debate that it will be a general debate and I'm sure my right honorable friend, the chief secretary, the prime minister will respond to some of those points uh shortly.
[48:33]>> Liberal Democrat spokesperson. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, I rise only really to pass on the frustrations um from these benches um and from my
[48:43]residents that the important legislation planned for uh Wednesday will now be delayed and that the incredibly important improvements to rail services
[48:53]that our president's calling out for will be further delayed again. Um Parkinson's law suggested that work expands to fill space available for its completion. Can I suggest Mandlesson's
[49:04]law uh which is when you're appointing to your government his scandals will expand to fill the time available for their discussion. Um can I ask the minister whether he agrees that this scandal will be the defining legacy of
[49:16]the star premiership and shows clearly how the change and services agenda promised after the scandal and sleas of the last Tory government were as empty words as suggesting that proper process
[49:26]was followed in his appointment. >> Mr. Mr. Speaker, I I'm not going to respond uh to those empty words. I am going to say that I expect to announce
[49:36]uh the rescheduling uh of remaining stages of the railways bill in my statement on Thursday. Uh and I anticipate that the House will be able to consider that stage of the bill during next week's business.
[49:47]>> We now come to statement. Secretary Darren Jones. >> With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to update the House on the
[49:58]government's response to the humble address of the 4th of February. Before I do, I think it's important for all of us to reflect again on the impact that this debate will have on the victims of
[50:09]Jeffrey Epstein. >> Members across the House will be aware of the truly horrific crimes he committed against countless women and girls, and we hold them in our thoughts
[50:20]when discussing these issues again today. >> Mr. Speaker, the government has today laid the second tranch of documents. These were laid before the house in advance of this statement and are now on
[50:31]gov.uk for the public to see. The documents we are publishing today are one of the largest government publications ever laid before this house. This disclosure process has been
[50:43]wide ranging, costing the cabin office alone over1 million pounds. As the House knows, this was an official process with
[50:52]judgments made by senior officials, and I am grateful for the careful work they have undertaken right up until today's publication. Whilst the first tranch dealt with Peter Manderson's appointment, withdrawal and
[51:04]severance, this second tranch responds to the parts of the motion which requested communications and documents concerning his appointment and vetting as well as messages between Peter
[51:15]Manderson and ministers, special advisers, and civil servants in the months prior to and throughout the duration of his appointment. Mr. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the House will need sufficient time to
[51:26]review today's trunch in full given the size of the publication. As we have just heard from the leader of the House, that is why I have secured government time on Wednesday for a subsequent general
[51:36]debate so that there is an opportunity for members to ask further questions after today's statement. To inform that debate and for clarity and accountability, I draw the House's attention to the methodology set out in
[51:48]the publication today. This explains in detail how the government undertook the disclosure process. I will not repeat that in full here today, Mr. Speaker, but I will make reference to a number of
[51:59]areas that I know the House has expressed an interest in previously. First, on redactions, in line with the motion, over 300 individual documents were referred under
[52:10]a process agreed between the government and the intelligence and security committee. I can confirm that no material has been redacted on the grounds of prejudice to national security or international relations
[52:21]without the committee's approval. For clarity, all redacted material agreed with the ISC is labeled in the bundles today with three asterisks.
[52:33]Outside of this arrangement, this process does not change the important and wellestablished constitutional principle that national security and international relations judgments are ultimately for the government. I once
[52:44]again express my thanks to the intelligence and security committee for their engagement in this process. Further limited redactions have been made outside of the ISC process in
[52:55]respect of information that relates to junior officials names, contact details like telephone numbers and email addresses, the personal or commercially sensitive data of third parties not
[53:06]relevant to the motion and where relevant legal professional privilege. I would also like to confirm that no reduction reductions have been made to references to global council other than
[53:18]to protect the identity of individuals who worked there and are not themselves public figures. Officials have sought to be transparent in the material where the individual is a global council employee.
[53:29]No redactions have been made to references to Palunteer and Andril outside of the scope of the existing ISC redactions process and no clear references to current or former UK
[53:40]politicians have been redacted on the basis of there being third parties. I can also confirm to the house that no government minister or special adviser has determined any of the reductions
[53:52]themselves. The redaction process has been overseen by cabinet office officials and we're relevant in agreement with the ISC. The cabinet office humble address team
[54:01]has taken advice in addition to this from an independent kings council including reviewing the methodological approach followed by officials and acting on that to inform their work.
[54:13]This has helped ensure that the government is confident that its approach is compliant with the humble address and the government's legal obligations. These additional targeted redactions
[54:23]made outside of the agreed ISC process have been made in line with the Freedom of Information Act, the ministerial code and the resolutions on ministerial
[54:32]accountability passed by both houses in 1997. This is important, Mr. Speaker, because it goes to the question of whether the government has complied fully with the
[54:42]humble address. That question should be answered in the context of the established rules and precedents that relate to humble addresses. If these rules were not relevant, then the humble
[54:54]address would have required extensive additional detail on the face of the motion dealing with these procedural issues. However, I do recognize the level of interest in the house in respect of
[55:05]these non-national security and international relations related redactions. And so on the recommendation of the intelligence and security committee, I can confirm that the
[55:15]honorable member for North Dorset, the chair of the public administration and constitutional affairs committee, has reviewed our approach to third party reductions this morning. He has confirmed that we have applied the
[55:26]methodology set out in the document and that in his view the redactions are sensible, reasonable, and proportionate. I thank the intelligence and security committee for this recommendation and
[55:38]the honorable member for the additional reassurance he has provided on this point. >> Mr. Speaker, as the House is aware, the Metropolitan Police has also asked the government to withhold some material in
[55:48]scope of the motion which they considered could be preuditial to their ongoing criminal investigation or any subsequent prosecution. This request remains in place and I'm very grateful again to the chair of the
[56:00]public administration and constitutional affairs committee with whom we have also shared this information in order to provide additional accountability of the government's actions. I hope that members appreciate the need
[56:11]not to prejudice the investigation and understand that I will not be able to answer questions about certain documents which have been withheld. No responsible government would wish to undermine a criminal investigation and
[56:22]put at risk the justice that it seeks. And I'm sure the House will share this position. I can however, Mr. Speaker, confirm that this material does include questions put
[56:33]to Peter Manderson by the Prime Minister's then chief of staff and Peter Manderson's responses. In addition, a small number of documents have been withheld at the request of the
[56:44]police which fall broadly into the following categories. Firstly, national security vetting information. Secondly, conflict of interest process
[56:55]material and thirdly, relevant internal correspondence with Peter Mandlesson. Such information will of course be published at the conclusion of the investigation or at the point at which
[57:06]it would no longer be prejuditial to the police investigation to do so. Mr. Speaker, the documents published in the first and second tranches contain the entirety of the documents the
[57:16]government has available for disclosure, except those few documents I have just referred to in relation to the Metropolitan Police. Members will no doubt have questions about what might be perceived to be
[57:27]missing messages and meeting notes, which I would like to address in turn. on messages that some might expect to be included. I can confirm that we have
[57:38]conducted multiple rounds of discovery from relevant ministers, special advisers, and officials in line with the motion passed by the House. This has
[57:47]involved requesting searches of email, messaging platforms such as WhatsApp and other related communication services on
[57:55]both work and personal devices. However, the House should note that some messages may not have been backed up where devices may have been changed or
[58:06]disappearing messages were turned on for reasonable and permitted reasons, including before the dismissal of Peter Manderson or the passing of the Humble
[58:14]Address, myself included. I do recall, Mr. Speaker, having some limited exchanges with Peter Manderson over WhatsApp, including those I've already discussed in the media. But these
[58:26]conversations did not involve transacting government government business and were in line with official guidance on the use of non-corporate communications channels at the time. Mr. Speaker, I also share the view put
[58:36]by the intelligence and security committee to the house that there are lessons for the civil service to learn in respect of better notekeeping, archiving and the use of appropriate
[58:46]levels of secure IT systems in the future. The government has already committed to a review of the use of non-corporate communications channels, the terms of reference for which we will
[58:56]shortly publish, taking into account the concerns that have been raised in this house and the two tranches of documents we have published in response to the humble address. I will of course keep the house updated as we progress that
[59:07]work. Mr. Speaker, I will now turn to the material relating to Peter Manderson's national security vetting process. I can confirm that the vetting process
[59:17]summary and recommendation that was put by UK security vetting officials to the foreign office has been shared with the intelligence and security committee. [clears throat] This was shared for the
[59:29]purpose of agreeing redactions as part of the agreed process so that it can be published when we are in a position to do so. What hasn't been shared is the highly
[59:40]sensitive personal data inputs collected during the interview process. These could, for example, relate to how much money an individual might have in a particular account or who a person may
[59:51]have had a personal relationship with in the past. Mr. Speaker, if those participating in the vetting process cannot trust that the information they feed into that
[1:00:01]process is confidential, it will harm the integrity of the whole system. Anything less than full cander cander would be hugely damaging and be
[1:00:12]profoundly negative for our national security. This would be felt by this and future governments and ultimately by the British people. As such, sharing this data for any person undergoing developed
[1:00:23]vetting would undermine the very basis of our national security vetting system. Mr. Speaker, this is the 10th update to the House on this matter that I have provided. And with the exception of the
[1:00:35]small number of documents that are withheld at the request of the police, which we intend to publish when the police are content for us to do so, the government now considers that it has duly discharged the duties set out in
[1:00:46]the humble address. I will however return to the House for the general debate on Wednesday to proide a further opportunity for colleagues to ask questions and on that basis, Mr. Speaker, I commend the statement to the
[1:00:57]House. Opposition Secretary of State Alex Bur. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I thank the chief secretary to the Prime Minister for advanced sight of his
[1:01:06]statement. Uh the story in the Times is to be believed he may be positioning himself to be the chief successor to the prime minister. Uh I I also thank him for giving me advanced sight of the
[1:01:18]material that was published today, which I was fortunate enough to see this morning. However, it is very important to put on record that uh only a very few members of this house were able to see it this morning. It was available at
[1:01:29]9:30 and yet it was only published at 2:00 and yet here we are today with honorable members of the house not having had a chance to read it and yet being expected to ask the right honorable gentleman questions. Now I
[1:01:39]know the response will come that we're going to have uh a general debate on Wednesday but as honorable members opposite will know in a general debate if the minister chooses not to take
[1:01:49]interventions there is no scrutiny at all. >> You know this is at worst obfiscation. This is an attempt to deny scrutiny in a way which is unnecessary. The documents
[1:02:00]should have been published at 9:30 this morning in advance of this statement >> on the news. who was on the news. Um the uh the case of Peter Mandlesson's appointment remains of the utmost
[1:02:12]national importance simply because it touches on national security and on the prime minister's honesty, integrity and competence. To the in the material before us today, I want to make two
[1:02:23]basic points. The first is about disclosure and the second is about the process by which Peter Mandlesson was appointed. on disclosure. Although we have a huge number of documents, it is
[1:02:34]clear that very many are missing, some have been withheld, some have been lost, and it's clear that some have probably been destroyed. Because of the approach the government is taking, however, it is
[1:02:46]impossible for honorable members to know which documents fall into which category. We're told that the Metropolitan Police has requested that certain documents be retained, but the government has refused to tell us which
[1:02:57]documents are being retained. I respect the fact that the right honorable gentleman has told us about three broad categories. Now, this is progress. We did ask for those categories some time ago. We were told we couldn't have them,
[1:03:07]but it turns out we can have them. We know that there is no good legal basis for the government not to disclose to this house which documents are being withheld. Yeah, the government should
[1:03:17]tell us. Indeed, it would be possible for it to disclose those documents to the ISC or indeed to certain members of the house on privy council terms. Again, this is obfuscation. It is an
[1:03:29]unnecessary attempt to defer scrutiny or deny it. And the humble address did not allow for the government to redefine the request in this way. If the government
[1:03:40]wishes to retain documents because the Met Police have asked, it should come back to the house and change the terms of the humble address. It has not done that and consequently, it risks being in
[1:03:51]contempt. Some ministers have duly handed over their WhatsApp messages. It's clear that some have not. Are we to believe that there was no uh WhatsApp
[1:04:02]exchange at all between the prime minister uh and Peter Mandlesson? Uh we know that there were because it's been reported in the press and yet those messages uh the messages that were reported in the press do not appear in
[1:04:12]the release today. It is clear that some messages have gone missing. It is also the case that in the uh in all of these documents, the prime minister's presence
[1:04:24]is almost non-existent. >> Almost non-existent. Yeah. Despite the fact that he was appointing a man to be head of our most senior mission, we have
[1:04:33]almost nothing in his name. It is as though somehow he appointed Peter Mandlesson as ambassador without leaving any documentary trace of that decision
[1:04:43]at all. It is it really beggars belief, Mr. speaker. We take the for example uh you know the secretary of state for uh for DESIT. We are well known to be a
[1:04:53]friend and ally of Melson. He appears to have submitted a nil return on his WhatsApp messages. The I hope that the honorable gentleman will tell us why. Was it that there were never any messages? This seems unlikely. Was it
[1:05:04]that those messages have been deleted? The House has a right to know. The House has a right to know in each case whether information has gone missing or whether it has not been handed over. We know that Peter Mandlesson has refused to
[1:05:16]hand over uh his phone. It's it's in the um it's in the document. Well, we know that he was asked to give it over his phone on the 31st of March, sometime after the humble address. He's declined
[1:05:26]to do so. And this is this is simply not acceptable that the government should allow this to pass uh without some sort of push back. You know, the government has within its power the opportunity to
[1:05:37]take legal action to recover the exit payment it gave to Peter Mandlesson if he is not playing ball with a humble address. There's then the matter of reductions, acres and acres of white
[1:05:48]space, constellation of asterisks, perhaps all too appropriate for a Labor document. Mr. Speaker, it is clear from the reports in the press that the IC has
[1:05:59]had serious concerns about the reduction process. Uh I I I listened to what the right honorable gentleman said and I will listen with interest to what members of the committee say in a moment. There are a huge number of reductions under the heading third
[1:06:10]party. On what grounds have these reductions been made? Um for example on page 251 of volume 3, Mandlesson refers to someone who is currently staying with
[1:06:20]him in government property. This name is redacted. Why has it been redacted? Why can the house not be told who was staying in government property with the ambassador on the national security
[1:06:32]vetting material? It seems once again that the government is happier to provide the guardian with more information than it is prepared to provide to parliament. Preparation of the security docu document for
[1:06:42]publication appeared in recess leaked by someone in government who was familiar with it. Uh and then uh we've seen that the Guardians uh achieved from multiple sources that there were concerns raised
[1:06:53]by the vetting agency about Peter Madison's foreign contacts with a Chinese minister with Oleg Derapasca with Tamahman and so on multiple sources and yet we're being asked to believe
[1:07:04]that this information was only seen by a tiny handful of people within government. Yeah, I someone somewhere is not being frank with us. Now if we had time, Mr. speaker and we will have time
[1:07:16]on Wednesday. We could talk about the concerning information about Cha Gossier. We could talk about the fact that Peter Mandlesson uh after he had been appointed asked whether he could do
[1:07:25]paid work in Shanghai uh on a private basis. Uh we could uh we could talk about the fact that Peter Mandlesson wrote to the then foreign secretary
[1:07:34]saying, "If you were indeed minded to appoint me, I would make sure you never regret it." Yeah. >> But um the truth is that we must return
[1:07:46]once again to the process by which Peter Mandlesson was appointed and everything in the documents today show that the prime minister did not follow the instructions he was given by the then
[1:07:57]cabinet secretary on the 11th of August 2024. He was told to get security vetting done before the appointment was confirmed. And this the prime minister
[1:08:08]did not do. And he was asked to do that because the prime minister had been provided with a due diligence document by the cabinet office which said that Peter Mandlesson had an ongoing friendship with Epstein after Epstein
[1:08:19]had been sent to prison. The fact that Mandlesson had been a director of a Russian defense company which had supplied arms to Putin during Putin's invasion of Crimeir. and the fact that
[1:08:30]he had maintained unhealthy business relations in China. And yet, despite this, the prime minister did not get the security vetting done before he made the
[1:08:41]appointment. He went ahead and made it anyway. And then the rest of the system was scrabbling around afterwards to try and make up for this error. >> Exactly. >> But it was his error. It was clear that
[1:08:52]due diligence was not followed. It is a failure that is visible from space. It is a failure that will define this prime minister's premiership. It is a failure that will be written as his political
[1:09:04]epitarath. >> Mr. Speaker, and I thank the um honorable gentleman for his uh questions. Um I think there were three
[1:09:16]broad questions. One on access to the documents today, second on what documents are available or or not, and the third on the redactions process. In terms of access to the documents, Mr. Speaker, as I said to the House in the
[1:09:28]urgent question before the recess, I've been very mindful of the fact that given the uh significant number of documents being published today that we wanted to create as much time as possible for the
[1:09:39]House to scrutinize them and to be able to ask the government questions. I agree that had I published these documents 45 minutes before standing up to give a statement for 45 minutes, that would have been insufficient in the
[1:09:50]circumstances. And I hope that he welcomes the lengths that I and the government have gone to, not just to provide these in advance today to himself, but also the leader of the opposition, the chairs of the relevant select committees and other
[1:10:00]stakeholders, but also by publishing them at a much earlier time compared to normal before the debate today and then securing a general debate on Wednesday. In respect of the documents that are available, as I said in my statement,
[1:10:12]Mr. Speaker, this tranch plus the first tranch of documents represent the entirety of the documents that the government has available for disclosure except for those that have been made available to the Metropolitan Police. He
[1:10:23]has invited me to list those documents given to the Metropolitan Police. As I've said from the dispatch box before, Mr. Speaker, I'm acting on the advice of the Metropolitan Police in not being able to do that, but I'm pleased that he welcomes the commitment we have secured
[1:10:34]from them to give a little bit more shape to that today with the with the categories of documents that are being held. I would remind the honorable gentleman and indeed the house that we have also shared the documents directly with the chair of the public
[1:10:46]administration committee so that there is an additional check and balance within parliament without being able to share these documents more widely until the met police tell us. Uh he also asked me Mr. Speaker about notification of the
[1:10:58]prime minister's decision to appoint Peter Manderson as ambassador. I would refer him to the first trunch and the document from his principal private secretary number 10 communicating that decision both to the foreign office and
[1:11:09]to the palace. And then finally he asked me about the redactions process which I think I set out in detail in my statement Mr. speaker which was predominantly with the intelligence and security committee where it relates to national security or international
[1:11:19]relations and then second to non-national security redactions in line with established process and precedent with the additional check provided this morning again by the chair of the public administration committee in relation to
[1:11:31]third parties for which he has confirmed I understand it that he's happy with the process the government has followed >> the member chair of the for select committee >> thank you very much Mr. Speaker, and can I begin by thanking the minister for
[1:11:43]giving me access to the papers at Hot Bus 9 this morning? Um, is it right though that amongst the 1,500 pages of documents released today, there is no written evidence of any mitigations
[1:11:54]being put in place, either to minimize Peter Mandlesson's conflicts of interest or more importantly to reduce the risk to our national security that vetting
[1:12:04]had flagged due to his close communic connections with Russian oligarchs, senior Chinese officials, retired Israeli spy masters, and a debt of a
[1:12:14]million pounds. to buy shares in a secretive Israeli startup. Can the chief secretary please tell us, are we going to see such documents later because the police have got them or do they just not
[1:12:26]exist at all? Um, can I thank the honorable lady for her questions? Uh, and without inadvertently being able to name specific documents, I'm afraid the best
[1:12:37]I can say to her today in relation to those um, potential conflicts of interest is that as I made clear in my statement, that nature of document has been made relevant from the Metropolitan Police's perspective in terms of their
[1:12:48]criminal investigation. >> Lisa Smart Liberal Democrats spoke >> very much, Mr. speaker and I thank the minister for advanced sight of his statement as well as members of the ISC and the member for North Dorset for
[1:12:59]their work on this matter. I want to acknowledge again the women and girls who found the courage to come forward about the abuse they endured at the hands of rich and powerful men. As we
[1:13:10]continue to discuss this, we must remember that those women women are owed justice. When Peter Mandlesson was appointed, UK security vetting advice was overridden. The then FCDO permanent
[1:13:21]secretary suggested that he was subject to constant pressure and there's a line in today's files suggesting that senior people had expressed interest that the vetting process goes smoothly. Given the
[1:13:32]minister's repeated assurances that there was no pressure from government relating to vetting. What does the minister think that line refers to? We now know that cabinet ministers were privately praising and flattering
[1:13:43]Mandlesson from before his appointment all the way to after his dismissal. Senior ministers showed a staggering lack of judgment. Could the Chief Secretary explain why so much business
[1:13:55]relating to one of the most controversial public appointments in recent years appears to have been conducted over WhatsApp? Private, informal, and outside the official record. Government by WhatsApp, which
[1:14:07]the Lib Dems have continually called for an end to, must end because informal messaging outside official channels creates accountability gaps that should trouble us all. Does the [clears throat]
[1:14:18]chief secretary agree that government by WhatsApp must come to an end? Documents released today display concerning evidence that Peter Mandlesson lobbyed ministers on behalf of his clients. This
[1:14:29]would appear to be a serious breach of the code of conduct for the other place. Yet an initial reading of the files seems to suggest that many ministers were pliant and responded warmly to him. Could the minister confirm if any
[1:14:41]ministers reported their concerns about this seemingly egregious lobbying? The government has outlined its plans for the removal of perigages bill and at first glance it's a narrow and woefully
[1:14:52]unambitious bill that completely fails to rise to the moment. Could the minister outline what it will take for the government to make meaningful reforms to the second chamber?
[1:15:04]Senior cabinet ministers asked Mandlesson for advice on a range of issues despite many of these issues falling outside the scope of his role. Issues of how we run this country
[1:15:14]stretch far beyond this scandal. The ministerial code which should strongly inform the conduct of those who hold the highest offices in the land continues to exist as guidance rather than the law.
[1:15:25]Ministers who breach it face no legal consequences. The prime minister can choose whether or not to act on the findings of independent advisers. And this means accountability is optional.
[1:15:37]And it's far from clear what consequences follow when rules are broken. Will the government now use this moment to bring forward legislation to enshrine the ministerial code in law?
[1:15:48]>> Secretary Jones. >> Um, thank you, Mr. Speaker. The honorable lady invites me in her first question to comment on the intent of conversations had between uh people
[1:15:58]other than myself. Um, I'm sure the house will understand that all I can do at the dispatch box is referred to the documents disclosed in the bundle given I was not privy to those conversations. Um she asked me a number of questions about the use of non-corporate
[1:16:10]communications channels. The guidance is very clear that non-corporate communications channels um uh can be used uh but where government is being transacted the decision then needs to be recorded on official government
[1:16:22]channels. Nonetheless, WhatsApp has been used extensively which has raised a number of questions for the government to consider which we will do as part of our review of the use of non-corporate communications channels the terms of
[1:16:33]reference to which I'll be announcing very shortly. She then asked me about the Puriges bill which of course was confirmed in the king's speech recently which we will be bringing forward in due course. Uh we share uh the ambition to
[1:16:44]use this as a piece of legislation to modernize the house of lords uh in respect of periods who have brought the house uh into disrepute and she asked me again about putting the ministerial code on a statutory footing. Um and as we've
[1:16:56]exchanged a number of times across the dispatch box I would just point to the fact that the changes this government has already made have proven to be effective given a number of ministers have had to resign. Chair of the Jersey
[1:17:06]and Nessa Mount Western. >> Thank you uh Mr. Speaker. I think any uh of these um cases that are clearly a real risk to national security should
[1:17:17]alarm everyone around this house. Uh I think back to some of the questions M speaker recall that I put to then prime minister Johnson about his relationship with Alexander Leed for example but
[1:17:28]hearing about the case of Oleg Der Pasca with George Osborne and of course Peter Manderson as well and these other characters um as has been set out is is deeply uh concerning. The point I want
[1:17:40]to just land on is about the uh uh non-corporate uh communications channels and the IT systems. And I'm delighted to hear that the government is actually
[1:17:50]reviewing this. But it is a matter of urgency because it has become the norm really for civil servants and for those in government, previous governments as
[1:18:00]well to use likes of WhatsApp as the normal operating system. When will that review be published? >> Um, can I thank my honorable friend for
[1:18:11]his question? The first part of his question I think goes to the point I've made in my statement about the importance that that the developed vetting interviews must be allowed to be done in full confidence because we do
[1:18:22]need to ensure that when people are joining the government in that DV interview that they are uh fully transparent with the government about any relationships they may have with individuals. Uh in relation to the
[1:18:33]review and non-corporate communications channels I'm hoping to be announce to be able to announce the terms of reference very shortly. >> Sir Edward Lee the father of the house. Yeah. Yeah. >> As far as the uh House of Commons
[1:18:44]generally is concerned, this whole statement is fairly meaningless because it's impossible to question on the hundreds of pages on the basis of reading documents for a few minutes. So
[1:18:54]will the minister undertake when he opens this debate because so many of these general debates frankly are damp squids. Will he undertake actually to answer every single question put to him by this but by that time? And I see he's
[1:19:05]nodding. That's very helpful. In my experience, these uh scandals are always made much worse, not by the original scandal, but by the any sense of covering up. So, I'm sure the minister
[1:19:16]will want to be completely open. And therefore, listening to the opposition spokesman, it's strange that the prime minister seems to have so little involvement in this whole affair. I I'm
[1:19:26]reminded of the wartime film, The Man Who Never Was. Does he sum up this premiership, The Man Who Never Was? Secretary Jones. Um >> I [snorts] look forward to engaging with the right honorable gentleman in the
[1:19:37]general debate on Wednesday where I of course I commit to the house to do my best to answer questions that are put uh to me. Uh in respect in respect of the prime minister's communications, I would just point out to the house that prime
[1:19:48]ministers don't sit at computers sending emails from outlook. They have officials who action their decisions on their behalf, which is what is represented in the disclosure.
[1:19:58]>> M. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It seems that Mr. Mandlesson's business interests permeated every aspect of government. This afternoon we are to debate the
[1:20:08]health bill of which we'll be debating the federated data platform of which clearly Palanteer a client of Peter Mandlesson will have a specific interest
[1:20:19]written hardwired into the bill and we are expected to vote on that without seeing the full documentation and having time to digest it. So can he set out
[1:20:29]exactly what the relationship was between Mr. Mandlesson and Mr. Teal and if that was disclosed in the interview process. >> Secretary Jones.
[1:20:40]>> I'm afraid Mr. Speaker, I'm not here at the dispatch box to to speak on behalf of Mr. Mandlesson and I was not in the develop vetting interview process, nor have I seen that information. So I'm afraid I can't answer the specific
[1:20:50]questions the honorable lady asks me. What I would though do is point her to the relevant comments in my statement where the government has gone to length to ensure that references to Palunteer have not been disclosed in the document
[1:21:02]in line with normal commercial process given the level of interest and respects of that company here in the house of Pakan Hall. >> Thank you Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, first may I through the chief secretary
[1:21:13]thank uh all of the officials of the cabinet office who've dealt with this in a very thorough uh professional and as far as I'm concerned very courteous way. And for that I am grateful. Casting
[1:21:24]forward, it's probably perfectly correct that a prime minister should be able to make a political appointment to an ambassador's position. But there seem to be two key lessons that need to be
[1:21:36]learned here. And I wonder if the chief secretary could say a word or two on both. The first is that vetting should be as a matter of course conducted prior
[1:21:46]to making public an announcement of appointment. The second is that there does seem to be confusion and the earlier pages of volume one published today indicate this
[1:21:58]as to what weight and status being either a member of the privy council, the house of lords, a former member of the cabinet gives to what type of vetting is required. Can you assure the
[1:22:08]house that that key lesson has been learned and the very clear direction has been given to those who are charged with that important and sensitive job know precisely how to do it when to do it and
[1:22:19]to make sure that there is a level playing field as far as the applicant is concerned. >> Um thank you Mr. Speaker and can I again thank the honorable gentleman for his uh support as chair of the public
[1:22:30]administration committee and providing oversight on behalf of parliament of the government's uh processes. Um the first question in relation to security clearance being uh con uh concluded
[1:22:40]before announcement um he is right that is something that the government has learned as part of this process and that policy has already been changed. The second question he asked me Mr. speaker
[1:22:51]um is represented in this bundle by there being an uncertainty about how existing developed vetting policy app applies to those who may be a member of the privy council andor member of the
[1:23:02]house of lords given that ministers are not put through the DV process because that would be a an undemocratic interference of the electorate in a democratic process which could be over
[1:23:13]overturned by unelected civil servants. The documents show that the government came to the right conclusion that Peter Manderson should go through DV clearance even though he was a member
[1:23:24]of the House of Lords and a privy counselor. But the documents do show that there was some uncertainty about that and I agree with him that we should now strengthen the guidance to make sure that that's clear in the future. >> Stella Cruz.
[1:23:35]>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The challenge for all of our constituents is that every time this subject comes up, they cannot shake the sense that Peter
[1:23:46]Mandles's business interests hang like a grubby layer across decision making in this government. And I know the minister will want to challenge that and the
[1:23:57]concern that his behavior was a symptom rather than the cause of the problem that we face. When we were last in this chamber discussing this matter, I asked
[1:24:07]the minister explicitly about the Adrien Fulford review on the 27th of April and he assured me that the outcome of the investigation into the vetting process
[1:24:17]would be completed within three to four weeks. It is now past his own deadline. He will understand the concern that our constituents may have that frankly there may be more to come. Can you reassure me
[1:24:29]that that review is going to be published and what's going to be in it? Secretary Jones. Um >> the honorable lady is right to call me up, Mr. Speaker, that that review has not yet concluded on the time scale that
[1:24:38]I had hoped for initially. Uh Adrien for is conduct conducting the review at the moment and knows that we want to be able to report on it very shortly. I can't tell the House what's in it yet because I've not seen it, but as soon as I've
[1:24:50]received it, I will return to the House. >> Chairman, >> thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um the documents show that in July 2025 uh Peter Mandlesson contacted number 10 suggest that the prime minister should make time
[1:25:00]to meet Peter Teal while he was in London. Peter Mandlesson described him as a celebrated techie >> and uh and this followed the meeting in
[1:25:10]February 2025 with Palanteer in Washington. So firstly, can the minister confirm whether that meeting happened? Secondly, can he confirm that if it is the view of the government expressed
[1:25:21]unchallenged by their former ambassador to the US that a man who described Nazi Carl Schmidt as a major influence on his thinking and who also said that freedom
[1:25:30]and democracy are incompatible is indeed just a celebrated techie. And finally, can he confirm that the government will review all links and contracts between the government, the NHS, and police with
[1:25:41]Palanteer following the revelations around Mandlesson's Mandlesson Global Council and Palanteer? >> Secretary Jones. >> Um, thank you, Mr. Speaker. In relation to the specific question about whether
[1:25:53]there was a follow-up meeting further to that request, I do not know the answer, so I'm not going to make an assumption one way or another. But if the honorable gentleman tables a parliamentary question, I'm sure we'll be able to
[1:26:03]check and confirm for him. Um, he then asks me about Peter Teal. Um, I'm not going to take the opportunity to give personal views about Mr. Teal, but his
[1:26:13]are on the record. Um, and he thirdly asks me about a review of Palanteer contracts, and I think the health secretary has confirmed there is a review currently underway in relation to their contract with the Department for Health.
[1:26:24]>> Bill P. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the chief secretary for his statement. He's talked before about the potential implications for uh vetting, for due diligence, and today about uh
[1:26:35]non-corporate communications. But can I ask about one further area of reforms that I know ministers are keen to improve on, which is our lobbying transparency regime and ask when the
[1:26:45]House might expect to hear some progress or thoughts to how we could make that more effective uh and consider the um learnings from this episode. >> Secretary Jones. Um can I thank my honorable friend for his question and
[1:26:57]his excellent work in this area which the government um has learned a great deal from in terms of his expertise. Um the house knows Mr. Speaker that this area alongside the other areas in relation to non-corporate communications
[1:27:08]channels period removal in the House of Lords as well as lobbying and transparency and the work of the ethics and integrity commission is a portfolio of work that the government is in the process of reviewing. Now that we have
[1:27:19]completed the publication of the second tranch of these documents, I know that we'll want to accelerate our work on those subsequent areas of review and I look forward to coming back to the house with an update in due course. >> Paul, >> thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The
[1:27:31]chief secretary is well known for being courteous and passionate at the dispatch box and somebody that I'm a fan of. However, he's not known necessarily, >> this is where it's bad, uh [laughter]
[1:27:42]he's not known necessarily for answering everybody's questions when they ask them. So, in relation to the question laid by the father of the house asked by the father of the house. Can I ask him whether he will commit to opening the
[1:27:54]debate on Wednesday and with the leader of the house close it so that every member of this house can ask him the questions? >> Well, I'm very grateful to the honorable gentleman and wouldn't want to displease a fan uh with inadequate performance
[1:28:05]from the dispatch box. Um I can I can tell the house, Mr. Speaker, that we have considered whether I should open and close the debate on Wednesday. Uh which would be unusual. Uh instead what we've decided is that my colleague the
[1:28:17]pay master general will open the debate. I will be here for the entirety of the debate and I will certainly do my best to answer all the questions in closing. >> With Morgan Mcweeni's name copied into
[1:28:27]so many messages, these disclosures show us the need to return to the role of labor together. Could the minister confirm whether any third party redactions relate to any figures
[1:28:38]associated with labor together? And now that his former director has left his seat in this place, will the minister tell us when we can expect to see a full and independent investigation into the
[1:28:49]activities of Labor Together? >> Um, I refer the honorable lady to my previous answer at the dispatch box in relation to calls for an investigation into Labor Together, which is a
[1:28:59]privately owned organization um outside of government and public service. uh in relation to her invitation to uh name individuals who have been protected in
[1:29:09]the disclosure by third party redactions for whom they do not have a direct relationship to the uh motion in front of us. Um I'm not at liberty to do that but as I said in my statement we have put those redactions in front of the
[1:29:21]chair of the public administration committee uh for additional checks and balances. >> Thank you speaker. Mr. Speaker, given that the key person in the scandal, Lord Mandlesson, refused to hand over his
[1:29:31]personal WhatsApp messages, how can the government guarantee that Parliament and the public have seen the full truth and the prime minister was was the prime minister misled or is the prime minister
[1:29:43]and the chief secretary accepting partial disclosure? >> I would gently remind um members from the S&P that I think Nicholas Sturgeon was very effective at uh deleting
[1:29:53]messages during the COVID inquiry. Um, and it's important that ministers do not do that and I'm sure the S&P have learned those lessons as much as everybody else. I've made very clear from my statement with the documents
[1:30:04]that we have available in front of us. >> Can I just say I'm not responsible for the answer appealing to me. The minister can answer of his own ability. Doesn't need my help.
[1:30:15]>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. But any encouragement, welcome. Um, as I said to the honorable gentleman, the documents in relation to his questions are clearly set out in the bundle and they speak for themselves.
[1:30:26]Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, it's very clear that Peter Manderson should never have been appointed as our ambassador, and I know that we will all have
[1:30:36]Epstein's victims in our minds today. It's right that the prime minister has called for the removal of periges from disgraced peers and um conscious of the
[1:30:47]comments from um the the member opposite earlier. Can the um chief secretary confirm that the periges bill that appeared in the king speech will
[1:30:56]actually have teeth and enable us to radically reform the upper chamber. >> Jones, >> can I thank my honorable friend for her her question? We are concluding internal
[1:31:06]drafting uh on the purigages bill and we'll look to secure time to be able to introduce it in this session. Uh I can assure assure my honorable friend and the house that we want to bring forward legislation that is effective and
[1:31:18]meaningful and that is certainly our intention. >> So Julian Lewis >> I think the country has a right to know how the prime minister reacted at the
[1:31:28]end of Mandlesson's vetting process. So, have the prime minister's comments on the outcome of the vetting been released
[1:31:38]or are they being withheld or are we expected to believe that he made no comment about it at all?
[1:31:48]>> Um, two things, Mr. Speaker. I've made clear in the statement today that vetting documents have been withheld by the Metropolitan Police, although they have gone through or some of the documents have gone through the intelligence and security committee. But
[1:31:59]I refer the right honorable gentleman to the prime minister's words previously. As has been clear, the foreign office did not flag this information with the prime minister. He was not aware of it until they had been leaked to the Guardian newspaper.
[1:32:10]>> Jessica Till. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, I thank the chief secretary for his statement today and I'd like to associate myself with his comments about Epstein's victims. They must absolutely be at the forefront
[1:32:20]of our mind. Um but a significant amount of material uh in this tranch was reviewed by the ISC and so would he be able to tell the house um how what steps officials took to ensure that any
[1:32:31]documents relating to national security and our international relations have been shared with the ISC? >> Can I thank my honorable friend? As I confirmed in my statement over 300 individual documents were put before the
[1:32:43]intelligence and security committee uh for their consideration of proposals um from the government for redaction. Uh there were a small number of redaction hearings towards the end of that process
[1:32:53]where agreement was sought between the government and the committee and all redactions currently published in the document have been done with the full agreement of the committee. >> Charms.
[1:33:03]>> Thank you Mr. Speaker. Like many of us here in this chamber today, I've not yet had the time to read the thousand plus pages of uh materials released today. But what this release does do is shine a
[1:33:13]light of disinfectant on the political culture and how we treat the victims and survivors of heinous abusers of women and girls and on the scandal of how
[1:33:23]Mandelson despite being matey with the convicted child sex offender Jeffreystein was allowed back into uh the highest possible office. So, does
[1:33:34]the minister agree with me that it is essential that this sorry episode in British political history leads to a fundamental change in political culture
[1:33:44]so that the voices of women and girls who survive abuse at the hands of people like Jeffrey Epstein are always listened to and put front and center.
[1:33:56]>> Secretary, >> um I certainly agree with the sentiment of the honorable lady's question, Mr. speaker and in relation to the time made available to read the documents I again refer her to the general debate on Wednesday which she's perfectly able to come to >> Sam Rush
[1:34:08]>> thank you Mr. Speaker and Peter Mandle should should never have been appointed I look forward to the day that we can remove him as a peer but even now by not releasing his messages he makes a
[1:34:18]mockery of this process is there anything that the government can do to compel Peter Mandlesson to provide the information that this house seeks >> John >> I'm afraid Mr. Speaker, the government
[1:34:28]has powers to compel disclosure from government employees and from ministers and special advisers, but does not have powers to compel disclosure from third
[1:34:38]parties outside of our uh employment. Um, the Metropolitan Police, however, will of course be conducting its criminal investigation and I'm sure there'll be disclosure through the court process should a case be put forward by
[1:34:49]the CPS in due course. >> So, John Witting. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Further to the question of my right and friend the member for New Forest East, we have seen
[1:34:59]in the first trunch the box note that was sent from the prime minister's private office to the prime minister setting out the issues and asking whether or not Peter Mandelton should be
[1:35:10]appointed. But that piece of paper bears no comment. When I asked the permanent secretary of the cabinet office about this, she said that she would have expected there to be a record either of
[1:35:22]the prime minister having written a comment or held a meeting to discuss it. Neither is apparently any record of is the minister saying that it does not
[1:35:32]exist and if it does does not why not >> um Mr. Speaker, the communication of the prime minister's decision does exist in
[1:35:43]the first tranch where the prime minister's principal private secretary has drafted a letter communicating the prime minister's decision to the relevant stakeholders. >> Thank you very much. All of us have a
[1:35:58]significant amount of reading to fully understand how the good friend of a convicted sex offender was rewarded with a top job. But it remains obvious that
[1:36:07]Epstein's victims simply weren't on the radar of the boys club in control at number 10. Now the minister can come to
[1:36:15]his place again and again and again, but how does he justify that culture that was in power at the time?
[1:36:25]>> Um I would just gently point out, Mr. Speaker, that number 10 isn't solely occupied by men. there are very senior women who work in the Labour party and the Labor government um as well. Um but
[1:36:36]in relation to the sentiment of her question which I agree with, it is important that we have a diversity of view of diversity of input into decision-m process wherever decision makers are whether in government or
[1:36:47]business or elsewhere. >> Governor, thank you Mr. Speaker. Can the chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster
[1:36:55]confirm that the prime minister has not uh deleted uh any of the messages he received electronically on any personal or government devices in relation to
[1:37:07]Peter >> Mandlesson >> all of the prime minister's messages have been disclosed in the bundle in the same way as every other minister >> Corbyn.
[1:37:18]>> Thank you Mr. Speaker. Could I take the minister back to the answer given to the member for York earlier on? Palanteer are a very big and very dangerous in my
[1:37:29]view outfit alto together. The government is developing a close relationship with Palanteer platforming etc. Could he assure the House that everything to do with Palanteer will now
[1:37:40]be paused until we can get to the heart of the whole matter and how they first became embroiled in government contracts, how they gained them and what
[1:37:49]their influence is over this government, particularly via Peter Mandles. >> Um, Mr. Speaker, I'd slightly challenge the assumption that the government is developing a so-called close
[1:38:01]relationship with Palanteer. As far as I'm aware, that's not true. Palanteer has been awarded I think two or so contracts for government services and continues to bid for services and it's for departments in line with our
[1:38:12]procurement policy to decide um who they give contracts to. Um but the right honorable gentleman is right. There are a whole range of issues in line with procurement policy that ministers and
[1:38:22]officials will need to um consider including uh the protection of people's personal data, the conduct of companies and their ability to deliver public services in line with our values. >> Lincoln Jobs.
[1:38:33]>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for his statement. The media are going to have a frenzy over the title of all this stuff over the next three days. Um, but to my mind, the
[1:38:44]whole Madison affair represents a very serious breach of national security. And so can the minister reassure me in the house that the foreign office and the
[1:38:54]security services are turning over with a fine tooth comb every minute of Lord Mandlesson's time as ambassador to make
[1:39:04]sure that his actions in that office were in the national interest. >> Jones Mr. Speaker, I can confirm as I think I have from the dispatch box before that officials are conducting
[1:39:16]that re review of uh documentation um but also making sure that through the review being conducted by Sir Adrien Fulford uh we avoid the these situations
[1:39:26]happening in the future in particular with departments to have the right to um not take the recommendation of UK security vetting when appointing people to develop vetting status. >> Josh Bubber.
[1:39:37]>> Thank you Mr. Speaker. In the 1500 pages published today, I was staggered to find that the victims and survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes are not
[1:39:49]referred to in any of the documents dated before Peter Mandlesson's appointment. The only reference to Epstein's victims here is an email sent
[1:40:00]after Mandlesson was sacked. Victims and survivors should never be an afterthought and they clearly were in this case. So how will the government
[1:40:11]ensure that the trauma of Epstein's victims and survivors is never betrayed again? >> Secretary Jones. Um, I'd firstly just
[1:40:20]say to the honorable member that the disclosure of information from Bloomberg and then subsequently from the United States Department of Justice
[1:40:31]uh showed a depth and extent of relationship between Peter Manderson and Jeffrey Epste that nobody was aware of. Nobody was aware of that until that information became public. That though
[1:40:42]doesn't excuse the point he makes in his question. And he's right, as I have said at the start of every statement from this dispatch box in relation to this issue, that whilst we debate all of these procedural issues about WhatsApp
[1:40:53]or security vetting or who was given a job on what basis, at the heart of this is the most atrocious crimes unimaginable to all of us from Jeffrey Epstein in relation to many many young
[1:41:05]women and girls. And we know that this is not just contained to Jeffrey Epstein uh but violence against women and girls is uh sadly a more widespread issue that
[1:41:15]the government is working hard at trying to tackle in line with our commitment to half it over the course of this parliament. >> One more. >> Thank you speaker. The central figure in this entire saga is someone who enjoyed
[1:41:26]a cozy rel relationship with ministers at the heart of this government. And yet he's refused to hand over his mobile phone and the government many of whom
[1:41:37]who he had as close friends seem to have simply accepted that refusal. So, does the minister really expect that this house can believe that full transparency
[1:41:48]has been achieved when Mandlesson continues to be able to pick and choose what evidence he allows us to see? >> Yeah. Yeah. Minister,
[1:41:58]um I share the right honorable lady's uh sentiment. The government doesn't have the legal power to require the disclosure of Peter Mandlesson's uh
[1:42:08]device. As I said in earlier statements, there are other powers available, for example, to the Metropolitan Police and others should a criminal investigation
[1:42:17]uh proceed to a CPS um case being put before the court. And so it may become more clear in future, but the government has done everything it can to ensure that we've provided full disclosure uh
[1:42:29]in compliance with the humble address. >> Cubbins. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Volume two, part three, page 243. His predecessor states when talking
[1:42:40]about Labor MPs, "Every meeting I have is who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others." Is that the same experience he he's having in every meeting he now has?
[1:42:52]>> Minister, no. >> Jim Shannon, final question. [laughter] >> Uh Mr. Speaker, thank you. Can I uh
[1:43:04]chief certainly is obviously and he is very welll liked and by myself in this house and we appreciate his honesty in his answers if maybe not all the information we're seeking. I very gently
[1:43:15]would remind the chief secretly that for the general public these continued delays border u are very being viewed as obstructive and the goal for this government must be to show that no one
[1:43:25]is beyond scrutiny and accountability and that any further delay or reduction will not help to reach that goal. So will the chief secretary undertake to ensure that these the delays end the
[1:43:36]materials released and the general public are assured that we are all accountable for mistakes and lessons have to be and must be learned. Thank you. >> Um I thank the honorable gentleman for
[1:43:46]his question. He knows because I've said repeatedly at the dispatch box that I take the uh the the role of parliament very seriously in relation to holding the government to account and as a former select committee chair in
[1:43:57]particular the role of select committees as well as uh the statements and questions we can undertake on the floor of the house. That's why I have gone to lengths to ensure that the intelligence and security committee, the public administration committee and the foreign
[1:44:09]affairs committee as the lead committees in relation to this issue um have been given as full and as transparent access to the process and the documents as I've been able to make available and why I've
[1:44:20]secured additional time for members to be able to ask further questions on Wednesday. >> Final question Charlie. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In volume 2, part one of the documents
[1:44:29]released today, pages 115 to 116, there is an email from Ollie Robbins, dated the 16th of September, 2025, in which he writes to another civil senior civil servant in Downing Street saying that he
[1:44:40]has still not yet seen potentially crucial documents in relation to the appointment of Peter Mandlesson. Now, that date is important. It is the same day that Chris Wormhold, the former cabinet secretary, wrote to the prime
[1:44:50]minister saying that all appropriate processes had been followed in appointing Peter Mandlesson. Can those two things be true? Can appropriate processes have been followed if Mr. Robbins himself hadn't seen these
[1:45:01]potentially crucial documents? >> It's an important question, Mr. Speaker, but a question that I am unable to answer given I was not privy to those discussions at the time and maybe if
[1:45:11]other select committees are able to ask questions in the future, they might put that to the relevant people. That completes the statement. We'll let Ben change over. Which brings us to a statement on the
[1:45:37]Equality Act 2010 code of practice. Minister Sema Malhotra