April 2026

I say gently to my hon. Friend, and to others who seek to make the same argument, that at the heart of this matter is a toxic and dismissive culture at No. 10—we cannot get away from that point. That dismissiveness has led us to this place. This is not a small administrative breach; it is a matter of national security. The British public is not buying it. Surely, there needs to be a full, transparent and independent inquiry on this whole situation that uncovers the truth and leads to consequence

On that point, will my hon. Friend give way for a friendly intervention?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He knows full well that this is not any personal vendetta against No. 10. He, of all people, knows the culture that exists in No. 10 and the toxicity of that culture. The question that I want to ask him—and I ask it in all sincerity—is whether he really expects the British public to buy what he is saying.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whom I know as a friend across the House, as we have worked together positively on many things. I served on the Privileges Committee that studied the Boris case and reached a conclusion upon it. If the hon. Gentleman wants to help the Prime Minister, I would be rather wary, if I were him, about drawing parallels between Boris Johnson and the present Prime Minister.

Kevin Brewer is a domiciliary care worker from Northern Ireland. He says that he loves his job, but he drives 70 miles every day. He told the BBC this week that for the first time he considered phoning in and saying that he could not do his job. In the end, he decided to put the cost of the fuel on his credit card. Chancellor, people are suffering across the country. I invite her to meet people such as Kevin at the national fuel tax protest on Whitehall on Monday, where motorists, white van men

The hon. Gentleman is talking about full transparency, and the ministerial code says that Ministers must be “open and transparent”. When the Prime Minister came to the House in February and said that the reason he sacked Mandelson was because he had lied to him about his relationship with Epstein, was that a full and transparent account of the reasons why Mandelson should not have had the job?

I think the remaining people who want Starmer to remain the Prime Minister are those who are worried about who the Labour party might pick instead. The hon. Lady seems to be sharing all sorts of whataboutery information, but has she considered that the outrage is not manufactured? It is a huge national security concern that our ambassador, who had access to security information at the highest level, was a security risk to this country.

Thank you, Dr Murrison, for enabling me to speak even though I am not a member of the Committee. It seems like a long time ago, but I should declare that I was a shadow Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister and part of my portfolio included chemicals, so that is why I am here today to speak about chemicals and possible unintended consequences. I also lived through the painful immediate post-Brexit era. I thank the Minister for his opening remarks and for outlining so clearl

I would very much welcome that opportunity to talk to the Minister outside this Committee. In terms of the UN alignment, that is fine, but what happens when the UN has countries that have lower and weaker chemical regulations than the EU and the UK? What happens with the alignment then? Do we align down or up?

I want to address three aspects in my remarks: first, the appointment of Peter Mandelson in the first instance; secondly, the approach taken by the Prime Minister as details have emerged over the last few months; and finally, the vetting process overall. The debate so far has been characterised by collective amnesia on the Opposition Benches. We have seen some amateur dramatic theatrics, and the leader of the Liberal Democrats has demonstrated why he is such a risk to trade and industry with one

No, I will not. While the initial appointment has been, and I suspect will continue to be, a matter of debate, the Prime Minister’s apology cannot be faulted.

In a bit. I want to address the wider approach taken by the Prime Minister in this case and other allegations against senior figures in this Administration, which I think is relevant.

I will come back to the hon. Gentleman in a second. This Prime Minister promised a change in the approach to dealing with such matters. An approach that embraces transparency and is robust and timely is essential in maintaining public trust and confidence in the Government, in politicians and in this House.

I have a better understanding of the culture in No. 10 than my hon. Friend does. I absolutely expect that the British public understand that the apology put forward by the Prime Minister has been full and unequivocal and that he has not messed about on that.

I will take more interventions in a few minutes. On every occasion when an allegation has been levelled, whether in relation to Peter Mandelson or the previous Deputy Prime Minister, the approach of this Prime Minister and this Government has been in marked contrast to the approach taken by successive Tory Prime Ministers. We saw then a real refusal to accept that allegations were valid. We saw a refusal to address allegations in a timely fashion by referring them for investigation. Investigatio

The Prime Minister presented the House with the information that he had at that time. Further questions about that should be directed to the Prime Minister. Fundamentally, the Government will not take any lessons from the Conservatives, who, over a number of years, presided over the trampling of trust and confidence in politicians and in this House into the ground again and again. While I suspect that this House has not seen the last of the Peter Mandelson issue, I am hopeful that the change in

The Prime Minister came to this House only yesterday saying, “I will now set out the full timeline”,—[Official Report, 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 23.] and later insisting that he had come to “give the full account to the House”.—[Official Report, 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 28.] That followed Downing Street’s acceptance earlier in the day that his previous account had, at the very least, inadvertently misled Members. Yesterday was meant to be the great clean-up—the day of the full facts, full c

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing the debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), who I have worked with extensively since taking up my post, for their contributions. I listened carefully to the remarks my hon. Friend the Member for Putney made about the future of Hammersmith bridge, which I

I have felt strangely popular all of a sudden, since last week’s announcement opening the fund to applications from councils across England, which can apply for funding to repair or replace key transport structures that are failing, and that they cannot afford to fix alone. That is part of a £1 billion package to enhance England’s road network. The fund will target England’s most critical road structures and give councillors direct access to funding for proper, lasting fixes that make journeys s