Speaker 1 (00:00:00):... who's in the chamber says he wants to renegotiate. Will the Secretary of State please explain what lessons he's learned from the failures in negotiations last year?Speaker 2 (00:00:14):Mr. Speaker, the honorable gentlemen recognize that for the first time we've got in place a security and defense partnership agreement with the European Union. This is part of us stepping up our willingness to work with the European Union. He knows the safe negotiations did not come to a successful conclusion. And that was quite simply because it was not in the interests of the British taxpayer, the interest of British fence industry, and we'll do a great deal more to support the wider security of the European Union and the European nations through NATO.Speaker 12 (00:00:45):[inaudible 00:00:47]Speaker 3 (00:00:47):Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Intensifying security competition in the Arctic necessitates enhanced cooperation with our regional allies. So can my right honorable friends see if the government intends to invite Canada to join the JEF?Speaker 2 (00:01:03):Mr. Speaker, the 10 JEF nations led by the UK, established by the previous government, stepped up in terms of leadership now, support from all both sides of the house is an important part of NATO. It allows us to act ahead of unanimity in NATO and a number of times from critical infrastructure to exercising in the high north. JEF has led the way and will continue to do so.Speaker 12 (00:01:26):Helen Morgan.Helen Morgan (00:01:27):Very much, Mr. Speaker. In my constituency of North Shropshire, complaints about water to supply to single living accommodation doubled from 116 in 2018 to 232 in 2024, with 16 separate losses of water for more than 24 hours last year. Well, the minister meet with me to discuss how we can bring single living accommodation up to the standard that our service men and women deserve.Speaker 4 (00:01:53):I think you'll remember for her question. Just last week, we launched the Single Living Accommodation Review, which is designed to get after exactly these sorts of issues to ensure that we have the accommodation that our serving personnel deserve.Speaker 12 (00:02:04):[inaudible 00:02:06]Speaker 6 (00:02:06):Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, following President Trump's insulting remarks about our hard work and British personnel, my constituent contacted me. He was very happy to hear the prime minister condemn that. His eldest son is retired from the army following injuries, and his youngest son is a medic in the army. Mr. Speaker, my constituent is here today in the public gallery. Would the Detective State join me in paying tribute to our hardworking servicemen and women and all our veterans and recommend this government's commitment to serving and protecting our hard work and servicemen.Speaker 2 (00:02:40):I can indeed Mr. Speaker and I welcome my honorable friends constituent in the gallery today. This is a government that is on the side of those who serve and on the side of those families who support those who serve.Speaker 12 (00:02:57):Rachel Gilmore.Rachel Gilmore (00:03:00):Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members of the Armed Forces are the only uniformed service without a professional body to represent and support them. Will the Secretary of State give assurances that the Armed Forces Bill will include provisions to establish such a body, ensuring serving personnel and veterans that have access to legal and welfare support when faced with vexatious unmerited or unsubstantiated allegations from within the system or from external litigants working on behalf of other service personnel or third parties.Speaker 7 (00:03:30):Thank you for our interest. It is precisely for those reasons that we established the Armed Forces Commissioner, an independent champion for our armed forces and their families. That legislation has now become law and the recruitment process will conclude shortly.Speaker 12 (00:03:42):Mosby.Speaker 8 (00:03:43):Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Our service women are currently not as well protected by in service body armor, which is designed around male body types, providing inadequate ballistic protection. We're testing a female body armor now underway, will the Secretary of State commend the work of N~P Aerospace in improving women's safety and commit that the MAD will continue to cultivate vital UK sovereign capability like this?Speaker 7 (00:04:10):Can I pay tribute to one more friend who's been leading the charge for female body armor? NP Aerospace are doing a superb job on this. I know she's bringing female body armor to parliament so we can all see that this is something that can be delivered. We have a strong commitment to investigate and support our female serving personnel through better body armor. I look forward to working with her to deliver that.Speaker 12 (00:04:29):Bradly Thomas.Bradly Thomas (00:04:32):Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The government has said that we should be bolstering our preparedness for war. Can the minister tell us when the Defense Readiness Bill will be ready and when he expects it to gain royal ascent?Speaker 7 (00:04:44):The Defense Readiness Bill was set out in the Strategic Defense Review. We are looking across government as to how we can bolster readiness measures, not just legislative ones, but in policy changes, removing stupid rules, spending more. The Defense Readiness Bill will be something that we're looking to implant later on in this parliament. The Armed Forces Bill is before this House now, and that's where our immediate focus lies.Speaker 12 (00:05:04):[inaudible 00:05:06]Speaker 9 (00:05:06):Mr. Speaker, Task Force Kindred has been a fantastic success of this government. Can the Secretary of State outline if there are plans to extend the program and how defense SMEs can get on board with it?Speaker 2 (00:05:19):I can indeed, Mr. Speaker, Task Force Kindred has been at the heart of the UK's rapid response and our reliability as Ukraine's closest ally since Putin first invaded, put Ukraine nearly four years back. It will continue to play a central role in the future, and it has lessons for the way that we need to procure and provide our own kit and own systems for our forces too.Speaker 12 (00:05:45):Final question, Greg Smith.Speaker 10 (00:05:46):Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Instead of constantly pushing back the closure date for RAF Halton, in an era where we need to increase defense capability, will the Secretary of State actually commit to keeping RAF Halton open for the long term?Speaker 7 (00:06:05):The honorable gentlemen will know we inherited a base closure program from the party opposite when they are in government with announcing closures right across the country. We're looking carefully at what basis we have, how we can use them for military need, and where we can dispose of them, making sure that we can build houses for our armed forces and veterans on that land.Speaker 5 (00:06:23):Point forwarder to Mark Francois.Mark Francois (00:06:25):Thank you, Speaker. I fear the Veterans Minister whose still here may have earlier inadvertently misled the House. According to House of Lord's legal records, from the 29th to the 31st of October 2007 in the Al-Jedda case held before the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, a case against British soldiers, the applicants were represented by several QCs, including the then prime minister, who were instructed, it's in the records, by public interest lawyers, Phil Scheiner's law firm. Would the minister or the prime minister care to correct the record?Speaker 12 (00:07:05):Chair and State.Speaker 2 (00:07:05):The right honorable gentlemen, I will set the record straight, including his remarks before the house this afternoon.Speaker 12 (00:07:14):We've had enough of trying to continue this debate. It no ends. We're now coming to the statement. We'll just let the front bench change over.(00:07:51):The third Prime Minister.Prime Minister (00:07:52):Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With permission, I'll update the House on my visit last week to China and Japan, where we delivered for the British people. Mr. Speaker, with events overseas directly impacting on our security and the cost of living, I made it a founding principle of this government that after years of isolationism, Britain would face outwards once again. This was an 18-month strategy to rebuild our standing and we have delivered, strengthening our US relationship with our world first trade deal, resetting our relationship with the EU, striking a groundbreaking FDA with India, and now thawing our ties with China to put this relationship on a more stable footing for the long term. Mr. Speaker, China is the second-biggest economy in the world, including Hong Kong. It's our third-biggest trading partner supporting 370,000 British jobs, and it is an undeniable presence in global affairs.(00:09:06):It will be impossible to safeguard our national interests without engaging with this geopolitical reality. Yet we inherited a policy from the previous government, not of engagement with China, but hiding away and sticking their heads in the sand. While our allies developed a more sophisticated approach, they let the UK fall behind. We became an outlier. Of my three predecessors, none held a single meeting with President Xi. For eight years, no British Prime Minister visited China. Eight years of missed opportunities. Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, over that period, President Macron visited China three times. German leaders four times. The Canadian prime minister was there a few weeks ago. Chancellor Merz and President Trump are both due to visit shortly.Speaker 13 (00:10:08):They went on their feet not [inaudible 00:10:08]Prime Minister (00:10:08):In this context, refusing to engage would be a derelict-Speaker 12 (00:10:13):Order. Order. Mr. [inaudible 00:10:15], you will be withdrawing that remark. You will withdraw it.Speaker 13 (00:10:24):I will withdraw it.Speaker 12 (00:10:24):Thank you. Can we come back because I'm sure you'll be willing to catch my eye, and I would like to hear what you're going to say, so let's not ruin the opportunity. Prime Minister.Prime Minister (00:10:34):Mr. Speaker, in this context, refusing to engage would be a dereliction of duty, leaving British interests on the sideline. And incredibly some in this house still advocate that approach. But Mr. Speaker, leaders do not hide. Instead, we engage, and we do so on our own terms, because like our allies, we understand that engagement makes us stronger. Mr. Speaker, protecting our national security is non-negotiable. We're clear-eyed about the threats coming from China in that regard, and we will never waiver in our efforts to keep the British people safe. That is why we've given our security services the updated powers and tools that they need to tackle foreign espionage activity wherever they find it, and tackle malicious cyber activity as well. But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, we can do two things at once. We can protect ourselves whilst also finding ways to cooperate. And it was in that spirit that we made this visit.(00:11:38):I had extensive discussions over many hours with President Xi, Premier Lee, and other senior leaders. The discussions were positive and constructive. We covered the full range of issues from strategic stability to trade and investment, opening a direct channel of communication to deliver in the national interest, enabling us to raise frank concerns about activities that impact our national security at the most senior levels of the Chinese system. We agreed to intensify dialogue on cyber issues, and we agreed a new partnership on climate and nature, providing much needed global leadership on this vital issue. And Mr. Speaker, I raised a number of areas of difference, which mattered deeply to this country. I raised the case of Jimmy Lai and called for his release, making clear the strength of feeling in this house. Those discussions will continue. And my right honorable friend, the foreign secretary, is in touch with Mr. Lai's family to provide further briefing.(00:12:51):I raised our human rights concerns in Xinjiang and Tibet. We discussed Taiwan, wider regional stability, Iran and the Middle East. I called on China to end economic support for Russia's war effort, including companies providing dual use technologies. And I urged them to use their influence on Putin to push for the much needed ceasefire in Ukraine. And Mr. Speaker, I also raised the fact that members of this house have been sanctioned by the Chinese authorities. In response, the Chinese have now made it clear that all such restrictions on parliamentarians no longer apply. And I want to be clear, this was not the result of a trade. Yes, members will want to see more. I understand that, but that is precisely the point. Ignoring China for eight years achieved nothing.(00:13:58):This step is an early indication, not the sum total of the kind of progress that this sort of engagement can achieve through leader to leader discussion on sensitive issues, to stand up for British interests. Mr. Speaker, my visit was also about creating new opportunities for British businesses to deliver jobs and growth for the British people. We took with us a brilliant delegation of nearly 60 businesses and cultural powerhouses, the very best of British as an embodiment of what this country has to offer. If anyone's in doubt as to why this matters, I urge them to spend a few minutes with any one of those businesses. They will tell you about the incredible potential there and the importance of getting out there and accessing the market. And we made significant progress, paving the way to open the Chinese market for British exports, including our world leading services sector. We secured a 30-day visa free travel for all Brits, including business travelers. We secured China's agreement to halve whiskey tariffs from 10% to 5%. This is worth 250 million pounds in the UK over the next five years. A significant win for our iconic whiskey industry, particularly in Scotland. And Mr. Speaker, that lower tariff comes into force today. In total, we secured 2.3 billion pounds in market access wins, including for financial services, 2.2 billion pounds in export deals for British companies, and hundreds of millions worth of new investments. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we agreed to work together in some key areas of law enforcement. Last year, around 60% of all small boat engines used by smuggling gangs came from China. So we struck a border security pact to enable joint law enforcement action to disrupt that supply at source. We also agreed to scale up removals of those with no right to be in the United Kingdom and to work together to track down on the supply of synthetic opioids.(00:16:17):We will continue to develop our work across all these areas because, Mr. Speaker, this is the start of the process, not the end of it. My visit was not just about coming back with these agreements. It was about the wider question of setting this relationship on a better path, which allows us to deal with issues and seize opportunities in a way that the previous government failed to do. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say a word about my meetings in Tokyo. Japan remains one of our closest allies. Together we're the leading economies in the CPTPP, partners in the G7, the G20, and the Coalition of the Willing, and they are the UK's largest inward investor outside the United States and Europe. So I had an extremely productive meeting with the Prime Minister as we set out our shared priorities to build an even deeper partnership in the years to come. That includes working together for peace and security, supporting Ukraine as we work for a just and lasting peace, and deepening our cooperation in cutting edge defense production, including through GCAP.(00:17:37):We discussed how we can boost growth and economic resilience by developing our corporation. First, in tech and innovation, where we are both leaders, second in energy where Japan is a major investor in the UK, and third in trade, where we're working together to maintain the openness and stability that our businesses depend on. That includes expanding the CPTPP and deepening its cooperation with the EU. We will take all of this forward, Mr. Speaker, when I welcome the Prime Minister to Checkers later this year. So Mr. Speaker, this is Britain back at the top table at last, facing outwards, replacing incoherence and isolationism with pragmatic engagement, replacing naive posturing with the national interest. In dangerous times, we're using our full strength and reach on the world stage to live a growth and security for the British people. And I commend this statement to the house.Speaker 12 (00:18:42):[inaudible 00:18:45]Speaker 11 (00:18:49):Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I thank the Prime Minister for advanced sight of his statement, but it is utterly reprehensible that he began it by accusing the previous government of isolationism. Oh, the business actuary's laughing, just that. We'll tell him. The same conservative government that led the world in our response to the invasion of Ukraine that signed a vital strategic alliance in AUKUS. The business actually is asking how many FTAs? We signed Britain's biggest post-Brexit trade deal, the CPTPP, bringing us closer to the 11 Indo-Pacific nations, including Japan. He asks, " I know about that deal because I signed it myself." And so I welcome the Prime Minister's efforts to collaborate more with our longstanding ally, Japan, but let's turn to China. Of course, Britain should engage with China.(00:19:46):Even though the chancellor wasn't allowed to go, even though they are an authoritarian state who seek to undermine our interests, even though they spy on us sometimes within the walls of this building, even though they fund regimes around the world hostile to our country, they are a fact of life, a global power, and an economic reality. So let me be clear, it is not the Prime Minister engaging with China that we take issue with. What we are criticizing is his supine and short-termist approach. I'm sure the Prime Minister means well, but his negotiating tactic has always been to give everything away in the hope that people will be nice to him in return. Before the Prime Minister even got on the plane, he'd already shown that he would do anything to demonstrate his good relationship with China, but China uses every interaction to improve its own position.(00:20:46):The Prime Minister looked like he enjoyed his trip. In fact, it looked like a dream come true for a man who was virtually a communist most of his life. Mr. Speaker, apart from the Labubu doll in his suitcase, and I hope he's checked it for bugs, he has come back with next to nothing. We all want cheaper tariffs for Scottish whiskey, but if the prime minister bothered to speak to the whiskey industry like I did two weeks ago, he would know that what they really need is cheaper energy and lower taxes. What else did he get? Visa- free travel. China already offers this to other countries. It's not big enough for a prime ministerial visit. But the worst thing, Mr. Speaker, the worst thing was the prime minister claiming a glorious triumph with the lifting of sanctions on four conservative MPs as if he'd done us a favor.(00:21:49):Let me tell him, those MPs were sanctioned because they stood up to China. They stood up against human rights abuses. They stood up against the country spying on our MPs in a way that he wouldn't dare. Those people don't want to go to China. The Chinese know that. They know that they are giving him something that costs absolutely nothing. Why can't the British prime minister see that? And I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and the whole house, like with the Chagos Islands, the prime minister has been played. China is about to build an enormous spy hub in the center of London. A ransom he had to pay before he could even get on the plane. I would never allow Britain to be held over a barrel like that. Yet again, the Prime Minister has negotiated our country into a weaker position in the world.(00:22:39):His entire economic policy is to tax business more, regulate them harder, and make energy so expensive that we de-industrialize, and then we can import Chinese wind turbines, Chinese solar panels, Chinese batteries for electric vehicles, all manufactured in a country that is building a coal-fired power station every other week. Did he speak to them about that? What did his trip achieve for Jimmy Lai? Nothing. Did China promise to stop fueling Putin's war machine in Ukraine? Doesn't sound like it. What did this trip achieve for the Uyghurs who were being enslaved? Absolutely nothing. Have China agreed to stop their relentless cyber attacks? Have they? We all know the answer to that. The reality is that China showed its strength and Britain was pushed around literally. It is no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that President Xi praised the Labor Party because the conservatives stood up for Britain. We don't get pushed around. Britain is a great trading nation. Of course, we should engage with other countries, even hostile ones.Speaker 12 (00:23:43):Order, Order. Mr. Kyle, you said to me when you go into China, how well you will behave. Oh, you all will be big, thank you. You're not showing it today. [inaudible 00:23:57]Speaker 11 (00:23:57):Mr. Speaker, I'm not worried about the business sectory. The entire business community thinks he's a joke and doesn't know what he's talking about. So as I was saying, of course we should engage with other countries, even hostile ones, but we need to do so with our eyes open and from a position of strength. And that requires a prime minister and a government that puts our national interest first.Prime Minister (00:24:23):Mr. Speaker, let me see if I understand her position. This is the lead of the opposition who said we should empty chair the most important NATO summit for years, who wouldn't turn up to the G7, who would rip up our valuable trade deals with the US, India, and the EU. This is the leader of the opposition who characterized Greenland as a second order issue, then undermines the government's position on sovereignty. And when it comes to China, her policy is to stick her head in the sand, unable to influence anything. In a volatile world, that is not policy, that's an abdication of responsibility. No wonder her front bench are leaving in droves. Mr. Speaker, she talks of the embassy. China's had an embassy in the UK since 1877. It's currently spread across seven sites. The leader of the opposite is so busy trying to hold her party together, she's clearly not read for letter, the security and intelligence services. But Mr. Speaker, she claims great interest in the China embassy.(00:25:40):She was offered an invite for a privy council briefing on the issue. What did she do? She chose not to attend. Mr. Speaker, that's a dereliction of duty. Even worse, what did she do? She sent in her place the member for Croydon South, the Shadow Home Secretary. That is a double dereliction of [inaudible 00:26:06]. Instead of taking up the privy council briefing, she took up a megaphone on the streets outside the embassy. I changed my party from a party of protest to a party of power. She's rapidly going in the opposite direction. And her reply this afternoon seems to be that we should engage with China, but not engage with China. But what we should do instead of leader to leader discussions where we raise all the opportunities and the difficult issues each and every one of them, instead of those leader to leader meetings, shall get a bag of sand and put her head in it and influence absolutely nothing. They're so unserious about world affairs.Speaker 12 (00:26:49):Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Emily Thornberry.Emily Thornberry (00:26:52):Very much, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to thank the Prime Minister for his statements, and I'm pleased to see that his trip went so well. This morning, I was in touch with the Scotch Whiskey Association who want me to convey their congratulations to the prime minister for securing reduced tariffs in China. But there is, of course, more work needed. A prime minister's job is never done. The biggest overseas market for whiskey is, of course, the US, where the tariff is still too high. So can the prime minister confirm that this will not be the end of the support that he will give to the Scotch whiskey industry and will continue to be an advocate for them?Prime Minister (00:27:35):Yes, I can confirm that we're continuing to work with the US, and of course the India deal that we secured will have an impact on tariffs of whiskey as well.Speaker 12 (00:27:49):Leader of the Liberal Democrats Sir Ed Davey.Sir Ed Davey (00:27:52):Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And with your indulgence, can I start by paying tribute to my friend, Jim Wallace, one of the great Scottish liberals, and offer our thoughts and prayers to his family and many friends. Jim devoted his life to public service, his Christian faith, and the cause of liberalism. But Mr. Speaker, his judgment wasn't always impeccable, for it was Jim who gave me my first job in politics. We will miss him. Turning to the statement, can I thank the prime minister for advanced sight of it? I listen to the conservative leader whose position now seems to be to oppose trade with the world's biggest economies so much for global Britain. But Mr. Speaker, with President Trump threatening tariffs again, just because of the prime minister's trip.(00:28:44):With Vladimir Putin still murdering civilians in Ukraine, now more than ever, the United Kingdom must forge much closer alliances with nations who share our values, our belief in free trade, and our commitment to our mutual defense. But China is none of those. The Prime Minister's main focus should be on the closest possible ties with our European neighbors, our Commonwealth allies, and our friends like Japan and Korea. So once again, he has made the wrong choice. However, unlike the Conservative Party, we think he was right to go and engage. But just like with President Trump, he approached President Xi from a position of weakness instead of position of strength, promising him a super embassy here in London in return for readily meager offers from China. He rightly raised the case of Jimmy Lai, whose children fear for his health after five years held in captivity.(00:29:45):So will the prime minister tell us what she said to give him confidence that Mr. Lai is now more likely to be released? Did he also challenge Xi over the bounties on the heads of instant Hong Kongers here in the United Kingdom? All the revelations that China hacked the phones of number 10 officials for years. In other words, did he stand up for Britain this time? And yet again, Mr. Speaker, the prime minister had to spend time on a foreign trip responding to revelations about the vile pedophile and sex trafficker, Jimmy Epstein's relationship with Lord Mandelson. The prime minister has rightly said that Mandelson should resign from the other place. But since he hasn't, will he back a simple piece of legislation to strip him of his peerage? Surely this house could pass it tomorrow.Speaker 12 (00:30:35):Prime minister.Prime Minister (00:30:38):Can I start by offering my deep condolences on behalf of the government in relation to Lord Wallace? He was a kind and decent man, and I know he'll be sorely missed on the Liberal Democrat benches and may he rest in peace. In relation to the approach to China, of course we need to build stronger alliances with our key partners. And that's what we have been doing, particularly with the EU. But he's wrong. It's not a choice between doing that and engaging with China. One can do both. And that is what we're doing. And I think it's more important whether opportunities and sensitive and really important disagreements to have a meeting to discuss them. Because the House is violently agreeing that there are issues that need to be discussed.(00:31:33):The difference between us is we think that having a leader to lead a meeting to discuss issues is better than sticking your head in the sand if you really want to influence this. So we can do both. In relation to the points he raised, yes, I did raise the case of Jimmy Lai, and we've now spoken to his family about that discussion. Yes, I did raise the case of Hong Kong. I raised a number of human rights issues as I listed. The point was by being in the room, having the debate one-to-one with the leader at leader level, it was possible to raise those issues. There is frankly no point standing in this house shouting and screaming about issues if you're not prepared to get in the room to discuss them. It gets you absolutely nowhere.Speaker 12 (00:32:28):Chairman of Business Committee, Limber.Speaker 1 (00:32:30):Thank you very much Mr. Zigo. I want to welcome the Prime Minister's serious engagement with serious power. It is essential to safeguarding our national interest. Mr. Speaker, the complexities of China required from Britain a whole of society approach, which is completely impossible until the government publishes a clear China strategy to explain what is off limits and how we're going to rebalance competition with Chinese industry that is six times over subsidized compared to our firms. Now, last week in Europe, I heard very clearly from our partners that they are worried that the lackadaisical approach to policing Chinese competition risks deeper integration with Europe. The EU has 1143 trade measures in place against Europe. We have none. So will the prime minister now follow through his meetings last week and publish a strategy coordinated with our allies so we can take out the guesswork and put in place the guardrails for this important relationship?Speaker 12 (00:33:32):Prime Minister.Prime Minister (00:33:33):Can I thank him for his question? Obviously the general approach was set out in the Lady Mayor's banquet speech I gave just before Christmas. On the point it makes about Europe, this is a really important point. As I mentioned, President Macron went to China just a few weeks ago. Chancellor Merz is due to go very shortly and he won't be surprised to learn that the three of us as the E3 discussed in advance the approach we would takePrime Minister (00:34:00):And we'll discuss during the visits and afterwards the outcomes and how we go forward as a group of European nations.Mr. Speaker (00:34:07):Father of the House, Edward Leigh.Group (00:34:09):[inaudible 00:34:10].Edward Leigh (00:34:11):What absolutely unites everybody in this place is absolute outrage at the treatment of Jimmy Lai.(00:34:20):A British citizen whose only crime is the campaign for democracy, and to ask the Chinese to obey the spirit and the letter of the agreement that we made them with them solemnly before the 1997 takeover. Now, the prime minister I saw the weekend said he'd raised respectfully with the latest Chinese emperor, the case of Jimmy Lai. Respectfully, doesn't the prime minister realize that the Chinese only accept strength, that everything is a deal. So why didn't he say to them, "There'll be no Chinese embassy until you stop spying us in this house that you give an absolute assurance to us on Diego Garcia, and above all you free Jimmy Lai now."Group (00:35:05):Yeah!Prime Minister (00:35:05):Mr. Speaker, I raised the case of Jimmy Lai in terms with the president, as in fact I did, as he knows, the G20 when I met the president for the first time. And we have updated the family in relation to the progress that we've made. But the position of the party opposite seems to be you should raise the case of Jimmy Lai by not going to China, and raising the case of Jimmy Lai.Mr. Speaker (00:35:31):[inaudible 00:35:30] Tan Dhesi.Tan Dhesi (00:35:32):Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. We must engage pragmatically with our allies and with others around the world when it serves a national interest. And that is why I welcome the Prime Minister's engagement with both our close ally Japan, as well as our major trading partner, China.(00:35:48):I also welcome my [inaudible 00:35:50] friends commitment to the Global Combat Air Program, which as the Defense Committee illustrated, is of vital strategic importance as we develop the next generation of fighter jets. But our Japanese and Italian friends are understandably nervous because we have as yet not penned to paper the full contract as was planned last year for Tempest. So can the Prime Minister clarify when that fully formalized contract on GCAP will be penned? And can he also confirm that the timeline and program will not be sliding sideways?Mr. Speaker (00:36:35):Prime Minister.Prime Minister (00:36:36):Can I thank him for raising this program, which is a very important program? He'd be pleased to know I did discuss it in my discussions with the Prime Minister in Japan, and we will be publishing our defense investment plan shortly.Mr. Speaker (00:36:48):Tom Tugendhat.Tom Tugendhat (00:36:52):Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You have been stalwart in standing with those of us who were sanctioned by the People's Republic of China all those years ago. And you've been very clear that we stand as one in this house.(00:37:06):Do you not find it as surprising as I do that the Prime Minister has come back with a deal that lifts the sanctions on those six of us who are still in this house, but not the one who isn't, nor the lawyers, advisors, and academics who support the work of this house? Is this not a direct affront to the democracy of this place, an attempt to divide and conquer that we've seen China play against the European Parliament, and sadly, has tricked our government, too?Mr. Speaker (00:37:34):Prime Minister.Prime Minister (00:37:35):Well, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for raising this point. I know how much it matters personally to him and to the others for the reference. I did raise it directly, and that got the response that restrictions do not apply to Parliamentarians. I accept the challenge that we need to go... I accept the challenge, the points that we need to go further. That doesn't mean that what we've achieved should be put to one side. I accept that we must go further, and I'll work with colleagues across the house in order to do so. But in order to go further, we have to engage, and we have to engage at the leader level.Mr. Speaker (00:38:11):Tony Vaughan.Tony Vaughan (00:38:13):Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can I thank the prime minister on his grown-up approach to UK engagement with China? Can I also congratulate him on the agreement for a crackdown on manufacturers of small boat engines and parts, which directly impacts my constituency? But given that the party opposite wouldn't even have gone to China, would you agree with me that the choices between the Labor government doing the hard yards to shut down the smuggler supply chains, and the Tory Party, he'd prefer posturing and permanent failure in the channel?Mr. Speaker (00:38:40):Prime Minister.Prime Minister (00:38:42):Thank you. Sixty percent of motors used to cross the channel are coming from China. So, of course, it's right to engage appropriately in China on this issue, and to get the agreement we got, Mr. Speaker, on information sharing and working to ensure that those engines can't make their way from China to the north coast of France.Mr. Speaker (00:39:04):Luke Taylor.Luke Taylor (00:39:04):Mr. Speaker, I'm going to have another chance, another try to question my friend asked in his original statement. Can the prime minister tell us what President Xi said about the case of Jimmy Lyon, what gave him the confidence that we might see movement in the case soon? Can he also let us know what the response was on challenging the bounties put on the heads of dissidents that are here in the United Kingdom, and whether he challenged the transnational repressions that Hong Kongers across the country fear, and whether there's any prospect of them being able to walk the streets without worrying about interference from the Chinese state on our streets?Mr. Speaker (00:39:45):Prime Minister.Prime Minister (00:39:45):As I told the House, I raised the case of Jimmy Lai in terms. I won't go into the details of the discussion, safe to say, but we've subsequently spoken to Jimmy Lai's family about that. In relation to the wider issues he raises, including Hong Kong, yes, all of those issues were raised.Mr. Speaker (00:40:03):Samantha Niblett.Samantha Niblett (00:40:04):Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the Prime Minister for his incredible leadership on an international scale, which has a direct benefit on earth domestically, not least the disrupting of the supply chain for engines to small boats. I just wonder, because it's not a silver bullet to solve the challenge with immigration through illegal roots, whether the conversation came up about TikTok being used as a platform to share disinformation and misinformation to encourage people to make dangerous journeys.Mr. Speaker (00:40:33):Prime Minister.Prime Minister (00:40:34):We raised a number of issues in relation to smuggling, but the focus was very much on the engines for the small boats because of the fact that 60% of them are coming from China. We need to stop that supply chain if we're going to deal with the crossings.Mr. Speaker (00:40:51):Sir Andrew Mitchell.Sir Andrew Mitchell (00:40:53):Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In spite of the somewhat thin economic rule with which he has returned, the Prime Minister was absolutely right to visit China. But if I may return to the issue of human rights, and in particular Jimmy Lai, did the Prime Minister say, as the whole House would have wished him to say, that this British citizen, nearly 80 years old, held in solitary confinement, and denied the chance to practice his religion, should surely receive clemency, and be returned to the United Kingdom, or did he merely deliver a written note?Mr. Speaker (00:41:30):Prime Minister.Prime Minister (00:41:32):I didn't deliver a written note. I engaged seriously on the issue as he would have expected me to, and went into the details of the case that I was making in the way he would have expected me to do so.Mr. Speaker (00:41:43):Rachel Blake.Rachel Blake (00:41:44):Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My constituent, the journalist, and democracy campaigner, Jimmy Lai was convicted under Hong Kong's Draconian national security law. I've listened carefully to what my right honorable friend, the prime minister has said. We have heard that he has raised this issue on his visit.(00:42:06):Jimmy Lai is desperately unwell now. His health is failing. I've heard what the Prime Minister has to say. I'm grateful that the Foreign Secretary will be speaking to Jimmy's family. Can the Prime Minister share with us his assessment of will we see Jimmy Lai free in 2026?Mr. Speaker (00:42:28):Prime Minister.Prime Minister (00:42:29):I thank her for all the work she does on behalf of her constituent. Yes, I did raise this and in detail, and made it clear that we were calling for his release plus other details of the situation in which his health and the situation is being held in.(00:42:47):And I believe it's the right thing to engage at the highest level on issues of such concern and to have that conversation. And I believe that is a far better strategy than putting your head in the sand, which is the policy apparently of the party opposite.Mr. Speaker (00:43:08):Stephen Flynn.Stephen Flynn (00:43:09):Mr. Speaker, as you will be aware, when the prime minister was in China and Japan, he gave comment that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor should testify before Congress in the United States. What the prime minister chose not to do was to offer an unreserved apology to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein for appointing his other friend, Peter Mandelson, as the ambassador to the United States of America. So now that he's back from China and Japan, will he take this opportunity to do just that? And does he agree with myself that Peter Mandelson should be subject to a police investigation for potential criminality whilst in public office?Mr. Speaker (00:43:51):Prime Minister, there is a [inaudible 00:43:54].Prime Minister (00:43:54):Only SMP could go about this another way. Instead of welcoming the halving of tariffs on Scottish whiskey, he raises things that got absolutely nothing to do with China or Japan. Only in the SMP have got no interest at all in delivering for Scotland.Mr. Speaker (00:44:10):[inaudible 00:44:11].Speaker 14 (00:44:11):Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister recall that during the time of Brexit negotiations that the Tories told us that we had more to gain outside of the EU than inside, and that within days of Brexit, we would be signing trade deals with the US and China that would be bigger than the trade deals that existed with the EU.(00:44:36):What we got was a botched Brexit and isolated from our European neighbors, and now they want to extend that isolation to a global scale. My honorable friend agree with me that Britain wouldn't be treated decently or with any confidence by our global neighbors or global friends if we'd adopted such an approach.Mr. Speaker (00:45:00):Prime Minister.Prime Minister (00:45:01):Well, can I thank you for raising this period in our history because, of course, this is 2015, 2016. The party opposite had a manifesto in 2015, which dealt with the question of a referendum in relation to Brexit. It also set out their position on China. Mr. Speaker, I had a look at it this morning, 2015, that very manifesto, to strengthen economic links with China, including seeking a free trade agreement. That used to be their position. Then they veered to the other side of the road, and now they stick their head in the sand, and pretend that they can influence events.Mr. Speaker (00:45:30):[inaudible 00:45:32].Speaker 15 (00:45:35):Seems to be if a bully is big enough, rich enough, and powerful enough, the pragmatic thing to do is to pay into his protection rank. Can he at least show some sign of moral compass by accepting the fact that China is a repressive, brutal, communist, totalitarian state which dishonored all the provisions of the Hong Kong agreement?Mr. Speaker (00:46:06):Prime Minister.Prime Minister (00:46:07):Their position seems to be that if one has concerns in relation to China, their position seems to be the pragmatic thing to do is to buy a bag of sand and put your head in it. I don't think that's going to influence anything. Nothing said here has any influence if you don't have a meeting.Mr. Speaker (00:46:28):Zarah Sultana.Zarah Sultana (00:46:28):Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to congratulate my right honorable friend on last week's handsome wins, including visas in China. I just wondered if the same issue arose in Japan. I did a brilliant visit to the Japan London School in my seat the other day, but they are finding the dogmatic visa changes made by the conservative government burdensome. So will he look into that, and also praise the contribution of the Japanese enacted from sushi to bilingual education.Prime Minister (00:46:59):Well, Mr. Speaker, we had very productive meetings in Japan. Amongst the discussions was how we open up to more trade between our two economies.Mr. Speaker (00:47:08):Richard Tice.Richard Tice (00:47:09):Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The prime minister said that this visit to China was good for British jobs. So having wrongly granted consent to the super Chinese embassy, can he confirm that it will be built with brilliant British steel from Lincolnshire as opposed to Chinese steel?Prime Minister (00:47:27):It was this government that took the action on Scunthorpe to make sure we have British steel at Scunthorpe, one of the proudest things I've done.Mr. Speaker (00:47:34):John Grady?John Grady (00:47:36):Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the Prime Minister's statement facing into the world as it is. Mr. Speaker, Des Brown, Barron Brown of Ladyton is retiring from the other place after decades of distinguished public service as a Labor MP for Kumana, Defense Secretary, and his work on the prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons.(00:47:58):China is a significant in growing nuclear power with over 600 warheads and this week for US and Russia new start treaty comes to an end. Can I have the prime minister tell me if the UK is engaging with China at the highest levels to prevent the risk of nuclear weapons and combat nuclear proliferation?Mr. Speaker (00:48:21):Prime Minister.Prime Minister (00:48:22):Well, can I first start by paying tribute to the contribution that Lord Brown has made, and to assure him that our discussions with China did include how we de-risk the situation in relation to nuclear weapons.Mr. Speaker (00:48:38):[inaudible 00:48:41].Speaker 16 (00:48:42):When John Major went to Beijing, he spoke clearly and said, "We will not forget Tiananmen Square." In contrast, the prime minister refused to say Jimmy Lai's name himself until he was wheels up. I have never said we should not engage with Beijing. I have said we should not give them a propaganda visit, and it is extraordinary to abdicate the responsibility of the Chinese Communist Party whose actions we had to respond to and therefore pause trade talks as if they have done nothing wrong.(00:49:08):Finally, the prime minister met with Kai Chi, the man responsible for running two spies who are undermining this parliament, he excluded that from his statement. Why doesn't he tell us why he thought it was acceptable to meet with this man and what exactly he got out of it in the British interest?Prime Minister (00:49:23):This is so pathetic. At the highest level and one-to-one, I raised each of the issues of difference between our two countries, each and every one of them in the way the house would have expected. And that is what they're criticizing. They seem genuinely to believe, Mr. Speaker, that these issues can be progressed or influenced by doing nothing about it. You have to be in the room to have a discussion. That's what we did.Mr. Speaker (00:49:57):[inaudible 00:49:58].Speaker 17 (00:49:58):Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it's right that the Prime Minister goes to China if he's acting in the best interest of all of those that are living here. Last year, the joint committee undertook an inquiry on transnational repression in front of us. We had Chloe Chung, a young Hong Konger from Leeds who'd been had a one million Hong Kong dollar bounty put on her head. She told us about how she'd been intimidated, harassed. Did the prime minister speaker for all the Hong Kongers in the UK who had boundaries on the heads who'd been intimidated, harassed, and ensure that people living in the United Kingdom are safe from the Chinese regime.Mr. Speaker (00:50:38):Prime Minister.Prime Minister (00:50:39):Mr. Speaker, that's exactly why we raised the issues of human rights at numerous levels on the visit.Mr. Speaker (00:50:45):Monica.Monica Harding (00:50:47):Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I noticed that mention of Japan took the prime minister one minute, and the last minute of a 10-minute speech on China and Japan. Japan is not only the largest inward investor into the UK apart from the EU and US, but is a vital liberal democracy in the Indian Pacific and a key security partner in maintaining regional stability in the face of growing Chinese assertiveness.(00:51:10):Given the growing security risks and strategic instability across the region, can the prime minister assure the House that engagement with Beijing will not weaken the UK's alignment with Japan, one of our most important democratic partners?Mr. Speaker (00:51:23):Prime Minister.Prime Minister (00:51:24):Yes, I can assure her of that.Mr. Speaker (00:51:26):Jonathan Davies.Jonathan Davies (00:51:27):Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In respect of the statement following the visitors China and Japan, I thank the prime minister for being in the room and challenging China on its appalling human rights record and also fighting for British jobs. But in respect of his visit to Japan, can I ask, did the issue of Toyota come up because Toyota is a significant employer in Derbyshire. It's worth over five and a half billion pounds to the local economy and can we do more with Toyota because it's really good for jobs here?Prime Minister (00:51:53):Yes, we did discuss the car manufacturing that is going on at the moment, the potential for further work in that regard, along with other issues of trade broadening between our two countries.Mr. Speaker (00:52:04):Sir John Wittingdale.Sir John Wittingdale (00:52:05):The prime minister will be aware that some 80% of the sanctioned dual use items that Russia needs for its drones and missiles that it is firing at civilians and children on a daily basis come from China. He says that he raised this. Did he get any assurance that China will stop supplying Russia?Prime Minister (00:52:30):Well, he's right to draw attention to this, and that is precisely why I raised it again in terms. I won't go into the details of the discussion, but I did raise it for the very reasons that he sets out. And across this House, we're absolutely committed to a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. And this has been an issue of concern for some considerable period, which is why I raised it.Mr. Speaker (00:52:52):Amanda Martin.Amanda Martin (00:52:54):Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the Prime Minister's recent engagement in Tokyo and the strengthening of our relations with Japan as a key economic and strategic partner. Can he explain how SMEs imports with particularly in maritime and defense such as Griffin Marine alongside the creative industries will benefit from deeper UK, Japan cooperation?(00:53:12):Because Mr. Speaker, having seen Archie Cole, my 18-year-old son, a professional wrestler, currently competing on Tokyo TV in Magic Monday, I know firsthand how international engagement can open doors for individuals and ports of local businesses alike.Prime Minister (00:53:29):Can I congratulate her son on his achievements? And in relation to SMEs and businesses, yes, we discuss how we can enhance our engagement and enhance growth and jobs right across all of our constituencies, including hers.Mr. Speaker (00:53:44):Rigby.Lucy Rigby (00:53:48):Does the Prime Minister accept that in his rush to hoover up economic crumbs from President Xi due to his appalling handling of our economy, he is having to increase strategic dependence on Beijing. The public see the risks he's taking with UK security. Does he?Mr. Speaker (00:54:10):Prime Minister.Prime Minister (00:54:12):Mr. Speaker, the first thing I'd say is they crashed the economy, so lectures from them on the economy are not well. As I said in my statement, national security is at the heart of our approach to China, as it is to every issue that we take up. And it is quite possible to have a discussion about the opportunities available to our country whilst also safeguarding our national security. That's what we're doing in a grown-up, mature way.Mr. Speaker (00:54:38):Gareth Snell.Gareth Snell (00:54:38):Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Further to the question from my right-hand friend from Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North, the anti-dumping measures that we impose on Chinese goods into this country protect hundreds of jobs in stoke on Trent, whether that be in the ceramic tableware manufacturing sector or the retreading tires at the Mitchell Factory. Is the Prime Minister able to give a guarantee that as economic work with China continues, that these measures will not be jumped because it's not an abstract measure, Mr. Speaker. It is protecting hundreds of jobs in a part of the country that most needs them.Prime Minister (00:55:11):I thank you for raising this issue, and I can give him that assurance. I know how much it matters, and that's the approach that we've taken.Mr. Speaker (00:55:18):Chris Law.Chris Law (00:55:20):Mr. Speaker, over the past week, thousands of Chinese fishing boats have been tracked creating up to 300-mile-long blockage in East China Sea of Japan. Seen by Maine is a strategy for future blockade. Given a huge reliance in these roots for trade, this actually caused global economic shock, certain thousands of jobs in Scotland and dramatically increased cost of living. So can the prime minister tell the House what explanation has Chinese counterparts gave for this behavior, and what subsequent discussions he had with Japanese prime minister about maintaining maritime security in the region?Prime Minister (00:55:48):This issue was raised both in China and in Japan because it is obviously a cause of concern, and regional instability matters, not just in the region, but globally as well. And therefore, I did discuss it both in China and in Japan.Madam Deputy Speaker (00:56:03):Janet Daby.Janet Daby (00:56:04):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, but can you tell the House what steps the government is taking to protect parliamentarians and others in public life from foreign influence?Madam Deputy Speaker (00:56:17):Prime Minister.Prime Minister (00:56:18):Mr. Speaker, there's a number of measures. Madam Deputy Speaker, my apologies. A number of measures that we've taken, including the further powers and tools that we've given to our security and intelligence services.Madam Deputy Speaker (00:56:31):David Mundell.David Mundell (00:56:32):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could I echo the tributes to Jim Wallace? He was one of the most significant Scottish politicians of his generation, and it was a privilege both to know him and to work with him. I think Madam Deputy Speaker, we've established that the Prime Minister was in the room, but what difference will it make for people who weren't in the room in Ukraine?Prime Minister (00:56:57):A huge difference. So that's why I discussed it with Vladimir Zelensky before I went in terms, and that's why I'll discuss it with him again in coming days in terms.Madam Deputy Speaker (00:57:09):Alex Baker.Alex Baker (00:57:12):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to welcome the Prime Minister's leadership on this trip, including his words in Japan about the value of the Global Compact Air Program.(00:57:20):This is not only a strategically important program for global security and autonomy, but important for businesses grown out of my constituency, including BAE Systems and Kinetic. Can the prime minister highlight the work he is doing to ensure this critical endeavor makes progress?Prime Minister (00:57:39):I thank you for that question because Japan is a key colleague and partner when it comes to defense and security, and that's why across a range of issues, we discussed what more we can do, including on GCAP.Madam Deputy Speaker (00:57:56):Martin Vickers.Martin Vickers (00:57:57):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In reference to an earlier question, the Prime Minister mentioned Scunthorpe Steelworks, where hundreds of my constituents are employed. We welcome the government's support to date. Was he able to discuss the ownership, Jingye's ownership with his Chinese opposite number? And is he able to give any positive assurances to my constituents about their long-term future?Madam Deputy Speaker (00:58:23):Prime Minister.Prime Minister (00:58:24):Well, could I give this assurance to his constituents that we absolutely believe in the importance of steel being made in this country, and that is why we took the measures, as he knows, on a Saturday, to take the steps that were necessary in relation to steel production in his constituency.Madam Deputy Speaker (00:58:43):Alex Ballinger.Alex Ballinger (00:58:44):Deputy Speaker, the prime minister will know there are many excellent West Midlands businesses that export to China, including great car makers like JLR, the Morgan Motor Company, and Aston Martin, collectively worth the most of any region in the UK, I will say. Can the prime minister outline how his trip to China, including the 30-day visa-free travel, will benefit these businesses and drive jobs and exports in our region?Madam Deputy Speaker (00:59:08):Prime Minister.Prime Minister (00:59:08):Well, he'll be pleased to know that JLR were there with us on the delegation in China, and they're very acutely aware of the difference, the better trade and economic measures with China will have in relation to their business, and jobs in his constituency.Madam Deputy Speaker (00:59:23):Richard Foord.Richard Foord (00:59:24):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In 2023, the Intelligence and Security Committee reported that, " The UK's academic institutions provide a rich feeding ground for China to achieve both political influence and economic advantage." Can the Prime Minister let us know, was the issue of interference in the UK universities raised with President Xi?Prime Minister (00:59:46):I raised a wide range of issues of concern to this house with President G, as he would have expected.Madam Deputy Speaker (00:59:51):Rachel Taylor.Rachel Taylor (00:59:52):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Growing our relationship with China could boost our motor manufacturing industry. The Prime Minister will know only too well that small businesses in this sector are the engine of economic growth in my constituency and right across the West Midlands. Can he set out how his visit will help small businesses in North Warwickshire and Bedworth?Madam Deputy Speaker (01:00:14):Prime Minister.Prime Minister (01:00:15):Well, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for her question. This is so important in terms of the opportunities that we have, and that's why we had representatives from motor manufacturing with us. They're only too well aware of the great advantages that are taking a full benefit of the opportunities will have for her constituents and others.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:00:35):Dr. Andrew Murrison.Dr. Andrew Murrison (01:00:36):Prime Minister's friend Baroness Helena Kennedy, a sanctioned person, clearly believes that the juice wasn't worth the squeeze or indeed the price of the plane tickets because she's described the returns the prime minister has secured as meager. She's right, isn't she?Madam Deputy Speaker (01:00:56):Prime Minister.Prime Minister (01:00:56):I've known Helena for many, many years. We shared a room when we worked together in chambers. We agree on many, many things, but not everything.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:01:05):Alex Barros-Curtis.Alex Barros-Curtis (01:01:07):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for what he said about calling on China to end support for Russia's illegal war effort. We cannot ignore the threat to our shores that comes from them. As we know very well in Wales, where Nathan Gill, the Reform UK, former leader in Wales, serving 10 and a half years in prison for taking bribes from Russia. So will the Prime Minister again join me in condemning that treacherous activity and reassure me that he will continue to push China on this important point?Prime Minister (01:01:36):Yes, I will. And I'm grateful for raising the shocking case of Nathan Gill, as he rightly says, I think 10 and a half years for taking bribes in relation to Russia. And the leader of reform is not even interested enough to make an investigation to see whether that's the extent, which it won't be, of Russian influence in his party.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:01:55):Lincoln Jopp.Lincoln Jopp (01:01:57):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I just want clarification on the members of this House who were formally sanctioned. The Prime Minister said President Xi told me that all parliamentarians are now free to travel to China. Does that mean that they are no longer legally sanctioned, and did he get that in writing?Madam Deputy Speaker (01:02:16):Prime Minister.Prime Minister (01:02:18):That is my understanding in relation to all parliamentarians. In relation to parliamentarians, I accept that in relation to others, we do need to see how much further we can go.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:02:36):Matt Bishop.Matt Bishop (01:02:37):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I found the prime minister for his statement. I wondered if he agrees with me that the security of this country is the government's first and foremost priority at all times.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:02:48):Prime Minister.Prime Minister (01:02:49):Yes, I do. It's front and center of everything we do wherever we're acting on the world stage.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:02:53):[inaudible 01:02:56].Speaker 18 (01:02:58):Thank you very much, Speaker. I just wanted to follow up on the questions from the chair of the defense set committee and the member for all the shot on GCAP. We know that the funding for the next round of GCAP is shortly going to run out in a matter of months for Edgewing and for the British phase of the program. It has been reported that this is being delayed due to the delay to the defense investment plan. Will the contract for the next phase of GCAP be signed before the defense investment plan is published?Prime Minister (01:03:24):He'll be pleased to know this was a matter of discussion in Japan and the defense investment plan will be published very soon.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:03:31):Calvin Bailey.Calvin Bailey (01:03:33):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mark Carney rightly challenged fellow middle powers to stop living a lie and recognize the changes in the geopolitical landscape because comfortable assumptions about the international order are no longer true. The system which once we benefited from cannot become the source of our subordination. It was therefore important to hear the Prime Minister's firm commitment to GCAP in Japan, and does he agree with me that investment in programs like GCAP is essential to address this geopolitical challenge?Prime Minister (01:04:09):Well, yes, I do. And he's right to emphasize the changes in the geopolitical landscape. And that's why we've approached our relationship to the US, to Europe, to India, and China accordingly.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:04:24):Greg Smith.Greg Smith (01:04:25):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In his discussions on what the Prime Minister somewhat mildly describes as areas of difference, did he raise the discovery of kill switches and hidden comms devices in Chinese manufactured solar panels? And if he did, can he assure us that rather than politely asking for this practice to stop, he demanded it.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:04:49):Prime Minister.Prime Minister (01:04:51):Madam Deputy Speaker, we raised all of the sensitive issues and we did it in direct terms and in the room. And that, to my mind, is the right way of trying to make progress on these very important issues.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:05:04):Richard Baker.Richard Baker (01:05:06):Madam Deputy Speaker, it was a privilege to serve Jim Wallace in Hollywood, and can I associate myself with the tributes to him? Following trade deals with Europe, China, and India, worth hundreds of millions of pounds of Scottish businesses and defense contracts securing thousands of jobs. Can the prime minister tell us how he will build on this success of Scotland? And does he agree it's about time with a Scottish government with the same level of ambition for Scottish businesses?Prime Minister (01:05:31):Well, it's astonishing that the S&P is simply not interested in the progress we've made in the India trade deal, which is hugely beneficial to Scottish businesses, and in relation to the halving of tariffs that comes into effect today in relation to China. And the businesses in Scotland know exactly what it means to them, which is why they're celebrating. The S&P can't bring themselves to even welcome it.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:05:51):Jim Allister.Jim Allister (01:05:55):Madam Deputy Speaker, I certainly acknowledge the tariff easement in respect of Scottish whiskey and it's the apparently superior, Bushmills Whiskey from my consistency. But could I ask the prime minister whether his visit will do anything to address the proliferation of heavily subsidized Chinese vehicles, which are flooding our nation, particularly in the bus sector? Where recently we now have 500 subsidized Chinese vehicles, courtesy of transport for London on the streets of our capital city, whereas in both Scotland and my constituency, we build the highest quality of buses. Will there be any action to support British buses as a result of what the prime minister is seeking to do?Madam Deputy Speaker (01:06:52):Prime Minister.Prime Minister (01:06:54):I see we've opened a whiskey competition, but he's quite right. It is really important that we champion the building of buses and so much else in the United Kingdom where we've got great examples of that, and that's why we will always put the national interest first.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:07:10):Kevin Bonavia.Kevin Bonavia (01:07:11):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I welcome the Prime Minister's report back from his visits to China and Japan. Something that the previous Tory governments refused to do for many years. He [inaudible 01:07:24] and many of the issues discussed, human rights, trade, security. I'm particularly interested in what he had to say about the border security pack because my constituency are very concerned about the small boats' crisis. We've already had international agreements with France and Germany. This is a new one with China. I'd like to know more about how this is going to work. How can I do that?Prime Minister (01:07:50):He's right to put this package as one because what we're doing on small boats with China is looking at the source of the engines themselves. What we're doing with Germany isSpeaker 19 (01:08:00):With the transport of these parts through Europe, what we're doing in France is working with the French to tackle the crossings themselves.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:08:09):Dr. Kieran Mullan.Dr. Kieran Mullan (01:08:10):Vanderbilt Speaker, the whole house can see with their own eyes, what's happening here. The Prime Minister on PayPal's support of more than 400 NPs. They want to show the support that someone can fill every single seat on the opposite side and down to double doors. And we all drift away as the statement progresses, but even at the start of this statement, at the start of this statement, the Prime Minister didn't even have the authority to command two or three benches of MPs behind him. He's clearly on his way out. But the problem is, in his desperation to show up his position, he's trading away our national interest. Can he name a single tangible benefit he secured in terms of the rights of Hong Kongers?Madam Deputy Speaker (01:08:44):Prime Minister?Prime Minister (01:08:47):Yes, we raised the issues of Hong Kong. We raised the issues. I find it astonishing that their position is that they want losers. They say they take these issues seriously. They say of great concern. They stay here, not withstanding no one else is listening and raise them on the benches greatly. And then they say, "It's so important to me. The one thing I don't want you to do is to go to China and have a discussion about them at the highest level." It's a pathetic approach, unserious approach to foreign policy.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:09:13):Jacob Collier.Jacob Collier (01:09:16):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister may have seen that the Japanese ambassador to the UK, Hiroshi Suzuki, was recently in Manchester trying Boddington's Bitter. The Prime Minister will know the importance of brewing to my constituency. And perhaps in celebration of these trade deals, he would like to encourage the ambassador to come and sample some of the best beer in the brewing capital of Burton upon Trent.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:09:41):Prime Minister?Prime Minister (01:09:42):Yes, I certainly should encourage that, and I'll take the first opportunity to do so.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:09:48):Graham Leadbitter?Graham Leadbitter (01:09:50):Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm glad that the Prime Minister enjoys the drama as much as I do. And for the record, I did welcome the Indian trade deal very publicly. So perhaps he may wish to correct the record on that. I'd like to focus however on a really significant issue for employment and constituency, which is the Aldersier site, part of the Cromarty Green Freeport in which [inaudible 01:10:16] have expressed a significant investment interest in. I fully understand the national security concerns that need to be addressed in this, but a decision is long overdue in this. It has been with the government for a long, long time. There is investor jitteriness about it. Supply chain is vexed about it, and it's certainly not helping the just transition and putting significant job opportunities at risk. When will the decision be taken and either let them go on with it or move on to another opportunity?Madam Deputy Speaker (01:10:45):Prime Minister?Prime Minister (01:10:46):Can I thank him for raising this issue, which is a concern to his constituents and across Scotland and indeed the United Kingdom. No decision has yet been made, and I'll update the House as soon as I can.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:10:57):Josh Dean?Josh Dean (01:10:58):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today. Last Thursday, I held a public meeting with the Hong Kong community in Bishop's Stortford. We met to discuss the proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain, but there was real strength of feeling about the case of Jimmy Lai and Democratic freedoms in Hong Kong. So I'm really pleased to hear the Prime Minister raise that. Would he take this opportunity for the benefit of my constituents to set out again the detail of those discussions? Will he also reassure them of this country's commitment to those from Hong Kong who have made their home here and that this government will listen carefully to their views as part of the home office's consultation on earned settlement?Madam Deputy Speaker (01:11:36):Prime Minister?Prime Minister (01:11:36):Well, let me give him that reassurance for those from Hong Kong in his constituency and across the whole country and the support that we will put in for them.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:11:46):John Cooper?John Cooper (01:11:47):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The SMP Scottish government undertook a secretive trip to Beijing last year and caught a case of rain [inaudible 01:11:54] fever where they were there. They're now blundering around on the world stage, desperate for Minyang to put money into artists here. Not withstanding the jobs, will the Prime Minister assure the house that he will take cognizance of national security issues? We do not want jobs at any cost. We cannot have wind farms that have Chinese kill switches fitted.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:12:12):Prime Minister?Prime Minister (01:12:12):Well, as you will have heard me say a moment ago, no decision has been made yet, but as I outlined in my report back to the House, the overarching approach we take to all matters involving China is that national security always comes first.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:12:29):David Taylor.David Taylor (01:12:30):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. On behalf of the All Party Group on Japan, can I say a Arigato Gozaimasu to the Prime Minister for his visit to Japan? And I hope that he had a Sagoi time. I think we are all proud in this house of the GCAP program, which holds a great opportunity not only for global, regional and UK security, but also for British jobs. Prime Minister mentioned that Japan is already one of the main investors in the UK. Does he share my hope that this program, just like the Concord program with France all those years ago, will lead to knock on benefits for British jobs and innovations in our economy.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:13:07):Prime Minister?Prime Minister (01:13:08):Well, can I thank him for his comments and his message over the weekend? Japan is a key NATO ally, G7 and of course the coalition of the willing and as he rightly points out with key investments in the United Kingdom, and that's why we discussed all those matters and GCAP when we were there.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:13:28):Gregory Stafford.Gregory Stafford (01:13:29):Madam Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister mentioned his previous meeting with the Chinese president in Brazil at COP. One day later, 45 pro-democracy Hong Kongers were sentenced. Uyghurs, Phalangong, Tibetians, unregistered religious groups, human rights lawyers, and pro-democracy campaigners. Hong Kongers in this country, Jimmy Lai, what single tangible difference has the Prime Minister made for their safety and security?Madam Deputy Speaker (01:13:59):Prime Minister?Prime Minister (01:14:00):Mr. Speaker, of course, there's concerns. They're out in this House. The difference between us is our position is that the mature serious thing to do is to have leader to leader discussions about them engaging the issue. Their approach is to shout about the issues, get a bag of sand and put your head in it and influence absolutely none. It is so unserious. They're not fit for government for many, many, many years to come.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:14:25):Peter Swallow?Peter Swallow (01:14:26):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As Prime Minister will know, there are many Japanese companies who have their British foe in my constituency in Bracknell. So can I welcome his visit to Japan? And could he set out a little bit more about how we can strengthen our relationship further with our Japanese friends and allies and what that will mean for my constituents?Madam Deputy Speaker (01:14:49):Prime Minister?Prime Minister (01:14:49):Can I attribute all those in his constituency of which there are very many, as he rightly says. Enhancing our trade and economic ties with Japan is in the interest of both of our countries, and that's precisely what we're focused on.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:15:03):Bradley Thomas.Bradley Thomas (01:15:03):Madam Speaker. While the Prime Minister has failed to stand up for Britain's interests, from what we've seen, he couldn't even make it across Beijing's red carpet without being guided along the way. What did the Prime Minister expect to receive in return for approving the Chinese super embassy? And did the Chinese give it to him?Madam Deputy Speaker (01:15:20):Prime Minister.Prime Minister (01:15:22):We've had an embassy in this country since 1877. It's currently over seven sites. It's now going to be on one. The Security and Intelligence Services published a letter the day after the decision to say that that was better for security in this country. And I think that's the right approach.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:15:42):Peter Swallow. I'm sorry. Chris Vince. Chris Vince.Prime Minister (01:15:47):Second best.Chris Vince (01:15:48):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I thank the Prime Minister for his statements today and his continued international leadership? I know, however, wherever he goes in the world, he's always thinking about Harlow. Can I ask the Prime Minister what difference will a productive relationship with the second largest economy and our third biggest trading partner make to businesses in my constituent of Harlow?Madam Deputy Speaker (01:16:09):Prime Minister?Prime Minister (01:16:11):He's a champion of Harlow and it was so good to visit so many times. We had 60 businesses on the delegation with us. They were enthusiastic about the opportunities that this visit would open up for them and all the associated businesses, including his constituency that will be able to work with them on projects in the future.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:16:31):Dr. Luke Evans?Dr. Luke Evans (01:16:32):It's widely reported in the media that the Prime Minister in his entourage had burner phones when they went across to China. Could he confirm this? And if it is confirmed, was the reason because he was worried he was being spied upon?Madam Deputy Speaker (01:16:46):Prime Minister?Prime Minister (01:16:47):Madam Deputy Speaker, we took appropriate precautions as we do whichever country we visit.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:16:54):John Slinger.John Slinger (01:16:55):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Like the Prime Minister, I'm a musician and a strong advocate for the creative arts sector. So could he set out to the House a little more why he took so many creative arts and cultural organizations with him to China? And does he agree that Britain is the best in the world at the creative arts? It's good for trade, it's good for jobs, it's good for our young people particularly. And the kind of business he's been on will help with this as will investment at home and abroad.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:17:28):Prime Minister?Prime Minister (01:17:28):Thank you for this question. I agree with him. We are the best in the world in the creative sector. Those from the cultural institutions were with us on the visit because they could see the great advantage in better relations and better engagement, not only in relation to the cultural aspects, but of course they are in themselves, really important businesses.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:17:45):Danny Kruger.Danny Kruger (01:17:46):Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister is very full of the abstract virtue of engaging with China and getting in the room with them. He used to say that Britain shouldn't even sign a trade deal with China because of the persecution of the Uyghur people. So having now got in the room with the Chinese leader, can he tell the House a single thing that he achieved on behalf of the Uyghurs or indeed on behalf of the security of this country?Madam Deputy Speaker (01:18:09):Prime Minister?Prime Minister (01:18:10):Yes. Engaging is really important for the security of this country. And just for clarity, we didn't sign a trade deal on the visit. We simply looked at the ways in which we can open the opportunities for businesses. There were 60 big businesses with us on the visit and they're absolutely clear about the advantages to them. And I'd much rather take their view on the advantages than the nonsense that's being spouted on the other side of this House.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:18:36):Harriet Cross?Harriet Cross (01:18:36):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. China is helping to fund Russia's war on Ukraine via the shadow fleet and Russian oil. Firstly, can the Prime Minister unambiguously confirm that he mentioned and brought up Russian oil and their shadow fleet because it's not mentioned specifically in the statement. And secondly, what steps will China now take to end their importation of Russian oil, which is funding death and destruction across Ukraine?Speaker 21 (01:19:03):Yeah, well said.Prime Minister (01:19:06):Well, this is a really important issue and that's why I had a phone call with Volodymyr Zelensky the day before I left. I have a further discussion with him when I get back and that I raised the issue in terms during the course of the visit.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:19:20):Charlie Dewhirst?Charlie Dewhirst (01:19:25):Madam Deputy Speaker. And further to that point, Russia has been able to triple its ballistic missile production because it has access to Chinese rocket fuel, has access to Chinese machine tools, and it has access to Chinese micro processes. In return, China is receiving vast quantities of discounted oil, gas, aluminum, other natural resources. China is quite literally fueling the war in Ukraine. So can I ask the Prime Minister once again, what specific guarantees did he receive from the Chinese government that they would work to deescalate the conflict in Ukraine?Prime Minister (01:19:57):The reason I spoke to Volodymyr Zelensky was to have a discussion with him in advance is precisely the terms in which we would approach this issue. I then followed through on that and I will talk to President Zelensky again in coming days about this. We're working hand in glove with the Ukrainians for the outcome that we all want, which are just and lasting peace.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:20:18):Shannon?Speaker 22 (01:20:19):Deputy Madam Speaker, can I thank the Prime Minister for his statement? And I welcome the PM successful transmissions to China and Japan. In particular, I'm heartened by the strides made in Japanese cooperation. However, I would like to ascertain what steps forward were made in terms of the Chinese treatment of Christians, of Uyghur Muslims, of fallen Gong and other religious minorities, and how the Prime Minister was able to use diplomatic soft power to bring about the changes required to stop human right... Or, to provide human rights protection and to stop religious persecution and successful trade between the two nations. Thank you.Prime Minister (01:20:56):He has a right to raise these really important issues and that's why I raised them myself during the course of the visit and I thank you.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:21:05):And that concludes this statement. I'll give a few moments for the front benches to swap over. Statement. Minister?Chief Secretary (01:21:39):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, as I know right honorable and honorable members across the house will agree, Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable criminal who committed disgusting crimes and destroyed the lives of countless women and girls. What he did is unforgivable. His victims must be our first priority. As the Prime Minister has said, anybody with relevant information must come forward and cooperate with investigations so that Jeffrey Epstein's victims can get the justice they have been denied for too long. Madam Deputy Speaker, on Friday, the Department of Justice in the United States released around three million pages from the case files relating to Jeffrey Epstein. It is increasingly clear that his awful crimes involved and were facilitated by many often powerful people, both by actively participating in those crimes, but also by failing to hear those victims' voices by equating wealth with integrity and by not using one's privileged position to speak out even against a friend. It is incumbent upon those of us who hold ministerial office to behave in such a way that builds trust in politics and uphold the standards that voters rightly expect from us.(01:23:05):Contained within the release by the US Department of Justice were documents which highlighted the close nature of the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandelson, including alleged financial transactions when Peter Mandelson was a labor member of parliament and later, minister. For the avoidance of doubt, this information was not known by the government until the release of documents by the Department of Justice on Friday. The nature of the documents also raised serious concerns about Peter Mandelson's behavior whilst a minister. Peter Mandelson must account for his actions and conduct. It is an understatement, Madam Deputy Speaker, to say that his decision to continue a close relationship with a convicted pedophile, including discussing private government business, falls far below the standards expected of any minister. His behavior was unequivocally wrong and an insult to the women and girls who suffered.(01:24:10):No government minister of any political party should have, nor ever should behave in this way. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister has today asked the Cabinet Secretary to review all available information regarding Peter Mandelson's contact with Jeffrey Epstein during his period as a government minister and to report back to him as a matter of urgency. As the House knows, Peter Mandelson is no longer a member of the Labor Party having resigned his membership last night, and the House may wish to know that disciplinary action was underway by the Labor Party prior to his resignation. The Prime Minister believes, as does the government, that Peter Mandelson should not retain his membership of the House of Lords or use his title. As the House already knows, the government does not have the power to remove peerages without legislation. However, the Prime Minister is calling on all political parties, including the conservatives as the largest party in the House of Lords to work with the government, to modernize the disciplinary procedures, to allow for removal of peers who have brought the House of Lords into disrepute.(01:25:23):The government will today write to the appropriate authorities in the other place to start that process. It would be better, Madam Deputy Speaker, to update those procedures so that they apply to all members of the House of Lords instead of having to introduce complex hybrid bills for each individual peer who has brought the other place into disrepute. Madam Deputy Speaker, I recognize the strength of feeling on all sides of the House, myself included, and the government will of course keep members up to date. I commend the statement to the House.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:25:58):I call the Shadow Chancellor the Duchy of Lancaster.Shadow Chancellor the Duchy of Lancaster (01:26:02):Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'd like to thank the Minister for advanced sight of a statement. The crimes of Jeffrey Epstein were truly terrible. Pedophilia, sex trafficking, child prostitution was an awful abuse of power. And it is, of course, a great embarrassment to our country that its most senior ambassador should have been caught up with a man like him. In this latest set of releases from the US Department of Justice, it's clearer than ever that theirs was a relationship built not just on affection, but on the transfer of money from Epstein to Mandelson's family and the transfer of information from Mandelson to Epstein. In some cases, this was apparently market sensitive information that Mandelson only received by dint of being a member of the Labor Government. So of course, we welcome the belated announcement that there will be an investigation into Mandelson's conduct whilst he was a minister. But this should have happened long ago.(01:27:02):And I say that because we know that in February last year, Gordon Brown, the former prime minister, wrote to the Cabinet Secretary explicitly asking for an investigation into the veracity of information contained in the Epstein papers about the sale of assets arising from the banking collapse and communications about them between Lord Mandelson and Mr. Epstein. That investigation never happened. In any case, I'm afraid the investigation announced today alone will not do. It is not enough to consider Mandelson's historic conduct. There also needs to be an investigation into his behavior whilst he was our ambassador in Washington. Given that he abused his previous position, it is entirely conceivable that he abused his most recent one. For example, I understand that on the 27th of February last year, Mandelson arranged for the Prime Minister to meet Palantir, a client of Mandelson's company, Global Council. How many more such meetings were there? What other information was shared? We all have a right to know.(01:28:02):Likewise, the government cannot hide from its responsibility in having made Mandelson its ambassador in the first place. This was a political appointment. It happened only because of political pressure. And so, one of two things must be true, Madam Deputy Speaker. Either there was the most terrible failure of the vetting system or the government chose to brush that vetting information away. And both are very serious, but the government must now be honest with us about which it was. And it seems very unlikely that the government's vetting system broke down entirely. Indeed, on the 10th of September, the Prime Minister told the House that full due process was followed during this appointment. Can it really be the case that this full due process did not pick up the extent of the relationship? On the 3rd of November, Ollie Robbins, the then permanent secretary at the foreign office told committee, "Back before Lord Mandelson was announced as the appointee, there was a process within the cabinet office to make sure that the Prime Minister was aware of Lord Mandelson and the issues around his appointment. We can confidently say that the relationship with Epstein was indeed surfaced."(01:29:05):So the government knew that Mandelson had a long maintained and unhealthy relationship with Epstein and yet it continued with its appointment anyway. So the question is, Madam Deputy Speaker, who in number 10 knew what and when. And the chief secretary to the Prime Minister has a duty to tell this house precisely what the Prime Minister knew when he made the appointment to disclose the documents that the Prime Minister saw. And if the Prime Minister genuinely did not know, well, somebody must have then. Who was it? Was it his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who was reported to have personally pushed the appointment? Was it the deputy prime minister who was then the foreign secretary who would have been party to some of the information? It's just time for the government to be open and clear with us all. Something went very badly wrong with this appointment, Madam Deputy Speaker. It has caused very great embarrassment to this country, and it is time that someone took responsibility.Chief Secretary (01:30:03):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The person that has to take responsibility for their failings is Peter Mandelson. The Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster knows because the process for political appointments, whether to ambassadorships or otherwise, was one that was set up under the previous conservative government. It was a process that we inherited and have since updated. The Prime Minister has been very clear that the declarations of interest that were put forward by Peter Mandelson were not wholly truthful. When it became clear from the release of information that that had not been the case. The Prime Minister moved swiftly to remove Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States. On the first point that the Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made in relation to an investigation requested by a Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, I can confirm to the House that his statement was incorrect.(01:30:53):Former Prime Minister did ask the Cabinet Secretary to investigate to look for any particular documents that related, as he said, to the sale of RBS assets to JP Morgan. That investigation was undertaken. The Cabinet Secretary did respond to the former Prime Minister to confirm that no documents in relation to these questions were held by the government. Evidently, now that more documents have become available to the public and to the government, further investigations are now taking place.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:31:20):Emily Thornbury?Emily Thornbury (01:31:22):Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. These files seem to show that Peter Mandelson was given 50,000 pounds by a notorious pedophile and a few years later, he sent on market sensitive information to Epstein who worked for JP Morgan about market bailouts, the Prime Minister's resignation, telling them that they should mildly threaten the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and then told him about matters of national security. Surely this is not a matter of whether Peter Mandelson should be in the House of Lords. This is a matter of whether the police should be involved.Chief Secretary (01:31:59):The honorable lady is right, that each individual issue is wholly unacceptable and cumulatively it is also unacceptable. The undeclared exchange of funds, the passing on of government information, let alone the fact that those exchanges were effect to a convicted pedophile are wholly unconscionable. And the House will know that if any of those activities were to take place today, ministers would be swiftly relieved of their duties and could be via the record petitions available to the House removed from their constituency, too. As to the matter of criminal investigations, of course, that is a matter for the prosecution services and the police and the investigation into the release documents from the Cabinet Secretary of the Prime Minister as I've informed the House is currently underway.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:32:50):Liberal Democrat Spokesperson Max Wilkinson.Max Wilkinson (01:32:54):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Chief Secretary of the Prime Minister and the Shadow CDL are right. We must start by remembering the many women and young girls who experienced unimaginable horrors at the hands of the network of Epstein. We must also ask, Madam Deputy Speaker, what it was that first attracted the politician, Peter Mandelson, to the billionaire financier, Jeffrey Epstein. And why was it that that relationship continued after Epstein's character was well known? At the very least, the forwarding of confidential government correspondence to a wealthy and powerful individual was clearly well beneath the conduct expected of a cabinet minister and possibly a breach of the law. When that is combined with the reported financial flows, the evidence is damning. The use of public office for private gain is the very definition of corruption. Regardless of the outcome of a government investigation, millions of people up and down this country are more than capable of judging for themselves on the evidence in front of them.(01:33:54):So Madam Deputy Speaker, I asked the Chief Secretary of the Prime Minister, isn't it time to end the Lord Mandelson charade once and for all by bringing legislation to this house to strip him of his peerage? And what about his membership of the Privy Council, too?" The Chief Secretary of the Prime Minister referenced declarations of interest. So will the government work with House authorities to republish Peter Mandelson's register of interests dating back to his time as a Cabinet Minister in a Labor Government?Chief Secretary (01:34:25):Thank you. And can I welcome the Honorable Member to his post on the Liberal Democrats front bench? The Honorable Member is right that it is time for the procedures in parliament to be updated. This House has taken steps in recent years to do that. The other place has not. And as I said in my statement to the House, the government is making an offer today to the other place and to the appropriate authorities in the House of Lords to put forward proposals to do just that. And if we need to make time available to do so, we will.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:35:01):Clive Effort?Clive Efford (01:35:02):Deputy Speaker. The key question here is who advised the Prime Minister? I don't expect the Prime Minister to do due diligence on appointments of this kind himself, but those around him must have done. And it does appear that there were questions that needed to be asked of Lord Mandelson that weren't asked, or if they were asked, that the answers were not passed on. So when this is investigated, [inaudible 01:35:28] would give us a guarantee that those around the Prime Minister who would have advised him on this appointment will be investigated fully.Chief Secretary (01:35:39):The appointment for political... The process, sorry, for political appointments has since been strengthened by this government to include additional interviews and processes for declarations of interest. The key thing though, Madam Deputy Speaker, is when someone lies in their declarations of interest, there must be a consequence and consequence in respect to members of the other place needs to be removal from the House of Lords and loss of your peerage. That can only happen if the other place bring forward proposals to update their own processes, which the government stands ready to support them in doing so. But I agree with my honorable friend that there needs to be robust, clear, transparent processes and where there are conflicts of interest, for those to be surfaced and dealt with adequately. And then when people are found to have lied, there must be some consequence.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:36:31):Chair of the Select Committee Simon Hall.Simon Hall (01:36:33):Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Chancellor the Duchy of Lancaster is right to say that the other place must modernize its disciplinary procedures, but that kicks the Mandelson can down the road. This is not the first time this modern day Icarus has flown a little bit too close to the sun, usually over money. We all remember the Jeffrey Robinson mortgage term, which of course occasioned and earlier resignation and the Hinduda passport. Where I disagree with the Minister is that you should conflate the updating of the disciplinary procedures of the other place and bringing forward legislation which is allowed to remove Mandelson's period. I'm absolutely certain that were the government to bring forward a bill, it needn't be complex and hybrid, as he suggested. It could be rushed through this House in a day, such as the appetite to make the point.Chief Secretary (01:37:35):Madam Deputy Speaker, for the sake of clarity, can I just make it clear that neither I nor the government are here to defend Peter Mandelson. We are here to defend the integrity of this House and the other place and to ensure that processes where they need updating are updated. On the question of legislation for individual members of the other place, the fact I might say, Madam Deputy Speaker, is there's a queue. That's why the process needs to be updated to apply to all peers in the House of Lords, as opposed to the need to bring individual legislation, whether it's for Peter Mandelson or Michelle Moon.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:38:09):Julie [inaudible 01:38:10]?Speaker 23 (01:38:12):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Like the Chief Secretary, I'm a parent of young children and I know the Chief Secretary would have found it very difficult to stomach some of the details that came out over the weekend. And rightfully, so far the conversation here has been dominated about the actions of the men. But could I seriously ask the Chief Secretary, what is he doing to ensure that the victims, mostly children, of sexual violence and sexual assault is going to be heard by those in power, including the Prime Minister?Chief Secretary (01:38:40):I thank my Noble Friend for her question. And I'm sure there isn't one member of this House that doesn't agree with her about the levels of disgust that we feel in seeing the disclosures from the Epstein files. The House knows that the government is taking forward radical proposals for tackling violence against women and girls. And in respect of Jeffrey Epstein is doing all that we can to ensure that people who do have information make it available to investigators.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:39:10):Sir Christopher Chope?Sir Christopher Chope (01:39:10):Madam Deputy Speaker, does the Minister think that the deep involvement of Mandelson with Epstein shows that Epstein's victims were not only women and girls, but may also have included young men.Chief Secretary (01:39:25):It wouldn't be appropriate for me to entertain that hypothetical question at the dispatch box, Madam Deputy Speaker. We obviously hope that that is not the case, but as I say, I am not here to speak for Peter Mandelson.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:39:39):Andy McDonald?Andy McDonald (01:39:41):Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a disaster. And against the backdrop of the incredible abuse of young women for such a long time, it just fills the House with horror. But I must agree with the Honorable Member from North Dorset. This House would be minded to bring legislation and quickly. But can I ask my right winged friend? It would appear that Gordon Brown was very concerned in September of 2025 that there had been disclosure of information by Mandelson to Epstein that may have been used for commercial gain. He turns out to be right. So how is it that that error could occur within the government? That information wasn't known. Can you assure the House that those matters will be given full attention in any inquiry and that from this day on, full engagement we had with the criminal authorities, because as many people have said in this place already, "The time has come for criminal prosecution."Chief Secretary (01:40:52):My Noble Friend is right to raise the concerns in the way he has. As I confirmed to the Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Cabinet Secretary did respond to Gordon Brown's request to search for documents in the government archive in relation to the sale of RBS assets to JP Morgan at that time. The review of documents at the time concluded that those documents did not exist in the government archive. It is now evident from the release of documents from the US Department for Justice that the emails that we have all seen account for what took place at the time, and that's why the Cabinet Secretary now is reviewing the archive again, not just in respect to that particular question, but in the round during the time that Peter Mandelson was a Labor Minister and he'll be reporting to the Prime Minister as soon as he's been able to do that.Madam Deputy Speaker (01:41:38):[inaudible 01:41:39]?Speaker 20 (01:41:38):In [inaudible 01:41:41] questions, all the recent sexual harassment cases at Westminster, the police were called. They were called proactively by the government. Why is the government in this case conducting an inquiry without informing the Met Police? And if they're not, will they get on with it straight away because it's inevitably going to happen?Speaker 25 (01:42:00):Hear hear.Chief Secretary (01:42:01):As I have told the House, the cabinet secretary is currently looking at the government archives to see what documents are available and will advise the prime minister accordingly. If the government can be of assistance to any investigations in due course, of course it will do so.Speaker 24 (01:42:15):Justin Mathers.Justin Mathers (01:42:16):Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker, there are many aspects of this which are hugely troubling, and I just want to focus on one which is the passing on by a serving cabinet minister to third parties of highly sensitive information. Clearly that's something that could amount to misconduct in public office, and I hope that the police do investigate that.(01:42:34):But it does reveal these papers, doesn't it, a very casual relationship with probity for Mandelson and his apparent willingness to share highly sensitive information with third parties. Now what concerns me in particular is of course that he has been in a very senior role in recent times. So I wonder if the chief secretary could confirm whether he or anyone else serving in government in a ministerial or advisory capacity has discussed in recent times in the course of this government information of a similar nature that could have been used to benefit third parties.Chief Secretary (01:43:10):The information that became available over the preceding few days from the US Department for Justice is new information to the government.Speaker 24 (01:43:17):Christine Jardin.Christine Jardine (01:43:19):Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I echo the remarks that have been made in this House this evening about the fact that it might be time for criminal proceedings to take place in this? I also think it's important when the government has made such a totem of tackling violence against women and girls, that they're seen to stand up for women and girls in this, and encourage everyone who's been mentioned in this to cooperate with the American authorities and give any information that they have to the inquiries in the United States.Speaker 28 (01:43:53):Hear here, point well maid.Chief Secretary (01:43:55):I agree wholeheartedly with the honorable lady, and the government has called for anybody with information to do just that.Speaker 24 (01:44:01):Rachel Hopkins.Rachel Hopkins (01:44:04):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Many of my constituents will be horrified like all of us by the revelations regarding Peter Mandelson and the Epstein files, but they'd also be shocked to know the government doesn't have the power to remove peerages. So does the chief secretary agree with me that it's absolutely right to do whatever necessary to modernize procedures to allow for the removal of peers and their peerages when they've bought the other place into disrepute?Chief Secretary (01:44:26):I think my honorable friend is exactly right, and that's why the government has written to the appropriate authorities in the other place today to request that that work is now started.Speaker 24 (01:44:35):Stephen Flynn.Stephen Flynn (01:44:38):I don't understand why the minister, who I respect greatly, is standing there and speaking as though the government didn't know about the relationship and the connection between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein prior to appointing him as the ambassador to the United States. I can't understand why the minister isn't standing at the dispatch box today saying that this House will sit until whatever hour is required in order to move legislation to strip him of his peerage.(01:45:07):I cannot understand why the minister is acting like the Labour Party have been proactive in relation to this. We may have known for months about Peter Mandelson's revelations, and yet have allowed him to maintain a party membership throughout that time. And I cannot understand why half an hour ago, the prime minister of the United Kingdom did not just apologize for his decision making, his lack of judgment, and say that Peter Mandelson should be subject to a criminal investigation.Chief Secretary (01:45:39):Neither the Labour Party nor the government, or indeed this House or the honorable member knew about the information that was made available by the US Department for Justice only a matter of days ago. As soon as that information became available, the government has acted accordingly. And in respect of the previous decision of the prime minister to sack Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States, the prime minister was very clear with this House, and indeed the public, that he did so quickly as soon as the extent and depth of the relationship became clear from the disclosure that took place. The prime minister relied on the information provided by Peter Mandelson at the time of his appointment. As soon as that information changed, the prime minister acted quickly and removed him from office.Speaker 24 (01:46:18):Richard Burgon.Richard Burgon (01:46:19):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The public is asking how on Earth Peter Mandelson ever got to be appointed ambassador to the United States given what was known. One would presume Peter Mandelson passed some sort of security check or vetting. But as well as an inquiry into Peter Mandelson's appointment, can the chief secretary to the prime minister reassure this House and the public on behalf of the prime minister that everyone in Number 10 who advocated for or had influence in securing Peter Mandelson's appointment, in spite of what was known about his relationship with Epstein, had security clearance, a key protection to guard against improper influence and exposure for our country.Chief Secretary (01:47:11):All due process was followed. As the prime minister's made clear for political appointments, it was clear that additional measures needed to be put into place, which have now been put into place. And I remind the honorable member in the House that the information that became available both at the time the prime minister sacked the former ambassador to the United States and in the last few days only became available to the prime minister and the government at the same time as everybody else.Speaker 24 (01:47:37):Sir Julian Lewis.Sir Julian Lewis (01:47:39):Can the minister not see that it's in the Labour Party's interest, as much as it is in the national interest, that this issue of stripping Mandelson of his peerage should be resolved as soon as possible, bring in the wider legislation subsequently. Now, he may be a little young to remember when the late John Prescott compared Mandelson to a scorpion in a jam jar that he was holding. But can the minister explain to this House the fatal fascination of Labour leader after Labour leader in appointing this man to post after post with his checkered record of corruption and multiple resignation?Speaker 26 (01:48:25):Yeah, yeah, yeah, Julian.Chief Secretary (01:48:28):I say to the right honorable gentlemen and to the House that whether it's about Peter Mandelson or Michelle Mone or other peers who have brought the other place into disrepute, that there needs to be a process for the removal of members of the other place and their peerage. The government's making it very clear today that that should be conducted on a cross party basis to ensure the integrity of the other place in our democracy in the future as it relates to all peers. And I would encourage members across the House and in the other place to make sure that those proposals are brought forward swiftly.Speaker 24 (01:49:01):Kim Johnson.Kim Johnson (01:49:02):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mandelson's behavior fell well below expected standards for a long time, but sadly he was disgracefully allowed to resign very quietly, even though he was sacked as the US ambassador last year. More action should have been taken last year. So I will ask the chief secretary to do everything that he can do to expedite legislation to remove all of the privileges from this awful man as soon as possible.Chief Secretary (01:49:35):I thank mu honorable friend for her question. The government stands ready to work with authorities in the House of Lords to update their procedures. As I've informed the House, we've written to the appropriate authorities in the other place today to start that process and we hope to move as quickly as possible.Speaker 24 (01:49:48):Manuela Perteghella.Manuela Perteghella (01:49:51):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I want to focus on the victims, the children and the young girls who were trafficked. Will the government confirm that any UK linked offenses will be fully investigated, that all evidence will be acted upon, and that anyone implicating, whatever their status, will be pursued with the full force of the law, ensuring the victims and survivors will receive the justice and support that they deserve.Chief Secretary (01:50:20):I thank the honorable lady, and she's right that the victims of Jeffrey Epstein need to be at the center of all of our attentions. The government will, of course, cooperate with any investigations that take place, and as we have said repeatedly, anybody with any information should make themselves available to investigators, whether here or overseas.Speaker 24 (01:50:41):Alex McIntyre.Alex McIntyre (01:50:42):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I thank the chief secretary for his statement this afternoon. Gloucester residents will rightly be angry and incredibly disgusted by the revelations that were revealed by the papers released by the American government over the weekend. And I think it's in the interest of this whole House that we get this place in order so that those who commit heinous acts who align themselves with people like Jeffrey Epstein are no longer in this place so the public can have the trust that we are acting in their best interest. So can my honorable friend confirm that he and the government will act at pace to ensure that that man is removed from the House of Lords, and can he update the House on the steps they've taken to improve the direct appointments process since he was removed as ambassador?Chief Secretary (01:51:26):I thank my honorable friend friend for his question, and share in his disgust at what has taken place. As I've said to the House, the House of Lords must update its procedures to ensure that there are consequences for the behaviors of members in the other place that bring their house into disrepute. The House of Commons, this House, has in recent years been able to do that, and there is no reason why the other place should not, and the government stands ready to support the House of Lords in whichever way is necessary to make sure that's put into effect.Speaker 24 (01:51:59):Robert Jenrick.Robert Jenrick (01:52:01):Appointing Peter Mandelson to our premier ambassadorship was always a grotesque error of judgment by the prime minister, given everything that we knew about this man. And now we're told that this man leaked confidential information to a convicted sex offender when he was a cabinet minister, and took tens of thousands of pounds in secret backhanders. It is a total disgrace.(01:52:24):Is the minister really coming to the House today to say that he neither intends to bring forward primary legislation to deal with this now, but will write to the House of Lords and seek their support to modernize their procedures in months' time and nor will he go proactively to the police and demand an investigation when Peter Mandelson has clearly broken the law, and stands now accused of serious misconduct in a public office and should be tried for his offenses.Chief Secretary (01:53:01):As I've said repeatedly, Madam Deputy Speaker, the government will of course cooperate with any investigation that takes place and encourages everybody to do so. We stand ready to introduce legislation if required at pace to work with the House of Lords to update their procedures. We agree that that needs to happen and that it needs to happen quickly. And might I just gently say that when the right honorable member was a member of the Conservative Party, at the point Peter Mandelson was first appointed to the ambassadorship of the United States, the official opposition didn't at that point object in any way.Speaker 29 (01:53:34):Day one. [inaudible 01:53:35].Speaker 24 (01:53:34):Johanna Baxter.Johanna Baxter (01:53:38):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my right honorable friend for his statement this afternoon. Jeffrey Epstein's crimes were utterly abhorrent, and our thought should always be with the women and girls whose lives were destroyed by him and his network. And the revelations over the weekend were utterly disgusting. Would the chief secretary agree with me that the cabinet secretary should undertake an immediate review into Peter Mandelson's actions when he was a government minister, particularly in relation to the issue raised by the previous prime minister, Gordon Brown, in relation to the potential and unacceptable disclosure of government papers and information when this country was battling a global financial crisis.Chief Secretary (01:54:24):I agree wholeheartedly with my honorable friend. The cabinet secretary is now today reviewing the government archives to see what information is available at that time, not just in relation to the sale of RBS assets to JP Morgan, as requested by the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, but more broadly during the time that Peter Mandelson was a Labour minister in the then government.Speaker 24 (01:54:46):Esther McVey,Esther McVey (01:54:47):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, does the government believe Lord Mandelson should be stripped of his peerage? Yes or no. And if they do, they should bring forward primary legislation, which would do just that, which they can do. And I'm afraid the minister's excuse of a queue does not wash whatsoever.(01:55:07):That being the case, will they bring forward this legislation for the disgraced Lord Mandelson, their friend, because if they don't, and he does keep his title, despite Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor being stripped of his, what rank hypocrisy? What further can this government do to add further stain to their tarnished reputation?Chief Secretary (01:55:35):As I've said repeatedly, Madam Deputy Speaker, neither the Labour Party nor this government seeks to defend Peter Mandelson, as the honorable lady implies in her question. The leader of the opposition has herself called for Michelle Mone's peerage to be removed. The point I make is that that can't happen either because the processes are not up to date in the House of Lords.Esther McVey (01:55:56):It can.Chief Secretary (01:55:56):It would be better to bring forward changes to ensure that the rules can be applied to all members of the House of Lords in these circumstances, whether Peter Mandelson or Michelle Mone, and we stand ready to do so.Speaker 24 (01:56:11):Andrew Lewin.Andrew Lewin (01:56:12):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, can I thank the chief secretary for coming to parliament at the first opportunity to address this issue? Epstein's crimes were vile, and I can't begin to imagine how all these latest revelations have compounded the pain for all of the women and girls who were victims. Many in this House have already spoken powerfully about our collective alarm at the revelations in the last few days of government information being passed to Epstein in 2009. I fully support the decision to have an investigation. But for public trust, can the chief secretary reassure me that the cabinet secretary will be given everything he needs to make sure this investigation moves forward at pace?Chief Secretary (01:56:53):I agree with my honorable friend. And again, to reiterate that if any minister was found to be forwarding government information in that way, they would be quickly removed from their post under the rules that we have today, and could be subject to recall to their own constituencies from the House authorities here.(01:57:12):In respect of the Cabinet secretary's work, of course, officials from the propriety and ethics team and elsewhere in the cabinet office are supporting his investigations today to review what documents are available in the archive because the prime minister's made it very clear that he wishes for the cabinet secretary to report back to him as a matter of urgency.Speaker 24 (01:57:29):Luke Taylor.Luke Taylor (01:57:30):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The files released on Friday are a horrific record of the relationships between the rich and the powerful, including Elon Musk, Donald Trump. We've seen mention of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and of course Peter Mandelson. It's horrific, and as other members have mentioned, we must keep the victims at the very forefront of our minds.(01:57:56):We've seen the discussion of the email that Peter Mandelson sent to him about business issues, and then there's a second one in 2010 where he gave a preview of the 500 billion pound bailout that was imminent. In light of these, will the government be proactive in encouraging a police investigation? But can I also ask whether they're in discussions with the US Department of Justice for unredacted emails, and potentially documents that have been withheld and not released yet to further detail the offending. But also whether he will republish Peter Mandelson's register of interests back from his election as an MP in 1992 through to 2010.Chief Secretary (01:58:37):I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the question of the register of interest is for the House and not for the government. But I'm sure that the House authorities have heard the question from the honorable member. In terms of investigations, the answer is yes. Everybody, whether the government or individuals involved or with any knowledge should cooperate with any investigation. Because as he said at the start of his question, if the victims of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes are at the heart of all of our thinking, the answer has to be justice.Speaker 24 (01:59:07):Ian Byrne.Ian Byrne (01:59:07):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The latest information appears to show Peter Mandelson when a minister worked alongside one of the world's most notorious pedophiles conspiring against the interest of the British people in pursuit of money, power, and influence. Such detail stresses the case for the Hillsborough Law to hold those in power property to account.(01:59:27):Under this law, ministers who use their office to gain a benefit, financial, reputational, or otherwise, or cause detriment to others while knowing their conduct is improper, could face up to 10 years imprisonment. It cannot come quickly enough. But can I ask the chief secretary to the prime minister a simple question? Will the government commit to an immediate investigation into who knew what and when about Peter Mandelson before and during his disastrous appointment as ambassador to the United States?Speaker 27 (02:00:01):Hear hear. Well said.Chief Secretary (02:00:04):Can I congratulate my honorable friend for all of his tireless campaigning on the Hillsborough Law and reaffirm the government's commitment to bringing that legislation back to the House as soon as possible. In respect of the appointment of Peter Mandelson as the ambassador of the United States, and then the prime minister's decision to sack Peter Mandelson when more information had become available, the prime minister has spoken at length to that at the dispatch box here in the House and in public.Speaker 24 (02:00:33):Liz Saville Roberts.Liz Saville Roberts (02:00:35):[inaudible 02:00:35]. Labour appointee Lord Mandelson has been a pivotal figure in the prime minister's leadership project and this is now a damage limitation exercise for the government. There is a deep irony, I think, in that government can appoint people to the House of Lords, but they can't clear up after their own mess. So why hasn't the government referred this to the police? And does he admit that this is doing grave harm to the confidence of the public in the accountability of our democratic institutions?Speaker 31 (02:01:08):Hear hear.Chief Secretary (02:01:10):The cabinet secretary is, as we speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, reviewing the government archive to see what documents we have available in relation to the time that Peter Mandelson served as a Labour Minister. As I've informed the House, the release of documents from the US Department for Justice over the preceding few days was new information to the government. And we will do all that we can, both to highlight the information that we have, but also to cooperate with any investigation that may then take place.Speaker 24 (02:01:39):Matt Bishop.Matt Bishop (02:01:40):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the chief secretary for his statement. I wonder if he agrees that without this legislation that we've talked about being brought through swiftly and quickly, that actually what we're doing is running the risk of diminishing any confidence that victims of serious sexual abuse and other violence actually has in all ministers and people who actually make decisions and laws.Chief Secretary (02:02:04):I think my honorable friend is right, that the public expect that if you break the law or the rules, there should be consequences for that behavior. In this House, that is the case. In the House of Lords, it is not the case. That's why the government is encouraging the appropriate authorities in the House of Lords to come forward with proposals to change that. And if the government is required to assist in any way, including making time available in this House to do so, we will.Speaker 24 (02:02:29):Tom Tugendhat.Tom Tugendhat (02:02:31):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are two issues here. One is the connection of a member of the House of Lords to a convicted pedophile who is, let's not forget, not the only Labour appointee recently made who's been connected to a convicted pedophile. Lord Matthew Doyle, who was appointed only recently, has maintained a persistent connection with convicted pedophile as well.(02:02:53):Would the chief secretary agree that it isn't enough to be referring this to the cabinet secretary? The police should be called it immediately because what we're seeing right now is misconduct in public office. This goes all the way to the chief of staff to the prime minister, and the possibility of destruction of evidence and obscuring a future prosecution is now raising in possibility and it is being masked by his government.Chief Secretary (02:03:18):Madam Deputy Speaker, I have to refute in the strongest possible terms any accusation that the government would seek to interfere or block any investigation in relation to Jeffrey Epstein. It's absolutely wrong to suggest that documents would be made unavailable or deleted. The cabinet secretary is today reviewing the government archives from the time in question, and as I've said, will comply with any investigation that then takes place. And I think the right honorable gentlemen must know that to accuse me or other parts of the government of misdemeanor in the way he has is wholly unsatisfactory, and I might say, out of character.Speaker 24 (02:04:00):Dr. Peter Prinsley.Dr. Peter Prinsley (02:04:01):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. So I can recall the description of the scorpion in the jam jar. Mandelson surely does have some sort of a self-destruct chip inside his head. It was reported in the Times this afternoon that Mr. Butler, the Downing Street advisor to Gordon Brown, said that the alleged leaked memo containing highly sensitive market information from Mandelson presented an unimaginable breach of trust. So does the minister agree with me that this looks like political insider trading on a grand scale? And would he support not only an independent inquiry, but a criminal investigation?Chief Secretary (02:04:43):My honorable friend is absolutely right that releasing government information in and of itself, let alone in respect for personal or commercial gain, is wrong and a breach of the rules that we must all comply with. And if that is the case, then there should be appropriate investigations and consequences for that behavior.Speaker 24 (02:05:02):Alicia Kearns.Alicia Kearns (02:05:02):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm afraid it is untenable to suggest that what was already known of Mandelson's simpering after the conviction of Epstein was not enough to make him inappropriate to be ambassador. And I did object from day one on that exact basis [inaudible 02:05:16].(02:05:17):I'm afraid there were a number of questions to the cabinet secretary to whom I wrote on the 5th of December with the honorable member for East Grinstead that still have not been answered, and I'd be grateful for the answers today. Did Mandelson receive a taxpayer funded severance payment after stepping down as ambassador? If so, how much? Was that paid by taxpayers? Will details of his contract be published the name of transparency? Was any NDA agreement signed anyway? And when did Lord Mandelson's salary formally cease? These are not unreasonable questions. We're almost two months on, and I have had no response from the cabinet secretary, and that gives me enormous concern.Chief Secretary (02:05:53):To the first part of the honorable lady's question, as the prime minister made very clear, when the extent and depth of the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein post his conviction became clear, the prime prime minister moved very quickly indeed to sack Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. The prime minister was not aware of that at the point of his appointment. And Peter Mandelson made certain commitments to the prime minister that obviously turned out to be untrue. In respect to the honorable lady's letter to the cabinet secretary, I will feed that back to the cabinet secretary, and ensure that she gets appropriate answers to her questions.Speaker 24 (02:06:31):John Slinger.John Slinger (02:06:35):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could the chief secretary explain what steps this government has taken to make sure that the voices of the victims and the survivors of sexual abuse and violence are heard by those in power?Chief Secretary (02:06:49):My honorable friend knows that the government has committed to reducing violence against women and girls, and has brought forward recently a strategy for how we'll be working across government to do just that over the years ahead. And specifically in respect of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, we will continue to do all that we can to support any investigations to ensure justice for those victims and encourage everybody else with any information to do just the same.Speaker 24 (02:07:18):Monica Harding.Monica Harding (02:07:19):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I asked the prime minister in this chamber on behalf of my constituents in Esher and Walton who were asking the same thing, why Peter Mandelson had been appointed at all as our most senior ambassador, given the knowledge of his links with Epstein. By September, it was clear just how close that relationship had got, and yet the PM didn't immediately sack him, but there still wasn't a full investigation of Mandelson's relationship with Epstein. So why is that investigation only happening now? And given that the prime minister stated his commitment to restoring trust in public life, how does the minister equate that with his promise to uphold these standards and the delay in investigating it?Chief Secretary (02:08:04):I'm not sure that I agree with the honorable lady that there's been any undue delay in investigations one way or another. Peter Mandelson made commitments to the prime minister at the time of his appointment that his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was different to that which then became evident when documents were released. As soon as the extent and depth of that relationship became clear, the prime minister sacked Peter Mandelson within a matter of days from his post as ambassador to the United States. Now that even more information has become available, the cabinet secretary's reviewing what documents are available in the government archive, and will of course comply with any investigation that may then take place.Speaker 24 (02:08:42):Chris Vince.Chris Vince (02:08:43):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I thank the chief secretary for his statement. In particular, his focus on the victims of these terrible crimes is absolutely right. I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, whatever color rosette you wear, the majority of us who come to this House come here to represent our constituencies, and I hope that I show that I represent my constituents in Harlow as well as I can every single day.(02:09:02):So when we hear of an MP, and in this case, a government minister, representing the interests of outside bodies, in this case, a vile pedophile, it is absolutely disgraceful and very upsetting for us who come here for the right reasons. Can I ask the chief secretary what he will do, working with the PM, to ensure that we have a strengthened ministerial code so this can never happen again?Chief Secretary (02:09:25):My honorable friend is absolutely right. The government, and specifically the prime minister, has already strengthened the ministerial code that we are all subject to in this House today, and made the ethics advisor independent, giving him the authority to investigate ministers freely without requiring permission from the prime minister, as was the case under the previous administration. That has already shown to be effective where ministers have had to stand down as a consequence of breaches of the ministerial code. It is right and proper that we have robust rules in this House for ministers and for members, and it is about time that we have similar processes in the House of Lords as well.Speaker 24 (02:10:02):Brendan O'Hara.Brendan O’Hara (02:10:06):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Try as he might, the prime minister cannot escape his responsibility in this, the latest scandal to engulf Peter Mandelson. Ordering a very limited inquiry and investigation now into his activities is pretty meaningless. What we need is an investigation which is fully independent of government or the Labour Party, which has the scope, not just to investigate Mandelson, but also those who put him in the House of Lords, those who promoted him to being the UK ambassador to the United States, and those who have done everything they possibly can to protect him over several decades, despite his scandal ridden career. Does the minister not agree?Chief Secretary (02:10:53):The prime minister has acted at every stage with integrity. It is Peter Mandelson who has to be accountable for the actions of Peter Mandelson. And to suggest that the prime minister should be responsible for the actions of Peter Mandelson is obviously wrongheaded. As I've said in my statement to the House today, Peter Mandelson, who is no longer a member of the Labour Party, should be accountable for his actions and should account for them.Speaker 24 (02:11:18):Dr. Caroline Johnson.Dr. Caroline Johnson (02:11:21):Madam Deputy Speaker, I think it's disgraceful that the government are choosing not to bring forward legislation to remove Peter Mandelson from the House of Lords. It's entirely within their gift to do so. The public know this. The public will be not only alarmed by the fact that the government are not doing this, but they'll question the motivation for their delay. But if I could ask the minister a specific question, on what date exactly did Peter Mandelson cease to be paid by the government?Chief Secretary (02:11:43):As the honorable lady knows from the debate in the House today, it is not that we don't wish to take action in respect to Peter Mandelson, it's that we respect action to be taken that affects all members of the House of Lords, whether it's Peter Mandelson or other peers who need to be removed from the House of Lords as a consequence of their behavior. We stand ready to act swiftly on that basis, and have asked the House of Lords to bring forward proposals to do just that.Speaker 30 (02:12:12):[Inaudible 02:12:13].Speaker 24 (02:12:14):Chris Law.Chris Law (02:12:14):To speak of revelations in the press, Peter Mandelson's leaking confidential government secrets to pedophile Jeffery Epstein was, Mr. Secretary, should be more than enough to evidence to warrant expelment from the House of Lords. And yet we hear today that's not going to happen through legislation. Sadly, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is yet another scandal in the House of Lords. And whilst Labour's promised major Lords reform, over 100 years, time and again have kicked the can down the road. So does the chief secretary agree with many in this House that rather than desperately trying to reform what's an embarrassingly broken system, it is time for the House of Lords to be finally abolished.Chief Secretary (02:12:51):The honorable member knows that the government has stated and believes that Peter Mandelson should not be a member of the House of Lords and should not use his title. But he is right that the rules need to be updated to allow for that action to be implemented by the House of Lords. We've written to the House of Lord's authorities today to say that that work must begin and the government stands ready to support them in doing that.Speaker 24 (02:13:14):Dr. Andrew Murrison.Kevin Bonavia (02:13:15):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. To be fair to Peter Mandelson, I think the crustacean in John Prescott's jam jar was in fact a crab and not a scorpion. Madam Deputy Speaker, in our system, it is very unusual for ambassadors and high commissioners to be appointed outside the ranks of the civil service, and for pretty good reason. When that does happen, and particularly when the appointee is a politician with baggage as here, the appointer has to own it because he has made that decision in this case against advice. What does a minister think this fiasco says about the judgment of our prime minister?Chief Secretary (02:14:12):The prime minister's judgment was made clear. When as soon as information became available that he had been misled by Peter Mandelson, he sacked him.Speaker 24 (02:14:22):Vikki Slade.Vikki Slade (02:14:23):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The actions of Peter Mandelson are a disgrace and I support proposals to remove him without delay, but he's not the only British person implicated in the appalling Epstein files. So what is the government doing to ensure that all those linked to Mandelson, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, and any political, public, or civic figure are fully investigated here, not just cooperating with US authorities, but taking action here for all the crimes committed on our soil.Chief Secretary (02:14:50):The honorable lady knows that it's not the government that instigates criminal investigations. It's for the criminal prosecution service and the police to take those decisions independently of ministers. But whether in respect of UK investigations or investigations in the United States, the government's made it very clear that all individuals should comply with those investigations, and make any information available to ensure that the victims of Jeffrey Epstein's acts are able to seek justice.Speaker 24 (02:15:17):Lincoln Jopp.Lincoln Jopp (02:15:19):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. When the Prime Minister sat Lord Mandelson as the American ambassador, ministers came to this House and that dispatch box, and I pointed out to them that for the whole time that he was our ambassador, he had been subject to politically fatal Kompromat, which therefore left him open to leverage, as it finally played out.(02:15:40):And I said that if we found out that he was spying for Russia or China, we'd be turning his time in office inside out, every single aspect of it, in order to find out the truth. And the government said, "Well, he's been sacked." So does the minister regret the fact that, following his sacking, they didn't doSpeaker 32 (02:16:00):...do the sort of due diligence, and inquiries which might have unearthed the documents from the Department of Justice. [inaudible 02:16:06]Chief Secretary (02:16:07):To be clear, the documents produced by the United States Department of Justice were not available to the government until they were released a number of days ago. And as soon as they have become available, we've instigated processes within our own authorities to make sure that we have a clear view of what information was available to government at the time, and to comply with any investigations that then may take place.Speaker 33 (02:16:30):Rachel Gilmore.Rachel Gilmore (02:16:31):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As so many of my colleagues have rightly said, our thoughts today should be first, and foremost with the victims.Speaker 34 (02:16:39):Here, here.Rachel Gilmore (02:16:39):And I would hope that no political party in this chamber would use it as an excuse to cover the backs of some of their less fragrant members of the House of Lords. The fact that Lord Mandelson, as ever, was only interested in the ruthless pursuit of financial gain will come as no surprise, as a surprise to no one. Number 10 is now saying that Mandelson should indeed lose his peerage. I have to say, I wholeheartedly concur. However, isn't it staggering that members of this house seemed more aware of Mr. Mandelson's skeletons in the wardrobe than the prime minister who appointed him?Speaker 34 (02:17:14):Here, here.Chief Secretary (02:17:19):As far as I'm aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, no member of this House had access to the information recently published by the United States Department for Justice, or the documents that were released at the time the Prime Minister sacked the ambassador to the United States. The Prime Minister has been very clear to this house previously that had he had access to that information, he would not have appointed him in the first place.Speaker 33 (02:17:40):[inaudible 02:17:43]Speaker 35 (02:17:43):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The minister indicated that Mandelson assured the prime minister that his relationship with Epstein was of a different nature. Can he explain what sort of relationship of a convicted pedophile would be acceptable in this role? And will the prime minister come back to the house to make a specific statement on the advice he received regarding Mandelson's conduct? [inaudible 02:18:08]Chief Secretary (02:18:08):The information that became available in September, which led to the sacking of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States made it clear for the first time to all of us, and to the prime minister that Peter Mandelson not only remained a friend with Jeffrey Epstein following his conviction, but had actively mentored, and encouraged him on how to challenge that conviction, and how to push back against it. That was one example. There is now a list of examples of how the depth, and extent of the relationship following the conviction of Jeffrey Epstein between Jeffrey Epstein, and Peter Mandelson was unacceptable. If the prime minister had known that at the time Peter Mandelson was being considered to be ambassador of the United States, he would not have appointed him. And as soon as the prime minister became aware of that information, he sacked him.Speaker 33 (02:18:58):Richard FoordRichard Foord (02:18:59):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Epstein files suggest that Lord Mandelson was prepared to lobby in the United States for a policy position in contradiction to the position of her Majesty's government, which he was then serving in 2009 as business secretary. How will this revelation encourage the government to find out where else Lord Mandelson has lobbied against his government while serving last year as British ambassador to the United States. And can the chief secretary find out where in US policy towards the UK, this lobbying against British government policy is revealed?Speaker 36 (02:19:34):Here, here.Chief Secretary (02:19:37):As I've informed the house today, Madam Deputy Speaker, the cabinet secretary is currently reviewing all documentation that relates to Peter Mandelson's time as a minister in the last Labor government to see what information is available today, and will comply with any investigations that take place as a consequence of that in the future. He is right that any minister acting against the collective decisions of cabinet, and against the government is a breach of the rules, and is unacceptable behavior. And if any minister were to do that today, they would be quickly dismissed.Speaker 34 (02:20:09):Here, here.Speaker 33 (02:20:10):Jim Shannon.Ben Shannon (02:20:11):Thank you, [inaudible 02:20:12] Madam Deputy Speaker, can I thank the chief secretary for his statement today. It is indeed very disturbing to read of the role of Peter Mandelson when holding high office, and government. Just to remind the chief secretary, it was also the EU trade commission for five years. I believe that leads investigating as well. How far does this go? I can also ask, it's my understanding that the latest releases may have made public victims' names that weren't previously released. So, can the chief secretary please assure this house that any British victims who have been made public will have support, and help to make their way through what could be a re-traumatizing experience with this time press, invasion, and interference. Thank you.Chief Secretary (02:20:57):I was not aware of that issue, so I thank the honorable gentlemen for bringing it to my attention. And of course, if there are any British victims affected by the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein, whether in relation to the latest publication of documents, or otherwise, government services stand ready to be of support to those victims, and to ensure that they can seek justice.Speaker 37 (02:21:16):Here, here.Speaker 33 (02:21:16):And that concludes the statement.Sir David Davis (02:21:17):Point of order [inaudible 02:21:21].Speaker 33 (02:21:17):Point of order, Sir David Davis.Sir David Davis (02:21:22):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. On Wednesday, 21st of January, before my contribution to debate on the Northern Ireland remedial order, I omitted to refer to my entry in the registry member's interests. Now that was an oversight as it includes a declaration of a major contribution from Sir Michael Gooley in support of the campaign to protect military veterans from lawfare, for which I am a custodian. That was a mistake on my part for which I obviously apologize for the house.Speaker 44 (02:21:50):Here, here, here.Speaker 33 (02:21:50):I thank the right honorable member for giving notice of his point of order. On the first point, he's now drawn the house's attention to his relevant declaration in the register. Point of order Sean Woodcock.Sean Woodcock (02:22:05):Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last month, the leader of the opposition, and the [inaudible 02:22:09] chancellor of paid a visit to my constituency without giving notice to myself firstly local member. I'd be very grateful if this deputy speaker could provide me with advice to prevent such discourtesy, and disrespect taking place in the future.Speaker 33 (02:22:22):I thank the honorable gentlemen for giving notice at that point of order. As the leaflet on courtesy makes clear, members should inform colleagues in advance if they intend to visit another member's constituency. It is deeply discourteous to fail to do so. Point of order, Dr. Caroline Johnson.Dr. Caroline Johnson (02:22:42):Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I've listened to the last debate very carefully, and I wondered if you could help me with a procedural question. Would it be orderly for the government if it wished to bring forward legislation as soon as it wished to do so to remove Peter Mandelson of his peerage?Speaker 33 (02:22:59):I thank the honorable member for her point of order. However, introduction of legislation is a matter for the government. We now move to the program motion. Program motion to be moved formally. [inaudible 02:23:13] The question is as on the order paper, as many as are of that opinion, say aye.Speaker 38 (02:23:18):Aye.Speaker 33 (02:23:18):Of the contrary no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day.Speaker 39 (02:23:28):Biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction bill, consideration of Lords Amendments.Speaker 33 (02:23:32):I can inform the House that nothing in the Lords Amendment engages common's financial privilege. We will begin with the government motion to agree the Lords Amendment won, with which it will be convenient to consider all other Lords Amendments as on the selection paper. I call the minister to move the motion. Minister?Speaker 40 (02:23:55):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am delighted that the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction bill has returned to this house for consideration of Lords Amendments. I thank members of both houses for their careful scrutiny, and for the constructive, and collaborative approach that has taken place throughout the bill's passage. I also place on record my thanks to Baroness Chapman of Darlington for leading the bill expertly through the other place. In today's debate, we will seek to address the amendments that were made by the government there. And I also thank all of those in the other place who have been involved in debates on this bill. Before I speak to the amendments, I want to remind the house that the passage of this bill is a vital part of delivering the UK's international obligations under the BBNJ agreement. It will strengthen the global framework for protecting biodiversity in areas of the ocean beyond national jurisdiction, improve how we manage environmental impacts in these areas, and help ensure that the benefits are arising from marine genetic resources are shared fairly.(02:25:25):I am pleased to inform the House that as of the 17th of January, the BBNJ agreement has now entered into force. Following royal assent of this bill, and subsequent secondary legislation, which will be passed in the coming months, the UK will ratify the agreement, and intends to play a leading role at the first conference of the parties, which will take place at some point before the 16th of January 2027. Turning to the amendments from the other place. Today, the House is asked to consider a package of 12 amendments, all of which were put forward by the government. These amendments relate to devolution, and are designed to support effective implementation of the BBNJ agreement across the whole of the United Kingdom, while respecting the devolution settlements, and ensuring that devolved ministers are appropriately engaged where devolved competence is affected. I'm very happy to give away.Ben Shannon (02:26:35):[inaudible 02:26:35] and can I thank the minister for what the minister's putting forward? I know that part two of the bill contains a specific exception for fishing, and that the new regulations do not apply to the use of a UK craft for fishing if it is done under a valid license under the Fisheries Act 2020. I've been contacted by some of the organizations back home in Northern Ireland. And so does the minister not agree that it's essential that the devolved administration's enshrine this, and acknowledging that the fishing industry is reliant on the ability to continue to fish in all current areas? In other words, Madam Deputy Speaker, it's important that the administration, the Northern Ireland's [inaudible 02:27:11] in particular, does what this bill says, because if it doesn't do that, then the Northern Ireland Fishing Organization will find themselves at a disadvantage. Thank you.Speaker 40 (02:27:21):I thank the honorable member for his question. It's indeed important that all our devolved administrations as well as the UK government are abiding by the agreement. And I thank him for his interest, and his engagement in this important bill. I am really grateful as well to all of those who we have been engaging with through the passage of this bill, and working closely with ministers, and officials in the devolved governments. We agreed at the introduction of the bill that the legislative consent motion process is engaged for Scotland, and Northern Ireland to varying extents by part two, three, and four of the bill. The government has been in sustained discussions with both of these devolved governments to seek consent for the bill.(02:28:27):And I can confirm to the House that motions on consent have been passed by the Scottish Parliament, and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Lords Amendments one, and four provide Scottish Ministers, and Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment, and Rural Affairs with concurrent powers to make regulations within devolved competence, corresponding to the powers to make provision granted to the Secretary of State under Clause nine, and Clause 11 of the bill. Amendments two, and five provide the procedure for those powers.Speaker 41 (02:29:09):As one understands it, the BBNJ is dealing with matters primarily in international waters, and of course devolved institutions have no say in those matters. So, as to broaden an understanding of the bill, what type of regulations is it anticipated that DERA, the local storm department would be making in consequence of this bill?Speaker 40 (02:29:40):I thank the honorable member. And what I will say is that following the ratification of the agreement, that we will be participating in the future discussions in relation to the implementation of the agreement, and there will continue to be further conversations. I think the important point I do want to make, and I think this is relevant for the work we've been doing with Scotland, with Wales, and with Northern Ireland, is that it does reflect how our UK government officials, and devolved officials are already working together effectively in practice, and including in relation to consultation, and effective delivery. And I know that these will be conversations that do continue. If I can continue with my remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker, in relation to amendments three, and six, these place a duty on the Secretary of State to consult Scottish ministers, and the Department of Agriculture, Environment, and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland before exercising powers in clauses nine, and 11, where regulations engaged devolved matters.(02:31:05):This duty does not apply where the Secretary of State considers that regulations need to be made urgently for the purposes of implementing emergency measures adopted under Article 2401 of the BBNJ agreement. This approach ensures that devolved governments are engaged in advance of regulations being made, enables them to make their own provision on devolved aspects where they wish to do so, and reflects their responsibilities while supporting timely, and effective implementation of the agreement. Lords Amendment seven, I will give away a copy [inaudible 02:31:46]Speaker 33 (02:31:47):Shannon?Ben Shannon (02:31:48):Speaker, the reason why I'm asking because I've been asked these questions by the fishing organizations back home, I want to put them on the record, and I was to just very quickly... The bill enables the creation of internationally agreed MPAs in the high seas. If a Northern Ireland vessel operates in these international waters, it may face new restrictions of water can fish to protect vulnerable habitats, and species like sharks, and whales. Does the minister not agree that we need to ensure that MPAs are not created without the fishing industrials, that's the sector itself, the fishing organizations, the fish producers, and that their opinions carry weight, and not simply just a checkbox exercise. I just want to put it on the record, please if you don't mind. Thank you.Speaker 40 (02:32:27):I thank the honorable member, and indeed he does continue to put on the record his concerns, and he will know that as we move forward following ratification, there will be detailed conversations we will continue to have. And it is important that the rules, and regulations as we move forward will also be clear for all to be operating by. Madam Deputy Speaker, I was just referencing our approach, and how we've been moving forward on the bill, and to ensure that devolved governments are engaged in advance of regulations being made. And that does enable them to be able to make their own provision on devolved aspects where they may wish to do so. And we continue to work closely together to support timely, and effective implementation of the agreement. Lords Amendment seven inserts the new clause after clause 17 that makes changes to the Marine Works Environmental Impact Assessment Scotland Regulations 2017 to ensure that the UK meets its obligations under the BBNJ agreement in relation to the Scottish Marine licensable activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction.(02:33:57):The UK government will be amending its own environmental impact assessment regulations, and Scottish government officials have worked closely with UK counterparts to draft corresponding provisions. Accordingly, amendments eight, and nine also limit the power in clause 18 to only implementing Article 38 standards, or guidelines as a wider power is no longer required in light of other changes that will be made directly through the bill. Lords Amendments 10, and 11 ensure that under Clause 22, which sets out procedures for the making of regulations under the act, does not apply to regulations made under clauses introduced by Lords Amendments one, and four. Instead, the procedures set out in government amendments two, and five respectively apply. Finally, Lords Amendment 12 amends clause 25, so that the clause introduced by amendment seven comes into force on such a day as the Sector of State appoints by regulations rather than upon royal assent.(02:35:05):This change ensures a consistent approach across the bill with regards to the environmental impact assessment regulations that are being amended. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, the government's objective is to implement the BBNJ agreement effectively across the whole of the United Kingdom, and to do so in a way that respects the devolution settlements, and supports continued constructive collaboration with devolved governments. I therefore commend these 12 Lords Amendments to the House, and I urge members to support them. I beg to move. [inaudible 02:35:43]Speaker 33 (02:35:43):The question is that this House agrees with the Lords now Amendment one. I call the Shadow Minister. [inaudible 02:35:50]Speaker 42 (02:35:50):Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. We on this side of the House recognize the importance of the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction bill, and the shared international ambition to protect the world's oceans, and marine ecosystems. The opposition supports the principle of effective global cooperation in this area, and we want this legislation to succeed. However, it is precisely because of the bill's significance, its reach across devolved administrations, and its potential financial, and regulatory consequences that it demands the highest standards of scrutiny, and clarity. It is in that constructive spirit that I wish to raise a number of questions for the minister today. I hope in the same constructive spirit, she seeks to answer them fully. We know that the government tabled quite a number of amendments to the bill at report stage in the House of Lords. Those amendments are before us today. I must say it is rather disappointing that the government needed to do this at such a late stage in the bill's passage.(02:36:59):And as my noble friend, Lord Callanan said in the other place, tabling amendments at such a late stage was not conducive to the best Lords scrutiny. Does the minister accept that the work with the devolved administrations, which led to the tabling of these amendments should have taken place earlier, and are lessons going to be learned for future legislation? On the new clauses, on the clauses consultation with Scotland, and Northern Ireland to be inserted after clauses nine, and 12, can the minister confirm that this definitely does not stray into legislative consent territory? Can the minister also set out what would happen if Scottish, or Northern Irish ministers do not approve of measures during the consultation process? Regarding the new clause to be inserted after clause 12 relating to the new regulation making power, what would happen if say the Scottish government decided to take a divergent path, or set up a system that puts itself at odds with the UK government position?(02:38:10):Is there a risk to the operability of the system here? Madam Deputy Speaker, the government's own impact assessment found that this bill will generate compliance costs for those involved in the collection, and utilization of marine genetic resources, and related digital sequence information. What steps are the government taking to ensure that these costs aren't prohibitive to the very research we are hoping to promote through the bill? While there are still many unanswered questions about enforcement, it is hard to see how the compliance, licensing, and enforcement will be cheap. What level of resource is going to be put in to enforcing the regime? A ways, and means resolution is required for this bill precisely because it will lead to costs to the public purse. So, what assessment has the government made of the value for money in this respect, and what is the cost benefit ratio? The final stage impact assessment also makes reference to potential future costs if emergency legislation is needed to respond to any further decisions by the convention of biological diversity.(02:39:31):Can the minister clarify the parameters here? What it is they are anticipating? How much money do the might be involved, and are they planning to ensure the risk of unintended consequences is mitigated? Finally, it will be impossible not to mention the tension between the government's ambitions with this bill, and its surrender of the Chagos Islands, which may well see the dismantling of an exemplar Marine protected area. Can she tell us exactly what undertaking Mauritius has given to the MPA? Any red lines the government has clearly set out, and precisely what continuing role Britain will play in MPA management per terms of the treaty. For example, has the government had any discussions about preventing damaging Chinese trawler boats from accessing the MPA? Madam Deputy Speaker, we all share the objective of protecting our oceans, and safeguarding biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. Indeed, that it is why it was a conservative government that first signed up to the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement, but good intentions on their own are not enough.(02:40:55):This House is entitled to clear answers on scrutiny, devolution, operability, cost, enforcement, and value for money, as well as honesty about how this bill sits alongside the government's wider actions on marine protection in the British Overseas Territories. Until ministers can provide that clarity, and reassurance, there remains a real risk that the bill designed to lead internationally will instead create uncertainty at home. I urge the minister to fully respond to the questions raised today so that the House can be confident that this legislation is workable, proportionate, and worthy of the ambitions the government has for it.Speaker 43 (02:41:45):Here, here. [inaudible 02:41:47]Speaker 33 (02:41:47):Chair of the Select Committee, Toby Perkins.Speaker 34 (02:41:49):Here, here.Toby Perkins (02:41:50):Thank you very much indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I warmly welcome this bill. The introduction of which had the happy coincidence of fulfilling one of the government's commitments, and satisfying one of the environmental audit committee recommendations at the same time. This landmark legislation will lay the groundwork for protecting the marine environment, and the wildlife that inhabit it, which lie beyond the control of individual nations. As the government's national security assessment on global biodiversity loss published last week set out in stark terms, natural ecosystems such as the ocean, and the Amazon rainforest are at risk of collapsing.Speaker 34 (02:42:34):Here, here.Toby Perkins (02:42:34):The resulting crop failures, intensified natural disasters, and conflict, and political instability are highly likely, the report said, to threaten UK national security, and prosperity. It is vital that the UK take leadership on the international stage to tackle global biodiversity loss, and climate change.Speaker 34 (02:42:55):Here, here.Toby Perkins (02:42:56):I welcome this government's commitment to multilateral cooperation on ocean governance, and I look forward to this bill receiving Royal Ascent, enabling the UK to ratify the BBNJ agreement. It's absolutely true to say that the initial indication of the government supporting this agreement was made by the previous government, and it was disappointing that over the 18 months, or so after that commitment was made, that we never actually got the legislation back here. And so I welcome the fact that this government has taken forward this important measure. The UK also makes an important contribution to global efforts to halt environmental decline through its international funding for climate finance, one third of which is earmarked for nature-based solutions to climate change. However, to date, there has been limited indication of the government's next steps regarding the next five-year ICF budget due to commence in April, and the government has also failed so far to invest in the tropical forest forever facility, and leverage further private finance into that innovative fund, protecting forests in perpetuity.(02:44:06):So, whilst the minister has rightly championed our contribution to this impressive act of international cooperation, does she agree that we have more to do to ensure that we retain the UK's hard-earned reputation as a global leader in the field of international climate action?Speaker 34 (02:44:23):Here, here.Toby Perkins (02:44:23):Can the minister confirm that the UK will continue to contribute to protecting, and restoring global ecosystems by maintaining its international funding for climate, including for nature projects in the next round of funding? So, in summary, Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome this important legislation that this government has acted on where previous governments merely talked about it, and look forward to them to continue in this positive direction on the other areas I refer to.Speaker 45 (02:44:53):Here, here.Speaker 34 (02:44:53):Here, here.Speaker 33 (02:44:53):I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson Roz Savage.Roz Savage (02:44:56):Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Liberal Democrats strongly welcome this bill, and it's wonderful to hear the support for it from across this house. The Global Oceans Treaty is one of the most significant environmental agreements of our time. It is currently the world's only viable pathway to meeting the global 30 by 30 target to protect at least 30% of the world's oceans by 2030, and the scale of that challenge is monumental. Right now, less than 1% of the high seas is fully protected. That's less than one penny in the pound of the global ocean, and this is the gap that this treaty begins to close. The ocean underpins everything. It feeds billions of people, absorbs around a quarter of global carbon emissions, regulates our weather, and supports livelihoods across the world, yet it's under extraordinary, and growing pressure from overfishing, plastic pollution, and climate change.(02:45:58):I've seen those pressures for firsthand, rowing solo across three oceans, I saw both the beauty of the high seas, and the damage that we're doing to them. Out there beyond national borders, it can also feel beyond human laws, but this treaty is about bringing rules responsibility, and stewardship to those waters, and also discharge is one of the commitments made by this government to me join the discussions around my private member's bill, the Climate, and Nature Bill, and for that I thank them.
U.K. Government Reaction to Epstein Files Release
Chief Secretary to the British PM Darren Jones makes a statement in Parliament after the latest release of the Epstein files. Read the transcript here.
Topics:
Share this post
Copyright Disclaimer
Under Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.