Category: Parliament

  • Shabana Mahmood – 2026 Comments on 10 Years Since Jo Cox Death

    Shabana Mahmood – 2026 Comments on 10 Years Since Jo Cox Death

    The comments made by Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary, on 16 June 2026.

    Today marks 10 years since the murder of Jo Cox. My thoughts today are with her beautiful family and her many friends.

    I remember Jo as a fearless campaigner, and a passionate voice for the people of Batley and Spen.

    In her maiden speech, she gave us those famous words that we will never forget: “we have far more in common than that which divides us”.

    Her words are more important now than they were even then.

    Political violence, and any attempt to harm those in public life, can never be tolerated.

    We owe it to Jo’s memory to ensure that anyone, from any background, can step forward to serve without fear.

  • Lindsay Hoyle – 2026 Comments on the Death of Roy Hattersley

    Lindsay Hoyle – 2026 Comments on the Death of Roy Hattersley

    The comments made by Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, in the House on 15 June 2026.

    Before we begin, I would like to pay tribute to Lord Hattersley, who died yesterday. Roy was a giant of the Labour movement, holding the role of deputy leader as well as serving as a Minister. He was a long-serving and dedicated Member of both Houses, working alongside my father Doug. He represented Birmingham Sparkbrook as its MP for more than three decades before being appointed to the House of Lords, where he served for two decades. Roy devoted his life to politics, public duty and writing. I am sure the thoughts of the whole House are with his family and friends.

  • Lindsay Hoyle – 2026 Statement on the Violent Disorder in Northern Ireland

    Lindsay Hoyle – 2026 Statement on the Violent Disorder in Northern Ireland

    The statement made by Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, in the House on 10 June 2026.

    Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I know that the thoughts of the House will be with those affected by the events in Belfast this week. I should inform the House that charges have been brought against a man following the attack on Monday night. That case is now sub judice. It is possible that other charges will be brought, including in respect of events in Belfast in the aftermath. I am granting a full waiver to allow Members to discuss wider issues raised in the context of this incident. However, I must urge Members in the strongest terms not to discuss the details of any individual case. This includes not discussing any motive, nor the guilt or innocence of any individual. Members should avoid wider speculation that could be prejudicial in any future criminal trials.

  • Kemi Badenoch – 2026 Comments on the Makeup of Labour MPs

    Kemi Badenoch – 2026 Comments on the Makeup of Labour MPs

    The comments made by Kemi Badenoch, the Leader of the Opposition, on 31 May 2026.

    Incredibly, 90% of the new Labour MPs at the last election came from a trade union, charity or public-sector background. Barely 1/5th of the Cabinet has any private-sector experience. In the Shadow Cabinet, 3/4 of us do. That distinction matters.

    The skills Labour MPs have acquired are in lobbying for more funding, campaigning for more benefits or more red tape. Britain needs a new generation of politician.

    Only the Conservative Party can build a team for the economic war effort required after Burnham/Starmer have finished this catastrophic experiment. We will need to fix every aspect of our system at once. There will be no kicking decisions into the long grass, only rolling our sleeves up and getting to work.

    If you’ve ever thought about a career in politics but decided it was too risky or you wouldn’t fit in, now is your time.…We are looking for people from every walk of life who know how to get stuff done.

    In return, I will make politics work for you.

    Britain does not lack talent. It lacks a system that draws that talent into public life. Join my team and help us get Britain working again.

  • David Gauke – 2026 Comments on Zia Yusuf

    David Gauke – 2026 Comments on Zia Yusuf

    The comments made on 29 May 2026 in response to Yusuf referring to politicians as “traitors”.

    I didn’t vote for either of the winners of the last two General Elections but “traitors” for whom a “reckoning is coming”? Really? This very excitable, angry & hyperbolic man should be nowhere near a position of responsibility in a political party that aspires to power.

  • Angela Rayner – 2026 Statement on her Tax Affairs

    Angela Rayner – 2026 Statement on her Tax Affairs

    The statement made by Angela Rayner on 14 May 2026.

    I welcome HMRC’s conclusion, which has cleared me of any wrongdoing.

    I have been exonerated by HMRC of the accusation that I deliberately sought to avoid tax.

    When purchasing a home of my own with a mortgage, I did not own any other property and had no personal financial interest in the court-instructed trust set up to manage my son’s financial award. I was advised by experts that I should pay stamp duty at the standard rate.

    I set out to pay the correct amount of tax. I took reasonable care and acted in good faith, based on the expert advice I received, and HMRC has accepted this.

    I have always sought to act with integrity, and I believe politicians should be held to high standards – that is why I resigned from government and cooperated fully with HMRC.

    I wanted to ensure that I paid every penny that I owed, and have done so. I am relieved that my family can now move on – and that I can get on with my job.

  • Lindsay Hoyle – 2026 Statement on Parliamentary Standards

    Lindsay Hoyle – 2026 Statement on Parliamentary Standards

    The statement made by Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, on 13 May 2026.

    The House has directed the Speaker to make a statement at the beginning of each Session about the duties and responsibilities of hon. Members. I begin by reminding Members of their duty to observe the code of conduct and behaviour code agreed by the House, and to behave with civility and fairness in all their dealings. Unacceptable behaviour that does not meet the standard of these codes will be dealt with seriously and independently, and with effective sanctions.

    The House asserts its privilege of freedom of speech. That privilege is enjoyed by Members of Parliament only in their work in proceedings of this House; as private individuals, we are equal under the law with those whom we represent. This privilege is there to ensure that our constituents can be represented without fear or favour. It is an obligation upon all of us to exercise that privilege responsibly. The Speaker does not have the power to police the accuracy of Members’ contributions—unfortunately. [Laughter.] It is incumbent on all Members to be accurate in what they say in this House, and to correct any mistakes as soon as possible.

    All Members, including Ministers, should take their responsibilities in this House seriously. I remind Ministers that the Government’s own ministerial code makes it clear that important policy announcements should be made in the first instance in this House when it is sitting—some people seem to have short memories. Both Front and Back Benchers must also adhere to the courtesies of this House. That includes informing other Members in advance of visits to their constituencies, except those for purely private purposes.

    I remind all Members that it is important that they are able to raise matters with me and seek guidance from the Clerks freely. For that reason, any such conversations and correspondence should be treated as confidential. I want all Members and everyone in the parliamentary community to be able to go about their work safely online, here in Westminster, and in their constituencies. We have a duty to be vigilant and to assist those whose job it is to keep us safe.

    Finally, I want to say something about how we treat each other and the language we use in the Chamber. What we say in this House, and how we say things, matters. It has an impact on colleagues, on those who follow our proceedings and on wider political discourse across the country. Members should be heard courteously, whatever their views, but in this place we are all honourable Members. While I expect robust political debate, I will not accept undignified language or improper criticism of individual Members. Our constituents expect us to focus on the very serious issues that they care about, rather than make cheap attacks on each other.

    If a Member falls short of the standards expected of us all, there are ways of dealing with that, but not by accusations made as sideswipes during questions or debates. If we fail to treat each other with respect in debate, it diminishes our work and risks raising the temperature of discussions outside this place—particularly on social media—which too often descend into abuse against Members and others. I expect Members from all sides to treat each other with respect.

    Before moving to the first business of the new Session, I would like to express my very best wishes to all hon. Members, and to thank all those who work for the House and for Members for their continuing support. They are the unsung heroes. I thank them all for working with Members and for working in this House.

  • Ed Davey – 2026 Speech on Security Vetting

    Ed Davey – 2026 Speech on Security Vetting

    The speech made by Ed Davey, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, in the House of Commons on 20 April 2026.

    It is 2022 all over again. Back then, when the Prime Minister was in opposition, and when it was Boris Johnson who was accused of misleading Parliament and scapegoating senior officials, the then Leader of the Opposition could not have been clearer; he said:

    “The public need to know that not all politicians are the same—that not all politicians put themselves above their country—and that honesty, integrity and accountability matter.”—[Official Report, 25 May 2022; Vol. 715, c. 298.]

    He promised “change”. He promised to

    “break this cycle and stop the chaos.”

    He promised a Government with

    “more focus on long-term strategy, not the short-term distractions that can animate Westminster.”

    I am afraid that the fact that he has even had to make a statement today shows how badly he has failed—how badly he has let down the millions of people across our country who are so desperate for change.

    The Prime Minister blames his officials. He says that he had “no idea”. He gives every impression of a Prime Minister in office, but not in power. The facts remain, even by his own account, that the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States even after he had been warned about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The Prime Minister announced the appointment before Mandelson had been vetted, despite the clear risk to national security of putting someone unsuitable in that role. One of his top officials, just three weeks into the job, clearly believed that the Prime Minister wanted Mandelson to be appointed regardless of what the vetting process turned up. The Prime Minister has relied on the vetting process to defend his decisions, so why did he ask so few questions personally about the vetting process?

    We all know the truth: the Prime Minister knew that appointing Mandelson was an enormous risk, but he decided that it was a risk worth taking—a catastrophic error of judgment. Now that has blown up in his face, the only decent thing to do is take responsibility. Back in 2022, the Prime Minister rightly accused Boris Johnson of expecting others to take the blame while he clung on. That was not acceptable then, and it is not acceptable now. I hope that the Prime Minister can at least tell the House this. We will be listening very carefully to his answer. Was he given advice by Simon Case, the then Cabinet Secretary, that the necessary security clearances should be acquired before he confirmed his choice for US ambassador? Did the Prime Minister follow that advice—yes or no?

    After years of chaos under the Conservatives, we needed a Government focused on the interests of the people—the cost of living crisis, the health and care crisis, and our national security. We needed a Government with honesty, integrity and accountability. Will the Prime Minister finally accept that the only way that he can help to deliver that is by resigning?

    The Prime Minister

    I set out in my statement the full facts. In September, when the Bloomberg emails came to light, I asked the then Cabinet Secretary to review the process. He told me that the process was as it should have been, and as soon as the information about the security vetting came to light last Tuesday, I asked for the facts to be established, so that I could update Parliament.

    The right hon. Gentleman asks me about the announcement before developed vetting. He has heard the evidence that I have given to the House from the former Cabinet Secretary and from the former permanent secretary. In relation to the advice from Simon Case, when I asked the former Cabinet Secretary to review the process after September 2025, he specifically addressed whether the process had been followed by referencing the Simon Case letter, and assured me that the process was the right process to have followed. In answer to his question, that was specifically looked at by Sir Chris Wormald in the review that was conducted in September last year.

  • Emily Thornberry – 2026 Speech on Security Vetting

    Emily Thornberry – 2026 Speech on Security Vetting

    The speech made by Emily Thornberry, the Labour MP for Islington South and Finsbury, in the House of Commons on 20 April 2026.

    The truth is that my Committee did ask. We asked on the record, and we got a partial truth that could hardly be the whole truth. We are on record as asking the very questions that hecklers on the Opposition Benches say should have been asked. The answers are there, on the record; people can see what we got when we did ask.

    A month before Mandelson’s appointment was announced, the then Cabinet Secretary advised that the necessary security clearance should be acquired before a political appointment was confirmed. That does not seem to have been the usual practice. I am glad that it has changed, because the process was clearly abused. Someone—probably Peter Mandelson himself—leaked his appointment as US ambassador to the press, which effectively bounced the Government into confirming it. When the confirmation of his appointment came forward, neither the offer letter to Peter Mandelson nor the Government’s press release made it clear that the appointment was subject to vetting. Does it not look as though, for certain members of the Prime Minister’s team, getting Peter Mandelson the job was a priority that overrode everything else, and security considerations were very much second order?

    The Prime Minister

    I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. Her Committee did ask relevant questions, and that is why I have indicated that it was unforgivable that the Foreign Secretary was asked to sign a statement in response to those very questions without being told about the recommendation. The questions were asked; the Foreign Secretary was advised and asked to sign a statement without being told the relevant information. That is unforgivable. As for the appointment before developed vetting, I have changed that process now, so that it can never happen again; my right hon. Friend the Committee Chair heard me quote the evidence of the former Cabinet Secretary and the former permanent secretary in relation to that.

    Let me deal with my right hon. Friend’s third point, which is that somehow Downing Street’s wish to appoint Peter Mandelson overrode security concerns—[Interruption.] No, Mr Speaker, let me be very clear: if I had been told that Peter Mandelson, or anybody else, had failed or not been given clearance on security vetting, I would not have appointed them. A deliberate decision was taken to withhold that material from me. This was not a lack of asking; this was not an oversight—[Interruption.] It was a decision taken not to share that information on repeated occasions.

  • Lindsay Hoyle – 2026 Statement on the Arrest of a Parliamentary Worker under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 Act

    Lindsay Hoyle – 2026 Statement on the Arrest of a Parliamentary Worker under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 Act

    The statement made by Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, on 20 April 2026.

    Before we start today’s business, I want to make a brief statement about a security matter. I have been informed by the police that a former parliamentary employee was arrested last week under the Computer Misuse Act 1990. The police investigation is ongoing. As the House knows, we do not discuss the details of such issues on the Floor of the House—it is an ongoing criminal investigation. I do not intend to take points of order on the matter, and I will update Members when I am in a position to share more information.