All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 9, 2026 01:00-01:44 - CSPAN
43:58
Prime Minister's Questions Time
Source
|

Time Text
Prejudice in Parliamentary Discussions 00:15:22
Conversation live at 7 Eastern Monday morning on C-SPAN.
C-SPAN now, our free mobile app, or online at C-SPAN.org.
C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
We're funded by these television companies and more, including Comcast.
The flag replacement program got started by a good friend of mine, a Navy vet, who saw the flag at the office that needed to be replaced and said, wouldn't this be great if this was going to be something that we did for anyone?
Comcast has always been a community-driven company.
This is one of those great examples of the way we're getting out there.
Comcast supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
British Prime Minister Kier Starmer fielded questions from members of the British House of Commons during which he expressed regret over appointing Peter Mandelson as US Ambassador.
This follows new revelations about Mandelson's ties to the late convicted sex offender, Geoffrey Epstein.
Opposition leader Kemi Badenock called for documents related to Mandelson's appointment to be made public.
We now come to Prime Minister's questions.
Jova Baxter.
Question number one, please, Mr. Speaker.
Prime Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On World Cancer Day, we're publishing our national cancer plan to transform care for patients.
It means investment in cutting-edge technology so our exceptional frontline staff can give world-class care.
It funds more tests and scans, meaning faster diagnosis and treatment, and tailored treatment in specialist centres.
And Mr. Speaker, we'll cover the cost of every family whose child needs travel for cancer care because the focus should only be on recovery, not worrying about money.
This morning I had meetings with Minister colleagues and others.
In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
Up and down the country this government is restoring pride in place by investing in our high streets, the beating heart of our communities.
Yet in Paisley and Renfrewshire South, the SNP-led Renfrew Council has done the opposite, sitting on their hands, whilst the owners of the Paisley Centre, who received planning permission to develop the centre some years ago, have sought support to transform our town centre.
Does the Prime Minister agree with me that it is only the SNP's lack of ambition and failure of leadership that is letting Paisley down?
And will he work with me to restore pride in Paisley's town centre?
She's a superb champion for Paisley.
Her constituents deserve a Scottish government that matches her dedication.
Mr. Speaker, for our part, we've delivered record funding settlement.
We're investing £280 million in Pride in Place across 14 Scottish communities.
We've secured shipbuilding on the Clyde for over a decade and just announced an AI growth zone in Lanarkshire.
The choice is clear.
A third decade of failure under the SNP, or real change for Scotland under Anna Sawa?
The Opposition can be made!
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The whole House will be disgusted by the latest revelations about Geoffrey Epstein.
All of us want to see his victims get justice.
But the political decision to appoint Epstein's close associate, Peter Mandelson, as Britain's ambassador to Washington goes to the very heart of this Prime Minister's judgment.
When he made that appointment, was he aware that Mandelson had continued his friendship even after Epstein's conviction for child prostitution?
Simple question.
Mr. Speaker, let me start where I must with the victims of Epstein, and all of our thoughts are with them.
Can I also say our thoughts are with all those who lost jobs, savings and livelihoods in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crash.
To learn that there was a cabinet minister leaking sensitive information at the height of the response to the 2008 crash is beyond infuriating.
And I am as angry as the public and any member of this House.
Mandelson betrayed our country, our parliament, and my party.
Mr. Speaker, he lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship with Epstein before and during his tenure as ambassador.
I regret appointing him.
If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near government.
And that is why, Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Cabinet Secretary, with my support, took the decision to refer material to the police.
And there is now a criminal investigation.
I've instructed my team to draft legislation to strip Mandelson of his title and wider legislation to remove disgraced peers.
And this morning, I've agreed with His Majesty the King that Mandelson should be removed from the list of Privy Councillors on grounds that he's brought the reputation of the Privy Council into disrepute.
Mr. Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister a very specific question.
Did he know that Mandelson had continued his friendship with Epstein after the conviction?
He says if he knew then what he knows now, but he did know.
In January 2024, a journalist from the Financial Times informed the Prime Minister that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein's house even after that conviction for child prostitution.
So did the Prime Minister conveniently forget this fact or did he decide it was a risk worth taking?
Mr. Speaker, as the House will expect, we went through a process.
There was a due diligence exercise and then there was security vetting by the security services.
What was not known was the depth, the sheer depth and extent of the relationship.
He lied about that to everyone for years.
And new information was published in September showing the relationship was materially different to what we'd been led to believe.
When the new information came to light, I sacked him.
But we did go through a due diligence exercise.
The points that are being put to me were dealt with within that exercise.
In response to the humble address this afternoon, I intend to make sure that all of the material is published.
Mr. Speaker, the only exemptions are national security, prejudice, national security.
My first duty is obviously to keep this country safe.
When we drafted humble addresses, we always put an exemption for national security, but also anything that will prejudice international relations.
Mr. Speaker, you in the House will appreciate that in the course of discussions country to country there are very sensitive issues of security, intelligence and trade which cannot be disclosed without compromising the relationship between the two countries or a third country.
Mr. Speaker, so that I can be totally open with the House, I should also disclose that the Metropolitan Police have been in touch with my office this morning to raise issues about anything that would prejudice their investigations.
We're in discussion with them about that and I hope to be able to update the House, but I do think I should make that clear to the House at this point because those discussions are ongoing.
Mr. Speaker, I'm going to come to the humble address in a moment.
But the Prime Minister cannot blame the process.
He did know it was on Google.
If the Conservative Research Department could find this information out, why couldn't number 10?
On the 10th of September, when we knew this, I asked him at that dispatch box.
He gave Mandelson his full confidence at that dispatch box, not once, but twice.
He only sacked him after pressure from us.
I am asking the Prime Minister something very specific, not about the generalities of the full extent.
Can the Prime Minister tell us, did the official security vetting he received mention Mandelson's ongoing relationship with the paedophile, Geoffrey Epstein?
Prime Minister.
Yes, it did.
As a result, various questions were put to him.
I intend to disclose to this House all of the National Security Project to International Relations on one side.
I want to make sure this House sees the full documentation so it will see for itself the extent to which, time and time again, Mandelson completely misrepresented the extent of his relationship with Epstein and lied throughout the process, including in response to the due diligence.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is shocking what the Prime Minister has just said.
How can he stand up there saying that he knew what he just asked Peter Mandelson if the security vetting was true or false?
This is a man who had been sacked from cabinet twice already for unethical behaviour.
That is absolutely shocking.
And that is why later today, my party will call on the government to release all documents relating to Mandelson's appointment, not just the ones the Prime Minister wants us to see.
Because this government is trying to sabotage that release with an amendment to let him choose what we see.
The man who appointed Mandelson in the first place.
Labour MPs now have to decide if they want to be accessories to his cover-up.
Can the Prime Minister guarantee that he won't remove the whip if they refuse to vote for his whitewash amendments?
Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, the first exemption is in relation to anything that could compromise national security.
That is not a small matter, and many members on the benches opposite will know precisely why that needs to be in the exemption.
When we were drafting humble addresses, when we were sitting over there, we always made sure that exemption was in because we knew how important it was to the then government.
I don't think I've seen a humble address without that in because just to be clear, to vote to release something that would prejudice national security is wrong in principle.
The second exemption is in relation to things that would prejudice international relations.
There will be discussions about security and intelligence and trade, which are highly sensitive to the two countries involved and to third countries.
Well, they have to ask themselves whether they want to vote to prejudice our national security.
I don't think they do.
I don't think in fairness that they do.
But can I reassure the House, Mr. Speaker?
Let me reassure the House that the process for deciding what falls into those categories will not be a political process.
It will be led by the Cabinet Secretary, supported by government legal teams.
So they will be looking at the question of prejudice.
They will be making that decision.
The only additional thing I just want to put before the House, because there was a discussion this morning with the Metropond police, is that we are in discussions with them about any material that they're concerned will prejudice their investigation.
We're at an early stage.
We're at an early stage of that discussion, but I didn't want to have the House not know that that discussion is going on.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is talking about national security.
The national security issue was appointing Mandelson in the first place.
And what he has said about the humble address is a red herring.
To those Labour MPs who were not there in the last Parliament, let me tell them, humble addresses already exempt genuine national security.
This is not about national security.
This is about his job security.
His amendment lets him withhold anything to do with international relations.
But this whole appointment is to do with international relations.
So if they're voting for it, they are voting for the cover-up.
If the Prime Minister is serious about national security concerns, then he should ask the Intelligence and Security Committee to decide which documents should be released.
Will he commit to doing so here and now?
Mr. Speaker, I've set out the process.
It won't be a political process.
It will be led by the Cabinet Secretary, supported by the government legal teams.
But I'm pleased that she, I think, now accepts that at least the first exemption that we've written in to the amendment, the petition, is the right amendment in relation to prejudice national security.
But she and others behind her will understand that because of the breadth of what's asked for, and we're doing everything we can to make sure this is fully transparent and disclosed, but she and those behind her will understand from their own experience in government the sensitivity of information about security and intelligence and trade relations that are inevitably caught in exchanges of the nature that are being asked for.
And it is right that anything that prejudices, not touches on, prejudices international relations is protected within the disclosure.
Prime Minister's Dilemma 00:16:36
If that was really the case, then he wouldn't mind if the ISC had a look.
And let's be clear.
He says the Cabinet Secretary makes it non-political, but that doesn't make it independent.
What we want is an independent look.
The ISC is independent.
The Cabinet Secretary works for him.
We know that there will be a cover-up because this implicates the Prime Minister and his Chief of Staff, Morgan McSweeney, a protégé of Peter Mandelson.
The Prime Minister chose to inject Mandelson's poison into the heart of his government on the advice of Morgan McSweeney.
His catastrophic lack of judgment, telling us now that he did know, has harmed the special relationship.
It has endangered national security.
It's not the humble address, it's him.
It's compromised our diplomacy and it has embarrassed our nation.
After all of this, does he have the same full confidence in Morgan McSweeney that he had in Peter Mandelson?
Prime Minister Sweeney is an essential part of my team.
He helped me change the Labour Party and win an election.
Of course I have confidence in him.
But Mr. Speaker, whatever is slung across this dispatch box, I don't think it's right for the Cabinet Secretary to be denigrated in that way and to suggest and to suggest that he would be involved in a cover-up.
There's the politics that comes over the dispatch boxes, but I honestly don't think it's right to impugn the Cabinet Secretary in that way.
I suspect in their heart of hearts many on those benches would agree.
Mr. Speaker, I'm as angry as anyone about what Mandelson has been up to.
The disclosures that have been made this week of him passing sensitive information at the height of the response to the 2008 financial crisis is utterly shocking and appalling.
He has betrayed our country.
He's lied repeatedly.
He's responsible for a litany of deceit.
But this moment demands not just anger but action.
And that's why we've moved quickly, referring material to the police, publishing legislation so we can remove titles from disgraced politicians and stripping Mandelson of his privy councillorship.
That is what the public expect and that is what we will do.
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
Every month people across our constituencies are injured by illegal e-bikes being ridden at 30, 40 and 50 miles per hour through our town centres and parks.
But for every illegal e-bike that the police seize and crush, another 10 hit our streets because they are too freely available to buy.
That's why Cumbria's Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner and 28 other police commissioners across the UK are now backing my bill, which would ban the sale of illegal e-bikes.
Will the Prime Minister set out what action the government will take to protect the public and ban the sale of these monster bikes?
Prime Minister, can I pay tribute to my honourable friend?
She's a tireless campaigner to stop these anti-social, dangerous bikes terrorising communities.
Our crime and policing bill means police can seize bikes without issuing a warning and destroy them.
A product safety law means authorities have the powers to intervene to stop the sale of unsafe e-bikes.
But I share her determination to get these bikes off our streets.
Sir Ed David, leader of the Liberal Democrats.
Mr. Speaker, can I thank you and the Prime Minister for your responses to my tribute to Jim Wallace on Monday and urge the whole House to read the wonderful tributes made to Jim in the other place yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, I've been thinking how he must feel for the victims of Geoffrey Epstein and their families.
Hearing more and more stories of how rich, powerful men were curring favour with a paedophile sex trafficker, such as Peter Mandelson, sending government secrets to help Epstein enrich himself further.
Seeing Mandelson made ambassador to the United States, even after his links to Epstein had been extensively reported by both the Financial Times and Channel 4 News.
So, can the Prime Minister tell us, given he now admits he knew about those links, before he gave such an important job to one of Epstein's closest friends, did he think at all about Epstein's victims?
Mr. Speaker, we looked at the material.
There was a process that was then, as he will understand, there was then a security vetting exercise as well.
And that's why I started by saying all of our thoughts are with the victims of Epstein.
He is right at the beginning of this question to express anger at the material that has recently come out in relation to sensitive information in the aftermath of the 08 crash.
And that is why yesterday, working with the Cabinet Secretary, we referred material to the police which has now led to the criminal investigation that is going to follow.
Mr. Speaker, I think the victims of Geoffrey Epstein deserve far better than that.
They deserve Peter Manelson not being appointed in the first place.
We don't even know the full extent of the British establishment's involvement in his appalling crimes or how many British girls and young women were trafficked by him.
So we need a full public inquiry, both to get justice for the victims and to protect our national security.
Mr. Speaker, the Polish government thinks Epstein may have been spying for Vladimir Putin.
Is the Prime Minister concerned that Peter Manelson may have been leaking state secrets not just to a paedophile American financier but also a Russian agent?
Well Mr. Speaker, he talks about the public inquiry.
Obviously the focus now has to be on the criminal investigation which has started.
As he knows that investigation will go wherever the evidence leads it and I've made it absolutely clear that the government will cooperate as he would expect with that criminal investigation wherever it goes.
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
I welcome the news that Bristolise will be getting another three breakfast clubs.
I've seen how these clubs aren't just about making sure that no child starts the school day hungry.
They're also about giving staff the extra time to spend with the children and to spot whether there might be trouble at home.
And on that note, can I urge the Prime Minister to work with schools on a manifesto commitment to identify children with parents in prison to make sure that those children get all the support that they need?
Can I thank her for raising this and confirm that we're looking at how we can strengthen the support in place for these children so no child falls between the cracks?
Three breakfast clubs mean every child is fed and ready to learn.
And I'm delighted to see three more in her constituency as she references.
But I also want to mention Rushbrook Primary Academy, Oasis Academy Aspinall, Longsight Community Primary, St Bernard's Roman Catholic Primary School Manchester, all soon operating free breakfast clubs in Gorton and Denton.
The victims and survivors of Epstein and his circle of overprivileged elite are at the forefront of my mind here and now.
Mandelsson Winano described Epstein's release from prison after being sentenced for child sex offences as Liberation Day.
This man's association with Epstein was known when the Prime Minister personally appointed him as the UK's ambassador to the USA.
How can we trust the Prime Minister's judgment?
And in questioning that, how can we trust him to remain as Prime Minister?
Can I join her in the disgust in the comments that she just read out?
But to be absolutely clear, the scale and the extent of the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein was not disclosed.
On the contrary, it wasn't just not disclosed.
Mandelson lied throughout the process and beyond the process.
He lied, he lied, and he lied again to my team.
Mr. Speaker, an EU agri-food deal would boost exports and cut supermarket prices.
The CBI backs it, and according to Best of Britain's polling, 62% of the public do.
But surprise, surprise, reform oppose it.
I thought the member for Asheville wanted 30p food.
Does the Prime Minister agree that while some opposite prefer temper tantrums, Brussels, this Labour government must build closer ties with Europe to cut the price of the weekly shop?
The deal that we've struck with the EU means lower prices at the checkout, more choice on the shelf, and more money in people's pockets.
It's good for British fishers and farmers who face less red tape selling our world-class produce into the crucial market.
It comes alongside the opportunity for young people to work, travel across Europe, the work we're doing to cut energy bills and closer work on defence.
All of this is opposed by reform and the Tories who solved the myth, botched Brexit and left families and businesses paying the price.
Charlie Juhas.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Now I'll give the Prime Minister some brief respite from Peter Mandelson.
However, he will also be familiar with the name Phil Scheiner, the disgraced lawyer who was struck off and convicted for repeatedly inventing vexatious cases against British troops in Iraq.
So it is something of a surprise that the Prime Minister authored a chapter in Mr. Scheiner's book about pursuing our veterans via the ECA.
So can I ask him specifically, was he ever instructed by Mr. Scheiner's law firm public interest lawyers to act in any legal case?
Let me be absolutely clear about this.
As soon as there were any allegations of wrongdoing by Phil Scheiner, I've had absolutely nothing to do with him.
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
In Old Shot and Farnborough this year we are looking forward to hosting the National Celebrations for Armed Forces Day in the home of the British Army.
Businesses in my community welcome this government's record investment in defence in the years ahead but our banks still struggle to lend to defence companies because of international regulations.
Will the Prime Minister ensure that the UK works with Canada and our other allies to found the multilateral Defence Security and Resilience Bank so that we can get money moving to our defence industries, get our armed forces what they need and stand firm against our adversaries?
I'm delighted that Aldershot will be hosting Armed Forces Day because they've got a hard-working Labor MP and a Labour Council.
Our historic defence spending uplift must be an engine for growth and jobs here in the United Kingdom.
That's why we're committed to spending an extra £2.5 billion with SMEs.
I do agree with her.
It's vital that we work in lockstep with our allies, particularly in Europe, to enhance and align our defence capabilities.
We're therefore working at pace to identify the most effective mechanisms for greater multilateral cooperation.
Dr. Neil Huds.
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
Prime Minister, for months our communities in Epping have been deeply distressed by the Bell Hotel reopening as an asylum hotel.
My thoughts remain with the victims of the sexual assaults, including the 14-year-old Epping schoolgirl.
That trauma compounded by the offender's mistaken release from prison.
Weekly protests continue, some of which have become violent, with injuries to 10 brave police officers.
I am very grateful to the Asylum Minister for meeting with me recently about this untenable situation.
But will the Prime Minister please listen, act now, close the Bell Hotel once and for all, and help restore our town of Epping?
As he knows, we are committed to ending the use of all hotels.
There are now just under 200 compared to the 400 under the previous government.
And where military sites are used, safety and security of local communities is our priority.
Johnson Blanche.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hartlepool has now the third highest number of children in care in England, fuelled by southern councils shipping families to my town, blowing a £6 million hole in our budget, a deficit that my brilliant Labour Council has already carved.
But there is nothing left to cut.
And when percentage increases in funding mean less in Hartlepool than almost anywhere else in the country, but a child in care costs exactly the same, the fair funding settlement announced in December does not go far enough.
I am fighting non-stop for a better deal for my town because I will not accept one of the poorest communities in the country being condemned to higher taxes or devastating austerity.
We need support.
So will the PM commit his ministers to work across government to fix this for Hartlepool?
Well, it's because of strong local Labour MPs, but like my honourable friend, that towns like Hartlepool, treated as an afterthought by the party opposite, are having their future restored.
We're making billions more available so that councils can properly fund social care.
And we're driving down the cost of living for parents and their children, including three free breakfast clubs in his constituency, over 3,000 children no longer incapacitated by the two-child limit.
That's the difference a Labour government makes.
Mr. Speaker, my residents are sick of being let down by Thameswater.
Robert and Patricia were sent a £39,000 bill they didn't actually owe.
Len and Jenny were forced to use a portaloo for months as sewage filled their home.
And parents still think twice about sending their children to swim in the river.
Now we understand a £16 billion rescue deal is soon to cross the Prime Minister's desk.
Will he admit today what everyone already knows?
That Thameswater is dead in the water.
Any delay is pointless and it should be allowed to be put out of its misery and rebuilt as a company for public benefit.
Can I thank her for raising that?
And I know how much important it is to her constituents.
We have taken measures in relation to strengthening oversight and the control that we have.
We won't hesitate to go further and I'll make sure she gets a meeting with the relevant minister to discuss.
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
It was a privilege the weekend to join fellow North East MPs on the destroyer HMS Duncan to meet the crew and also be briefed on the exciting plans for the innovative future of the Royal Navy.
A future that should be bright given the 10 billion frigate deal with Norway, but also a future we absolutely want our region to be part of.
So would the Prime Minister agree that given the North East strengths in AI, satellite technology and advanced manufacturing, North East workers and businesses should be at the heart of the future hybrid Navy?
And will ministers meet us and industry leaders to put the North East at the heart of our future defence?
Mr. Speaker, can I first thank the commanding officer and crew of HMS Duncan for their service and thank my honourable friend.
I remember meeting the brilliant workforce in his region, and I know the defence ministers would be delighted to do the same.
Our record defence spending is supporting jobs and growth across the North East.
We invested $200 million in Octric semiconductors in his constituency last year.
As we increase defence spending, the North East will play a major role securing good skilled jobs for generations to come.
Voting to Lift Children Out of Poverty 00:04:54
Can I associate myself with the comments of my party leader about Lord Wallace, a man I feel always privileged to know?
But can I ask the Prime Minister given the conversations which are taking place in this place today and up and down the country about Peter Mandelson and his involvement with the paedophile who trafficked women and the millions of women,
particularly in this country, who will have been triggered by that, given the establishment's proximity to what happened, will the Prime Minister assure that there will be support set up, helplines, and as well as the victims, the direct victims, those indirect women who've been triggered now will be supported?
Well, she's right to raise this, and obviously we'll support the police on the one hand with their investigation, but also we will press on with our work to halve violence against women and girls, which is very much about putting the support in place that is needed for all victims of violence.
That is a crucial part of our work, and I hope we can work across the House in support of it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm proud that Labour MPs voted yesterday to remove the two-child limit and lift children out of poverty.
But child poverty cannot be eradicated while children are living in overcrowded temporary accommodation without their own bed or anywhere to do their homework.
So will the Prime Minister commit to urgent and persistent action to drive down the use of temporary accommodation, ensuring that our councils, including my councils of Lambeth and Southwark, have the funding they need in the final local government finance settlement next week?
Well, can I join her in the pride in voting to remove half a million children from poverty and lift them out of poverty after hundreds of thousands were plunged into poverty by the party opposite when they were in government?
On the point she raised about temporary accommodation, she's right that every child deserves a safe, warm and secure home.
We're investing a record $3.5 billion in homelessness services and $950 million in local authority housing fund to deliver better quality temporary accommodation.
Mr. Speaker, how we answer SEND families' call for justice will measure who we are.
Christopher Lascaris was autistic and murdered aged 24.
His mother, Fiona, who is here, spent eight years begging authorities to protect him, but they refused because they presumed he had mental capacity.
So will the Prime Minister support Christopher's law, creating a duty to assess mental capacity where it is in doubt to save the lives of others?
Can I thank him for his question and for his tireless campaigning on behalf of Christopher and Fiona, who, as he points out, is with us today.
Christopher's death was a tragedy, and I agree that we owe it to Fiona.
I'm glad that she's here to hear it, and other families, of course, to get this right.
I can reassure him that work is underway to examine what action is necessary to prevent further tragedies like this.
That comes alongside our intention to consult on the liberty protection safeguards this year.
I'll make sure that he is fully updated as the work progresses across government.
Would ask that he make sure that Fiona and others are updated as well.
Ben Goldsborough.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
From heat-tolerant rice trials to world-leading science at the Earlham Institute and the John Innes Centre on the Norwich Research Park, South Norfolk is helping feed the world.
Will the Prime Minister secure a clear carve out for precision breeding in any future SPS agreement with the EU so Britain can continue to lead on this field?
Well, can I thank him for raising it?
As negotiations are ongoing, we remain committed, he'll be pleased to know, to the Precision Breeding Act and supporting new innovative technologies.
And the EU accepts there will need to be areas where we retain our own rules and we'll always prioritise British interests as we negotiate our SPS agreement.
Mr. Speaker, as you're aware, I've been campaigning for a Lincoln dental school for some years and I'm pleased to be able to tell the House that thanks to the hard work of, amongst others, Professor Juster, Professor Reid, and Susie McPherson, Lincoln Medical School are now in a position to take their first cohort from 2027.
So can I ask the Prime Minister, will he provide the necessary funding for this cohort of students to start to help improve the oral health of people right across Lincolnshire?
Well I'm pleased to hear the news about the dental school in her constituency and we have put in further funding in relation to dentistry.
We were left with a dental desert across many parts of the country.
Necessary Funding Debate 00:06:05
We're fixing that problem but I'm glad to hear the news in her constituency.
Oli Billou.
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
As the Prime Minister pointed out, today is World Cancer Day.
As outlined in our cancer plan, early detection and diagnosis is vital.
Will the Prime Minister agree to consider the campaign by my constituent Gemma Reeves, who is a nurse at the Queen Elizabeth Queen Mother Hospital, to ensure breast cancer screening for all women over the age of 40 and meet her to discuss how such a change would save lives?
Well I'd absolutely support that and I'll make sure she gets a meeting with the relevant minister because early diagnosis is so important for all cancers and we must do everything we can to ensure that our early diagnosis is the absolute norm and never default.
I recently met one of the bravest women I know.
Elizabeth was 14 when she was raped in Rotherham.
She is one of the survivors of the rape gangs, one of the biggest national scandals in our history.
Whilst her first rapist was convicted and sentenced at Shgar Bostan, she was subsequently, shockingly, allegedly abused by police officers serving in South Yorkshire Police.
One of those officers remains on active service today.
Elizabeth made complaints through Operation Linden.
None of them were followed up.
She rightly feels betrayed and failed by the very institution designed to protect her.
Will the Prime Minister meet with Elizabeth, rape gang survivors and myself to commit that those who committed and covered up these abhorrent offences are put behind bars where they belong?
Well I'm deeply concerned about the facts she's just outlined and if she could give us all the details of that I'll make sure that there is a relevant meeting and follow-up in relation to those concerns.
Point of order to Debbie Dippers.
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
Today's debate will focus on Mandelson and his relationship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
However, it will not cover his relationship with another alleged paedophile, murderer, gangster, specialist in bribery and corruption, and Putin favourite, Oleg Deripasca.
A relationship that may be just as bad as that with Epstein.
As European Trade Commissioner, Mandelson made decisions favouring Derry Pasca's company by $200 million a year.
Mandelson avoided proper investigation by lying about the timing of his relationship with Derry Pasca.
Mr. Speaker, how can we find out what investigations were carried out before Gordon Brown and his government appointed Mandelson as a minister?
Do you agree this House needs to see this information?
If so, how can we obtain it?
What I would say is Luke, this is a very experienced member, and I know he'll pursue this through the many avenues.
And I know there is a debate later in which he may wish to catch the chair's eye in order to raise these issues.
These are very serious issues that he's raised, and this will be taken seriously.
And I'm sure that the front bench has heard it as well.
I will leave it at.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
The Prime Minister said that in each humble address that his party laid in opposition, they mentioned national security.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has left.
However, I have checked the two most recent humble addresses laid by the Labour Party when they're in opposition, and all members on those bench should be very aware.
The words national security do not feature even one because it is not necessary in a humble address.
So, Mr. Speaker, how do we get the Prime Minister to correct the record when he's just chosen to leave the room?
It'll be ridiculous.
Can I just say to you, you put it on the record, I don't want to continue the debate, but you put it on the record.
So is the right point for the churches.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Now, the Prime Minister's response to me just now appeared to deny ever being instructed by disgraced lawyer Phil Scheiner.
Yet I have here the 2007 case of Al Jeddah versus the Secretary of State for Defence, where it quite clearly says appellants instructed by public interest lawyers include one Kier Star McQC.
Perhaps the Health Prime Minister might want to return to the House and clarify his earlier remarks.
I'm not here to continue a debate.
You've put it on the record.
We will leave it at that.
Right.
We'll let the front benches change over.
Congress returns Monday facing a midnight Friday deadline to fund the Homeland Security Department.
Senate and House Democrats are demanding major changes to federal immigration enforcement policies, including requiring body cameras for ICE agents and banning their use of masks as part of any deal with Republicans to extend DHS funding.
But while ICE operations won't be immediately impacted by a shutdown, as they were funded through the GOP tax and spending cuts known as the One Big Beautiful bill, FEMA, TSA and Coast Guard funding would end Friday if an agreement is not reached.
The House plans too, in the week ahead, to take up the SAVE Act, requiring proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections.
Members will also consider bipartisan legislation to increase housing supply and make it less expensive.
One Place Brings Americans Together 00:00:58
Watch live coverage of the House on C-SPAN, the Senate on C-SPAN2, and all of our congressional coverage on our free video app, C-SPANNow, and our website at c-span.org.
In a divided media world, one place brings Americans together.
According to a new MAGIT research report, nearly 90 million Americans turn to C-SPAN, and they're almost perfectly balanced.
28% conservative, 27% liberal or progressive, 41% moderate.
Republicans watching Democrats, Democrats watching Republicans, moderates watching all sides.
Because C-SPAN viewers want the facts straight from the source.
No commentary, no agenda, just democracy.
Unfiltered.
Every day on the C-SPAN networks.
First Lady Melania Trump met with Keith and Aviva Siegel, two American Israelis held as hostages by Hamas in Gaza.
Export Selection