Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Relevant Documents: Oral evidence taken before the Public Accounts Committee on 4 and 1 June, on Government compensation schemes: update, HC 88.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Clive Efford, who will speak for around 15 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Mims Davies.

National Security (State Threats) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 17th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I note the hon. Lady’s point.

Amendment 10 would

“create an offence of engaging in conduct in preparation for committing, or assisting another to commit, an offence relating to a designated body.”

It is not necessary, because a person who engages in conduct of any kind, including preparatory conduct, that is intended to assist a designated body in carrying out UK-related activities would be caught by the Bill’s provisions.

The hon. Lady talked about what she called a loophole; she said that the Bill does not cover attacks inspired by a designated body. Her amendment 13 would create a new offence for self-directed acts inspired by a designated body, but we do not believe it is necessary. The test for the assisting offence in proposed new section 17B of the National Security Act is whether conduct is intended to assist a designated organisation, or whether the person ought to have known that their conduct was likely to assist the organisation. The person does not need to be tasked or directed by the organisation to commit the offence, so those who are inspired to do things, rather than being asked or told to do things by the designated body, are caught.

With amendment 8, the hon. Lady seeks to capture conduct that occurs outside the UK but is planned within the UK. Again, we believe it is unnecessary. If planning takes place in the UK, it is already caught in the Bill, under the offence in proposed new section 17B of assisting a designated body. That offence refers to conduct of any kind, and it will be an offence to plan something in the UK that takes place outside the UK if it materially assists a designated body in carrying out activities that are prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK—the prohibited purpose test. That could cover someone in the UK who assists a designated body in its work, done overseas, to target an ally of the UK, so the amendment is unnecessary.

Amendment 14 would create an offence relating to the dissemination of publications that encourage support for a designated body. The conduct that the amendment seeks to address is already covered by the new offence of supporting a designated body.

I think the hon. Lady wanted people to be criminalised for wearing clothing or displaying flags or similar symbols linked to a designated body. The Bill does not ban the wearing or carrying of an image, because we cannot ban what might be worn by a foreign diplomat, but if somebody is supporting or promoting the hostile activities of a proscribed body in any way, they will be caught by the new support offence. I hope that assures the hon. Lady that that issue is covered.

New clauses 5 and 6 would give effect to other recommendations made by Jonathan Hall by creating new powers to seize travel documents, and to allow police to apply for serious crime prevention orders in relation to offences committed under this legislation. We are committed to legislating on those recommendations and, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on Second Reading, we will do so as soon as parliamentary time allows.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I want to begin by restating that Liberal Democrats support this Bill. We have long called for action to tackle the threat posed by the IRGC, and we have repeatedly been disappointed by slow progress. The Bill represents a positive step, and a rare moment of agreement on a principle across this House. When it comes to important matters of national security, this is a desirable outcome.

The UK is increasingly targeted by hostile state-backed groups, and the IRGC has been involved in such activity, as we know. Attacks on Britain’s Jewish community in recent months have laid bare the clear and ongoing threat to that community, and also to UK national security. The uptick in antisemitism and the threats against our national security continue, regardless of the politics in this House, and we must bear that in mind when we act urgently to protect Jewish communities. That is why I urge Members across the House to support new clause 3 on the designation of the IRGC. This will provide, after long delays, much-needed certainty for the Jewish community and others that the Government will act at pace by bringing forward regulations within a month of this legislation passing.

--- Later in debate ---

I support this Bill and want it to pass, but I am concerned that some who play a crucial role in propping up designated groups, shielding their finances and contributing to their malign activity could get away unscathed. I urge the Government to support this amendment today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Minister.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

New clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), would require the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations designating the IRGC within a month of this Act coming into force, but the exercise of these powers under this Bill will have significant implications for national security and foreign policy, and it is right that they should be exercised independently by the Secretary of State on the basis of expert advice, including from the security and intelligence agencies. That is what this Bill allows, and putting these designations on the face of the Bill would be a very difficult way to effect the change, so the way to do this is the way that the Bill sets out.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham’s new clause 4, which would

“require the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation to assess the adequacy of the powers introduced by this Act twelve months after its passing”,

is already essentially covered by the Bill’s provisions, because they would be subject to part 3 of the National Security Act. The independent reviewer of state threats legislation has to carry out an annual review into the operation of its provisions, and is also empowered by part 1 of that Act to review any other such things he or she sees fit. Amendment 2 would require the draft affirmative procedure to be used for regulations removing a designation. He is right that such regulations should receive the proper parliamentary scrutiny, and the Bill already provides that such regulations are subject to the draft affirmative procedure. The use of the negative procedure is limited to very minor technical changes, such as the addition of aliases.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asked whether it would be possible to proscribe a particular group, and gave a particular example. The test is whether the body is engaged in “foreign power threat activity”; it is a high bar, and it targets organisations that pose a real threat to the UK. I cannot imagine for one minute that my right hon. Friend would be involved in any of those.

Amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), would provide further examples of conduct that would be considered a material benefit, and he spoke about what those might be. Obtaining material benefits from a foreign intelligence service is an existing offence under section 17 of the National Security Act, so I do not think the further examples of conduct in amendment 1 are needed, as that conduct is already caught by the provisions in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alicia Kearns]

I am not sure that anyone has disputed that Jonathan Hall backs the Bill. I had a lengthy call with him to discuss the gaps in the Bill, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has not had. I will not share a private conversation, but I encourage the hon. Gentleman to have a similar call with Jonathan Hall to discuss those gaps.

We are here in this place to find the gaps while they can still be mended. That is the whole of our purpose, but we were not permitted to fulfil it today because scrutiny was declined. I have to admit that it feels like our suggestions were not even given due consideration. So I must tell the House what in the Bill now leaves this Chamber unaltered. The sponsor remains more gently treated in law than the proxies that it arms. The world’s largest sponsor of terrorism keeps a protection denied to its terrorist proxies.

The self-directed actor—the lone individual that our terrorism law learned to tackle, at great and terrible cost, two decades ago—will fall through a gap that we were forbidden to close. Britain may be used as a base from which to plot against our friends in Dublin, Berlin or Brussels, or even those in Hong Kong and Tehran.

The flag of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps may still be flown, lawfully, on a British street, glorifying every threat against our Jewish communities that the regime has directed here. [Interruption.] The Minister may say, “Not necessarily,” but she specifically ruled out our amendment on the basis that we should not prevent members of the Iranian diplomatic corps from wearing uniforms here. The Bill does not apply to members of the diplomatic corps; it applies specifically to UK persons. That is therefore still the case and there is no protection against seeing those flags walked past Jewish people’s homes. In Committee, I asked the Government how we look the people the regime has hunted in the eye and tell them that the banner of the hunter is still welcome on our streets. Tonight, I have no answer to offer them.

A law passed in good faith but built wrongly fails as surely as one that is passed in bad faith. When a prosecution comes, it will turn not on the speeches given today, the Government’s good intentions or our warnings, but on what a defendant did. When that day comes and there is a gap that was identified in this House today that could have been closed in an afternoon, let the record show that it could have been mended.

The Bill now passes to the other place, and I have every confidence that their lordships will give it the scrutiny it deserves. We will not oppose the Bill tonight. We will support it, not because it delivers the full protections it should, but because a flawed shield is still a shield of some form and the men and women that the Bill is designed to protect cannot be left with nothing. We support it, having placed on the record of this House what was refused and whose hand refused it. The threat we face is patient, it is ruthless and it will not be deterred by a law that we were too rushed to finish and that the Government were too proud to mend.

I have supported this Bill at every stage, and it is because of that that I lament what the Bill could have been and that the House was given a single afternoon to try to get it right. I hope this Bill is as watertight as the Government assert, but if they wish to be absolute and to remove risk or ambiguities, we ask those in the other place to shut down any risk that the shield this aims to be might let even one traitor succeed in harming our nation. I hope they will do that on the basis of the way we have put forward our amendments: in the national interest.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

I have tried to explain the answer to that question a number of times. There was no decision to disregard any messages because there are no messages to consider. What I confirmed on Monday was that I have had WhatsApp exchanges with Peter Mandelson, but I have not saved them on my devices to be able to share with my principal private secretary. The only person who could release those messages, if they have them, would be Peter Mandelson, who has refused to disclose his phone to the process—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Mr Burghart, please can you observe the courtesies of the House and ensure that the debate continues in an orderly fashion?

[Darren Jones]

As an extension of that question, the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked me to comment on how this relates to Morgan McSweeney’s messages. I am afraid that I did not conduct that conversation or investigation, so I cannot answer on the specifics of that question.

I will now turn to some of the specific questions raised by Members during the debate, which I have grouped in a way that I hope is satisfactory to the House. The first group relates to vetting information, information on mitigations, both commercial and related to national security, and the question of attachments. I have already addressed the issue of vetting information. In relation to mitigations, I confirm to the House that I have not personally seen any of the UKSV information nor the summary, recommendations or any mitigation information that was put in place, so I cannot speak to this question from personal experience. However, I note my comment on Monday that the Metropolitan police have permitted us to confirm that the categories of documents that they are holding include vetting information and conflict of interest process material. Unfortunately, that is all I am able to say on the matter.

Debate on the Address

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 13th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I am acutely aware that this debate on the King’s Speech is in the shadow of a political moment that is moving at extraordinary speed, a moment on which I have already made my views clear. While I respect the sincerely held opinions of many of my hon. Friends, there are truths that are now too obvious to ignore. Last Thursday’s local election results, in which many hard-working, dedicated and talented Labour councillors in Hartlepool and elsewhere lost their seats, were not a routine protest vote; they were a roar of unbridled anger.

In towns like Hartlepool, that anger did not begin 22 months ago with the election of this Labour Government; it has been building for more than 20 years. People have repeatedly voted for change. When it came to Brexit, they voted for the change promised by members of Reform, and they were failed. They voted again for change under the Tories, with levelling up, and were let down once more. Now, that accumulated anger lands on our doorstep, alongside an understandable fear among many of my constituents that politics will once again let them down. The message last week was unmistakeable. People want a Government who act with urgency, courage and purpose against the crushing pressures of everyday life, and if they do not get it, they will once again roll the dice, even if it means taking a risk on a charlatan, because desperation drives risk, and people are desperate for hope.

However difficult it may be for many Labour Members to admit, it is now clear to me that this Prime Minister can no longer provide that hope. I do not say that with pleasure, but leadership is not only about knowing when to fight on; it is about knowing when your authority has ebbed, when trust has frayed, and when it is time to leave the stage. Some people will say that this is about personality. It is not; it is about policy, and whether we are prepared to meet the moment with the scale of change it demands. This Government have done so much in their first 22 months, and there is much to applaud in this King’s Speech, but caution will not save us now. Incrementalism will not save us now. We must be bolder.

We need a programme of radical renewal that improves the lives of working people in Hartlepool and across Britain. That means abolishing the hated council tax and replacing it with a progressive system that no longer punishes poor communities simply for being poor. It means radical welfare reform that is both compassionate and demanding—support for those who need help, but a clear demand that everyone who can work must work. It means bringing failed monopolies back into public ownership where markets have plainly failed, from water companies to the Royal Mail. It means cutting taxes on jobs and investment in deprived regions, so that opportunity finally reaches communities that have been left behind for decades. It means banning estate management companies altogether, and requiring every council to adopt every street. It means finding the £2 billion that the British Dental Association has said is needed to rescue NHS dentistry. It means lower energy bills for those communities hosting the new nuclear, wind and solar that powers Britain, and while I absolutely support the Home Secretary and stand behind her reforms, if it is necessary, it means declaring a state of emergency at our borders and turning boats back. It means banning southern councils from discharging their homelessness duty by shifting the burden to communities like mine, simply because our housing is cheaper. It means taking defence spending out of the fiscal rules and spending what this dangerous world requires now. It means giving councils the power to simply seize empty shops, abandoned homes and derelict sites where absentee owners refuse to act. It means finally standing up for justice for our WASPI women—the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—and it means delivering a national care service, not eventually, not someday, but now.

I do not want this country to fall prey to Trump-style populism, but the truth is that only we on the Labour Benches can prevent that. We have the parliamentary majority, we have the mandate, and we still have time, but if we do not use those things to deliver visible, meaningful change—if we do not give people hope that they can feel in their wages, their streets and their communities—then others will inevitably fill that vacuum. If that happens, the responsibility will lie with us.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Liz Saville Roberts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

I absolutely respect the work that the hon. Member does in his constituency and across Northern Ireland to bring about reconciliation, but I would say that the Bill does put victims at its heart. The victims have been spoken to constantly to create the Bill and rework it, since the Tories’ Bill did not work, and to put the justice they want at its heart. Across the Chamber, we should make sure that the Bill does deliver what he advocates, because it should deliver justice and the answers for which families have been waiting for so long.

I must say that I am disappointed there was no mention of the renovation of Hammersmith bridge in the King’s Speech. I live in hope that one day the King will sit on the Throne and talk about the renovation of Hammersmith bridge. We are one step further, because there is a timetable for applying to the structures fund, and I am very hopeful that funding will be announced soon—this year—for that renovation, so that the bridge can reopen for the six bus routes and all the vehicles now prevented from going across it, which impacts us so much in Putney.

However, I was most keen to see the focus on closer alignment with the European Union, and I will focus my speech on that, as well as on protecting children online and international security. Brexit has imposed a deep and enduring cost on our economy and living standards. It is the elephant in the room when we talk about the economy, and the context for the very difficult financial position we are in as a country. Because of Brexit, GDP per person is 6% to 8% lower, business investment is about 18% lower, and employment and productivity are down 3% to 4%. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) will talk about everything he did, except the consequences of the single policy that he has delivered. He sold the country false promises, and we are seeing the consequences today, but he is not the only one that bears the cost.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Lady might like to consider withdrawing the comment “false promises”, because I think she is suggesting falsehoods from the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage).

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Whether it is in relation to the co-infected, to whom my hon. Friend so movingly refers, or other people who are both infected and affected by this scandal, the compensation scheme seeks to recognise everything—all the harms that have happened to them and how they have suffered. I will just say, though, that this was always meant to be a tariff-based scheme—it is meant to produce broad justice—and part of the reason for that is to try to prevent those highly individualised searches for evidence which, frankly, with this distance of time, would simply not be possible.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I especially welcome in his remarks the recognition of people’s individual experiences and the commitment to compensating them fairly in a way that minimises the administrative burden placed upon those who have been harmed.

The infected blood scandal is one of the greatest failures in our national health service, which was unacknowledged for far too long. Over 30,000 people were infected across the country and faced the devastating consequences of that systematic failure. Yet there are people who continue to feel that the scheme has not gone far enough, including one of my constituents, from Marple, who feels the scheme should investigate more potential conditions.

Thousands of victims and their families have waited decades for the justice they deserve. Sir Brian Langstaff was straightforward in his findings: victims have been ignored and frozen out of the process they fought for decades to secure, while payments have proceeded at an infuriatingly glacial pace. The Liberal Democrats have long stood with the victims. The Government are right to seek to answer the needs of those infected and affected by setting out a clear timeline for how compensation can be delivered to them. My colleagues and I will continue to hold this Government to account until every eligible person receives the justice they are owed.

Sir Brian Langstaff rightly highlighted how victims have not been listened to by successive Ministers, and we welcome the new feedback mechanism that the Minister has set out today. Will he expand a little on his remarks and confirm that that will be a formal advisory body of victims to IBCA, as recommended by the Langstaff inquiry?

After so many years of secrecy, deceit and delay, the Government should ensure full transparency over the progress of the scheme and open ongoing communication with all those affected. Enshrining a statutory duty of candour is a long-overdue reform championed by those infected and affected by the scandal, and the continued delays to passing the Hillsborough law are shameful. Victims and campaigners should not be made to wait any longer, so will the Minister say when the Government will get that vital piece of legislation moving again and finally get the Hillsborough law on the statute book?

Middle East

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Can I please urge Members to make their questions significantly shorter? There is still a huge number of Members seeking to catch my eye. I know we are going to have an exemplary performance from Mark Pritchard, with a very short question, please.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

When British children are being bombed in Dubai, and the British military are being attacked in Cyprus, Qatar and Bahrain, why does it seem like the Prime Minister—I hope he will forgive me—is frozen with indecision, entangled in his own legalise, and fretting about his Back Benchers? He is looking to the left in his party as much as to the middle east. He will know that I have supported him time and again on what he has said about foreign policy decisions at the Dispatch Box, but I have to say to him that this is not his finest hour. He is looking very weak, and that is not in our national interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The decision was taken to allow the bases to be used to protect our nationals. It is worth considering the alternative, which is to recognise the risk to our nationals, have the opportunity to do something about it and take the decision not to. That would be a dereliction of duty, in my view.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Can I respectfully suggest to colleagues that by the time they get on to page 2 of their question, that question is too long?

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

The Iranian regime kills its own people, funds terrorist proxies in Hamas and Hezbollah, backs Putin’s aggressive war in Ukraine, and now puts British civilians and our armed forces in the firing line. By some accounts, it is already a failed state. I absolutely back the Prime Minister’s decision to allow UK military bases to be used by the US for defensive strikes, given the attacks on our bases in the Gulf and Cyprus, but does he agree, given the threat that Iran poses on our streets here, that the absolute minimum we should do is proscribe the IRGC, along with any other organisations that threaten British civilians?

Lord Mandelson

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

If I could follow that, Madam Deputy Speaker—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. There are several other points of order. I am keen that we do not conduct the debate via points of order, so, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will take two further points of order and then respond to his point of order. Hopefully we might then have an answer.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Following the answer we have just heard, if the Intelligence and Security Committee comes across evidence of commercial misdemeanours as well as intelligence and international relations misdemeanours, what powers does it have to do anything about that? Where will it refer those concerns and where will those inquiries lead? The issues of lobbying and potential corruption in the handing out of Government contracts are massive, and I would not want that swept under the carpet on the basis that the Committee is dealing with international relations and national security.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have heard this evening from the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), who celebrated Elon Musk—rather tactlessly, I believe—in this debate. Notwithstanding the fact that like Mandelson, Musk had a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, and in fact was found to have been practically begging for a visit to his island, the hon. Member declined to include—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. That is not a point of order; it is a point of debate. I do not think it is appropriate during points of order specifically on the Intelligence and Security Committee to raise that matter. It is not for the Chair to rule on comments by other Members during the course of the debate.

[Cameron Thomas]

I am grateful to you for allowing me to continue, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth declined in his intervention to declare his interest: he is, in fact, bought and paid for by Elon Musk.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He has very clearly brought into question the probity of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe). He might want to withdraw that. It is of course a matter for the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth to declare that, which he could now do by putting any interest on the record.

[John McDonnell]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am really grateful for the intervention from the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright). I just want the assurance that the Government will not be able to exercise a veto over the information that will be provided via the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point of order. As he will know, the powers of the ISC are not a matter for the Chair. However, the Minister on the Front Bench will have heard his comments and will have every opportunity in winding up to respond to that specific point and to provide the entire House with the clarity that I believe it is looking for on that point.

[Simon Hoare]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point relates to the point of order from the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), which he did not quite finish. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) has in the published register of interests significant monthly payments from X Corp, headquartered in California. That surely should have been a declared interest when making the intervention.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for that point of order. He will know that declarations of interest are not a matter for the Chair. However, he might be advised to refer that to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for investigation.

[Rupert Lowe]

Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I have declared these payments in the register, and I apologise if I should have declared them to the House. They are public, they are not hidden and they have no relevance to what I discussed earlier.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard my earlier comment that it is a matter not for the Chair but for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards if he has failed to declare interests during the debate.

[Paul Holmes]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Forgive me for detaining the House, but may I ask for your clarification on whether a Member saying that somebody in this House has been bought and paid for is in order?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I did ask the Member to withdraw his comments. He now has the opportunity to do so.

[Cameron Thomas]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw the remark that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth was bought and paid for. I regret the tone that I used.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for putting that on the record. If there are no more points of order, I call Wendy Morton.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

My right hon. Friend makes a really important. This is about probity and evidence and making sure, for the reputation of this country, that we are appointing the right people. I should declare that I once was a member of the diplomatic service, and I know that the people who serve our country as diplomats are of the highest integrity, and they have my trust. When it comes to making political appointments, as today’s debate has shown, there are still questions that need to be asked.

The other thing that is rather strange is that everyone seemed to know that there were questions around Peter Mandelson. There were questions about the sort of person he was—I think he was once featured on “Spitting Image” as the Prince of Darkness—but where was the Prime Minister, and where was his judgment? Was his head stuck in the sand? We Conservative Members are aware that the Prime Minister had been glowing about the talents of Peter Mandelson. Only in February, he said at the British embassy in Washington:

“Peter is the right person to help us work with President Trump and to take the special relationship from strength to strength”.

We are aware that Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, pushed for Mandelson to become ambassador, sidelining long-serving experienced diplomats. We are aware that Keir Starmer assured MPs that “full due process” was followed—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Will the hon. Lady make sure that she refers to the Prime Minister as the Prime Minister, please?

[Wendy Morton]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was getting a bit carried away there.

The Prime Minister assured MPs that “full due process” was followed in his appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador. He appointed Peter Mandelson despite it already being in the public domain that Peter Mandelson had discussed issues relevant to his ministerial position with Jeffrey Epstein while Epstein was in jail. I could go on. Why did the Prime Minister choose to ignore all that, at a time when Members on both sides of the House know that the public are often scathing about politicians? They say that we are all the same, but I can assure them that we are not. They question our motives and our integrity. Some even refer to Members of this place as members of the establishment, which is something that I will always rail against. [Laughter.] No, no, I can absolutely see why they might say that. [Interruption.] Labour Members may mock, but the point is about integrity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Ind)]

I will take the hon. Member’s word for it that those Humble Addresses did not contain those words, but if you take, for example, the Humble Address on Lebedev’s appointment to the House of Lords in 2022, it did not have to contain those words for the Conservative Government to use national security grounds not to provide swathes of documents—they did so without those words even being included. Their response almost mirrored the Freedom of Information Act 2000, in respect of the types of exemptions that should apply. Are you really going to deny that that was the approach—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I count two uses of the word “you”. I have not said anything; it is the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) who has made a comment, but any intervention needs to be via the Chair.

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am obviously out of practice on interventions. Is the hon. Lady aware of that convention?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alicia Kearns]

My right hon. Friend hits on a point that no one has raised in today’s debate; without it, we would have had a real missed opportunity. As yet, there has been no commitment from the Government as to how quickly files will be turned over to the ISC or how quickly all the documents mandated in this Humble Address will be released. That is vital.

I hope that, as part of any release, the Government will contact the Ministry of Justice and require the release of any additional documents that would be in our national interests, or anything that references Mandelson or any British national in any way. I ask the Minister to confirm that. Any existing documents could be on the ISC’s desk by Friday, so let us ensure that we move quickly.

Let me conclude by touching once again on the incredibly brave women without whom none of this would ever have come out, and Virginia, who obviously is not here today to hear us debate and discuss this important issue. We have to recommit in this place that we will hear women, see women and stand by women who report abuse, because all of us have seen how easily women’s concerns are dismissed, how we are spoken over and how we are ignored, particularly when it comes to men of power.

We have touched on some of the men named in these documents who are commercially very powerful, and there are concerns about who else may come out. No one who has been named in those documents who knew what happened to those women should be allowed to continue to live their lives and make profits as if this did not happen. That must be the main commitment.

I want transparency and I want those documents to come out. But, whether it is a woman in our constituency or someone from another part of the country who comes to us in concern, I want us all to say that we will stand by them. This is a stain on Britain. We must ensure that this never happens again, and that we listen to our women and defend them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Just to sum up, the Metropolitan police have no jurisdiction over what this House may wish to do. It will be a matter of whether or not the Government provide the information. I want to let Members know that the police cannot dictate to this House. I will leave it at that; I am not going to continue the debate, which has been a long and important one. Let us move on.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I will now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026. The Ayes were 392 and the Noes were 116, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Chinese Embassy

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I would like to make a statement on the national security considerations of China’s proposal to build a new embassy at the Royal Mint Court in Tower Hamlets. I know that Members will by now be well aware that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has approved China’s planning application. Some right hon. Members have been briefed by my security officials, and some Members will have seen the statement from the Intelligence and Security Committee, as well as the letter from the director general of MI5 and the director of GCHQ.

The decision made by the Secretary of State for Housing was an independent, quasi-judicial planning one. It concludes a process that began in 2018 when the then Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, gave formal diplomatic consent for China to use the Royal Mint site for its new embassy, subject to planning permission, and welcomed it as China’s largest overseas investment. Given the potential for legal proceedings, it would not be appropriate to give a commentary on the grounds for the decision. In its decision, MHCLG notes that

“the package of security measures proposed would be proportionate to the proposed use of the site”

and that

“no bodies with responsibility for national security, including HO and FCDO, have raised concerns or objected to the proposal on the basis of the proximity of the cables or other underground infrastructure.”

I know that some Members have raised concerns regarding the security implications of the new embassy, and it is on that issue that I want to update the House. National security is the first duty of any Government, and that is why the intelligence and security agencies have been absolutely integral to this process. The ISC, which is the Committee entrusted and empowered by this House to scrutinise the Government’s most sensitive information, has today released its judgment on the security implications. I thank it for its work, and I am reassured by the depth of its scrutiny throughout this process. In its statement, the ISC concluded,

“On the basis of the evidence we have received, and having carefully reviewed the nuanced national security considerations, the Committee has concluded that, taken as a whole, the national security concerns that arise can be satisfactorily mitigated.”

I can confirm today that the Home Office has received a letter from the director of GCHQ and director general of MI5 that makes it clear that

“as with any foreign embassy on UK soil, it is not realistic to expect to be able wholly to eliminate each and every potential risk…However, the collective work across UK intelligence agencies and HMG departments to formulate a package of national security mitigations for the site has been, in our view, expert, professional and proportionate.”

They judge that

“the package of mitigations deals acceptably with a wide range of sensitive national security issues, including cabling.”

Indeed, they note that the consolidation has “clear security advantages”.

Our security services have over a century of experience of managing security matters relating to foreign embassies on UK soil. This Government, and the last, have been aware of the potential for a new embassy at this site since the Chinese Government completed the purchase in 2018. The issues that continue to be raised in media reports are not new to the Government or the intelligence community, and an extensive range of measures have been developed to protect national security. We have acted to increase the resilience of cables in the area through an extensive series of measures to protect sensitive data, and I can confirm that, contrary to reporting, the Government had seen the unredacted plans for the embassy and the Government have agreed with China that the publicly accessible forecourt on the embassy grounds will not have diplomatic immunity, managing the risk to the public.

Based on all that, and given our extensive work on this matter, I am content that any risks are being appropriately managed, but let me be clear: the build also brings clear national security advantages. Following extensive negotiations led by this Government, the Chinese Government have agreed to consolidate their seven current sites in London into one site. That is why, following deep scrutiny by security officials, the Government have been able to conclude that we can manage the security concerns related to the embassy.

Although there are those who have, and who will no doubt continue to have, concerns about the embassy, it is a fundamental and normal part of international relations that countries agree to establish embassies in each other’s capitals. While some would stick their heads in the sand and ignore the obvious need to engage, this Government are engaging with China confidently and pragmatically, recognising the complexity of the world as it is and challenging where we need to, because for our security, our economy and our climate, China matters. To be clear, this is not a question of balancing economic and security considerations; we do not trade off security for economic access.

Of course we recognise that China poses a series of threats to UK national security, from cyber-attacks, foreign interference and espionage targeting our democratic institutions to the transnational repression of Hongkongers and China’s support for Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. That is why I announced a package in November to protect our national security, which set out the range of work the Government are taking forward to strengthen the security of our democracy against the threat from foreign interference and espionage. It is also why, for example, in December 2025 the UK sanctioned two China-based companies that have carried out cyber-attacks against the UK and its allies; why we have completed work to remove Chinese-made surveillance equipment from sensitive sites; why the UK has sanctioned 50 Chinese companies under the Russia sanctions regulations as part of our efforts to take action against entities operating in third countries over economic and military support for Russia; and why I will be hosting a closed event in February with vice-chancellors to discuss the risks posed by foreign interference from a range of states and to signpost our plans to further increase the sector’s resilience.

Taking a robust approach to our national security also includes engaging with China. Under the previous Government, engagement with China had ground to a halt. That made us no safer; indeed, it is only through engagement that we can directly challenge China on its malicious activity. By taking tough steps to keep us secure, we enable ourselves to co-operate in other areas, including in pursuit of safe economic opportunities in the UK’s interest, and in areas such as organised immigration crime, narcotics trafficking, and serious and organised crime. This is what our allies do and this is what we are doing: delivering for the public, putting more money in their pockets and keeping them safe through hard-headed, risk-based engagement with the world’s most consequential powers.

I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for the ongoing attention that they give to protecting the UK’s national security. China has posed, and will continue to pose, threats to our national security. However, following detailed consideration of all possible risks around the new embassy by expert officials across Government, I am assured that the UK’s national security is protected. Let me assure this House and the country: upholding national security is the first duty of Government and we will continue to take all measures necessary to defeat these threats. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Let us be in no doubt about the threat that China poses: MI5 has warned that Chinese intelligence is actively trying to disrupt our democracy; bounties have been placed on the heads of Hong Kong campaigners; Members of this House have been directly spied on by China; China actively supports Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine; and China is infiltrating universities and businesses to acquire sensitive technology, as well as stealing it directly. Yet this Government have failed again and again to take the action needed.

This Government failed to place China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. This Government failed to properly support the case against two men accused of spying for China on MPs in this House. And now this Government have shamefully approved plans for a Chinese super-embassy. Despite everything China has done on our soil, China has been rewarded with exactly what it wants: a super-embassy that will be a base for espionage, not just in the UK but likely across Europe as well.

The Government have capitulated to Chinese demands. The Prime Minister himself said to President Xi at the G20 in November 2024,

“You raised the Chinese embassy building in London when we spoke on the telephone and we have since taken action by calling in that application.”

In other words, the Prime Minister did precisely what President Xi told him to do and then he faithfully reported back afterwards.

The decision has serious implications. Last week, The Telegraph published plans showing 208 secret rooms and a hidden chamber just 1 metre from critical data cables. Our economy depends on those cables, so what assurance can the Minister give that those cables will be secure from Chinese interference?

In paragraph 97 of his decision notice, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who made the decision, admits that he had not even seen unredacted plans before making his decision. How can he possibly have assessed the risk, as the decision maker, without having seen those plans? He also admits in paragraph 13 that he did not follow our suggestion to hold section 321 closed hearings to take evidence. Once again, how can the Secretary of State possibly have taken the decision in an informed way without having personally assessed the risk? It gets worse, because paragraph 8.63 onwards of the inspector’s report admits that China can legally refuse to allow UK authorities to inspect the building during or after construction—so we are going to have no idea what is being built in there in any event.

The Minister referred to the ISC. He said that someone in Government has seen unredacted plans, although we know that that was not the decision maker, the Secretary of State. Has the ISC seen those unredacted plans? It has been suggested to me that it has not. The ISC says that the risks can be mitigated, but mere mitigation is not enough. Mitigation entails only a partial exclusion of risk, and nothing is said about how to manage future developments in China’s capabilities—developments that we cannot anticipate today. The Minister for some reason forgot to quote this, but the ISC also says that the Government process was not robust enough. It says that it lacked clarity on national security, that the key reports lacked the necessary detail and that the Government do not have the “dexterity” required to handle China. Does the Minister accept those elements of the ISC report?

Others share those concerns. A US Government source was recently quoted as saying that the UK had “downplayed” the risks. Last week, the White House was reported to be “deeply concerned”, and the chair of the US House of Representatives China committee says that he opposes the plans on the grounds that Americans’ data may be “at risk”. Does the Minister agree with our American allies?

It is clear that this decision is timed to be shortly before a planned trip by the Prime Minister to China. He apparently intends to seek some kind of economic deal with China to fix the mess he and the Chancellor have created here, with jobs down and unemployment up since the election. From its timing and from President Xi’s clear demands, this planning consent appears to be linked to the Prime Minister’s imminent visit and to the economic deal. It seems clear to me that the Government are trading national security for economic links, and that this is a shameless capitulation to China’s demands.

China is spying on us. It is subverting our democracy, it is repressing people on our soil and it is stealing our technology. Is the truth not this? In those circumstances, giving them what they want is simply the wrong thing to do.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Before I call the Minister, I gently remind shadow Ministers and spokesmen that there is a time limit, which the right hon. Gentleman exceeded somewhat.

[Dan Jarvis]

I listened carefully to what the shadow Home Secretary had to say. There was a glaring gap in his analysis: he did not seem to want to say anything about the level of challenge that we inherited from the previous Government in the laydown of the diplomatic estate. He did not want to accept that, as with other countries, there is a degree of risk that has to be managed. I explained that very carefully and made sure that he had the opportunity to come in this morning for a briefing. I was also at pains to stress in my opening remarks that although, of course, balanced views have to be taken about these things, there are national security advantages to the proposals that have been agreed. I know that he and other Conservative Members do not want to agree with that, but I think it is important that we debate—

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman says it is nonsense. He is entitled to his opinion, as are this Government. I hope that he takes the opportunity to look carefully at what the director general of MI5 and the director of GCHQ have to say. I also say to him and to some, but not all, Conservative Members that this is a moment when I would have hoped we could discuss these things in a sensible and reasonable way. That is how we should approach matters relating to national security.

I do not think it would be such a bad thing to hear a bit of humility from some Conservative Members, not least because the attack that we heard from the shadow Home Secretary and which other hon. Members have already engaged in might have landed a bit fairer and a bit truer if they had not spent 14 years in government flitting between hot and cold, neither consistent nor credible on what is, after all, one of the most complex geopolitical challenges that we face. The Conservatives went from golden age to ice age, and from welcoming China with open arms to choosing to disengage almost entirely with the world’s largest nation, which, along with Hong Kong, is our second-largest trading partner. It is convenient for some Conservative Members to forget that it was Boris Johnson, as Conservative Foreign Secretary in 2018, who granted consent for the Royal Mint site to be used as diplomatic premises. He said he was proud to

“welcome the fact this is China’s largest overseas diplomatic investment.”

That was a Conservative Foreign Secretary. In recent times, we have seen Conservative MPs U-turn on the original position of their Government and take a different approach.

This Government will ensure that the approach we take is underpinned by consistent and pragmatic engagement with China, but we will do so a way that absolutely ensures our national security. The House will have heard the important contributions that have been made by the ISC, and the conclusion that it has drawn. The House and the country will have heard the comments from the directors general. These are important contributions. Nobody should underestimate how seriously the Government have taken this matter. We have engaged with it incredibly closely. The intelligence and security agencies have been involved in the process from the outset. I can give an assurance to those who have doubts that we will, of course, continue to monitor this process carefully, but we believe that this is the right judgment.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I respectfully say to the Minister that that was an incredibly long answer—indeed, longer even than the question. Perhaps questions and responses need to be briefer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend is an assiduous Member of the House and represents her constituents incredibly seriously. She will understand that, for obvious reasons, there are limits to what I can say about the specific measures and mitigations that will be put in place, but I am grateful to her for entirely understandably raising the concerns that some of her constituents have expressed. I assure her that we will want to work closely with her to minimise any disruption to local residents, and of course I would be happy to discuss these matters with her further.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement and for the time his officials took to brief me earlier today.

The Government’s decision to approve plans for the Chinese mega-embassy represents far more than a planning matter. It shows that Ministers have learned very little from the evidence exposed in recent months of Chinese spying efforts to infiltrate British politics and this House. Throughout this stunted process, the Liberal Democrats have consistently called these plans out for what they are: a mistake. The Government know that the decision they have made today will further amplify China’s surveillance efforts here in the UK, endangering the security of our data. Planning conditions are meaningless without proper enforcement. Given the unprecedented security concerns surrounding this site, how will the Government ensure that planning conditions are rigorously monitored and enforced, particularly in regard to the underground cables that the current plans come dangerously close to?

No amount of planning conditions can address the fundamental problem. The embassy does not clean Chinese officials of their human rights abuses. It is shocking that China has placed bounties on the heads of democracy activists from Hong Kong who live in the UK. That type of interference and intimidation in our country is totally unacceptable, so in the light of this decision, will the Government include all Chinese officials, Hong Kong special administrative region officials and Chinese Communist party-linked organisations on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?

Beyond the security and diplomatic concerns, there are fundamental questions about our democratic freedoms. The previous Conservative Government attacked our fundamental right to protest, and this Labour Government have continued to erode those freedoms. As a democratic society, we must protect the right to protest peacefully, including near embassies and including for Hongkongers living in the UK. Will the Government continue to guarantee the right to protest, even as this embassy moves ahead?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Member asks me what that means. I hope he will understand that it would be unwise of me to get into the technical detail of the mitigations that we are seeking to put in place. Surely he understands that the Security Minister is not able to get into the guts and the detail of precisely what we are going to do—[Interruption.] If he is just patient for—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am simply not going to have this. There is too much chuntering, and indeed yelling, across the Chamber from a sedentary position. The Minister might like to focus on responding to the question that was asked by the Lib Dem spokesperson, not to heckling from the rest of the Chamber.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Opposition Members have made points about transparency, and it is important that I take this opportunity to give as much detail as I can, but it is important for the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) to understand that, as Security Minister, I cannot get into the detail of precisely what we are going to do, for what I thought would have been fairly obvious reasons.

Let me say to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) that the Government have been aware of the potential new embassy proposal since 2018. Our security services have been involved throughout that process, and an extensive range of measures have been developed and are being implemented to protect our national security. I can give her the assurance that she seeks that an extensive range of measures have been developed and are being implemented to protect our national security.

The hon. Lady also—quite unfairly, I have to say—criticised the Government’s belief in the right to protest. I do not think that that is a fair critique. The Government take very seriously the right of people to protest in our country. It is a cornerstone of our democracy and the Government will always ensure that people have the ability to protest in a peaceful way.

The hon. Lady asked, entirely reasonably, about the foreign influence registration scheme. I am waiting for Conservative Members to ask me about that as well. She will know that FIRS is still a new scheme. It came into force relatively recently, on 1 July, and more effectively on 1 October. She will understand that any decision with regard to FIRS will be brought to Parliament in the usual way.

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend is right to say that these are complex decisions, and right to make the point that there are significant restrictions on what can be said in this Chamber. I can give him the assurances that he seeks. Ultimately, of course, it is for the Intelligence and Security Committee to decide what lines of inquiry it wants to proceed with, but we have given it close assurances of the work being done, and it has had access to material, so that it can take its own view. I make a commitment to him and to the vice-chair of the Committee, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), that we will continue to engage with the Committee in a constructive way, and that when we feel that it is necessary or appropriate to update the House further, we will of course do that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the vice-chair of the ISC.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

As you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House would expect, the Intelligence and Security Committee has investigated the security implications of this proposal, and specifically whether the intelligence community had sufficient opportunity to feed in any security concerns, and whether Ministers had the necessary information on which to base a decision. I want to quote directly from our conclusions, which represent the Committee’s unanimous view:

“On the basis of the evidence we have received, and having carefully reviewed the nuanced national security considerations, the Committee has concluded that, taken as a whole, the national security concerns that arise can be satisfactorily mitigated.”

I will say, though, that we have been concerned solely with the national security perspective, not with the other arguments for or against a new embassy.

It has proved more difficult than it should have been to get straightforward answers to our basic questions. The process in Government does not seem to be effectively co-ordinated, or as robust as would have been expected. In particular, there was a lack of clarity about the role that national security considerations play in planning decisions. We will take those matters up further with the Government, as I know the Minister would expect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I do not accept the basis of the argument that my hon. Friend has made. He would be well advised to place more emphasis on the point about consolidation, because I am confident that that will deliver meaningful operational benefits; that has been agreed by the security experts. Let me find what I hope is an important point of consensus: I am absolutely clear about how unacceptable it is for China, or any other nation for that matter, to seek to persecute individuals who are resident in the United Kingdom. The Government take these matters incredibly seriously. That is why the defending democracy taskforce, which I chair, has completed an extensive piece of work looking at transnational repression.

A number of actions have come from that piece of work, which have been routed right across Government. We take this incredibly seriously; I have met a number of people who have been the victim of TNR. It is completely unacceptable for China or anyone else to persecute people in this country. However, I ask my hon. Friend to consider the fact that we are talking about a proposal that will deliver an embassy for China at some point in the future. The Government and I have to deal with the level of threat as it is. Given the point about consolidation, I am confident that this is a proposal that we will be able to make work in the national interests of our country and all the people who live here.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

While I associate myself with the wider security concerns, will the Minister forgive me if I raise a narrow point? He knows what I am going to ask, because I have asked this twice already and not had an answer. The correspondence between the Government and the Chinese reveals that the medieval monastery on the site—an important monastery called Eastminster, rather than Westminster, where we are now—will remain on inviolable Chinese territory. Any UK citizens visiting it will have to be frisked, and will effectively be in China. What reassurance can the Minister give to those who have bounties on their head—the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) mentioned them—or to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who has been sanctioned by the Chinese state? What further reassurances can the Minister give that UK citizens visiting their own heritage will not be in danger when going on to the site?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Hongkongers and other Chinese dissidents in the UK will be rightly concerned about this news. I want to make it completely clear that the Liberal Democrats have serious concerns that this project will enhance China’s ability to conduct transnational repression against Britons and Hongkongers on British soil. What is the timeline for closing the seven existing Chinese consulate buildings, once Royal Mint Court is opened? Will the Government publish the 2018 note verbale confirming that the embassy was contingent on planning approval, ensuring that the Government did not prejudge the application? Finally, paragraph 62 of the Secretary of State’s permission letter states that

“lawful embassy use of the site”

would give no cause for worry about interference with the sensitive cabling that runs adjacent to the secret basement rooms. After China’s proven record of unlawful espionage against MPs and British institutions, does the Minister agree that this is a catastrophic misjudgment, and that we have no hope of our laws being observed by the Chinese Communist party?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. When questions run to two pages and take a minute, perhaps Members might think about cutting them down slightly.

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Gentleman has expressed an opinion, and he is entirely within his rights to do that, but I hope he understands that I am also entirely within my rights to point out that his opinion is not backed up by the intelligence services or the security agencies, which have looked incredibly carefully at the detail of the proposal. He states baldly that the proposed embassy site will deliver additional capability to China, but I again make the point about consolidation, and about the security advantages that we think will accrue from this proposal. I hope the hon. Gentleman understands that I will not get into the timeline today, not least because I have to be incredibly careful about what I say, given the likelihood of further legal proceedings, but I am very happy to discuss these matters further with him and his Liberal Democrat colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I am hopeful that we can find consensus that questions and answers need to be shorter. I intend to keep the Minister here until all Members have been satisfied this afternoon, but we do need to speed up.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

There is a pattern of behaviour here: the failure to act meaningfully over Jimmy Lai, the mysterious collapse of the Chinese spy case and now this abject national humiliation. Let’s call this what it is: this is appeasement of communist China for economic gain. We tried that in the 1930s, and look where it got us. Why are this Labour Government kowtowing to China—a communist regime that imprisons 1 million Uyghur Muslims in concentration camps for having the temerity to believe in God?

Storm Goretti

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Before I call the Minister, I make it clear to Members that I intend to prioritise those representing areas of the country most affected by Storm Goretti. This may be a test of my geography.

[Dan Jarvis]

I very much appreciate the reasonable and diligent way in which the hon. Gentleman has made his points. He is absolutely right to come here to represent his constituents, and he has done so very effectively. While he will understand that it is not for me to take a view on how these matters are portrayed by the national media, I can give him an absolute, categoric assurance that the Government care just as deeply about his constituents in Cornwall as we do about residents right across the country. I personally know Cornwall incredibly well, and I think it is an extremely important part of the United Kingdom.

My own constituency also feels that it is a long way from the centre, and often feels that it is being neglected and that other parts of the country get preferential treatment. I can therefore say to the hon. Gentleman, and to other Members from the county of Cornwall, that we take the points they are raising today very seriously, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Government Departments, agencies and local partners have worked, and will continue to work, very closely together to ensure that Cornwall has the same emergency support, recovery funding and resilience measures that would be available to other parts of the country, including the parts that he mentioned. Those measures include support for affected households and for businesses, the important co-ordinating activity that takes place with local authorities, and the engagement with utility providers and the emergency services, to ensure that we are working collectively to restore services as quickly as possible.

We fully recognise the particular vulnerabilities of coastal and rural communities like the one that the hon. Gentleman represents, and the fact that severe weather and the conditions that we have seen over the past few days will inevitably cause significant disruption to infrastructure and livelihoods in areas such as Cornwall. However, the Government remain absolutely committed to standing alongside Cornwall as the recovery effort continues, and to ensuring that no community in Cornwall—or anywhere else in the United Kingdom, for that matter—feels overlooked or treated differently because of where it is located.

I recognise that the impacts of severe weather like Storm Goretti are hugely disruptive and distressing for those who are affected, and of course that can be even more acute in the case of vulnerable individuals and those in more remote communities who may feel isolated from support. The Government took the decision to deploy an emergency alert following the Met Office red weather warning. I was in the situation room when we took that decision and issued that alert, which we did to ensure that all communities across Cornwall—including St Ives, the hon. Gentleman’s constituency—were aware of the incoming storm and could take the necessary precautions to stay safe.

I am pleased to see that communities have been coming together to respond to the impacts of the storm. I know that the hon. Gentleman will join with me in commending the tireless work of the network operators to reconnect the remaining properties with power. For the final 193 customers, power restoration is challenging, because repairs may be required at individual properties in remote locations and access to those properties may be still blocked by fallen trees or debris.

I am pleased that the Minister for Energy is present; the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is continuing to work closely with National Grid to deploy generators to individual properties while repairs take place. That is in addition to the further 900 engineers and field staff who were deployed yesterday. Vulnerable people are being supported and have been offered alternative accommodation, transportation support and hot food. I can give the hon. Gentleman and the House an assurance that the Cabinet Office continues to work closely with the DESNZ, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that the recovery efforts are progressing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I very much appreciate the Minister’s comprehensive response—as, I am sure, do Cornish Members—but it was twice as long as his initial response to the urgent question. Perhaps answers could be slightly shorter.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Let me first take this opportunity to thank members of the emergency services teams and the utilities, the volunteers and everyone across Cornwall who has looked after their neighbours and responded so brilliantly to a storm that tested the resilience of rural and coastal Britain to the hilt. It exposed vulnerabilities in our infrastructure and emergency planning that could affect any part of the country.

The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) mentioned the communications technology that proved unreliable after the shift from digital to analogue. It failed without power, leaving people completely cut off. Could that be taken into account for the purpose of future back-up, perhaps through satellite communication? Could we move towards that more quickly? The priority response services for vulnerable people rely on sign-up and the ability to contact those people. Will the Minister agree to look at that when it comes to future incidents, given that the climate is changing? This storm was incredibly ferocious and terrifying, but there are likely to be more like it.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am extremely mindful of your earlier guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, with regard to brevity. I hope the House will understand that I was just seeking to convey the seriousness with which the Government take these issues.

My hon. Friend has made an important point about telecoms, and I give her an absolute assurance that we will look carefully at this—as, I know, will the local resilience forums. Having discussed the matter with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government earlier today, I know that there is a process in place whereby the forums will conduct both a hot debrief and, subsequently, a cold debrief, in order to look carefully at what has happened and what lessons can be learnt from it. My hon. Friend has made an important point, and we will of course consider it carefully.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I join the Minister in thanking the emergency services, local authority and Environment Agency staff and volunteers, who have worked tirelessly to recover from the storm and to keep the public safe. I also join him in sending our condolences to those families who are grieving and whose lives have been upended by the storm.

Given the severity of this and earlier extreme weather events, what further preparations will the Government make for future storms and for adverse weather? Do they plan to carry out further storm preparedness exercises, and to implement lessons learnt from the previous test of the emergency alert system in response to these extreme weather events? What further discussions have they had, internally and with local authorities, utility providers and emergency services, to co-ordinate the continued response to this storm? Does the Minister agree that the latest mass power outages in the south-west show that the Government should reconsider their drive for more electricity pylons and instead back faster undergrounding of cables, particularly in high-wind zones?

As we heard from the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), many people reported that when the power failed, mobile signal followed shortly after. What are the Government doing to ensure that telecommunications masts have enough battery or generator back-up to remain operative during 48 or 72-hour storm cycles? What assessment has the Minister made of the implementation and operation of the severe weather emergency protocol to support the most vulnerable, particularly those sleeping rough, in rural areas such as Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly? Storm Goretti has led to significant rainfall in many parts of the country. What assessment have the Government made of localised flooding, and will support be made available to those affected by the storm through the flood recovery network? I understand that the floods resilience taskforce met on 8 September. I should be grateful if the Minister could outline what actions were taken following that meeting to prepare for eventualities such as this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the good and reasonable point he has made. I reiterate the point I made earlier to the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) about the Government’s commitment to Cornwall. I absolutely recognise that Cornwall, like many other coastal communities, can feel geographically isolated and a very long way from the centre. The Government understand that, as do I as the Minister for resilience.

My hon. Friend made good points about looking in the round at the resilience of Cornwall specifically. Let me give him an assurance that I am very happy to continue the conversation with him and other colleagues. I will look carefully at the detail of the point he has made and, as I say, I am happy to discuss it further with him.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for his characteristic passion and energy in defending his communities in St Ives. I also wish to send my and the Liberal Democrats’ collective deep sympathy to the family of the man who lost his life in the storm, and to add my thanks to our amazing emergency services and frontline utilities staff.

The Minister rightly says that it is not up to him or the Government how the media cover things. Nevertheless, it is worth bearing in mind that when Storm Eunice hit London and the south-east four years ago, hitting 200,000 homes, Cobra was convened. However, 200,000 homes have been hit in the west country, and Cobra has not been convened. He will understand why people from Cornwall, Caithness and Cumbria sometimes feel that they are a bit of an afterthought.

Does the Minister agree that this storm exposes the frailty of our energy, water and communications infrastructure and the vulnerability of those who rely on them, especially in this entirely—and, dare I say it, foolishly—post-analogue age? Given that so much land, especially in our rural communities, lies saturated, causing water supply and waste water crises at the moment, will he ensure that this issue is reflected in the qualifying criteria for farming recovery funding? Does he agree that the damaging impact that flooding has on food security means that the environmental land management schemes budget should be increased by a minimum of £1 billion a year to underpin that vital resilience?

Foreign Interference

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Seventh Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Transnational repression in the UK, HC 681, and the Government response, HC 1405; and Correspondence from the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the Government response to the Committee’s report on Transnational repression in the UK, reported to the House on 29 October.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call James MacCleary, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

There are six Members bobbing and I will be calling the Front Bench spokespeople at 4.30pm, so the guideline is seven minutes each.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) for securing the debate. I have expanded my remarks beyond foreign interference, because the way Russia views what it is doing at the moment is more than that. It is a direct attack on a system and on our way of life. This is more than interference—it is conflict.

Across the world, the contest is under way between liberal democracies that trust their people and autocratic regimes that fear them. Nowhere exemplifies that more than Russia, a state built on the control and takeover of civil society. Russia views its democratic neighbours to the west as weak and vulnerable, to be divided and picked off one by one, but Russia is wrong and we must show it that it is wrong. It cloaks its aggression towards its former colonies in a sense of entitlement and ownership—a warped hangover from its imperial past.

Ukraine is on the frontline of this contest. That is why I am glad that this Government and this Parliament are committed to standing with Ukraine for as long as it takes, and that our Government have increased military support for Ukraine to its highest level ever. This year we are providing £4.5 billion in financial aid and military support to Ukraine. However, while all wars must end in negotiation, we have to be clear that there should be no deal about Ukraine without Ukraine, and we must recognise that we will all have capitulated if Ukraine is forced to agree to unfavourable terms. If that happens, we will have capitulated to the idea that unprovoked aggression should be rewarded and that the victims of an illegal occupation should be collectively punished for standing in the way.

After so many years, it is easy to forget what Russian aggression and occupation mean: children forcibly taken from their families and transported for reeducation in Russia, prisoners of war raped and executed, and civilians publicly hanged in occupied towns simply for speaking out. We cannot live in a world where the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must. That is Russia’s world, and its success, in Ukraine and across Europe, would represent the death of our values and our way of life.

I was pleased that we in the Defence Committee put out a joint statement reaffirming our commitment to Ukraine, and calling on the UK and our European allies to do more. We must do more, not only in supporting Ukraine but in countering the attempts by Russia and its autocratic bedfellows to destroy our democracy, pull apart our alliances and undermine our society. For that reason, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewes for securing the debate and for the opportunity to speak in it.

Russia believes that it is already at war with NATO, and so with us. While it competes on the battlefield in Ukraine with drones and missiles, it is also seeking to influence and interfere in our societies and communities. That reality is something that most people in this country do not yet understand. The recently published Defence Committee report on UK contributions to European security highlighted this as an area where further effort and cross-Government co-ordination are needed.

While our public are largely unaware, Russia seeks to slowly slice away at our defences and at the trust we have in one another, slice by slice, until we find that the freedoms, security and unity we have taken for granted have been carved away. Russia does this by subtly building relationships with local actors and influencers. This tactic is not new; it has a long history. In the ’60s, the KGB orchestrated a campaign to alienate West Germany from its allies by portraying it as a hub for Nazi antisemitism. The operation involved antisemitic graffiti and synagogue vandalism, emboldening far-right elements and sparking international outrage.

Today, Russia intervenes selectively and strategically to support far-right and far-left parties across Europe, while its intelligence farms out sabotage plots to criminals and opportunists. From Russian oligarchs socialising with Boris Johnson and the Brexit brigade to Kremlin-backed spending on pro-Brexit disinformation campaigns, Russia has long sought to influence and undermine our democratic system from the top.

Today, in this Parliament, there sits a party whose leaders have taken Russian bribes. Nathan Gill, the former leader of Reform UK in Wales, took at least £40,000 in cash from a pro-Kremlin operative; David Coburn, the former UKIP leader in Scotland and former Brexit party MEP, discussed a potential $6,500 payment from the same pro-Kremlin network. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) once vouched that his right-hand man was “decent” and “honest”. Now he insists that there are no pro-Kremlin links in Reform UK—so why do his parties keep being led by Putin’s puppets? I suggest that the hon. Member takes a look in the mirror and, for once, puts the country before himself and investigates Reform’s pro-Russia links.

Russia’s reach also extends to our streets, where it seeks, in the words of MI5 director general McCallum, “sustained mayhem”. In my own constituency, we have seen two Russia-linked attacks: an arson attack on a Leyton warehouse storing aid for Ukraine, and an Islamophobic graffiti campaign across east London, which targeted a mosque and religious schools locally. These attacks are Russian attempts to influence our politics, including our support for Ukraine. Most importantly, they are attempts to cause division among and within our communities.

As the Defence Committee’s report on hybrid threats highlights, our democratic openness makes us more vulnerable to Russia’s influence campaigns, but that does not make autocracies such as Russia stronger or more resilient than us. In the spirit of democratic honesty, we must make the case to the public that investing in our security is essential. Our security services must play an active role in countering attacks on democracy and elections. We must all make the case for increased defence spending, which is essential to ensure the safety and security of our democracy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I will make the same entreaty that I made in the last debate. If hon. Members are going to criticise other hon. Members of this House, they should have informed them in advance; I trust that the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) did so in relation to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). I call John Cooper.