Chris Ward
MP for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven · Labour · United Kingdom
“My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. She has raised it with me previously, and she is a fantastic champion for her constituents. As she knows, I am working with the National Shipbuilding Office to bring forward the new rules. Shipbuilding is one of the areas that we are prioritising.”
“A number of colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), have raised this subject several times with me, and I am working with Department for Transport colleagues to see what more we can do to support British manufacturers, but we are already acting.”
“The hon. Member is absolutely right that we need to do more to support SMEs, and that we need to use our procurement budget to do that. I have announced some of the steps that we have already taken.”
“This Government are determined to ensure that public procurement backs small and medium-sized businesses. That is why we have strengthened late payment rules, have set ambitious targets for all Departments to spend more with small and medium-sized enterprises—totalling £7 billion by 2028—and are simplifying the entire system to ensure tha…”
“I absolutely do. We announced last week that we will bring all Government Property Agency, catering and security services back in-house, or at least that it is our intention to do that.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight small businesses like the one in her constituency. As I announced in March, small businesses will now receive just over £7 billion a year from government procurement, as a result of reforms that we have put in place. That will support the industrial strategy that she mentioned.”
The complete record
Every one of 352 lines we hold for Chris Ward, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 8.
“I think it is safe to say that there are a number of things that we regret around this issue. As I have said, the key point is that we will comply with the Humble Address fully, transparently and as quickly as possible.”
“The Prime Minister has strengthened the powers of the independent adviser—and rightly so. The independent adviser now has a more central role in compliance with standards. But I am afraid that the question does not quite relate to what is in the Humble Address.”
“I really wouldn’t believe everything you read in the press. Let me be very clear from the Dispatch Box: the Government are complying fully and transparently, and are working very hard to so do. Any reports to the contrary are just not right.”
“The Prime Minister gave his answer on that yesterday, and No. 10 has provided further information on it, but that question does not relate to the Humble Address.”
“I would never want to imply that it was not an orderly process, so let me correct myself there. The point that I was making is that the Prime Minister, the Cabinet Secretary and the Cabinet Office—all of the above—have made it clear that Ministers need to abide by the process that we are carrying out. That will be done collectively. The scope is set out by the Humble Address, and the breadth is being identified—”
“Electronic communications are covered within the Humble Address, so that will be looked at by the Cabinet Office, in terms of the breadth and scope.”
“Yes, absolutely; that should be the guiding principle as we go through. The test at the end should be not only whether we have complied with the motion, which obviously we will, but whether it has helped to restore transparency and trust for the public.”
“The Met and the Government both recognise that, ultimately, Parliament retains the right to publish material, but obviously a responsible Government will wish to act in a way that does not prejudice an ongoing live case, which we would all like to see reach a conclusion. We are working through these matters; they are complicated, but he raises them in exactly the right fashion. Royal Assent”
“I completely endorse the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes about the independence and integrity of the ISC. He identifies two very fair points. I say that not as a reason not to comply; it is just the reality of the complexity of what we are dealing with. The volume is larger than in other Humble Addresses—that is not a complaint, but a statement of fact. However, there is no attempt to narrow the scope and no attempt to narrow the motion. The process that the Cabinet Office is going through is to define the scope and harness what falls within it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about the Metropolitan police is well made.”
“Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith), who reminded us of the origins of the Humble Address—when I was a political adviser on the Brexit team in opposition, they looked a bit more clever than they do today. I thank him for his speech and the spirit in which he made it. In particular, I highlight the incredibly powerful and commanding speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), who rightly brought the voice of victims to this House. She did so brilliantly, and I thank her for that. It is clear that Members in all parts of the House share the public’s anger at Mandelson’s treachery, lies and deceit. As the Prime Minister said earlier: “Mandelson betrayed our country, our Parliament and my party.” He betrayed our Government.”
“I beg to move a manuscript amendment, to add to the end of amendment (a): “which shall instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.” I start by thanking everyone who has contributed to the debate—the tone was overwhelmingly constructive, serious, and aimed at getting to the truth. I want to thank a few Members in particular, beginning with the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who got the tone exactly right, asked a number of serious questions that I will come to, and reminded us of the importance of the matter at hand. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop); while he disagrees with me, he did so agreeably, and put his case very well and with passion. I also thank the right hon.”
“I will just make a little progress, then I will give way. Mandelson lied to the Prime Minister. He lied during the vetting process, which I will return to, because a number of Members raised it, and I suspect he is still lying now. That is why, since new information came to light over the weekend, the Prime Minister has acted in a number of ways.”
“I will give way, just let me complete this point. On Monday, the Prime Minister instructed the Cabinet Secretary to investigate all papers released by the US Department of Justice. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister also made a statement to this House. On Tuesday, the Cabinet Secretary decided to refer certain material to the police with the Prime Minister’s support, and subsequently the police have launched a full investigation, with which we will co-operate fully. That investigation must go everywhere the evidence takes it.”
“As the Prime Minister has said many times, if he had known what he knows now, he would not have had Mandelson within a million miles of Government, and that is absolutely right.”
“As the Prime Minister has said, he was lied to repeatedly by Mandelson. I will come to the vetting process in a minute, but the due diligence is within scope of this Humble Address. It will be released. The House will be able to see the process for itself. Alongside further steps that the Prime Minister has taken in the past week, he has recommended to the King that Mandelson be removed from the Privy Council. He has instructed that legislation be drawn up—this was a point that the hon. Member for North Dorset raised—to strip Mandelson of his title and to make wider reform of the House of Lords process. In answer to the question raised earlier, that legislation is imminent and it will be given Government time. It will be brought to this House as soon as possible. Frankly, I wish it was already here now, but it will come very soon.”
“Just to be clear, he was not appointed to any role in the 2024 election campaign. I remember that campaign very well. Let me clear up two other points that were raised in the debate. As Members made very clear earlier, Mandelson had no role in candidate selection at all. That is done by the national executive committee, and through the rule book. He had absolutely no role in it. [Interruption.] Let me finish this point. He had absolutely no role or say in any reshuffle either. Members keep repeating this, but it is absolutely, fundamentally untrue.”
“I am going to make some progress. I will give way later, but a number of questions have been raised about vetting, and I want to respond to them. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), outlined the process; I want to clarify that, but she was entirely right in what she said. Before Mandelson’s appointment, there were two distinct and separate processes. The first took place in the Cabinet Office, where due diligence was followed in exactly the usual fashion for this type of appointment. The second, the national security vetting, was undertaken by UK Security Vetting. I want to be very clear with the House: none of that was skipped, and nothing was removed from the usual process.”
“As the Prime Minister made clear, he was lied to repeatedly by Peter Mandelson on this. Information about that is in the vetting report, which will be published for the House.”
“Before Mandelson was appointed, there were obviously reports linking him with Epstein. That was looked into as part of the vetting process. Mandelson lied to the Prime Minister and hid information. When new information came out, the Prime Minister removed him. This information will come out.”
“I entirely agree. I could not have put it anywhere near as well as that—and, as I said earlier, my hon. Friend made an incredibly powerful speech earlier. She quoted Virginia Giuffre at length, which was an extraordinarily powerful way in which to make the point, and she made it better than anyone, because it is the victims whom we should have in mind.”
“Obviously anyone who made any allegation or report such as that would be treated seriously. I will take that up with Foreign Office Ministers and come back to the hon. Lady, because she raises an incredibly serious point.”
“I thank the right and learned Member for his speech earlier and for his point. Absolutely, yes; I completely recognise the point he is making. A lot of documents are covered by this motion—that is not a complaint; it is an observation. The ISC has the authority and respect of this House, and it would need resources to go with this task. If that is agreed, we will ensure that it gets those resources in the usual way.”
“I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that and, as I mentioned at the beginning, for the way that he went about his speech. That will all be within the scope of the Humble Address. If there are specific further points regarding direct procurements which the Cabinet Office needs to look into, I will write to him and come back to him on them, because that is a fair point.”
“As I said, everything in the Humble Address will be dealt with. On that specific point, I will follow up with the Cabinet Secretary and write to the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith).”
“For example, we would not want to release inadvertently information about our red lines in trade agreements, about peace negotiations and our position on things such as Ukraine, the middle east or Sudan, or information about sensitive assessments of our allies and the diplomatic conversations on which our lives depend. The point of the amendment is that we are trying to address that and to make it clear to the House, and we are trying to balance transparency with national security. That is what is most significant.”
“Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) mentioned earlier, our Humble Address regarding Lebedev included the words: “in a form which may contain redactions, but such redactions shall be solely for the purposes of national security”. Our intention was to abide with that spirit and to make a clear point about national security. I will come on to how that will be treated by the ISC and the Cabinet Secretary in a second. On international relations, as the Prime Minister said, these documents, which are significant in number, could well touch on sensitive issues concerning intelligence, trade or relations with other countries.”
“I will get on to the motion, and then I promise I will give way. As I said, the Government accept the spirit, purpose and intent of the Opposition’s motion, and we want to provide transparency and drain the swamp of Mandelson’s lies. Our amendment has two important points to it: one on national security and one on foreign relations. I want to cover those quickly, and then I will take interventions. National security, as the Prime Minister has said from this Dispatch Box—and has said to me more times over the years I have known him than I can remember—is his No. 1 priority, and he will never compromise on that. That is why we wanted it in the motion and why we put the amendment before the House. There is precedent for that in a Humble Address. As my right hon.”
“I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. The police investigation will go wherever it needs to go. It will cover any criminality or allegations thereof. That is the right way to do it, and nothing will be hidden.”
“In line with the manuscript amendment, papers that are determined to be prejudicial to national security or international relations will be referred to the ISC, which is independent, rigorous and highly respected. The ISC will then decide what to do with the material that it is sent.”
“I am going to make some progress, because time is pushing on. I will give way in a second. Let me come to the manuscript amendment. We will agree with the ISC how it is going to work with us and provide scrutiny, and I welcome the commitment made earlier. As the Paymaster General set out, the process for deciding what falls in scope will be led by the Cabinet Secretary and supported by Cabinet Office lawyers working with the ISC. The Cabinet Secretary will take independent advice on the decision he has taken, and it will take two forms—first, through independent KCs, and secondly, through scrutiny of the approach he is taking, working hand in hand with the ISC. The Cabinet Secretary will write to the ISC to set out that process. He will meet members of the Committee regularly to ensure that they are content with it.”
“The release of information will be done in the way I have just set out. Either it will be done through the Cabinet Secretary working with independent lawyers or, if the material is deemed potentially to conflict with national security or foreign relations, it will be handed to the ISC, which is independent and can make a decision. To the point that my hon. Friend made earlier—this is really crucial—there will not be political involvement from Ministers or No. 10 in this process. The Cabinet Secretary and the ISC will work on it with lawyers.”
“Any correspondence involving Peter Mandelson is within scope. As I say, that will be looked at by the Cabinet Secretary, who will make decisions with independent lawyers and working with the ISC.”
“I am not going to give way any more. There are four or five minutes to go. I will make some progress, if that is okay. As the Prime Minister mentioned today, there will have to be discussions with the Metropolitan police over material. The Metropolitan police has issued a statement today on material that will be released. I confirm to the House that material will not be released today, because of the conversation with the Metropolitan police, but it will be released as quickly as possible, in line with the process set out before the House.”
“As I say, the timeline will be as soon as possible. We want to get on with this. There is a lot of material to go through. We will get to this as quickly as possible. Other Humble Addresses have taken a number of weeks or months. We want to be as quick as possible and we will work with the ISC as soon as we can to get it progressing. I hope the hon. Lady welcomes the spirit with which we take that on.”
“No more, I am afraid. I am so sorry. I just want to deal with two more points. On a public inquiry, which a number of Members mentioned, as I say, there is an ongoing police inquiry that has the freedom to go where it wants and the co-operation of everyone in Government. We believe that that, along with the process we have set out, is the right way to proceed.”
“Let me try one more time. It will either be made public by the Cabinet Secretary, or it will go to the ISC and a decision will be made through the Committee. It will be done with the independence, resources and—”
“Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to require the Government to lay before this House all papers relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment as His Majesty’s Ambassador to the United States of America, including but not confined to the Cabinet Office due diligence which was passed to Number 10, the Conflict of Interest Form Lord Mandelson provided to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), material the FCDO and the Cabinet Office provided to UK Security Vetting about Lord Mandelson’s interests in relation to Global Counsel, including his work in relation to Russia and China, and his links to Jeffrey Epstein, papers for, and minutes of, meetings relating to the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson, electronic communications between the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff and Lord Mandelson, and between ministers and Lord Mandelson, in the six months prior to his appointment, minutes of meetings between Lord Mandelson and ministers in the six months prior to his appointment, all information on Lord Mandelson provided to the Prime Minister prior to his assurance to this House on 10 September 2025 that ‘full due process was followed during this appointment’, electronic communications and minutes of all meetings between Lord Mandelson and ministers, Government officials and special advisers during his time as Ambassador, and the details of any payments made to Lord Mandelson on his departure as Ambassador and from the Civil Service except papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations which shall instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.””
“No, I am winding up now. It is absolutely right for the House to have debated this incredibly important issue, and I thank right hon. and hon. Members for the spirit in which they have done so. The lies, venality and treachery of Mandelson shame this House. I, and the Prime Minister and I know hon. Members all around me, have nothing but contempt for the way Mandelson acted and lied to the British people. I am glad that this will now be shown to the British people. I share the anger and disgust of so many Members. We will comply with the amended motion and we will update the House on progress. With that in mind, I commend the manuscript amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. Question put and agreed to. Manuscript amendment (i) to amendment (a) made. Amendment (a), as amended, agreed to. Main Question , as amended, put and agreed to.”
“I am delighted that the Government have negotiated associate membership of the Erasmus+ programme from 2027. That could open up opportunities for more than 100,000 young people from all backgrounds to learn, train, study or volunteer abroad. It is good news for further education colleges, universities and businesses, and is just one example of how this Government are building a strong new relationship with the EU that is in our national interest.”
“I know that the scheme has been welcomed at many universities, including Reading. I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned on this for a long time. In my constituency, Sussex University was home to the first Erasmus student. When I visited last week, the university was delighted that it will have more students soon. I want to point out, though, that this is not just about universities; it is also about apprenticeships, FE colleges, youth workers and sports professionals. It is a huge opportunity for 100,000 people, so quite why the Conservatives and Reform oppose it is beyond me.”
“As I have just said, this is about apprenticeships as well as universities. The hon. Gentleman should write to me and the Minister for the Cabinet Office about how we can roll this out. It is a UK-wide programme that will benefit all parts of the United Kingdom. The Minister for the Cabinet Office met the devolved Governments yesterday to discuss that and other matters.”
“It is a one-year agreement, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and we have negotiated a 30% discount. That is a good deal. It will be reviewed after 10 months, as he knows. At its heart, the programme is about opportunities for young people from all backgrounds—youth workers, sports professionals, universities and so on. If the Conservative party really wants to fight the next election promising to take that away and to narrow opportunities, I am afraid that it is making a big mistake —on this, as on so much else.”
“The cheek of the hon. Gentleman to talk about unsuccessful negotiations! The Conservatives had years to negotiate and they left a Brexit deal that narrowed opportunities, harmed our economy, harmed businesses and made it tougher for young people. We are very confident that this is a great deal for the British people. It will be reviewed after 10 months. If the hon. Gentleman wants to put himself in a position of narrowing opportunities for young people, he is making a big mistake.”
“The Government are committed to delivering the largest wave of insourcing in a generation. As part of that, we have consulted on plans to introduce a public interest test before any further services are outsourced and we will publish the results soon. Let me be clear: this Government will end the decade-long drive to outsource our public services and we will do so to deliver better value for money for taxpayers and better services.”
“I know that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point about workers in his constituency before. We are making progress. The Employment Rights Act 2025 will make some progress, particularly by reinstating the two-tier code. We have consulted on a public interest test. I will bring forward our conclusions and proposals on that very soon, but as I say, the central point is that this Government will reverse the decade-long drive to outsource and bring more powers and resources in-house to deliver better value for taxpayers.”
“That is one of the Government’s goals. Prime Minister Carney said he thought that Canada should be Canada’s best customer. I think that Britain should be Britain’s best customer, and we should work towards that. As I say, we will publish the proposals soon and I hope that we can make progress quickly.”
“I know that this issue is affecting a lot of constituents who are former civil servants. I have had a lot of letters on it; I am sure everyone else has as well. The Minister for the Cabinet Office met PCS about the issue recently. He has also, I believe, met the chief executive of Capita. We are committed to holding Capita to account. We will do so, and if it is okay with my hon. Friend, the Minister for the Cabinet Office will write back to him with a fuller statement.”
“The Government are putting power, opportunity and resources in the hands of local communities and local businesses. Just last week, the House approved measures to reserve around £1 billion of contracts a year for local businesses in the UK. That will make a big difference to businesses in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend. We are consulting on further steps and will bring them forward soon.”
“I agree that social enterprises are the backbone of many communities. I pay tribute to the ones my hon. Friend mentions, and there are some in my constituency as well. I agree that we need to do more to open up procurement and to support social enterprises, as well as SMEs and the voluntary sector more widely. We published a procurement statement last year to help to address that, but we will go further on it soon.”
“As half of my constituency is in East Sussex, I am always happy to support East Sussex county council. I think we are slightly off beam with the broad thrust of the topic, but I get the hon. Member’s point about the frustration that constituents, including mine, have with overrunning works. We will follow up with him if there is anything further that the Cabinet Office can do.”