Tag: Speeches

  • Wes Streeting – 2026 Speech to the Royal College of Emergency Medicine’s (RCEM) Annual Conference

    Wes Streeting – 2026 Speech to the Royal College of Emergency Medicine’s (RCEM) Annual Conference

    The speech made by Wes Streeting, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 30 April 2026. We have been unable to acquire a version which hasn’t been redacted.

    It’s good to be with you today, and it’s really good to follow a session on high performance.

    Let me start by echoing Ian’s words in his opening remarks on Tuesday, when he encouraged you to be ‘loud and proud’ of what you do.

    At a time when more and more people have lost faith that things can get better…

    When a general sense of pessimism and cynicism risks slipping into fatalism…

    And when the very existence of the NHS is being contested like never before…

    You are helping to prove the doubters and doomsters wrong.

    So I want to say a simple but heartfelt thank you to all of you for all your energy, stamina, creativity, and the huge amount of hard graft over the past year, not just all of you in this room, you and all of your colleagues across the country, because you – the whole team – are achieving something we’ve not seen for a long time, an NHS that is improving.

    This government set you ambitious targets last year. And despite resident doctors’ strikes and record demand, you rose to the challenge.

    Best 4-hour performance in A&E in 5 years.

    Today, almost 4 in 5 patients are seen within 4 hours and 500,000 more people than last year are being seen on time.

    Ambulances are arriving faster than for half a decade.

    For suspected heart attacks and stroke patients, we’re reaching them five minutes faster than last year, when you and I both know that every second matters.

    We have been repeatedly told that the NHS recovery won’t happen, it can’t happen. But you are delivering it.

    And in doing so, you have landed one in the eye to every commentator, who was preparing the headline [political content removed], or ‘the NHS falls short’ depending on which of us they dislike most that day.

    You’ve delivered a blow to think tank orthodoxy, which says that the NHS will never be able to cut waiting lists, A&E, and ambulance waiting times all at once.

    And to those who argue that the results are just a March sprint, just wait until you see April’s performance data.

    This is a marathon, not a sprint. And there’s a long track ahead of us. But some of the frontrunners are already approaching the finishing line.

    North East and West Midlands ambulance services are within reach of the constitutional standard of 18-minute response times.

    At Sheffield children’s A&E, 98% of kids are seen within 4 hours – above the constitutional standard. West Herts, Northumbria, and George Eliot are all above 90%.

    George Eliot, in particular, has made incredible strides, going from 66% to 91% in just this past year.

    They are showing what’s possible when UEC is made a priority.

    The trust introduced round-the-clock assessments to speed up triage; seven-day ward rounds in the Acute Medical Unit to get patients home on time; and doctors working the discharge lounge to make sure patients had the medication they needed to send them home.

    Those simple steps have transformed the experience and the safety of their patients. They have proven that we can do it.

    Ambulance recovery isn’t happening by accident, if you excuse the pun.

    It is happening because the ambulance service is embracing change.

    Where paramedics would once provide extraordinary care on the scene, then take their patient to hospital, now they’re using their skills to act as coordinators of care.

    Providing the same world class urgent, on-the-spot care they always have, then deciding the best place for follow-up treatment, which isn’t always a hospital.

    The result is improved turnaround and handover times, and fewer people ending up in A&E.

    You in emergency medicine understand better than most that the NHS is not just a service, it’s a system.

    And when part of the system has broken down, people end up at your door.

    It’s why A&E had gone from Accident & Emergency to Anything & Everything.

    When people can’t see a GP, they end up in A&E, which is worse for them, worse for you, and more expensive for the taxpayer.

    When people can’t get the mental health support they need, they reach crisis point, which is worse for them, worse for you, and more expensive for the taxpayer.

    And when people can’t get the social or community care they need, they’re left in hospital, which is worse for them, worse for you, and more expensive for the taxpayer.

    And so a lot of the answers to cutting ambulance and A&E response times lie outside the doors of the emergency department.

    It’s why the health think tanks are so wrong to argue that the government ought to prioritise certain sections of the NHS over others.

    That we should focus on social care or emergency care first and do electives or GPs later.

    The way we will get the NHS out of the hole it had been left in is by week by week, year on year, across the board improvement. A rising tide that lifts all ships.

    The NHS has been the standout winner from this government. Record £26 billion a year investment at a time when the public finances are under big and growing pressures, with increased instability and uncertainty around the world.

    It shows what this government’s priority is.

    But you and I know that the additional funding alone cannot buy our way to recovery. It has to be accompanied by change and modernisation.

    A narrative emerged during the years of [political content removed] that the NHS just needs more inputs into the same model. More staff, more beds, more money in hospitals.

    Investment is part of the solution.

    But unless we change how the NHS works, those will only be sticking plasters, storing up the same problems for later down the line.

    There will still be ever-increasing numbers of patients walking through your doors and ever-increasing numbers stuck in beds waiting to go home.

    With the war in Iran and its consequences for the global economy, I’m afraid I can’t play the Oliver Twist of the Cabinet, pleading for more from the Treasury.

    Not because the Chancellor is Scrooge – to invoke another Dickens character – but because there isn’t any.

    So we’re having to mop up the consequences of austerity, Brexit, [political content removed], the pandemic, and the war in Ukraine, as well as dealing with the Iran crisis and making sure that as we do so we’re beating a path to a better future, not just seeking to scramble back to a broken status quo.

    So the new investment needs to be matched with change and modernisation to help that investment go further and to make sure we get to where we want to be.

    You in emergency medicine are leading the way and showing that change is possible.

    Ambulance services are providing more paramedic-led care at the scene.

    Urgent community response services in Dorset and Kirklees cared for patients, directed them to appropriate services, with 80% never needing to step foot in a hospital.

    Hear and Treat is freeing up ambulance crews to reach the most urgent patients faster, and get other patients the right care, in the right place, at the right time.

    We set what was an ambitious 45-minute target for ambulance handovers and today average handover times are down to just shy of 30 minutes.

    That’s more patients off ambulances and into EDs more quickly.

    And it’s only been possible because of the combined efforts of ambulance services and ED teams – and we are grateful for it.

    My department and the NHS worked with RCEM to pull together our model ED guidance.

    It identifies the most successful methods of streamlining emergency care from across the country, taking the best of the NHS to the rest of the NHS.

    This is the first chapter of the new book we are writing together, and I look forward to working with RCEM on the model discharge guidance, which is coming soon.

    The government is putting our money where our mouth is.

    We’re investing £300 million in 55 new or improved same day emergency care and urgent treatment centres.

    We’re spending almost an extra half a billion pounds on mental health facilities, including up to 85 Mental Health EDs – providing patients with rapid assessment, urgent treatment, and safe discharge with referral for longer term support.

    All of this will help to unclog emergency departments, and make sure patients are seen where they should be, when they should be, by who they should be.

    Much of the change you are leading is about delivering the left shift from within emergency medicine.

    And the government is leading the left shift outside of emergency departments.

    Our 10 Year Plan for Health set the NHS on course to become as much a Neighbourhood Health Service as a National Health Service.

    A key measure of its success will be A&E admissions – specifically the 1 in 5 patients who turn up to A&E who do not need urgent and emergency care.

    They have been failed upstream.

    Our modernisation agenda is all about catching patients earlier, treating them faster, and preventing them falling ill in the first place.

    That work has already begun.

    We’ve recruited 2,000 more GPs and patients can now request appointments online.

    We’re delivering millions more dental appointments.

    We’ve invested £600 million more in community pharmacy and given them greater powers to monitor and manage patients with ongoing conditions.

    We’re investing £4.6 billion in social care.

    We’ve legislated for the first ever fair pay agreement for care workers, backed by half a billion pounds.

    We’ve given carers the biggest increase in carer’s allowance since the 1970s and increased the disabled facilities grant, which will help to speed up discharge, reduce admissions, and most importantly of all, give people dignity, freedom, quality of life and comfort in their own homes.

    And the first report from the Casey Commission is coming later this year, forging the national consensus we need to build a National Care Service.

    New neighbourhood health services will bring together healthcare professionals to deliver proactive and personalised care, out of hospital, in the community.

    We’ve set them a target of reducing avoidable hospital admissions by 10% for the most vulnerable patients, backed by new financial incentives.

    I know that the most difficult cases you see are patients in the midst of a mental health crisis. Failed by a lack of early support, in A&E through desperation, often the very worst place for them to be.

    So, we are intervening earlier.

    This government promised to recruit 8,500 more mental health workers by the end of the Parliament.

    And today I can announce that we have kept that promise… three years early.

    We have recruited 8,500 more therapists, psychiatrists, and mental health nurses. They are delivering more care, earlier, and closer to home.

    Another 900,000 children can also now see a mental health support team in their own school, thanks to action we have already taken.

    Promises made, promises kept.

    Change has begun. And the best is still to come.

    One of the bigger balancing acts I face as a political leader is giving the public confidence that the NHS is improving and hope for the future, at the same time as acknowledging that we know that things still aren’t good enough.

    Corridor care is the most visible, most distressing symptom of the pressures in our NHS.

    And since emergency departments are the frontline of the NHS and most people’s first impression of a hospital, you’re in the full glare of the public spotlight – and often used as the barometer for how the service is doing overall.

    I know this will be a test the government is judged against.

    When we came into office, NHS England didn’t measure corridor care, let alone have a plan to address it.

    Corridors were officially referred to as ‘temporary escalation spaces’.

    And as corridor care became normalised, you, the teams working in those conditions, suffered the moral injury of having to treat your patients in circumstances so undignified that you wouldn’t wish them on your worst enemy, never mind your closest loved one.

    I have walked past many of those trolleys. I cannot imagine walking past lines of trolleys every day, desperately wishing you could do something about it, but being held back.

    And I want to thank the Royal College, alongside the Royal College of Nursing and others, for never accepting this practice, for sounding the alarm, and for keeping the pressure on me and others to act.

    I am clear: corridor care is not normal, it is not acceptable, it should never be tolerated, and I am determined to end it.

    We’re calling it what it is; we’ve defined it; we’re measuring it; and with your help, we’re finally getting on top of it.

    Once again, change is being led from below.

    Blackpool are using data to predict the busiest periods and clearing beds in advance.

    The main corridor [political content removed] was cleared when the Medical Director and Chief Nurse took over discharge decisions.

    And take [political content removed], as seen on TV, because when its corridors were full of trolleys this winter, the broadcasters understandably chose the hospital of [political content removed] to exemplify the national crisis.

    I was back there the other month, no cameras in sight, apart from the one on my phone, walking the same corridors I did in January, but this time they were empty. Demand hadn’t changed, the level of funding hadn’t changed, but the model of care had.

    They put the senior consultant on the front door of the A&E to make swift triaging decisions – sending frail elderly people who needed care, but not A&E, into the frailty same day emergency care centre. And they worked with the Ambulance Service and community teams to get people the right care at home.

    As a result, 12-hour waits are down, 10,000 corridor hours were saved in February alone, and the corridors were empty aside from one chap who was about to be wheeled in for a scan.

    That is amazing progress, a real credit to the staff of Queen’s, and they are sustaining that progress.

    It’s not always easy, but it is important that we recognise improvement and we celebrate success.

    I said as much publicly, and then received a text message after an interview on BBC Breakfast, and that message said, ‘Glad to see this can be done. I had the opposite experience with my dad this weekend.’

    Her elderly father, who has Parkinson’s, had been left on a bed in a corridor by a vending machine, with a small bleed on the brain, with no water, no buzzer, and no dignity.

    That is the contradiction of where the NHS is today.

    There has been marked improvement.

    Incredible progress has been made against predictions and expectations.

    But too many patients are still being failed.

    What we have shown together in just under two years that this government has been in office, is that the NHS can change and things can get better.

    Success has come when we’ve moved as a pack, working together, driven by a simple but powerful conviction that we will not accept the status quo anymore.

    It’s not easy. We are having to rebuild the plane mid-flight. There are times when it is a bumpy ride.

    If we’re getting things wrong, I want to hear about it. If something’s not working, we need to know.

    But we must never forget that we are one team of 1.5 million people in the National Health Service, working alongside another 1.5 million in social care.

    Resident doctors say I need to do more for them. So does general practice. So do consultants. And so does every specialty.

    Take Advice & Guidance. If patients should be on waiting lists for elective care, that’s where I want them to be.

    But if they can be treated faster and better in the community, that is better for everyone.

    Yet even on that simple principle, we have encountered opposition.

    We can’t do everything, for everyone, everywhere, all at once. And if everyone just advocates for their part of the service, the NHS is going to end up like an overloaded shopping trolley with the wheels all pointing in different directions.

    Every part of the service has been under real pressure and has been through extended crises over the past decade.

    It isn’t just your corner of the NHS that feels like that.

    The model of care was broken across the whole service.

    So, the NHS has to change to survive. And it’s going to take a concerted effort from everyone.

    That’s why I wanted to speak to you all today.

    You and your colleagues are stepping up. You are proving the pessimists wrong and showing that change is possible. In doing so, you are charting the course to a brighter future.

    So, I need you to keep at it.

    To keep showing the innovation, drive, and leadership that is taking the NHS from the worst crisis in its history, getting it back on its feet, and making it fit for the future.

    We can do it.

    All of us.

    Together.

    And what a legacy that would be for our country.

    Thank you very much.

  • Keir Starmer – 2026 Speech at USDAW Conference

    Keir Starmer – 2026 Speech at USDAW Conference

    The speech made by Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, on 27 April 2026.

    Thank you…

    Thank you, Jane.

    Thank you Joanne.

    It is great to be here for your annual delegate meeting as General Secretary.

    And I’ve heard that yesterday and today that this is going really well here.

    So it’s fantastic to be invited to be with you, and it’s always great to be here in this room, in this environment at your conference.

    I was here two years ago and I was here several years before that.

    But last time I was here as Leader of the Opposition. This time I am here as Prime Minister working with you to deliver the change that we need across our country.

    But I want to start by sharing something with you…

    It’s from a shopworker called Finnola…

    Who is here with us today…

    She’s an USDAW rep…

    She’s worked in a supermarket for eleven years…

    And last year, at the TUC Congress reception…

    Finnola found me and just gave me a letter for me to read.

    I want to share it with you because this is the letter. She said:

    “A few years ago, I was verbally abused by a customer when I asked if he needed assistance.

    “He started shouting racist remarks at me. And he threatened to go after my children.”

    She said: “I felt so scared, my legs were shaking.”

    Finnola then said in her letter to me: “The next day I wanted to stay at home. My mental health was in a terrible place.

    “But as a single parent, reliant on Statutory Sick Pay, I couldn’t afford to lose a day of pay.”

    And the reason why Finnola had given me the letter – and she went on to say:

    “This is why the Employment Rights Bill is so important.

    “ It will increase the responsibility for employers to protect workers like me from harassment.

    “And it will mean all workers will have access to sick pay from day one.”

    Finnola thank you – I think you are in Region C. Would you mind standing up so we can give you a round of applause?

    Finnola – thank you for handing that letter to me.

    What you went through was really awful.

    But the really important thing is – we heard you… 

    We passed that Bill…

    We stood firm on the side of working people.

    And it is now, Finnola, the law of this land…

    For you and every single person in this country…

    To finally enjoy the protections you deserve at work.

    Sick pay – from day one…

    Paternity leave – from day one…

    Fire and rehire – scrapped…

    Protection for whistle-blowers…

    No more gagging orders on sexual harassment…

    No more exploitative zero-hour contracts…

    Stronger collective consultation rights – and I know how important that is for shopworkers…

    And, underpinning all of that…

    A proper living wage…

    The embodiment of the simple demand…

    That has always guided the labour movement…

    A fair day’s pay – for a fair day’s work…

    That is what we have delivered, together.

    That is a Britain fair for all.

    And delegates – it’s more than just a change in the law.

    Because as Finnola said in another part of her letter…

    We faced huge resistance.

    I mean – we announced those proposals back in 2022 – nearly four years ago now. 

    And from day one…

    Some people wanted to stop it at all costs. 

    It’s a reminder for all of us that everything in politics…

    Everything that the labour movement has achieved over the years…

    It’s always hard-won and hard-fought for…

    Everything.

    You have to stand firm…

    You have to stand together…

    You have to fight.

    But when we do that… 

    Then together – we send a message to every corner of our country…

    To the shop-workers…

    But also to the cleaners…

    The carers…

    The drivers…

    Technicians…

    Cooks…

    Bar tenders…

    The working people of this country…

    That whatever your job, whatever your background…

    You deserve security, respect and fair pay at work…

    That is the Britain we are building…

    A country – that is fair for all.

    And conference I’ll always fight for working people… 

    Because I know exactly whose side I’m on.

    Let me tell you about another worker…

    A carer. 

    Works long hour on low pay.

    Year after year after year.

    She was a care worker during the pandemic.

    Fourteen-hour shifts, often overnight.

    And do you know – in the pandemic, just like Finnola…

    Some care workers didn’t have sick pay…

    So if they were sick – they had to stay at home and simply not got paid at all.

    In the pandemic – as we were all clapping for them…

    Recognising what they were doing for our country.

    Well, delegates…

    That care-worker is my sister.

    And every day I ask myself – does Britain work for her?

    Does Britain work for people like my late brother?

    I’ve had a life touched by opportunity – I grew up working class and I’ve been lucky.

    But Nick, my brother… 

    He had difficulties learning and spent his entire adult life going from one job to the next.

    Does Britain work for people like him?

    Because there are millions of people like that.

    People who have been ignored by politics for years. 

    People who don’t get the dignity and respect that they deserve…

    And who don’t get the opportunity…

    To go as far as their talent and effort would take them.

    So yes – I know whose side I am on.

    I’m on the side of the young people, whose gifts lie in their hands…

    Who work hard – want their talents to be recognised…

    Just want an opportunity in their community.

    That’s why I’m boosting apprenticeships…

    Setting up new Technical Excellence Colleges…

    Investing in special needs education…

    And giving every young person in the country, struggling to find work…

    The guarantee of training, work support or an apprenticeship.

    I’m on the side of the children who during austerity had to go to school without breakfast.

    Cold, because they couldn’t afford to put their heating on…

    Tired, because the same thing happened yesterday and the day before that and the day before that.

    That’s why I’ve extended free school meals…

    Why I’m setting up free breakfast clubs in every primary school…

    And why I’ve ended the shameful two-child benefit limit…

    Lifting – nearly half a million children out of poverty and giving them the chance that they deserve in life.

    And I’m on the side of working people, just like my sister…

    The backbone of this country…

    People who work harder and harder…

    But see their pay getting them less and less…

    The people – who worry about the cost of living…

    They’re not asking for the world…

    They want a bit of security…

    Peace of mind…

    And a little bit of extra money…

    So they can treat their kids, every now and again.

    That’s who’s side I am on, delegates… 

    That is why I’ve frozen rail fares…

    Frozen prescription charges…

    Given renters more power…

    Capped ground rents…

    Raised the living wage by a record amount…

    And why – whatever happens in the Middle East…

    We have cut your energy bills…

    And we have capped them until July.

    Delegates…

    That is another thing I will always stand firm on.

    I will never let this country be dragged into a war that is not in our interest – never. 

    That is a lesson British politics should have learnt a long time ago, with Iraq.

    And yet – when the rush to war began on Iran…

    I was heavily criticised by others…

    Who had no thought for the consequences…

    For our country – for your family.

    But that is not how I operate.

    Because I have working people in my minds eye…

    For every decision.

    And yet, delegates…

    I have to level with you about Iran. 

    Because the truth is – the economic consequences could still be with us for some time.

    You don’t need to be a politician to know that…

    You can see it on every petrol forecourt across the country.

    I’ll repeat what I just said, because it’s important…

    In April – because of decisions we made at the budget…

    Your gas bills came down.

    And they will stay down until July – whatever happens in Iran.

    Fuel duty is also frozen until September.

    We’ve supported people who heat their homes using oil. 

    And we are monitoring this daily…

    So delegates for example – tomorrow…

    I am chairing a meeting in COBR on the impact…

    Bringing in people from the Bank of England…

    So you can be sure…

    We will stand by working people in this crisis.

    But look – just like with Iraq years ago, there is a deeper lesson here. 

    One that British politics has continually refused to learn.

    Because what Iran shows – is that once again…

    Events happening miles away from Britain…

    Have the capacity to hurt our living standards, our future, and our security.

    And so our response will define, not just this Government…

    But arguably – this generation.

    And so this time it must be different.

    We cannot respond to this moment…

    By thinking we just need to get back to the status quo…

    That is the mistake that was made after the 2008 financial crash, with austerity…

    It was made in Brexit…

    Covid…

    And the Ukraine war… 

    And we cannot add Iran to that list.

    Because the status quo manifestly failed working people…

    It kept your wages low…

    The economy stagnant…

    And your public services – decimated.

    In other words – the status quo…

    Made working people like you: pay the price.

    I would not go back to that – even if I could…

    And delegates – we can’t…

    Because the world has changed.

    It is more volatile and dangerous now than at any other point in my lifetime, and I’m sure in yours.

    It will test and test again, every element of our security…

    Our economic security…

    Our energy security…

    Our defence security. 

    That’s why we’ve had to confront such difficult decisions…

    We are working at pace to give Britain a stronger foundation…

    Trying to make us a more resilient country…

    So that we can weather, not just this storm…

    But all the storms that are going to be much more frequent in this dangerous world. 

    It’s about resilience.

    That’s what gives us security and control…

    Without it, we are constantly pushed off course by events beyond our borders.

    But with it, we have the power to act…

    We can strengthen our security…

    Take control of our future…

    And with that control… 

    We can deliver the fairer Britain that working people want to see.

    Now you can see this in everything we’ve done…

    Before and during the Middle East crisis.

    Yes – we capped your energy bills…

    But we’ve also invested in clean British energy…

    That’s the only way to free us from tyrants like Putin who can manipulate gas prices…

    And so we’ve backed British power…

    Taken control of our energy security.

    Yes – we’ve stayed out of the war…

    But we’ve also rebuilt our alliances in Europe…

    Boosted our defences with the biggest sustained investment since the Cold War…

    Backed British jobs…

    And taken control of our defence security.

    And yes – we have taken steps to push your wages up, as you deserve…

    But we’ve also launched an ambitious industrial strategy…

    Repaired the public finances…

    And given ordinary people, in places like Blackpool…

    The power to decide how we rebuild together…

    That’s our Pride in Place investment programme…

    We put those with skin in the game…

    In charge of their community… 

    To give you more control over what matters to you.

    And delegates – I know what matters to you, particularly in this room, and those that you represent…

    Is security in your workplace.

    Greater stability in the hours that you work…

    Regular hours – each week…

    So you can plan work around your family life.

    This is my point…

    Security isn’t something that is delivered by Government…

    It is something that has to be felt.

    And you should feel safe and secure in your workplace…

    That is fundamental.

    It is your right.

    Now, I started this by reading out Finnola’s letter…

    And when you do that with a letter, during a speech like this…

    You can give the impression, you know that…

    This example is extraordinary.

    But it’s not – is it?

    Finnola’s experience is the kind of thing happens every day, right across this country…

    Working people, grafters – go to work, do the right thing, keep our high streets thriving…

    And yet too often they are abused or assaulted by people who think they can get away with it…

    And just cheat the system.

    It’s disgraceful. 

    It is disgraceful – that people, just working in their shop, have to take abuse from customers.

    It is disgraceful – that people feel sick to the stomach thinking about how they are going to get through the day…

    And it is disgraceful – that people can have their lives and livelihoods ruined by persistent shop theft.

    So – first of all, I want you to know – that we see this…

    We’re not going to dismiss it…

    We’re not going to fob you off with half-measures.

    We are currently reforming the police across the country…

    So we can free up their time and their money…

    To focus more on street policing…

    Neighbourhood policing…

    Cracking down on anti-social behaviour…

    We’ve already got an extra 3000 neighbourhood police on the streets…

    And there’s more to come.

    We’ve scrapped the ridiculous regulation…

    Where stolen goods worth less than £200 would not be properly investigated…

    That was a shoplifters’ charter – and we’ve ended it. And not before time.

    And we’ve toughened up punishment too…

    We’re giving police stronger powers…

    Making the abuse and assault of retail workers a specific crime…

    Giving you the same protections as emergency workers. And you deserve it.

    And look – I’m not blind to how big this challenge is…

    But the number of people charged has gone up by 17% in the latest stats…

    Shop theft is down – it’s only slightly down…

    But the tide could be turning.

    There’s also the hope of technology…

    Because in some parts of the country…

    Police and retailers have been using technology that sends CCTV footage through to the police – immediately.

    So there’s no delay…

    No risk that the footage might be wiped before evidence can be collated…

    You’re all familiar with that.

    It all happens straight away, goes straight through…

    And in some of those areas where those trials are taking place…

    The police are solving double the number of shop thefts – double.

    So I want to see that rolled out across the country…

    Make a real difference…

    Because this Government has your back…

    We are calling time on the free-for-all…

    And we are standing firm, together…

    Against the disgraceful crime of shop theft. 

    (5)

    And you know – what is true of shoplifting…

    Is true of everything… 

    It is how we change this country…

    We change it – together. 

    I know times are tough – they’ve been tough for years…

    I’ve seen it through my own family.

    And so given everything that working people have been through because of politics… 

    I know it’s a bit rich for politicians to say – Britain needs you…

    I get that.

    But I’ve always believed in partnership.

    Those have always been my values when it comes to this movement…

    To business…

    To the whole country.

    Because I fundamentally believe…

    That the common bond of our country…

    The ground that we all share and love… .

    It is stronger than the grievance and division we see in so much of politics.

    And so – bottling the pride that you all feel…

    For your workplace…

    Your community…

    Your country…

    That is the key to changing Britain…

    And coming out of this period… 

    Stronger and fairer.

    And I tell you now…

    I will fight for that with every breath I have…

    I will fight for working people…

    Fight – for the tolerant, decent, respectful Britain that I know and I love…

    Because that is my politics and it is time…

    To strengthen our security…

    Take control of our future…

    And build a Britain that is fair for all.

    Thank you so much conference.

  • Ian Murray – 2026 Statement on UK Biobank Data

    Ian Murray – 2026 Statement on UK Biobank Data

    The statement made by Ian Murray, the Minister for Digital Government and Data, in the House of Commons on 23 April 2026.

    With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about the use of UK Biobank data.

    UK Biobank is a non-profit charity, independent of Government. The Biobank brings together data, kindly donated by its volunteer participants, that is shared with accredited researchers globally to make significant scientific discoveries that improve patient health. That includes discovering genes that affect the risk of heart disease or cancer, identifying new ways of predicting dementia, identifying early warning signs for cancers, understanding immunity to covid-19, and work towards earlier detection of Parkinson’s. It is one of the most successful and important studies of its type, and it continues to benefit patients in the UK and around the world. We are all grateful to those individuals who are part of this landmark study that is so important for all of our health.

    On Monday 20 April, the UK Biobank charity informed the Government that it had identified that its data had been advertised for sale by several sellers on Alibaba’s e-commerce platforms in China. Biobank told us that three listings that appeared to sell UK Biobank participation data had been identified. At least one of the three datasets appeared to contain data from all 500,000 UK Biobank volunteers. Additional listings offered support for applying for legitimate access to UK Biobank data or analytical support for researchers who already have access to the data. I want to reassure the House up front, however, that Biobank has advised that this data did not contain participants’ names, addresses, contact details or telephone numbers. The Government have spoken to the vendor today and they do not believe that there were any purchases from the three listings before they were taken down.

    Once the Government were made aware of the situation, we took immediate action to protect participants’ data. First, we worked with Biobank, the Chinese Government and the vendor to ensure that the three listings that UK Biobank informed us included participant data had been removed. I want to thank the Chinese Government for the speed and seriousness with which they worked with us to help remove the listings and the ongoing work to remove any further listings. Secondly, we ensured that the Biobank charity revoked access to the three research institutions identified as the source of the information. Thirdly, we have asked that the Biobank charity pauses further access to its data until it has put in place a technical solution to prevent data from its current platform from being downloaded in this way again. I can confirm to the House that this pause is now in place. UK Biobank has also referred itself to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

    We are still working with Biobank to ascertain from it the specific detail of what has happened. We have asked it to investigate how this data ended up for sale online as a priority, but I wanted to ensure that the House was aware of the incident and the action that the Government are taking.

    Officials have been in regular contact with UK Biobank since the Government were made aware of the issue on Monday. I personally spoke to the chief executive and chair last night, alongside the Minister of State for Science and the Minister for Health Innovation and Safety. We have received assurances that the charity will conduct a rapid board-level review of the safeguards in place for accessing its data.

    As I mentioned, in the short term, Biobank will suspend downloads from its platform. That is until a new system is brought in to control analysis downloads to approved researchers and will significantly enhance data access controls and safeguards. We have advised the chair and chief executive of Biobank to write to all participants as soon as possible to ensure that they are aware of what has happened.

    In summary, and to be clear to the House and to those people affected, the charity has assured us that the data did not contain anybody’s names, addresses or contact details. It includes only data of people who have explicitly opted in to be part of the Biobank. Those are people who have given their explicit consent that this data can be used, in the knowledge that it will be shared with researchers globally.

    Participants have done a great service to the people of this country, and human health globally, through their participation. For example, valuable research is being carried out at McGill University in Canada into chronic pain, which afflicts millions of people here in the UK. We expect UK Biobank to remain one of the leading health research resources.

    This has been an unacceptable abuse of the UK Biobank charity’s data, and an abuse of the trust that participants rightly expect when sharing their data for research purposes. The Government take the incident extremely seriously, which is why we have acted rapidly to support the UK Biobank charity in its response and why I wanted to update the House at the earliest opportunity.

    The Government will soon be issuing new guidance on control of data from research studies. I take this opportunity once again to urge all businesses and charities to ensure that that their systems and data-sharing processes are as secure as possible. We wrote to businesses last week about the cyber-security tools available to them—for free—from the Government and the steps they should take to maximise security. Ensuring the safe use of UK data is a priority for the Government. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Anna Turley – 2026 Comments on Jeremy Corbyn and Antisemitism

    Anna Turley – 2026 Comments on Jeremy Corbyn and Antisemitism

    The comments made by Anna Turley, the Labour Party chair, on 23 April 2026.

    Zack Polanski’s rewriting of history is beyond the pale. Not only is it downright offensive, but it is completely wrong.

    Labour has a proud tradition as an anti-racist party. But under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, we endured the most shameful period in our history and the equalities watchdog found that we had acted unlawfully in our discrimination and harassment of the Jewish community.

    For Polanski to dismiss that as ‘propaganda’ shows his own determination to court the worst of the worst into his own ranks.

    Keir Starmer booted the antisemites out of the Labour party when he became leader. The Greens have now opened their arms to them. The contrast could not be clearer.

  • 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.

  • Kemi Badenoch – 2026 Speech on Security Vetting

    Kemi Badenoch – 2026 Speech on Security Vetting

    The speech made by Kemi Badenoch, the Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 20 April 2026.

    I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. His reputation is at stake, and everyone is watching, so it is finally time for the truth.

    Earlier today, Downing Street admitted that the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House. The Prime Minister has chosen not to repeat that from the Dispatch Box. I remind him that, under the ministerial code, he has a duty to correct the record at the earliest opportunity. The Prime Minister says he only found out on Tuesday that Peter Mandelson failed the security vetting. The earliest opportunity to correct the record was Prime Minister’s questions on Wednesday, almost a week ago. This is a breach of the ministerial code. Under that code, he is bound to be as open as possible with Parliament and the public in answering questions today, so let me start with what we do know.

    We know the Prime Minister personally appointed Peter Mandelson to be our ambassador to the United States. We know that Mandelson had a close relationship with a convicted paedophile. We know that he had concerning links with Russia and China—links that had already raised red flags. We know that the Prime Minister announced the appointment before vetting was complete—an extraordinary and unprecedented step for the role of US ambassador.

    The Prime Minister says that it was “usual” because it was a political appointment, so I remind him, and the rest of the Labour Front Bench who are heckling, that Peter Mandelson was a politician who had been sacked twice from Government for lying. That meant he should have gone through the full security process. We also know that when Peter Mandelson failed the security vetting, he was allowed to continue in the role with access to top secret intelligence and security information. This goes beyond propriety and ethics; this is a matter of national security.

    Let me turn to what we do not know. We still do not know exactly why Peter Mandelson failed that vetting. We do not know what risks our country was exposed to. We do not know how it is possible that the Prime Minister said repeatedly that this was a failure of vetting, went on television and said things that were blatantly incorrect, and not a single adviser or official told him that what he was saying was not true. At every turn, with every explanation, the Government story has become murkier and more contradictory. It is time for the truth.

    There are too many questions to ask in the allotted time, so I will ask the Prime Minister just six. I have taken the unprecedented step of providing these questions to the Prime Minister in advance, so he has them in front of him. I have asked for these questions to be put online for the public. They and I expect him to answer.

    The Prime Minister appointed a national security risk to our most sensitive diplomatic post. Let us look at how this happened. The right hon. and learned Gentleman told me at PMQs in September 2025 that

    “full due process was followed”—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 859.]

    in this appointment. We now know that in November 2024, Lord Case, the then Cabinet Secretary, told him that this process required security vetting to be done before the appointment. He did not mention any of what Lord Case said in his statement earlier. First, does the Prime Minister accept that when he said on the Floor of the House that “full due process was followed”, that was not true?

    Secondly, on 11 September last year, journalists asked his director of communications if it was true that Mandelson had failed security vetting. These allegations were on the front page of a national newspaper, and yet No. 10 did not deny the story—why?

    Thirdly, will the Prime Minister repeat at the Dispatch Box his words from last week: that no one in No. 10 was aware before Tuesday that Mandelson had failed his vetting?

    Fourthly, the Prime Minister says he is furious that he was not told the recommendations of the vetting, yet on 16 September, a Foreign Office Minister told Parliament that

    “the national security vetting process is rightly independent of Ministers, who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome.”—[Official Report, 16 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 1387.]

    That was the Government’s stated process, so why is the Prime Minister so furious that it was followed?

    Fifthly, on 4 February 2026, the Prime Minister told me from the Dispatch Box that the security vetting that Mandelson had received had revealed his relationship with Epstein. How could the Prime Minister say that if he had not seen the security vetting?

    Finally, Sistema is a Russian defence company that is closely linked to the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin’s war machine. Was the Prime Minister aware before the appointment that Peter Mandelson had remained a director of that company long after Russia’s invasion of Crimea?

    Everyone makes mistakes. It is how a leader faces up to those mistakes that shows their character. Instead of taking responsibility for the decisions he made, the Prime Minister has thrown his staff and his officials under the bus. This is a man who once said,

    “I will carry the can for mistakes of any organisation I lead.”

    Instead, he has sacked his Cabinet Secretary, he has sacked his director of communications, he has sacked his chief of staff, and he has now sacked the permanent secretary of the Foreign Office. All those people were fired for a decision that he made.

    The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s defence is that he, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, is so lacking in curiosity that he chose to ask no questions about the vetting process, no questions about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein and no questions about the security risk that Mandelson posed. Apparently, he did not even speak to Peter Mandelson before his appointment. It does not appear that he asked any questions at all. Why? Because he did not want to know. He had taken the risk and chosen his man, and Whitehall had to follow.

    It is the duty of the Prime Minister to ensure that he is telling the truth—or does the ministerial code not apply to him? I am only holding the Prime Minister to the same standard to which he held others. On 26 January 2022, he said from this Dispatch Box to a previous Prime Minister:

    “If he misled Parliament, he must resign.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 994.]

    Does he stand by those words, or is there one rule for him and another for everyone else?

  • Keir Starmer – 2026 Statement on Security Vetting

    Keir Starmer – 2026 Statement on Security Vetting

    The statement made by Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 20 April 2026.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to provide the House with information that I now have about the appointment of Peter Mandelson as our ambassador to the United States.

    Before I go into the details, I want to be very clear with this House that while this statement will focus on the process surrounding Peter Mandelson’s vetting and appointment, at the heart of this there is also a judgment I made that was wrong. I should not have appointed Peter Mandelson. I take responsibility for that decision, and I apologise again to the victims of the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who were clearly failed by my decision.

    Last Tuesday evening, 14 April, I found out for the first time that on 29 January 2025, before Peter Mandelson took up his position as ambassador, Foreign Office officials granted him developed vetting clearance, against the specific recommendation of the United Kingdom Security Vetting that developed vetting clearance should be denied. Not only that, but the Foreign Office officials who made that decision did not pass this information to me, to the Foreign Secretary, to her predecessor, now the Deputy Prime Minister, to any other Minister, or even to the former Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald.

    I found this staggering. Therefore, last Tuesday I immediately instructed officials in Downing Street and the Cabinet Office to urgently establish the facts on my authority. I wanted to know who made the decision, on what basis, and who knew. I wanted that information for the precise and explicit purpose of updating this House, because this is information I should have had a long time ago, and that this House should have had a long time ago. It is information that I and the House had a right to know.

    I will now set out a full timeline of the events in the Peter Mandelson process, including from the fact-finding exercise that I instructed last Tuesday. Before doing so, I want to remind and reassure the House that the Government will comply fully with the Humble Address motion of 4 February.

    In December 2024, I was in the process of appointing a new ambassador for Washington. A due diligence exercise was conducted by the Cabinet Office into Peter Mandelson’s suitability, including questions put to him by my staff in No. 10. Peter Mandelson answered those questions on 10 December, and I received final advice on the due diligence process on 11 December. I made the decision to appoint him on 18 December. The appointment was announced on 20 December. The security vetting process began on 23 December 2024.

    I want to make it clear to the House that, for a direct ministerial appointment, it was usual for security vetting to happen after the appointment but before the individual starting in post. That was the process in place at the time. This was confirmed by the former Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, when he gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 3 November 2025. Sir Chris made it clear that

    “when we are making appointments from outside the civil service…the normal thing is for the security clearance to happen after appointment but before the person signs a contract and takes up post.”

    At the same hearing of the same Select Committee, the former permanent secretary to the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins, said that Peter Mandelson

    “did not hold national security vetting when he was appointed, but, as is normally the case with external appointments to my Department and the wider civil service, the appointment was made subject to obtaining security clearance.”

    After I sacked Peter Mandelson, I changed that process so that an appointment now cannot be announced until after security vetting is passed.

    The security vetting was carried out by UK Security Vetting—UKSV—between 23 December 2024 and 28 January 2025. UKSV conducted vetting in the normal way, collecting relevant information, as well as interviewing the applicant, in this case on two occasions. Then, on 28 January 2025, UKSV recommended to the Foreign Office that developed vetting clearance should be denied to Peter Mandelson. The following day, 29 January 2025, notwithstanding the UKSV recommendation that developed vetting clearance should be denied, Foreign Office officials made the decision to grant developed vetting clearance for Peter Mandelson.

    To be clear, for many Departments a decision from UKSV is binding, but for the Foreign Office the final decision on developed vetting clearance is made by Foreign Office officials, not UKSV. However, once the decision in this case came to light, the Foreign Office’s power to make the final decision on developed vetting clearance was immediately suspended by my Chief Secretary last week.

    I accept that the sensitive personal information provided by an individual being vetted must be protected from disclosure. If that were not the case, the integrity of the whole process would be compromised. What I do not accept is that the appointing Minister cannot be told of the recommendation by UKSV. Indeed, given the seriousness of these issues and the significance of the appointment, I simply do not accept that Foreign Office officials could not have informed me of UKSV’s recommendations while maintaining the necessary confidentiality that vetting requires.

    There is no law that stops civil servants from sensibly flagging UKSV recommendations while protecting detailed, sensitive vetting information, to allow Ministers to make judgments on appointments or on explaining matters to Parliament. Let me be very clear: the recommendation in the Peter Mandelson case could and should have been shared with me before he took up his post. Let me make a second point: if I had known before Peter Mandelson took up his post that the UKSV recommendation was that developed vetting clearance should be denied, I would not have gone ahead with the appointment.

    Let me now move to September 2025, because events then, and subsequently, show with even starker clarity the opportunities missed by Foreign Office officials to make the position clear. On 10 September, Bloomberg reported fresh details of Mandelson’s history with Epstein. It was then clear to me that Peter Mandelson’s answers to my staff in the due diligence exercise were not truthful, and I sacked him. I also changed the direct ministerial appointments process so that full due diligence is now required as standard. Where risks are identified, an interview must be taken pre-appointment to discuss any risks and conflicts of interest. A summary of that should be provided to the appointing Minister. I also made it clear that public announcements should not now be made until security vetting has been completed.

    In the light of the revelations in September last year, I also agreed with the then Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, that he would carry out a review of the appointment process in the Peter Madelson case, including the vetting. He set out his findings and conclusions in a letter to me on 16 September. In that letter, he advised me:

    “The evidence I have reviewed leads me to conclude that appropriate processes were followed in both the appointment and withdrawal of the former HMA Washington”.

    When the then Cabinet Secretary was asked about that last week, he was clear that when he carried out his review, the Foreign Office did not tell him about the UKSV recommendation that developed vetting clearance should be denied for Peter Mandelson. I find that astonishing. As I set out earlier, I do not accept that I could not have been told about the recommendation before Peter Mandelson took up his post. I absolutely do not accept that the then Cabinet Secretary—an official, not a politician—when carrying out his review could not have been told that UKSV recommended that Peter Mandelson should be denied developed vetting clearance. It was a vital part of the process that I had asked him to review. Clearly, he could have been told, and he should have been told.

    On the same day that the then Cabinet Secretary wrote to me, 16 September 2025, the Foreign Secretary and the then permanent secretary of the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins, provided a signed statement to the Foreign Affairs Committee. The statement says:

    “The vetting process was undertaken by UK Security Vetting on behalf of the FCDO and concluded with DV clearance being granted by the FCDO in advance of Lord Mandelson taking up post in February.”

    It went on to say:

    “Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was conducted to the usual standard set for Developed Vetting in line with established Cabinet Office policy”.

    Let me be very clear to the House. This was in response to questions that included whether concerns were raised, what the Foreign Office’s response was and whether they were dismissed. That the Foreign Secretary was advised on, and allowed to sign, this statement by Foreign Office officials without being told that UKSV had recommended Peter Mandelson be denied developed vetting clearance is absolutely unforgivable. This is a senior Cabinet Member giving evidence to Parliament on the very issue in question.

    In the light of further revelations about Peter Mandelson in February of this year, I was very concerned about the fact that developed vetting clearance had been granted to him. Not knowing that, in fact, UKSV had recommended denial of developed vetting clearance, I instructed my officials to carry out a review of the national security vetting process. But, as I have set out, I do not accept that I could not have been told about UKSV’s denial of security vetting before Peter Mandelson took up his post in January 2025, I do not accept that the then Cabinet Secretary could not have been told in September 2025 when he carried out his review of the process, and I do not accept that the Foreign Secretary could not have been told when making statements to the Select Committee, again in 2025.

    On top of that, the fact that I was also not told, even when I ordered a review of the UKSV process, is frankly staggering. I can tell the House that I have now updated the terms of reference for the review into security vetting to make sure it covers the means by which all decisions are made in relation to national security vetting. I have appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead the review. Separately, I have asked the Government Security Group in the Cabinet Office to look at any security concerns raised during Peter Mandelson’s tenure.

    I know that many Members across this House will find these facts to be incredible. To that, I can only say that they are right. It beggars belief that throughout this whole timeline of events, officials in the Foreign Office saw fit to withhold this information from the most senior Ministers in our system of government. That is not how the vast majority of people in this country expect politics, government or accountability to work, and I do not think it is how most public servants think it should work either.

    I work with hundreds of civil servants—thousands, even—all of whom act with the utmost integrity, dedication and pride to serve this country, including officials from the Foreign Office who, as we speak, are doing a phenomenal job representing our national interest in a dangerous world—in Ukraine, the middle east and all around the world. This is not about them, yet it is surely beyond doubt that the recommendation from UKSV that Peter Mandelson should be denied developed vetting clearance was information that could and should have been shared with me on repeated occasions and, therefore, should have been available to this House and ultimately to the British people. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Hamish Falconer – 2026 Comments on Support for People in Lebanon

    Hamish Falconer – 2026 Comments on Support for People in Lebanon

    The comments made by Hamish Falconer, the Minister for the Middle East, on 16 April 2026.

    Conflict in the Middle East benefits no one. The UK is working with partners to de-escalate and pursue a political solution.

    People in Lebanon are again suffering a conflict they did not choose, with displacement robbing families of security and dignity. The UK is increasing support for those most in need, reflecting our commitment to regional stability.

    In Beirut I met leaders and welcomed direct Israel–Lebanon talks. We need an end to hostilities. This government will work with Lebanon and international partners to deliver vital aid and support a durable resolution. In Antalya, I will reinforce de-escalation efforts regionally.