April 2026

I am incredulous that the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) questions this Government’s commitment, given that the former leader of Reform in Wales, Nathan Gill, is serving 10 years in prison for accepting Russian bribes. I am sure that Gill will be cheering on his close friends in Reform from the comfort of his prison cell as we approach the Senedd elections. Meanwhile, this Labour Government are getting on with continuing to act in the national interest.

I thank my hon. Friend for the important work that her Committee does. Our Wales defence growth deal will drive innovation and create thousands of high-skilled jobs right across Wales. While the Opposition parties hollowed out and dismantled our armed forced for 14 years, play with Putin or plot to leave NATO, this Government are taking action and investing in defence, ensuring that Wales is leading the way on future defence technology.

Again, the cheek of the Conservatives! They had 14 years in power, and what did they do? They hollowed out our armed forces and defences and failed to develop any proper plan for our defence industry. This Government are taking action, delivering the biggest sustained increase in spending since the cold war. We are working at pace to finalise our defence investment plan, ensuring that it is robust and supports the development of current and future capabilities. As opposed to the Conservatives in

The Prime Minister has announced a generational funding commitment to Welsh rail, and a pipeline of projects valued at £14 billion. This long-term plan will transform connectivity across Wales, and we will deliver it at pace, building on the strong start of at least £445 million of investment secured at the spending review.

I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out. The UK and Welsh Labour Governments’ £14 billion plan for rail unlocks and delivers the transport network that Wales needs and deserves, bringing 12,000 jobs, boosting our economy and making journeys faster and more frequent. The plan contains 43 projects for every corner of Wales, including Burns stations in the south-east, electrification to Holyhead, the Swansea metro and the Marches line. While opposition parties want to put those plans on hold,

I do not know if the hon. Member heard my answer just now: I talked about a £14 billion commitment across Wales. I am sure that she does not agree with her party’s plan to rip up that £14 billion commitment to rail, robbing Wales and our communities of a generation of rail investment, connecting communities and delivering jobs right across Wales.

It is not a cop out, as the hon. Gentleman suggests from his seat. It is about saying that there is nothing progressive about defending a broken status quo or a reality that the British public know does not work—and we do know that. We are all knocking on doors at the moment, right? Instead, we seek to build something rooted in British values. That is the side I am on. The hon. Member talked about hotel closures. He challenged me by saying that his community is not seeing change, but the closure

I gently say that I do not think it is my test. The public are very clear about what they think about the system: the system lacks order and control. The test by which we judge our efforts is whether we bring order and control to the system, and that is what we are doing. That allows me to segue nicely to what the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woking, said about a credible plan; that is the plan, as he well knows, given that he was part of those deliberations and has been on

The hon. Gentleman has occupied his second position in about three minutes, so perhaps he needs a little more time. But I cannot get with the argument that because the numbers may be small—of course that is a good thing—the situation is in some way tolerable. The numbers who commit crime across the population are, mercifully, small, but we still seek to prosecute; we still seek punishment. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that unimportant. If something happened in his constituency—d

I have hardly started, but by all means.

Colleagues have made an interesting range of contributions, and I will try to cover all the points they have made. I will start with the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent. The hon. Member for Fylde finished her thoughts regarding tinkering around the edges. We have committed to replacing this regime with a full framework. It is right that we take time to engage with the local government family—the hon. Member for Woking mentioned them—and with wider interested parties to

Queen Elizabeth II devoted her life to public service. As we mark the 100th anniversary of her birth, I am delighted that her extraordinary reign will be marked by a permanent memorial. In recent days we have seen a series of despicable antisemitic arson attacks. With additional funding to deploy specialist officers, a fundamental reset of how we counter extremism and action to tackle the poison of antisemitism in our schools, our colleges and the NHS, we will do everything in our power to keep

Matthew Doyle worked for many years in public service for me as Prime Minister and other Ministers. When people leave roles in any organisation, there are often conversations about other roles that they want to apply for, but nothing came of this.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this. Of course, it was 33 years ago today that that awful murder took place. I am proud to have worked alongside Baroness Lawrence for many years. She is an incredibly courageous and inspiring campaigner, notwithstanding all the injustices that have been thrown at her in the last 33 years. We do celebrate St George’s day. We fly our flag, and we celebrate this country’s values of service, generosity and respect. They are English values, which is why I love thi

Yes, I do. Let me make it clear at the outset that the appointment itself was a mistake. It was my mistake. I have apologised to the victims for it, and I do so again. What I set out to the House on Monday is that Foreign Office officials granted security clearance to Mandelson against the recommendation of UK Security Vetting. Yesterday, Sir Olly Robbins was asked if he shared that decision with me, No. 10 or any other Ministers. He gave a clear answer: no. That puts to bed all the allegations

This was looked into by Sir Chris Wormald. I asked him to review the appointment process, including the vetting. He confirmed—his words—“appropriate processes were followed”. The Leader of the Opposition has put great weight on the order of events. I remind her what Sir Chris said last November in evidence to the House. He said that “when we are making appointments from outside the civil service…the normal thing is for…security clearance to happen after appointment but before the person signs a

Let me deal with this directly, particularly this question of pressure in relation to the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson and to put him in place. Sir Olly Robbins could not have been clearer in his evidence yesterday. He said that “I didn’t feel under…pressure personally in terms of my judgment”— his words. He went on to say: “I…have complete confidence that…recommendations to me and the discussion we had and the decision we made were rigorously independent of” any “pressure.” On top of tha

Let me deal with the first allegation the right hon. Lady put in that question. It was always the case that there would be developed vetting in this case. That was the understood process. That was carried out. It was reviewed by Sir Chris Wormald, and he said it was the appropriate process. Sir Olly was absolutely clear that nobody put pressure on him to make this appointment, whatever the sequence of developed vetting. In relation to what was in the due process, any issues of national security

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. Both draft statutory instruments were laid before the House on 5 March this year. Our Government have set out their vision to restore order to and control of our borders, and to deliver a fair but firm system for those who seek asylum in our country. As part of the reforms, we seek to ensure that asylum support—both financial provision and accommodation—is provided to those who need it. The reforms set out in the draft statutory instrum

I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.