PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Engagements - 18 March 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

Our deepest condolences are with the families and friends of the two young people who have died following the outbreak of meningitis B in Kent. Others are seriously ill, and this will be a deeply difficult time for their loved ones. Health experts are working to identify close contacts and distribute antibiotics, and we will begin a targeted vaccination programme in the coming days. Can I take this opportunity to ask anyone who attended Club Chemistry on 5, 6 or 7 March to please come forward to receive antibiotics?

Yesterday President Zelensky addressed parliamentarians, including many Members. I had the opportunity to reaffirm to him that no matter what other international events, the UK’s support for Ukraine will not waver. I also welcomed Prime Minister Carney and NATO Secretary-General Rutte to Downing Street for further discussions on international security.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

It is important that the funding and framework are put in place. We support the work of hospices and are doing everything we can to support them.

My first instinct is always to protect people from the cost of living. The immediate action we have taken in relation to those who heat their homes with oil is the £53 million that we announced this week. That is particularly important for rural communities and for Northern Ireland. De-escalation in the middle east is the quickest way to reduce the cost of living. Anyone who advocated for the UK to rush headlong into the offensive without a clear picture of what it would mean for our forces or without thinking through the economic impact for families should stand up and apologise.

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

The Prime Minister tried to avoid scrutiny on the Mandelson files by releasing the documents immediately after Prime Minister’s questions last week, so let me ask him now: did he personally speak to Peter Mandelson about his relationship with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein before appointing him as our ambassador to Washington?

Let me start where I must. It was my mistake in making the appointment. I have apologised to the victims of Epstein, and I do so again. The Government are complying with the Humble Address in full, and we are continuing to support the police in their investigation. The matter of process was looked at by the independent adviser on ministerial standards. It is clear that the appointment process was not strong enough, and that is why I have already strengthened it. It was my mistake, and I have apologised for it. The right hon. Lady should follow suit and apologise for her gross error of judgment in calling for the UK to join the war in Iran without thinking through the consequences.

I know the Prime Minister does not want to talk about the documents that he tried to bury last week. He is going to try to talk about anything else, but he is not going to get away with it. I asked him a question; he did not answer.

We know that the Prime Minister was warned about the risk of appointing Peter Mandelson. This is not about the process. He knew that Mandelson stayed in Epstein’s house after Epstein had been convicted for child prostitution—he knew that. So I will ask him again: did he speak to Peter Mandelson about that before the appointment? Yes or no?

I have already made clear that Peter Mandelson was asked questions and gave untruthful replies. The Government are complying with the Humble Address. The process has been set out. The independent adviser looked at it, and he said,

“the relevant process for a political appointee was followed”.

Obviously, this is a question of my judgment, but what about the Leader of the Opposition’s judgment? She wanted to rush into a war with Iran without thinking it through. At the weekend—three weeks in—she said, “Oh, there isn’t a clear plan behind the US strikes in Iran.” That is the question she should have asked at the start. The decision to commit the UK to a war is the biggest decision a Prime Minister can take, and she was completely wrong.

I did not hear an answer, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister is right: it is about his judgment. He has repeatedly told us that Peter Mandelson lied to him, but he will not tell us if he actually picked up the phone and spoke to Mandelson before appointing him. That does not make any sense. The Prime Minister told us on the record that he “believed the lies” that Mandelson told him, but if he did not speak to him, how can he say that?

The process is clear, and it has been looked at by the independent adviser. The Leader of the Opposition asked me about the process and judgment on appointments, but she appointed the shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), who said last night that Muslims praying in public—including the Mayor of London, practising his faith—are not welcome. He described it as an

“act of domination…straight from the Islamist playbook.”

It is utterly appalling. If he were in my team, he would be gone. The Leader of the Opposition should denounce his comments, and she should sack him.

The Prime Minister wants to talk about Justice Secretaries. His Justice Secretary is abolishing jury trials; my shadow Justice Secretary is defending British values. I know who I would rather have sitting on the Front Bench next to me, and it is not the Justice Secretary.

This is important: the Prime Minister wants to talk about anything except what I am asking him. Three times I have asked him whether he spoke to Peter Mandelson; three times, he has refused to answer. We can only assume that he did not speak to Peter Mandelson. From the documents published, we know that he left the questioning about Mandelson’s relationship with a convicted paedophile to two of Mandelson’s closest friends, one of whom was also friends with a convicted paedophile. Asking those questions should have been his job. Why did he fail to do his duty?

The Leader of the Opposition’s position is that the shadow Justice Secretary is defending British values when he says Muslims praying together in Trafalgar Square are not welcome. Even Tommy Robinson—I can hardly believe that I am saying this—has said today that if the shadow Justice Secretary had made those hateful comments two years ago, the Conservative party would have kicked him out. Tommy Robinson is not some sort of moral signpost; he was pointing out how much her party has changed—it is more inclined to his views—and he is right about that. The fact that the shadow Justice Secretary is sitting on her Front Bench shows that she is too weak and has absolutely no judgment.

The Prime Minister wants to talk about my leadership. I am shocked. His former deputy has just fired the starting gun on the race to replace him. I will tell him one thing: she and I both agree that this weak man should be replaced by a strong woman. [Interruption.] But I am not finished, Mr Speaker—I have too much to say to him.

There is still a lot to ask about the Mandelson files. The Prime Minister knew that Mandelson had kept up a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The documents released also show that he had been warned about appointing Mandelson. He claims he was lied to. Mandelson had twice been fired for dishonesty, so why did the Prime Minister believe Peter Mandelson over the vetting documents?

The Leader of the Opposition asked about leadership. When I see religious events in Trafalgar Square—when I see Hindus celebrating Diwali, when I see Jews celebrating ChanukahLive!, when I see Christians performing the passion of Christ, or Muslims praying—that shows the great strength of our diverse city and country. I have never heard her party call out anything other than the Muslim events; it is only when Muslims are praying. The only conclusion is that the Tory party has a problem with Muslims. [Interruption.]

Order. May I just say that I am not responsible for the answers? I just have to say that.

It is a shame that the Prime Minister is not responsible for the answers either. He wants us to believe that he is a serious leader, but he does not do the work. He outsources the decisions and when things go wrong he blames the vetting, he blames the chief of staff, he blames the Cabinet Secretary—he blames anyone but himself. This Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson, but did not bother to ask the questions. If he cannot be straight with the House on something as simple as this, why should we believe a word he says about anything?

The Leader of the Opposition talks about doing the work. Three weeks ago she said we should rush into war. She did not do the work; she did not think through the consequences. Committing our military to a war without thinking through the consequences is the gravest mistake for a Leader of the Opposition. She comes back a week later and says, “Oops! I got that one wrong.” She is utterly irrelevant and she has no judgment. This is the Leader of the Opposition who said that I should have empty-chaired the most important NATO summit in years, this is the Leader of the Opposition who said that Greenland is a second-order issue, and this is the Leader of the Opposition who would have jumped into a war with Iran without stopping to think.

On top of that, this week, we have the failure to condemn and sack—[Interruption.]

Order. I repeat that I am not responsible for the answers, but this is certainly not Opposition questions.

Add to that the failure to condemn and sack the shadow Justice Secretary for the poison and division that he spreads. It is turning out to be quite a month for the Leader of the Opposition who claims that she never makes any mistakes.

We have seen this play out before: a US rush to military escalation with no plan for what comes next. We have seen schoolgirls bombed in Iran, whole families killed in Lebanon, chaos in a region already scarred by repression and genocide, and economic shocks that hurt the most vulnerable at home. In Irish, there is a phrase, “Ní mhealltar an sionnach faoi dhó”—have we learned no lessons? People are asking exactly that: how many times do these horrors play out before the lessons are learned? The Prime Minister has said that the UK

“will not be drawn into the wider war.”

Will he guarantee two things: that that position will hold in the face of mounting pressure from Trump and Netanyahu, and that this House will get a vote before the UK is involved in any further conflict?

Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, my principles have been clear and unwavering. We will protect our people in the region, we will take action to defend ourselves and our allies, and we will not be drawn into the wider war. I want to see this war end as quickly as possible. The longer it continues, the bigger the impact on the cost of living. That is where we have intervened to support households with the costs of heating oil. The best way forward is a negotiated settlement, with Iran giving up any aspirations to develop a nuclear weapon.

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

I join the Prime Minister in offering my condolences to the family and friends of the two young people who have been killed by the meningitis bug in Kent and all those affected by this horrifying outbreak.

Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent is critical for the defence of our nation and the whole of Europe, but the current Trident missiles will reach the end of their lives in the 2040s. We have to make a choice now: lease new missiles from the United States, accepting whatever terms the President gives us, or build our own here in the United Kingdom. The Conservatives and Reform say that we have to rely on President Trump and the United States because we could not possibly do it ourselves. Does the Prime Minister agree with them?

Our independent nuclear deterrent protects us every day, and we should never forget how important it is. It is important that we renew it. We will do that in the best interests of Britain. The right hon. Member is openly advocating a plan without knowing how much it would cost and how it would work. That is not the way to deal with our independent nuclear deterrent.

I am surprised by that response. The French can do it—does the Prime Minister really think Britain cannot?

Moving on, a New World investigation into GB News has found hundreds of shocking breaches of the rules of impartiality and accuracy, yet Ofcom has repeatedly refused to take action. Andrew Neil says:

“Just as Fox basically became the channel of Donald Trump, it’s clear they have turned GB News into the Reform channel”.

We cannot let GB News propaganda turn our great country into its version of Trump’s America. Either the Government rules are not fit for purpose or Ofcom is not properly enforcing them—which is it?

The right hon. Member is right to raise an important question of free speech and our media. It is a matter for Ofcom, and it is important that we let it deal with it.

I thank my hon. Friend and the others who attended the UN Commission on the Status of Women event. We are committed to halving violence against women and girls wherever it takes place, whether that is online, offline or on our streets. That includes banning deepfakes and tackling non-consensual intimate images and abusive, vile content online.

Following up from last week, I was deeply concerned that Travelodge cancelled its meeting with MPs. I want it to put that right and put it right swiftly.

I thank the right hon. and learned Member for raising that, and I acknowledge the question he asked me last year. I pay tribute to him and to Kate for her campaign. It is vital that we look closely at the rare and tragic cases where things went wrong. We must not fail to do so, so that we maintain confidence in our health service—important in relation to covid, of course, but, as he rightly points out, important today as well. We are committed to looking at reforms to the vaccine damage payment scheme and engaging with those affected to ensure that it meets their needs. We expect the fourth module of the covid inquiry to report next month, which will look specifically at the issue he has raised. I can reassure him that we will look at other recommendations very closely.

I welcome the Mayor of London’s crackdown. The Metropolitan police have made hundreds of arrests and recovered thousands of phones, and mobile phone theft has fallen. I agree with her that there is more to do, and we must work with the tech industry in order to do it. If we can reduce the value of stolen phones, it will help to break the business models that drive theft. We are committed to working with the industry, and are willing to consider any further necessary action to drive down that crime.

As the hon. Gentleman says, the Chancellor set out yesterday the huge economic opportunities of innovation and AI. We have put £5 billion behind British start-ups, and we will launch our sovereign AI unit with £500 million to help AI businesses start and grow. We are investing the £2 billion that he refers to in our quantum capabilities so that we can be the first country in the world to roll-out quantum computers at scale. Procurement must be the launchpad for start-ups, and we are determined to deliver that.

That is a good example. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Thanks to our record investment in the NHS, we have the lowest waiting list numbers for three years, the shortest A&E waits for four years, and the fastest ambulance response times for five years. Stronger community health services, such as the local innovation centre that he mentions, are at the heart of our 10-year plan to go further. We would not have come this far already without the decisions made at the Budget, which were opposed by all Opposition parties.

We are not abolishing jury trials, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I have worked with women and girls who have been victims of sexual violence and rape, and have waited a very, very long time for their cases to go to court. Many of them drop out because of the wait. They have described to me personally the mental anguish that they go through when their case cannot be heard for years, and when they are told of adjournments time and again. I am not prepared to look them in the eye any longer and not do something about it—we owe it to them.

This is about getting the balance right. We are not abolishing jury trials. About 3% of cases go to jury trial, as the right hon. Gentleman very well knows, while 97% do not. After these changes, it will be 2.25%. That is the difference between the policy that we are advancing and the policy as it now is. We are not abolishing jury trials, and I am not prepared to see victims of violence against women and girls repeatedly let down. That is what happened for 14 long years, and it is not good enough. I set my face against that and I am doing something about it.

I am very proud of our Employment Rights Act 2025. It delivers strong rights and protections, including for all our brilliant school staff. My hon. Friend is right: Reform Members would rip up those protections. They have nothing to offer but grievance and division, and they have no judgment: just like the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has said that we should do “all we can” to support the US strikes. He said:

“I make that perfectly, perfectly clear.”

It was perfectly, perfectly clear that he got it completely wrong, and perfectly, perfectly clear that he is now desperately trying to U-turn. Absolutely no judgment: not fit to be Prime Minister.

Oil and gas will be part of the mix of our energy for many years to come, as I have set out many times. The hon. Member is now highlighting the consequences of the war that he said we should rush into. He wanted us to go to war. He said it was “perfectly, perfectly clear” that we should support the strikes. Then, just like the Leader of the Opposition, a week later he said, “Oh no, I got that one wrong.” You cannot make mistakes about decisions as serious as committing to war. It is a gross error.

I am very happy to discuss that with my hon. Friend. We will always protect high welfare standards, and, through our food and drink deal, we are bringing down barriers for farmers selling to our largest market. Alongside our record £11.8 billion farming budget and investment in cutting-edge innovation, our farming profitability review is focused on boosting profitability. I have already acted and set up the farming and food partnership board, investing £30 million in our farmer collaboration fund.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. I know how much it impacts his constituents and how deeply they feel about it. It is important, as we reset and clear up the mess that was left, that we have in our mind’s eye those who are most affected, and make sure that it is fair and that their voices are heard, and we will do so.

My hon. Friend is a great champion on this issue and I will ensure that he gets a meeting with the Rail Minister to discuss the detail. The previous Government took the decision not to shortlist Burnley Manchester Road station for accessibility improvements. We are giving Lancashire combined county authority £641 million, with the freedom to invest in its priorities, including better accessibility. That is what a Labour Government represent: empowering local people to make the best decisions for their local area.

We have set out the process and it has been put before the House—[Interruption.] I know why Opposition Members do not want to talk about the war: because they supported going into the war, without thinking through the consequences. That is a huge error of judgment. I realise that they do not want to talk about it ever again—I am not surprised. Nor do they want to talk about the shadow Justice Secretary saying that Muslims are not welcome to pray in Trafalgar Square. The Leader of the Opposition should remove him from the Front Bench, or I suspect he will be sitting up on the Reform Bench next.

As the Prime Minister mentioned earlier, the chief executive officer of Travelodge has today again refused to attend a meeting with Members of this House and the other place to answer serious concerns about guest safety and safeguarding. This refusal only deepens the lack of trust in the company’s commitment to protecting women and vulnerable guests. Will the Prime Minister meet me and invite the CEO of Travelodge to discuss the issue? Will he join me in urging the CEO to explain directly to all parliamentarians why she is unwilling to face scrutiny on such an important matter?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, and he has raised it with me personally. Our thoughts are obviously with the victim. I was very concerned to hear that the CEO of Travelodge cancelled the meeting with MPs and I would urge them to reconsider. That meeting needs to go ahead with relevant MPs and with the relevant Minister, and the sooner it goes ahead the better. I hope that the CEO of Travelodge is listening to this exchange. I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue, not just on this occasion but on repeated occasions.