PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Topical Questions - 21 April 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

Yesterday, the Prime Minister updated the House on the fact that UK Security Vetting recommended against granting vetting of Peter Mandelson, and that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office instead took the decision to grant the vetting. The Prime Minister, the former Foreign Secretary and I should have been told that there was an issue and I am very troubled that we were not. The result is that Parliament was not given all the information it should have been given. As I informed the Select Committee over the weekend, I have commissioned a review of all the information provided and I will write to the Chair further on that shortly.

The permanent under-secretary is no longer in post, and I want to recognise Sir Olly Robbins’ many years of dedicated public service, as the Prime Minister did yesterday. I also want to pay tribute to the FCDO and the incredible staff who work not just here in the UK but across the world promoting UK interests and values at an incredibly unstable time. That is what has made it possible for me to travel through five different countries in the past six days, pursuing international diplomacy. The scale of global insecurity impacting our economy and our national security will rightly continue to be the central focus of the FCDO and this ministerial team.

As the conflict in the middle east has fundamentally demonstrated, modern warfare has evolved. Ballistic and hypersonic missiles are capable of overwhelming traditional air defence systems, and energy supplies, food security and critical goods are increasingly weaponised as instruments of coercion. Will the Foreign Secretary set out what specific steps the Foreign Office is taking, in co-ordination with the Ministry of Defence, to ensure that the United Kingdom is prepared for those threats, to protect our people and our country?

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the changing technology, geopolitics and security threats. We now face very different threats to our country. That is why we are increasing both the defence budget and the Foreign Office’s work around a range of hybrid threats, including cyber and others, and we will need to continue to do so. I suspect that we will need to accelerate that work, too.

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

This morning, we heard Sir Olly Robbins say that there was a “dismissive attitude” and an atmosphere of pressure from No. 10 towards security vetting due to its desire to get Mandelson in post as soon as possible. Given Sir Olly’s account, why did the Foreign Secretary lose confidence in him last week? Surely the Prime Minister passed the buck for his own failures and appalling judgment.

The starting point was the appointment of Peter Mandelson; he should never have been appointed to his post. The Prime Minister made that clear, and has apologised not just to the House but, more importantly, to the victims of Epstein, which is where that apology should lie. The right hon. Lady will know that Ministers have a responsibility to provide accurate information to the House and to ensure that we get that information from officials. Ministers, including the former Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, should have been told about the UK Security Vetting conclusions and recommendation, which I think was relevant information that should have been provided to the House in September.

Like the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary will be aware that Peter Mandelson was on the board of Sistema alongside Russian spies. Has she now checked whether the concerns raised during vetting related to Mandelson’s business links with enemies of the United Kingdom, including Russia and China? Has she asked for the details of the mitigations Sir Olly mentioned this morning and whether they were put in place around Mandelson? Does she know what kompromat our enemies have on him, and is she reviewing all his activities as ambassador for any compromise of UK national security?

I have been informed of the conclusions of the UK Security Vetting report and assessment and its recommendation; I have not seen the detailed content of its report. I do think there is a distinction between the individual personal information that is provided and the conclusion and recommendations UKSV provides. The right hon. Lady will know that the Prime Minister has instigated a full investigation by Sir Adrian Fulford into this entire process and what was known, as well as the whole vetting process. Information is also being provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee.

I know of my hon. Friend’s commitment to these issues and of the concern in Burnley. I raised exactly those concerns about the west bank with counterparts from the United States—with high representatives from the board of peace—and most importantly with the Palestinian Prime Minister, who is doing everything he can to ensure that people on the west bank are protected from settlement violence. Settlements have expanded at an historic rate and are a subject of deep controversy both in Israel and in this House. We will continue to raise these issues with the seriousness that they deserve.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

This morning the Foreign Affairs Committee learned that officials in No. 10 put pressure on the FCDO to find a job as ambassador for Matthew Doyle, a close friend of a convicted sex offender. Does the Foreign Secretary see a pattern here? Does she find it incredible that No. 10 told FCDO officials not to tell her predecessor about this proposal? Will she commit to investigating and publishing all records held by the FCDO about this proposal from No. 10? Is she concerned that political decisions by No. 10 about FCDO staffing have grossly eroded trust and morale among her hard-working civil servants?

Obviously, I was the Home Secretary at the time that I understand that took place, so I was not involved and do not know the circumstances. I am, of course, extremely concerned at any suggestion that the permanent secretary or permanent under-secretary of the Foreign Office would be told not to inform the Foreign Secretary. As for the case that the hon. Member raised, I can confirm that it would also not have been an appropriate appointment.

Let me respond to the wider issue. As I said in my opening statement, I pay tribute to the phenomenal dedication of the people who work right across the Foreign Office. They work with me every single day at a time of immense global instability, and they are continuing to work with huge dedication on pursuing UK interests and UK values, because that is what makes us stronger at home.

I am glad that my hon. Friend raises this issue. In Berlin last week with my German, French, US, EU and African Union co-hosts, we called for an urgent ceasefire, a humanitarian truce and humanitarian access. It is deeply distressing that this conflict is continuing. Participants also pledged over £1 billion to support the humanitarian response, which includes £146 million of UK humanitarian funding this year for Sudan and an increase in the support given to local aid groups. However, it is desperately urgent that we get a ceasefire, because it is the worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st century.

As the Prime Minister set out yesterday, we believe that Ministers should have been informed that the UK Security Vetting recommendation was against granting developed vetting to Peter Mandelson. That is significant and important information. It should have been disclosed to the Prime Minister at the time, and it should certainly have been disclosed to me at the time when I was answering specific questions from the Select Committee that were particularly about security concerns and what the response had been to them. Again, as the Prime Minister has said, he spoke to Sir Olly before making the decision.

The most immediate, urgent thing we need to do internationally is get the strait of Hormuz reopened. That is what I have been pursuing in a series of diplomatic meetings over the last few days across five different countries with 12 different Foreign Ministers. On the domestic issue, the Chancellor will be making a statement shortly.

I want to reassure this House that the Government have not taken our eye off events in Lebanon or indeed in Israel and Palestine. That is why I was in Beirut last week with the Lebanese Prime Minister, President and various others and in Brussels yesterday with the Palestinian Prime Minister and a range of other key actors. Clearly, what the European Union does is a matter for itself. We have taken a series of steps in the way that the Foreign Secretary has already set out, and we will keep those under close review.

In my constituency, I recently met a young woman from Somaliland who in recent years has lost 14 members of her family to fighting in the region. She and other campaigners from Somaliland are understandably reticent to use the new e-visa system introduced by the Somalian Government due to fears about privacy and data protection. Will the Minister raise those questions with his counterparts in the Somalian Government to ensure that Somalilanders can travel to their country without fear?

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and offer my condolences to her young constituent. The British embassy in Mogadishu has raised e-visas with the Federal Government of Somalia. We will provide further updates to travel advice in due course, as necessary. We continue to raise these issues and call for peaceful talks to bring about a sustainable peace in Somalia.

We discussed this issue directly at the Berlin conference. I agree with the hon. Member. To be honest, I think that the international community has failed the people of Sudan. The war continues in the most horrendous circumstances. We have urged anyone who can to put pressure on the RSF and the SAF, and they must allow humanitarian access to people who desperately need it.

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

As the hon. Member may know, I have repeatedly summoned the Iranian ambassador on concerns about what goes on in the UK. Some elements of the alleged attacks in the UK are still sub judice, but I want to leave him in no doubt about how forcefully we have raised these points with the Iranian ambassador, and indeed with the Iranian regime.

Constituents involved in my local Rotary club have contacted me about the global polio eradication programme. I am reliably advised that Ministers want to concentrate resources for the best impact. Can the Minister reassure my constituents that the UK remains determined to protect the important gains made in polio eradication for the future?

I can offer my hon. Friend that reassurance, and I pay tribute to Rotarians who have worked for the eradication of polio over so many decades. We will continue to support global polio eradication directly until December 2026 and then support our polio eradication fund through £248 million of fully flexible core funding to the World Health Organisation between 2025 and 2028. We remain utterly committed to eradicating polio around the world.

Last month, the Rycroft review confirmed that the UK faces persistent and strategic interference from hostile states and warned that our defences against information warfare are “worryingly weak”. With important elections across the country in two weeks’ time, including in my Stockport council area, what steps are the Government taking, working with our allies, to prevent disinformation from overseas aimed at those participating in UK elections?

On 1 January, Israel revoked the licences of 37 international non-governmental organisations working in the occupied west bank and Gaza. The United Nations human rights chief called the suspensions “outrageous” and said that they made

“an already intolerable situation even worse for the people of Gaza”.

What is the Minister doing to ensure that the Israeli Government allow lifesaving aid to enter Gaza, reverse the suspensions of the licences and do not politicise or weaponise aid and humanitarian relief?

We have continued to raise the importance of all the necessary aid getting into Gaza. It is welcome that over the last week the amount of aid that has gone in has increased, but it is still not adequate to the needs. We have raised the question of restrictions directly and repeatedly with the Israeli Government and we will continue to do so. It is vital that aid gets to the people who need it.

Would the UK consider a state to be a democracy and would it continue normal diplomatic relations with that state were it to introduce a differential death penalty based on ethnicity?

I think the hon. Member refers to the legislation passed in the Israeli Knesset. We oppose the death penalty everywhere. On 29 March, we joined many of our friends across the world to condemn that specific measure, and the Foreign Secretary has raised it specifically with the Israeli Foreign Minister. I can leave the House in no doubt about our opposition to the measures.

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

May I associate myself with the comments of the Foreign Secretary with regard to the Foreign Office and the dedication and hard work of its officials? At a time like this, we are particularly in need of a Foreign Office that is absolutely at the top of its game, not just in this country but across the world. However, the Foreign Affairs Committee’s concerns remain about security more than anything else, and the impact of employing Peter Mandelson causes us great concern. During his time as the ambassador to the United States, he was given access to top secret information. How can we protect our country against his leaking any of that, given his record?

I know that my right hon. Friend has been taking evidence on that issue and that she has raised issues around security. We take the issue of security extremely seriously. She will know that there is a police investigation under way, which raises some of those issues. She will appreciate that I do not want to say anything that would cut across that, but I am happy to discuss the matter with her further.

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Point 13 of the first phase of the Gaza peace plan negotiated by the United States is very clear that Hamas must disarm, dismantle their terrorist infrastructure and play no role in Gaza’s future. The Government have expressed support for that and they are right to do so, yet Hamas have been equally clear that they are not going to disarm, and every indication is that they are doing the reverse. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the removal of Hamas and the demilitarisation of Gaza become a reality?

I was discussing precisely these issues yesterday. Hamas must disarm; there must be a process by which their weapons are decommissioned. There are ongoing discussions on those questions. Hamas must agree, voluntarily, to disarm. That is vital and it is a key component of the 20-point plan. Without agreement on that point, it will be difficult to make progress. I was discussing that with a range of our international counterparts yesterday and we will continue to remain very focused.

Mr Speaker, may I take the opportunity quickly to correct—

Order. You may do it at the end of Question Time.

On Sudan and the failing international response, will the Foreign Secretary consider further economic measures and sanctions, including against the nationals of the countries that support the belligerents? Will she encourage the Prime Minister to prioritise Sudan in his international engagements so he can show the leadership that she has shown?

I can assure my right hon. Friend that we are continuing to raise matter this as well. We assess that around a dozen countries are providing different kinds of arms flow support to the warring parties. That is an extremely serious concern and we are raising it with a range of countries. We also continue to look at the issue of sanctions.

Following the Minister’s answer to Question 1 on illicit finances, we still do not have publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership in the overseas territories, nearly 10 years after this House passed the necessary legislation and made it clear that they must be set up. When will the Government put their foot down, say that there has been enough delay and obfuscation, and fully open up these registers to proper scrutiny now?

I have always been assured by both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary that the case of my constituent, Jagtar Singh Johal, who has been arbitrarily detained in India for eight and a half years, would continue to be raised at all levels, but I understand that the Foreign Secretary met her counterpart Jaishankar on two occasions recently and was unable to do so. Can I have the Foreign Secretary’s assurance that she remains committed to raising Jagtar’s case and is actively working to secure his release?

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we continue to raise the important case of Jagtar Singh Johal and to seek a resolution to his case as soon as we can.

Last month, the United Nations General Assembly voted to demand that countries including the United Kingdom pay reparations for slavery. Astonishingly, the Foreign Secretary instructed our ambassador to abstain and to issue a pathetic hand-wringing statement that failed to mention the United Kingdom’s unique role in the eradication of this great evil. Are we a punchbag or are we a great, proud country? Will the Foreign Secretary explain her decision and state to the House unequivocally that the United Kingdom will never pay a penny of British taxpayers’ money in reparations?

We are, of course, against reparations, and when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Conservative party, I think he was against them, but who knows what he is for or against now? Goodness only knows. Let’s face it, Mr Speaker, he has just got his clip for social media, and this is all the response that he deserves.

March was one of the deadliest months on record for settler violence in the occupied west bank. For communities such as Jayyous, life is becoming intolerable. Will the Government go further than the diplomatic pressure currently being exerted and expand sanctions on the many Israeli officials explicitly and brazenly empowering settler violence against Palestinians in the west bank?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. As I said earlier, it remains uppermost in our minds, and we discussed it with our partners yesterday. He will have heard Ministers say before from this Dispatch Box that we will not speculate on further sanctions, but we treat this issue with the seriousness it deserves.

The Foreign Secretary has made it clear that a ceasefire in Sudan is a key priority. In the light of the Berlin conference’s shortcomings, can she detail the diplomatic, economic and political levers she is using to bring an end to the violence, particularly with the UK’s allies, including the UAE, with direct stakes in the war?

I can tell the hon. Member that as well as discussing this matter intensively at the Berlin conference, I discussed it with the UAE Foreign Minister, whom I met a couple of days ago. I also discussed it with the other members of the Quad—the US, Saudi and Egypt. We are continuing to work not just with the Quad but much more widely to engage all countries in pressure to get to a ceasefire.

Can the Foreign Secretary give a guarantee that there is nothing in the so-called reset negotiations with the European Union or the rumoured reset Bill that is incompatible with section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020?

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, as a matter of objective fact, this House was misled about the circumstances of Mandelson’s security vetting, even if that misleading was inadvertent?

The House was not given the full information. It is important that it should be given the full information, and I have undertaken to write to the Select Committee ensuring that full, as well as accurate, information is provided.

In the UK, we pride ourselves on allowing people to practise their religion freely. Can the Minister update the House on what he is doing with any new regime in Iran to protect the rights of Christians to worship openly there?

Freedom of religious belief continues to be an important issue that the Foreign Office pursues with vigour. I am glad that we are joined in the Chamber by our envoy on that question, my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith). We have raised questions of freedom of religious belief with the Iranian Government on countless occasions. It is clear, given the scale of restrictions that they have put on their own people, that they are not listening to the United Kingdom’s advocacy on these questions, but we will continue to raise these questions and pursue the matter with our partners.

That completes oral questions.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to correct the answer I gave the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), in relation to the Iranian appointment. While it is true that our diplomats have raised concerns about human rights issues in general, the Foreign Secretary has not herself raised within the United Nations the question of this appointment. There has been no opportunity for her to do so.