May 2026

I can confirm that all documents that need to be referred to the ISC have now been referred to it. That process has concluded, which is why we can move to publication after the recess.

Parliamentary appearance by Chris Vince

The second tranche of information will publish all remaining documents except those that are currently with the Metropolitan police in relation to ongoing criminal investigations. As I said to the House, this will be a very significant publication, which will warrant careful consideration from Members across the House. We want to publish it with sufficient notice to allow Members to consider it before coming to the House to ask any questions they may have of the Government, which is why we are n

Parliamentary appearance by Elaine Stewart

Rebecca Harris voted AYE on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)' (108-323, defeated)

I think this is a question specifically to the Foreign Office in relation to evidence given by the former permanent secretary, and it is about how mitigations can be put in place to manage risks. For example, as I understand it, Mr Speaker, if you previously had a client in a commercial relationship with a business, you would not be allowed to meet them privately while you held public office. These are the types of mitigations to which I think the Foreign Office was referring, and I think they s

Parliamentary appearance by Chris Vince

The shadow Secretary of State said that for energy independence we need our own oil and gas, rather than investing in renewables. She will know that her Government paid £44 billion to subsidise our energy during the time of the Ukraine price spike. Will she tell us by how much our bills were reduced as a result of having our own oil and gas when the Ukraine crisis happened?

I was delighted to see it confirmed last week in the King’s Speech that that legislation will be introduced in this Session. We will be bringing it forward shortly.

Hannah Spencer voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)' (108-323, defeated)

David Pinto-Duschinsky voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)' (108-323, defeated)

Neil Duncan-Jordan voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)' (108-323, defeated)

Anna Gelderd voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)' (108-323, defeated)

Peter Lamb voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)' (108-323, defeated)

Ben Coleman voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)' (108-323, defeated)

John Whitby voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)' (108-323, defeated)

As I have said, any summary documentation and recommendation that was put by UKSV to the Foreign Office has been shared with the hon. Gentleman’s Committee. What has not been shared was the raw data collected in interviews with Peter Mandelson. As I have said repeatedly to the House, and as I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees, there is not such a mechanism for that level of personal detail—I am talking about how much money someone has in personal accounts, and who they may or may not have had a

rose—

I can confirm to my hon. Friend that all documents will be published in relation to the Humble Address, as I have set out today and previously, but I again reassert the fact that any suggestion of a cover-up is merely a conspiracy theory.

Businesses in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton need stable and affordable energy to grow and invest, so does my right hon. Friend agree that our “get Britain drilling” Bill is vital not just for energy security but for our future economic security?