April 2026

Sarah Owen voted AYE on 'Pensions Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, insist on Amendments 88A and 88C and propose amendments (a) to (j) in lieu of Amendment 88B' (272-149, passed)

I know that this is an important subject for the right hon. Lady personally, but Labour MPs have not voted against a ban; they have voted for a consultation. They have voted to listen to parents, young people and charities and to learn lessons from what has happened in places such as Australia and Greece. Surely basing this policy on evidence is the right thing to do.

Apsana Begum voted AYE on 'Pensions Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, insist on Amendments 88A and 88C and propose amendments (a) to (j) in lieu of Amendment 88B' (272-149, passed)

Charlotte Nichols voted AYE on 'Pensions Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, insist on Amendments 88A and 88C and propose amendments (a) to (j) in lieu of Amendment 88B' (272-149, passed)

Navendu Mishra voted AYE on 'Pensions Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, insist on Amendments 88A and 88C and propose amendments (a) to (j) in lieu of Amendment 88B' (272-149, passed)

I think it is the first time, Ms Vaz, that I have had the pleasure of serving with you in the Chair; I very much look forward to it. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, and I appreciate the remarks he just made. As the Minister said, in 2020 the previous Government began the process of looking into policies to provide a more transparent picture of the control of land through the creation of a freely accessible dataset. This came out of the Levelling-up and Regeneration

Abena Oppong-Asare voted AYE on 'Pensions Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, insist on Amendments 88A and 88C and propose amendments (a) to (j) in lieu of Amendment 88B' (272-149, passed)

Parliamentary appearance by Vicky Foxcroft

Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement at the Dispatch Box on 10 September last year that “full due process was followed”—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 859] in the appointment of Peter Mandelson as our ambassador to Washington?

It has not put to bed anything. On 11 November 2024—long before any vetting had happened—the Prime Minister received advice from Simon Case, the then Cabinet Secretary. The advice said the appointment would require “the necessary security clearances…before confirming” the Prime Minister’s choice. This advice was ignored, so how can the Prime Minister still believe that confirming Mandelson before the security clearances was following “full due process”?

It is very interesting that the Prime Minister mentions Chris Wormald. He is relying on advice given to him after Mandelson was sacked by a Cabinet Secretary the Prime Minister then sacked. That is not relevant. I am talking about the advice he was given before the appointment. He keeps mentioning Sir Olly Robbins. Sir Olly Robbins told us that the Prime Minister even sought clearance from His Majesty the King before the vetting. He had already got agreement from the US Administration—the Chair

We all heard what Sir Olly Robbins said yesterday. The fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister spent a lot of time telling us just how furious he was to learn that Mandelson failed the vetting—the same Prime Minister who was trying to get him to Washington without any vetting at all. It’s just unbelievable. The reason the Cabinet Secretary advised the Prime Minister to carry out full vetting before the appointment—this is common sense, Mr Speaker—was to protect our national security. The d

I do not know what planet the Prime Minister is on. Appointing someone with known links to the Kremlin is not full due process. If anybody had brought that sort of name to me when I was a Secretary of State, I would have said, “No way.” The Prime Minister thought someone with Kremlin links was still probably okay—“Let’s do some vetting.” Why does this matter? He keeps leaning on Sir Olly Robbins, a man he sacked—he keeps leaning on him. Sir Olly Robbins said yesterday that Peter Mandelson was gi

This is a joke. The Prime Minister says a Member of the House of Lords. Does he mean people like Matthew Doyle? [Interruption.] I am amazed at the level of chuntering from Labour MPs. The Prime Minister promised them probity. What he has given them is cronyism and an old boys’ club, where Matthew Doyle is being proposed as an ambassador. It is ridiculous. We all heard Sir Olly Robbins’ testimony yesterday. The head of the Foreign Office was sacked for the Prime Minister’s own failings. His Back

Q2. Today marks the anniversary of the racist murder of my friend’s brother, Stephen Lawrence. Tomorrow is St George’s day. Does my right hon. Friend agree that now, more than ever, we need to tell the positive story of Englishness, founded in who we are and not in who the far right would like us to be?

I beg to move, That this House insists on its amendment 38J and disagrees with Lords amendments 38V to 38X to amendment 38J.

I am pleased to speak on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill for our third consideration of Lords amendments. The Bill is the biggest single piece of child protection legislation in a generation, and it will put in place a package of support to drive high and rising standards throughout our education and care system, so that every child can achieve and thrive. Today, I ask the House to again reaffirm its support for this landmark legislation. I turn first to Lords amendment 102 on the circ

I thank my hon. Friend for his important intervention and for all his work for his constituents in Reading Central. To underline the fact that we will act quickly, we have committed to responding to the consultation by the summer and have made a legislative commitment to report to Parliament within six months.

I thank my hon. Friend for his work. I do agree with him; this is an important point. The issue is a part of our revised national curriculum and also the relationships, sex and health education curriculum. I am grateful for the engagement of peers and Members across the House on this vital topic. As a result, we have made a number of other changes that strengthen our position, including clarifying that this power can only be exercised to protect children from online harm and that we will share d

I reject the right hon. Member’s characterisation that we are kicking the can down the road. In fact, we are having a wide-ranging consultation—much wider than the amendments before us—that enables us to act swiftly and decisively. We guarantee that we will protect our children from harm.