transcript

Speaker 1:
[00:00] Order!

Speaker 2:
[00:01] Order!

Speaker 3:
[00:02] Hello, I'm Sean Curran, and this is Today in Parliament from BBC Radio 4 for Thursday 23rd April, when a senior civil servant faced questions about the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States.

Speaker 4:
[00:17] I have not been involved at all in either the events to appoint or the withdrawal of the former HMA for Washington.

Speaker 3:
[00:28] A minister confirms that confidential medical data belonging to thousands of people was put up for sale on a website.

Speaker 5:
[00:36] The UK Biobank Charity informed the government that it had identified their data had been advertised for sale by several sellers on Alibaba's e-commerce platforms in China.

Speaker 3:
[00:45] And why are so many young men still living at home with their parents?

Speaker 6:
[00:50] First time buyers having to achieve an almost impossible deposit of over £60,000.

Speaker 3:
[00:58] The fallout from the appointment of Peter Mandelson as the British ambassador to the United States has left the Prime Minister facing calls to resign from opposition leaders. This week, Sir Keir Starmer faced questions about his decision to sack the head of the Foreign Office, Sir Ollie Robbins, in a row over Peter Mandelson's security vetting. Ollie Robbins gave his side of the story to the Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday. And today, the same group of MPs heard from the most senior civil servant at the Cabinet Office. Cat Little has been given the job of finding all the documents about Lord Mandelson's appointment that need to be handed over to Parliament. A Liberal Democrat member of the committee, Edward Morello, summed up events so far.

Speaker 7:
[01:44] Mr Mandelson was fired because the release of the Epstein files showed that his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein had continued for a lot longer than he had disclosed prior to being appointed. Sir Ollie Robbins was fired because he granted security access to Peter Mandelson. And the security vetting report, the Prime Minister took the view that the security vetting report indicated that Mandelson shouldn't have been and that he wouldn't have appointed Peter Mandelson in the first place had he had that information.

Speaker 3:
[02:24] The Prime Minister has repeatedly told the Commons that due process was followed when Lord Mandelson was appointed. Cat Little agreed.

Speaker 4:
[02:32] My view is that due process was followed. And if I might explain why I believe that, it is because the process, as I've outlined to the committee, is that EKSV make a recommendation and the Foreign Office make a decision as to whether to grant DV. That is the process and that is the process that is agreed with the Foreign Office.

Speaker 3:
[02:55] UKSV is UK Security vetting, the officials who carried out the checks on Peter Mandelson. DV is the clearance, developed vetting, he was given for his job as ambassador. Cat Little told the MPs that last month she'd asked Olly Robbins for a summary of that information.

Speaker 4:
[03:14] In the middle of March, I have a meeting with Sir Olly and a senior member of his team. And this is after the point that I've been told that this summary document exists. I specifically ask to see this document and any decision making audit trail around those judgments at the time. It was made clear to me that that information would not be forthcoming.

Speaker 8:
[03:41] Who made that clear to you?

Speaker 4:
[03:43] Sir Olly.

Speaker 3:
[03:45] That was the Labour Chair of the Committee, Dame Emily Thornbury. On Tuesday, Olly Robbins told the MPs that the Cabinet Office had suggested there was no need to vet Peter Mandelson, but that the Foreign Office insisted on the checks. Cat Little said she'd seen emails setting out what she called a very reasonable discussion, which began when the Foreign Office approached UK security vetting and officials in her department.

Speaker 4:
[04:11] And asked the question, could they get some advice, because the presumption had been that given Peter Mandelson had been a member of the House of Lords, that the long-standing convention that he didn't require developed vetting was assumed, and they wanted to get proper policy advice from experts on whether that was the case. And what I can see is an audit trail of discussion between security officials debating how the policy framework would apply in this instance. And I should say it is unusual, although not unprecedented, for a political appointee to take up post as an ambassador. What I can see is there is a senior official from the government security group that goes back to the Foreign Office security team and advises two things. One, that this is a decision for the Foreign Office, and two, that they would advise to valet vetting is sought.

Speaker 3:
[05:10] A conservative, Sir John Whittingdale, asked about the original decision to install Peter Mandelson as ambassador.

Speaker 9:
[05:17] Why is there no formal record of the actual meeting at which the Prime Minister decided to go ahead and make the appointment?

Speaker 3:
[05:25] He wondered if there was an official minute of a meeting involving Keir Starmer.

Speaker 9:
[05:30] At which the Prime Minister said, right, he has a due diligence and he's advised about all the various other aspects. And he said, yes, I want it to be Peter Mandelson set that in motion.

Speaker 4:
[05:46] As I said to you, it is normal to keep a record of those sorts of decisions.

Speaker 9:
[05:50] But there isn't one of this?

Speaker 4:
[05:53] I have shared with you the information that we have.

Speaker 3:
[05:57] Next week, the committee is due to hear from Sir Philip Barton, who was Ollie Robbins' predecessor as head of the Foreign Office. The MPs will also take evidence from the former Downing Street Chief of Staff, Morgan McSweeney. Well, over in the Commons, a senior minister said it would be wise for the government to get as much information out as quickly as possible about the Peter Mandelson affair. Kristina Cooper reports.

Speaker 10:
[06:22] A second batch of material about Peter Mandelson's appointment is due to be released as part of the humble address process, following a Commons vote in February. Information that ministers want to withhold for national security reasons will be given to Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee, which will decide if the redactions are appropriate. But the government has now issued a further document, setting out other grounds on which data could be withheld, a development raised by the Conservative, Sir Jeremy Wright, who's a member of the Intelligence Committee.

Speaker 11:
[06:54] It mentions individuals' email addresses and phone numbers, the identities of junior civil servants, personal data of third parties where this is not in scope of the motion, and legal professional privilege. That document also makes reference to a small amount of Peter Mandelson's personal data, and then it says it may also be necessary for the government to make further redactions in future publications based on other public interest principles, including commercially sensitive information.

Speaker 10:
[07:25] Jeremy Wright thought that if ministers intended to keep information back for reasons other than national security, they should offer an explanation.

Speaker 11:
[07:33] It's important that the House has the chance to validate the government's view that further redactions would be appropriate.

Speaker 10:
[07:41] The leader of the Commons, Sir Alan Campbell, said there were literally mountains of documents to wade through. But he assured MPs that the government was working at pace.

Speaker 12:
[07:51] The government would be wise to get as much information out as quickly as possible and to do as little reduction as possible.

Speaker 10:
[07:58] As for the further redactions, he promised to give the issue some thought.

Speaker 12:
[08:01] Because I think that is it on what the right honourable gentleman said, and I trust him absolutely on these matters, it does seem somewhat at odds. And were the government to change those terms, I'd expect them to come to this house and do so.

Speaker 10:
[08:15] The Conservatives also kept up the pressure over Sir Ollie Robbins, the former top civil servant in the Foreign Office, following his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday. At Prime Minister's question, Sir Keir Starmer commented on the revelations, including claims that Downing Street put pressure on the Foreign Office. The Conservative shadow Cabinet Office Minister, Alex Burghardt, thought Keir Starmer should, as he put it, correct the record.

Speaker 13:
[08:41] Yesterday, the Prime Minister also told the House, Sir Ollie was absolutely clear that nobody put pressure on him to make this appointment. But this is not what Sir Ollie said to committee. He actually said, throughout January, honestly, my office and the Foreign Secretary's office were under constant pressure.

Speaker 10:
[08:59] Alex Burghardt said that to avoid being in breach of the ministerial code, ministers had to correct the record at the earliest opportunity.

Speaker 13:
[09:08] At the very latest, the earliest opportunity is now. Will the Prime Minister correct the record?

Speaker 1:
[09:15] It is not the view of the Prime Minister or the government that the Prime Minister needs to do so.

Speaker 10:
[09:19] That was the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, Darren Jones, who also said that Keir Starmer hadn't misled the Commons. He was questioned over another revelation by Olly Robbins, that the Foreign Office was asked to find a diplomatic role for Matthew Doyle, a former Downing Street Director of Communications. The Lib Dem spokesperson, Lisa Smart, said the Prime Minister had failed to deny that lobbying had taken place.

Speaker 14:
[09:43] For number 10 to ask the Foreign Office to find a plum diplomatic job for another Labour mate who was friends with a convicted sex offender, let alone to then keep it secret from the Foreign Secretary, is completely shocking. The Prime Minister has shown another catastrophic lack of judgment. Will the Minister ensure that an inquiry is launched by the Cabinet Secretary to determine who did the lobbying, why and what the Prime Minister knew and when?

Speaker 10:
[10:08] Darren Jones said the Prime Minister had spent many hours at the dispatch box being held to account and answering questions on a range of issues. And he referred Lisa Smart to the comments Keir Starmer had made at Prime Minister's questions.

Speaker 3:
[10:21] Christina Cooper, Confidential medical information belonging to more than half a million people has been put up for sale on a Chinese website. The data was held by UK Biobank, which aims to help researchers prevent and cure diseases. George Walker reports.

Speaker 1:
[10:39] UK Biobank stores medical information belonging to more than 500,000 volunteers, with the aim of helping researchers to make life-saving discoveries. Participants' names and addresses aren't featured, but the records do include details about their age, gender and lifestyle habits, as well as biological samples. The technology minister, Ian Murray, told MPs the charity which runs Biobank had informed the government about a major data breach on Monday.

Speaker 5:
[11:10] The UK Biobank charity informed the government that it had identified their 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 EU Biobank participation data had been identified. At least one of these three datasets appeared to contain data from all 500,000 UK Biobank volunteers.

Speaker 1:
[11:31] He said listings on the Chinese e-commerce site Alibaba had been removed, and added that nobody had bought any of the data.

Speaker 5:
[11:40] Once the government was made aware of this situation, we took immediate action to protect participants' data. Firstly, we worked with Biobank, the Chinese government, and the vendor to ensure that those 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 these listings, and the ongoing work to remove any further listings.

Speaker 1:
[12:03] The minister explained that the information had been legitimately downloaded by three research institutions in China, which had since had their licenses revoked. But, speaking for the Conservatives, the Shadow Minister Lincoln Jopp called it a grave incident and sought further assurances on the safety of the data.

Speaker 11:
[12:23] How has Biobank reassured itself and its participants that no further copies of the data exist? What is the possibility or likelihood that the full data set is now in the hands of the Chinese state?

Speaker 1:
[12:38] Ian Murray said Biobank had been working incredibly well since 2012 and there were strict data protection rules to protect volunteers. And he said that although Chinese firms were involved in this breach, such incidents weren't isolated to that country.

Speaker 5:
[12:56] Although these three institutions are Chinese in this particular instance, again the Chinese government and Alibaba have been very proactive in helping us with the British Embassy in Beijing to take down and whack-a-mole anything else that comes up and they're currently going through that process. At Yale, for example, had their accreditation suspended for a breach of data. So this is not a country-specific issue, it's just what happens in this particular issue.

Speaker 1:
[13:19] Speaking for the Liberal Democrats, Victoria Collins cited what she claimed was another leak by Biobank back in February and wondered if the government could really ensure that volunteers would remain anonymous.

Speaker 15:
[13:32] This dismissal of privacy concerns shows a shocking lack of understanding of how easily individuals can actually be identified, especially in today's world of AI and social media.

Speaker 1:
[13:45] The minister said this incident hadn't been a leak, but a legitimate download by a legitimately accredited organisation. But the government's explanation wasn't enough for Reform's Richard Tice, who called for a ban on all Chinese institutions' use of Biobank, and called the revelations...

Speaker 16:
[14:03] A China data theft scandal of UK Biobank's data generously donated by some half a million British citizens. And let us remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, the UK taxpayer funded 200 million pounds approximately for setting up UK Biobank. It funds about 15 million pounds every single year, used by some 22,000 researchers, including, I understand, two or three thousand in China.

Speaker 1:
[14:31] Ian Murray suggested the MP should be more careful with this language.

Speaker 5:
[14:35] I don't think the tenure of the Honourable Gentleman's question fits in with the seriousness of this particular issue.

Speaker 1:
[14:42] Labour's Emily Darlington wanted to know if Biobank volunteers could really be confident, but it was still a safe platform. She said the incident might...

Speaker 8:
[14:52] Make people think twice before donating their data to these causes. That could have a huge impact on our ability to treat these conditions right across the world, but particularly here in the UK.

Speaker 1:
[15:09] The minister suggested people should continue to contribute to Biobank's important work. The Biobank charity has apologised for the incident and insisted that all personally identifying data continues to be safe and secure. The breach is still being investigated by both the charity and the government.

Speaker 3:
[15:28] George Walker, You're listening to Today in Parliament with me, Sean Curran. Now, a cross-party group of MPs has called on ministers to ban so-called forever chemicals, also known as PFAS. The Environmental Audit Committee has been investigating the chemicals, which are used to make everyday products like school uniforms and non-stick pans, stain and water-resistant. The Labour Chair of the committee, Toby Perkins, said over time PFAS could accumulate in the environment and in the human body.

Speaker 17:
[16:02] PFAS are now widely detected in UK rivers, soils, wildlife and in the blood of most people. And a growing body of evidence links high PFAS exposure to serious health and environmental risks, including certain cancers, immunity suppression and fertility and developmental impacts.

Speaker 3:
[16:20] And he set out the MP's conclusions.

Speaker 17:
[16:23] The committee is calling for restrictions on PFAS in non-essential consumer products, including food packaging, cookware, cosmetics and coatings on school uniforms. Where the use of PFAS is considered essential to protect the health, safety and functioning of society, then exemptions can of course be granted.

Speaker 3:
[16:42] The Conservative Shadow Environment Minister Neil Hudson praised the committee for what he called an excellent and timely report. He stopped short of joining calls for a ban, but said ministers should press ahead with other preventative action.

Speaker 18:
[16:56] Does he agree with me? The government needs to really take this forward now and move forward more into prevention and solutions, such as placing pressure on water companies to enforce drinking water inspectorate guidelines on PFAS limits.

Speaker 3:
[17:12] The MPs visited Bentham in North Yorkshire, an area where there's wide concern about PFAS accumulation because of a long history of firefighting foam being made there. The local MP, Sir Julian Smith, the Conservative, said residents needed reassurances from ministers.

Speaker 16:
[17:30] Would he agree that communities who are impacted by PFAS, whilst the consideration is made of the recommendations of his report, do need to have confidence in statutory authorities such as the Environment Agency and local authorities?

Speaker 3:
[17:48] The Environment Minister, Emma Hardy, highlighted the government's PFAS strategy, which focuses on offering better guidance and monitoring. She thanked Toby Perkins for his committee's work.

Speaker 14:
[17:59] I think it's quite clear that this wasn't an issue many people were talking about until recently, and I thank him for recognising that it's this government that are creating that plan. And so my question to him is I hope he'll continue to work with us to raise this issue and tackle it finally in this country.

Speaker 3:
[18:13] The government will now consider the committee's recommendations before deciding whether or not it will accept the proposals. Now MPs have called for the rule that prevents full-time students from claiming the carers' allowance to be scrapped. Ministers were told the so-called 21-hour rule forces young people to choose between caring and learning. David Cornock explains.

Speaker 19:
[18:38] Before becoming an MP, Labour's Chris Fintz taught maths in a secondary school. But there were aspects of his pupils' lives he knew nothing about.

Speaker 20:
[18:46] I often tell the story of my experience of being a teacher and being unaware of a young person in my class being a young carer until it came to parents' evening.

Speaker 19:
[18:55] Charities have estimated there may be more than a million children caring for family members, parents or siblings. Tens of thousands care for more than 50 hours a week. Many continue to have caring responsibilities after they've left school. But Chris Fintz argued that, without support, they sometimes had to choose between caring and learning.

Speaker 20:
[19:16] Now, many people, when we talk about young carers and young adult carers, are talking about the huge economic benefits that young carers and young adult carers have. Because actually, if they weren't doing that caring responsibility, there would be greater admissions to hospital, there would be a greater cost to NHS. I don't like to think about it like that, because that's not why young carers and young adult carers care for their loved ones. They do it because they do it for love, don't they?

Speaker 19:
[19:41] Zaki Bhatti for The Conservative said young carers often had to put their own lives on hold.

Speaker 21:
[19:46] Balancing schoolwork can be particularly hard. It's all too easy to put off that bit of homework, because you've had to be up early to care and just want to catch up on a bit of sleep or get that well deserved rest.

Speaker 19:
[19:57] He said the last government had changed the school census, so young carers were recognised in the system and schools could understand the impact of their role on education and issues like attendance.

Speaker 21:
[20:09] The previous government introduced the pupil premium in 2011, and the funding gave schools additional funding to improve outcomes for children facing disadvantages. This helped young carers gain critical extra support. The previous government also introduced bursaries to help with the cost of education, including travel, books, child care and residential costs where need to be.

Speaker 19:
[20:28] But he said that despite that, young carers were still under extreme pressure. The DUP's Jim Shannon was one of several MPs to highlight the economic challenges.

Speaker 22:
[20:38] They are often one white good of plants away from destitution. In our words, they are dependent on everything happening in the house, probably the microwave, the toaster, the kettle, the lift up the stairs.

Speaker 19:
[20:52] He thought it was time to increase the carers allowance, currently worth £83 a week to those over 16 who care for someone receiving specific benefits. Speaking for the Liberal Democrats, Victoria Collins said some young people didn't even realise they were carers, but faced educational sacrifices.

Speaker 15:
[21:10] In 2025, fewer than half of young carers left secondary school with five GCSEs, including English and Math. So by the time young carers are doing their A levels, they are 60% less likely than non-young carers to achieve the equivalent of three A levels. Nearly half of young carers were persistently absent from school last year through no fault of their own.

Speaker 19:
[21:33] The carers allowance stops if you earn just under 200 pounds a week or are in full-time education. In practice, that means anyone who studies for more than 21 hours a week isn't eligible. Victoria Collins thought that limit should be scrapped as part of a wider shake-up to help carers.

Speaker 15:
[21:50] That 21-hour rule forces young people to choose between studying and surviving. We would require every school and college to appoint a young carers lead. We'd fund proper breaks for young carers, restore the maintenance grants and make caring a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. So I'd like to ask the Minister directly if he'd commit today to abolishing that 21-hour rule, a rule that's actively pushing carers out of education.

Speaker 19:
[22:13] A question she put to the Education Minister, Josh McAllister.

Speaker 23:
[22:17] I do recognise the issues around the 21-hour rule, and I do really appreciate that this can be a source of genuine frustration for young carers and their families. It is a long-standing principle that the benefits system does not normally support full-time students. Rather, they are supported by the educational maintenance system.

Speaker 19:
[22:37] But, he said, ministers were looking at the issue.

Speaker 23:
[22:40] How we can best identify and support young carers to combine study with their caring responsibilities where they can, including taking account of changes in the education system, will be one of our priorities going forward for this group of young people.

Speaker 19:
[22:55] And he acknowledged the system did need to improve to meet the developing needs of young carers.

Speaker 3:
[23:01] David Cornock. Now let's go to the House of Lords, where peers raised concerns about the rising number of young men who are living at home with their parents instead of buying or renting their own place. Recent data from the Office for National Statistics showed that more than one in three men aged under 35 in the UK lived with their parents in 2025 compared to one in four at the turn of the century. Studies suggest the increase is being driven by high rental costs and rising house prices. Lord Young, a conservative, read out some words from the Prime Minister.

Speaker 24:
[23:37] For my family growing up, the roof over our heads was everything. But for so many families today, home ownership is a distant dream. My government will make it a reality once again. For millions of people renting or living with their parents, it remains a dream. But many of them could actually afford the mortgage repayments, but without access to generous relatives, they can't afford the deposit.

Speaker 3:
[24:00] The Housing Minister, Lady Taylor, said too many people relied on money from relatives.

Speaker 25:
[24:06] Three in ten people get help from family or parents, and increasingly access has been determined by family wealth and not earnings. So we are working very hard on this.

Speaker 3:
[24:18] Speaking for the Liberal Democrats, Lady Grenda said there wasn't enough social housing available to rent.

Speaker 6:
[24:24] Less than 15,000 social rent completions were achieved last year. Does she accept that that leads to first-time buyers having to achieve an almost impossible deposit of over 60,000 pounds and that they will continue to be squeezed out of the market until the mix of tenures is much healthier?

Speaker 3:
[24:47] Lady Taylor said the government was working to provide more social and affordable homes. She said measures to improve consumer confidence were also needed.

Speaker 25:
[24:56] To help some of our young people to understand that they've probably had two generations now of being told that house buying is out of reach. So when I work with the financial institutions that we have been talking to very closely, we're very keen that they promote better some of the mortgage options that are available.

Speaker 3:
[25:14] A crossbench or independent peer, Lord Best, said there was a long-term problem with renting rather than buying a home.

Speaker 2:
[25:22] When you retire as a tenant, you haven't paid off a mortgage, and you haven't got a capital asset. You see your rent rising every year, but your income falling. It catches up with you on retirement. And in that longer-term perspective, can I ask the noble baroness, the minister, what has happened to the government's long-term national housing strategy, which she promised me on the 11th of February would be out by the 31st of March?

Speaker 3:
[25:49] The minister said the strategy was on its way.

Speaker 25:
[25:52] I think when we said we were publishing in the spring, spring's not quite over yet. I do hope we will be able to deliver it very soon.

Speaker 3:
[25:59] The housing minister, Lady Taylor. Now, earlier this week, there was speculation at Westminster that this session of Parliament was about to end amid reports that the government wanted to avoid another PMQs ahead of the King's speech next month. But when the leader of the Commons, Sir Alan Campbell, made his weekly business statement, he told MPs that prorogation, the formal name for the break between the end of one session and the start of another, would only take place once the government had got all of its remaining bills onto the statute book. A handful of measures are still subject to the process known as parliamentary ping-pong, where bills shuttle back and forth between the Commons and the Lords, as MPs and peers argue over last-minute changes. There was some good news for ministers when peers dropped their opposition to plans to change the law on private prosecutions, which meant the Victims and Courts Bill could clear Parliament. It's now on course to becoming law. But the government suffered a string of defeats on another measure, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, when peers insisted on a number of changes, including giving strategic authority mayors a duty to prioritise development on brownfield land before allowing building to take place on greenfield sites. The Lords also rejected plans to end the committee system of running local councils. That means the bill will return to the Commons on Monday, when ministers will have to decide if they want to overturn the defeats. And that brings us to the closing headlines from Westminster. A senior civil servant told a group of MPs that due process was followed when Peter Mandelson was appointed UK Ambassador to Washington. A minister confirmed that confidential medical data belonging to half a million British people was put up for sale on a Chinese website. I'm Sean Curran. The studio manager was Fiona Fairmanner. The editor was Ewan Murry. And that was the Today in Parliament podcast. Thanks for listening. And if you enjoyed this programme, why not check out the Yesterday in Parliament podcast on BBC Sounds.