Lord Mandelson
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call James MacCleary, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.
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.
Official Secrets Act and Espionage
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this urgent question, following the deeply disappointing collapse of the prosecution case concerning two individuals charged under the Official Secrets Act 1911. The allegations were hugely concerning, and we recognise and share the public and parliamentary frustration about this outcome. The Government welcomed the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy’s inquiry and the opportunity it provided for parliamentary scrutiny on this important matter, alongside the ongoing review led by the Intelligence and Security Committee.
I will take this opportunity to thank the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, under my hon. Friend’s chairship, for its diligent and rapid work. The Government will now take the time to consider the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations properly, in conjunction with partners referenced in the report, before responding within the two-month timeframe.
However, I am glad that the JCNSS’s report has reinforced two fundamental points that the Government have made throughout. First, and as the Government have been saying for several weeks, the report makes it clear that there was no evidence of attempts by any Minister, special adviser or senior official to interfere with the prosecution. The report states that it found no evidence of improper influence. Despite ongoing questions about a meeting of senior officials that took place on 1 September, chaired by the National Security Adviser, the report clarifies that there was no deliberate effort to obstruct the prosecution.
The first senior Treasury counsel had already made the judgment on the basis of the evidence that charges could not progress by 22 August, more than a week before the meeting took place. We have been consistent throughout on these points, which runs in sharp contrast to our critics, who initially criticised the Government for intervening in the case and then, when it became clear that that was nonsense, criticised us for not intervening in the case.
Secondly, the JCNSS report reinforces a fundamental point that I have made to this House previously: the root cause of the failure of this case was the outdated Official Secrets Act 1911, which predates the first world war. The 1911 Act created an unrealistic test by requiring the prosecution to prove that China was an enemy. The Law Commission had flagged the term “enemy” as being deeply problematic as far back as 2017. The Government will continue to work tirelessly to ensure that we have the most effective structures and processes in place to support law enforcement partners in mitigating and prosecuting foreign espionage wherever we find it.
More importantly, the ongoing disinformation around the collapse of this case has been distracting from the most important issue that we should be focused on: how the Government can work across this House to ensure that Chinese espionage will never be successful in the United Kingdom. As the Prime Minister stated in his speech at the Lady Mayor’s banquet on Monday:
“Protecting national security is our first duty and we will never waver from our efforts to keep the British people safe.”
That is why, on 18 November, I set out a significant number of measures that this Government are taking to counter the threat that China and other state actors pose to UK democracy and society. In line with the JCNSS report, the Government will continue to strengthen our processes and preparedness for future threats, ensuring that we leverage our new security legislation effectively—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The Minister will know that he should have restricted himself to three minutes for his response. That appears to have been four and a quarter minutes.
Matt Western
I thank the Minister for his comments, and I thank Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question demonstrating the importance of parliamentary security, safety and sovereignty. The case of alleged spying on behalf of China caused widespread concern among the public and Members of both Houses. My Committee, which is comprised of senior Members of both Houses, examined the timeline, and actions and decisions of the Government and the Crown Prosecution Service. While this was a highly unusual inquiry for a Committee to conduct, it was essential that Parliament examined the processes that led to the collapse of the case.
Our inquiry found nothing to suggest a co-ordinated, high-level effort to collapse the prosecution, nor deliberate efforts to obstruct or circumvent constitutional safeguards. However, we did find a process that is beset by confusion and misaligned expectations, and that can, at points, be best described as shambolic. There were systemic failures, and deficiencies in communication, co-ordination and decision making between the Crown Prosecution Service and the Government. Indeed, the episode reflects poorly on the otherwise commendable efforts of public servants to keep our country safe.
Given the conclusions I have just set out, will the Minister give reassurances that the Government will work closely with the CPS to ensure that communications and processes are tightened up, particularly when dealing with cases involving national security? Does the Minister acknowledge that the new National Security Act 2023, while comprehensive, may not entirely cover low-level espionage activity, especially given its structural parallels with the previous legislation? Finally, does the Minister agree that greater support should be given to the deputy National Security Adviser and civil servants acting as witnesses in such cases, to ensure top-level grip on cases with significant public exposure?
Dan Jarvis
As Mr Speaker has rightly acknowledged, these issues require a great deal of scrutiny from Parliament, and the Government are grateful for the opportunity to engage and work closely with Parliament on these matters, not least because they merit careful consideration, alongside decisive action by Ministers and senior officials. The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), plays a vital role in providing that appropriate scrutiny. I say that not just as a Government Minister, but as a former member of his Committee. The same principle applies to the ISC, which does important work. I take this opportunity to thank the Chair and the whole Joint Committee for undertaking this work and publishing a comprehensive report as quickly as they have.
My hon. Friend the Chair highlights some important aspects of the report’s conclusions, recommendations and findings, following the work that the Committee undertook. As I have said, the Government approach this issue, and will consider the Committee’s report, with the utmost seriousness. I can give him the assurance that he seeks that the Government are now carefully considering the findings of the report. I give him and the House an absolute assurance that we will respond within the agreed timeframe. He mentioned a couple of other points that I will respond to briefly now, although I am happy to engage with him in more detail, should he think that necessary.
My hon. Friend mentioned the role of the CPS. He will understand that as a Government Minister, I am incredibly limited in what I can say about the CPS, because it is operationally independent of Government. He makes a fair challenge, and we will look carefully at the report’s findings in this area. He also mentioned the National Security Act 2023. While I am not in any way complacent about that legislation, we are in a much stronger position than we were. We keep these matters under review, and along with colleagues across Government, we are constantly seeking to assure ourselves that the legislative framework is fit for purpose and appropriate. I give him an absolute assurance that we take that incredibly seriously.
Finally, my hon. Friend mentioned the deputy National Security Adviser. Let me take the opportunity again to pay tribute to him for the important work that he does. He is a dedicated public servant, and his contribution to our national security is immense. The Government are grateful for his service, as I am sure is the whole House. I will look carefully at the points that my hon. Friend has made, and we will ensure that they are properly reflected in the response he receives from the Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I thank the Joint Committee for its work. Its report is a damning indictment of the Government’s handling of the China spy case. The investigation not only found
“serious systemic failures and deficiencies”,
but calls the Government’s handling of the matter “shambolic”, as the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) just said. It also found—surprise, surprise—that there was enough evidence to prosecute the alleged spies. The Committee writes that
“China posed a range of threats to the United Kingdom’s national security. In our view, it is plain that, taken together, these amounted to a more general active threat to the United Kingdom’s national security.”
The Labour party tried to blame the last Government for the collapse of the case, but this investigation has exposed the fact that that is plainly untrue. I was surprised to hear the Security Minister refer to the deficiencies of the 1911 Act. I draw his attention to paragraph 40 of the report; I think he probably should have read it before he came to the House. It was this Government’s incompetence that ultimately led to these two men not standing trial, and, most worryingly, the report reminds us that there may be many more such cases. Indeed, why should there not be, if foreign spies believe that they can act against this House with impunity and effective immunity?
It is obvious that this Government are not prepared to stand firm. Over the past few days we have heard from the press—not from reports to the House—that the Prime Minister is about to sign off the Chinese mega-embassy in London, despite major security concerns, and that he is preparing to travel to Beijing. Will he, I wonder, have the backbone to stand up for our interests while he is there?
I will ask the Security Minister three very simple and straightforward questions. First, did the Government provide the Joint Committee with the minutes of the 1 September meeting chaired by the National Security Adviser, and if not, why not? Secondly, during the many debates that we have had in the House on this matter, a number of Ministers appear to have made inaccurate and misleading statements on at least six occasions. Will the Minister ensure that corrections are made to Hansard, so that the record is straight? Thirdly, the Joint Committee has concluded, from the evidence it received, that China is a general threat to the United Kingdom’s national security; do the Government agree, and if they do, how can they justify supporting the mega-embassy?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before I call the Minister, may I make the point to those on both Front Benches that the Minister responding to an urgent question has three minutes? The Opposition Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), should have taken two minutes, and I should advise the Liberal Democrat spokesperson that she has one minute. I commend the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) for managing to stay well within his two minutes. I call the Minister.
Dan Jarvis
A few moments ago, I spoke of the careful consideration and appropriate scrutiny that this matter deserves. Many Members of both Houses and Members of all parties on the Joint Committee have adopted that view, but I have to say that I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) continues to choose a different approach. He did not seem to want to mention that much of the report refers to the time when his party was in government. Some might have hoped that he would use his contribution today to show a bit of humility, both to the House and to those in our national security community, not least given some of the low-brow political point scoring and baseless accusations that we have heard over the past few weeks.
In the aftermath of the trial’s collapse, some Opposition Members accused Ministers, special advisers and civil servants of improper interference. This report makes it clear that that was baseless and untrue. There were some who suggested that some of our most experienced and most dedicated national security experts set out to deliberately withhold information from prosecutors in order to placate the Chinese Government. This report makes it clear that that was baseless and untrue. There were some who suggested that the Conservatives’ failure to update critical national security legislation was immaterial to the case that was being brought to trial. This report makes it clear that the root cause of the collapse was the years of dither and delay that left outdated, ineffective legislation on the statute book long after we knew that it did not protect our country from the modern threats that we face. Some Opposition Members—although not all of them—were all over the place on that legislation, and were all over the place with regard to China, and some of them, sadly, still are.
On China, as the Prime Minister observed this week,
“We had the golden age of relations under David Cameron and George Osborne, which then flipped to an ice age, that some still advocate”,
but no matter how much Opposition Members may wish it to be so, not engaging with China is no option at all. We have made it clear that we will co-operate where we can, but we will always challenge where we must. When we say that national security is the first priority of this Government, we mean it, and since the trial’s collapse, I have announced a comprehensive package that will help us to tackle the economic, academic, cyber and espionage threats that China presents. The report to which the hon. Member has referred provides further useful thought on how we can best safeguard our national security, and the Government genuinely welcome that constructive feedback. I look forward to engaging with the Committee, and with responsible Members in all parts of the House, as we continue to consider how best to go on protecting our democracy and our nation.
The hon. Member asked me about the minutes—[Interruption.] He is still asking me about the 1 September meeting.
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend will understand that there is nothing more I can add with regard to his point about the Crown Prosecution Service. As for his substantive point about engagement with Committees of this House, let me give him that assurance. I genuinely welcome the constructive scrutiny carried out both by the Committee of which he is a member and the Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington. I think that they provide a huge amount of value, and I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) an absolute assurance of our continued desire to co-operate closely with them.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The seriousness of the threat that Beijing poses to our national security cannot be overstated. Any attempt by China to interfere in our democracy must be rooted out, and the Government should implement the recommendations of the Committee’s report as a matter of urgency. The work that the National Security Adviser and his deputy are doing is vital to keeping our country safe, but the report is damning, and it describes aspects of the situation as “shambolic”. The Minister has previously mentioned his plans for new powers to counter foreign interference, and I would be grateful if he could provide a timeline for their introduction.
Let me once again urge the Minister to place China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. If he will not do that today, I wonder whether he might give us a date in the diary—say, a week before the Prime Minister’s visit to Beijing; that may well coincide with the date of an announcement on the planning permission for the mega-embassy—and give the House the clarity that it deserves.
Dan Jarvis
I am not sure that anybody really thinks that the 1911 Act was appropriate. As the hon. and learned Member will know, because it is a statement of obvious truth, the decision to proceed was taken not under this Government, but under the previous one. All I am able to do in this House is to account for the decisions and actions taken by this Government. What this Government will always do is ensure that we protect our national security. It is our first duty and nothing matters more.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Security Minister for his answers this afternoon.
China Espionage: Government Security Response
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I encourage the remaining Members to ask short questions and the Minister to give short answers. There is an important statement and a very heavily subscribed debate to come.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Our devolved nations, local authorities and educational institutions are not being made adequately aware of the risks that China poses, as is evidenced in Sunday’s report by David Leask. The Minister has mentioned briefings with devolved Governments, guidance for candidates and a closed event with university vice-chancellors, but will he ensure that those are not one-off events, and that they will be continual and offer up-to-date information from this day forward? Will he meet me and the SNP group urgently?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member, as I always am. I hope he sees the commitment this Government have to ensuring that we are best equipped to engage with the nature of the threats we face. That is precisely why I brought forward this package of measures and why I have been crystal clear about the requirement potentially to go further in certain areas. I hope he sees—if he does not, let me give him an assurance—how seriously we take these matters and our desire to work with Members right across the House and with the devolved Administrations, to do everything we can to guard against the nature of the threat, while at the same time ensuring we engage in a way that is in our national interest.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Security Minister for his statement.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
Caroline Nokes ExcerptsMonday 3rd November 2025
(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 View all Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Bill before us stands as a testament to the decades of campaigning by the Hillsborough families. I want to pay special tribute to them and to other families I have been humbled to work with, including Grenfell families and the family of Zane Gbangbola, who are still fighting for justice. They have backed this Bill because they do not want to see others endure what they had to.
I want to commend the tireless work of Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, who as Member of Parliament for Leigh helped drive a Hillsborough law from inside this House. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne)—my close friend—for all he has done over the years, before becoming an MP and now, to fight to get us to where we are today. Thanks are also due to my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) and Steve Rotheram, Liverpool metro mayor.
As shadow Justice Secretary in 2017, I was proud to commit that a future Labour Government would deliver a Hillsborough law. In fact, it is almost eight years ago to the day since around 90 Labour MPs signed a letter co-ordinated by myself and the then shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Member means to say the then shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hackney somewhere or other—apologies for not knowing.
Richard Burgon
She has been forgotten too many times in this place, but I will put that to one side.
The letter from the then shadow Home Secretary and I called on Theresa May to introduce a Hillsborough law in the aftermath of Grenfell. I commend this Labour Government for bringing forward this legislation. A duty of candour, new criminal offences for failing to uphold that duty, expanded legal aid and a parity of representation to end the David versus Goliath nature of inquiries—these are all big steps forward. There will be areas where the Bill can be strengthened, and I hope to play my part in ensuring that it is improved as it goes through this House, but fundamentally it is a good Bill and must remain so as it passes through the House.
On that point, I want to send a very clear message today to anyone hoping to water the Bill down as it passes through Parliament: do not try it. Far too often in this country politics has acted as a dam, holding justice back rather than helping it to flow. Class and power imbalances and, yes, racism have repeatedly denied people justice in the face of state abuses. We have seen the truth sacrificed to protect the powerful. Hillsborough, Stephen Lawrence, Grenfell, the Post Office scandal, Bloody Sunday, Orgreave—these are all examples of times when the state used its immense power not to deliver truth and justice but to block it year after year. In all those cases, the state was accused of a cover-up by those affected. Distrust was sown, and justice delayed and denied.
We know that there are forces who did not want this Bill to get this far and who do not want it to go forward in this form—forces who do not want the scales of justice tilted in favour of working-class people. I welcome the Prime Minister saying that there will be no watering-down of this Bill, but if any civil servants, Members of this House, those in opposition and in the House of Lords, those in the media or others within the machinery of the state attempt to dilute or derail this Bill, they will have the fight of their lives on their hands. We will use every power at our disposal, including naming and shaming under parliamentary privilege, if we hear of any attempts to water down this fundamentally important Bill.
Let this be a rare moment when the House delivers legislation that we can all be proud of. Martin Luther King once spoke of how
“the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice”.
It has not felt like that for so many families. Let us make sure it does by supporting this Bill and making it law. It has been too long, and today is an important day.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
This legislation is all about a fundamental rebalancing of power between the state and the citizens it is meant to protect and serve. We have heard powerfully today from many Members about the Hillsborough families and their enduring quest for the truth. Briefly, I would like to add the nuclear test veterans to that list of campaigners for justice, including my constituent, 88-year-old John Morris.
When John was stationed on Christmas Island in 1956, he was told that British troops were building a new runway. In reality, they were testing nuclear weapons, but the weapons that were intended to keep Britain safe from the Soviet threat were far from safe for the men who were out in the south Pacific—they were effectively treated like lab rats, with little or no protection from harm. John is one of 22,000 British troops who were exposed to radiation while on service in the 1950s, and who have campaigned for years about the cancers and other side effects they endured.
John’s son Steven died at just four months old from birth defects. For 50 years, John and his wife faced repeated indignities. They were wrongfully questioned on suspicion of having murdered their son, denied information about how and why their son died, and denied John’s own medical records. Finally, a coroner’s report suggesting that Steven’s lungs might not have formed properly was revealed. John himself has had cancer, and has had a blood disorder since he was 26 years old. He sent me a message today:
“Great news about the Hillsborough law…for us vets, it’s very positive”,
because it will
“make our lives much easier”
in getting the answers they demand. He is pleased that in September, the Prime Minister agreed to meet him to discuss the issue further, and he is looking forward to that meeting.
There is another Rochdale resident whose campaign will, I hope, also benefit from this new legislation: 83-year-old Sylvia Mountain, who used the pregnancy test drug Primodos, which has already been mentioned by some of my hon. Friends. She gave birth to her son Philip in 1963, but Philip died of birth defects just 22 days after he was born. Today is the anniversary of the day her baby died, 62 years ago. Sylvia was told by doctors at the time to stop being “hysterical”, and has been told that no medical records exist to explain her son’s death, but many other women who were prescribed Primodos suffered similar birth defects in their children, as well as stillbirths and miscarriages. Victims of the Primodos test are still waiting for answers. For more than half a century, these families have faced a culture of concealment—of suppressed evidence, misleading official conclusions, and denial of responsibility.
John and Sylvia—two Rochdale pensioners in their 80s, whose lives have been overshadowed by tragedy and loss in ways that are very different, but also very similar—personify the decades of injustice that this legislation is intended to prevent from ever happening again. I pay tribute to both of them for their resilience in the face of unspeakable tragedy and suffering, and am proud to have them as my constituents. John and Sylvia want the state to recognise its responsibilities before it is too late for them and others like them. It is in their name, and that of all the other victims of state power and cover-ups, that I welcome this landmark Hillsborough Bill today, a Bill that it has taken this Labour Government to make a reality.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
That brings us to the wind-ups. I call Mike Wood.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The Bill provides for parity of representation, and will expand non-means-tested legal aid so that bereaved family members can secure advocacy at inquests where a public authority is an interested person, but it does so, as I understand it, only in England and Wales. Of course, justice is a devolved issue, but can the Minister confirm that, despite months of engagement with the Scottish Government on this UK-wide legislation, the SNP Government have failed to confirm that non-means-tested legal aid will be available in Scotland, resulting in Scots families still relying on charity to gain access to justice—
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention, which gives me the opportunity to address some of the issues concerning devolution that were brought up in the debate. A number of hon. and right hon. Members talked about whether this Bill will apply UK-wide, and I can confirm that the duty of candour provisions will apply UK-wide. However, as hon. and right hon. Members will know, justice is devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland, so the legal system does not apply there in the same way that it does in England and Wales, which is why some of the criminal offences do not apply. It is for Ministers in Scotland and Northern Ireland to request whether this legislation applies to those nations. Conversations have been positive, and we have engaged very closely with our counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland on this point. We hope that these measures will apply UK-wide, but we cannot mandate for other nations that are not in our jurisdiction.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) made an important point about legal aid. It is for the Scottish Government to determine whether they will apply the same provisions that we are providing for England and Wales. We are providing non-means-tested legal aid for any bereaved person at an inquest where the state is a represented party. It is for Scottish Ministers to determine whether they want to apply the same.
We have had a lot of talk this evening about how long this Bill has been in the making. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) mentioned that she was proud that it is a Labour Government, in just over our first year in office, who have brought this Bill to the House. The Conservatives had 14 years to do something about this issue, and they failed. The SNP Government in Scotland have had 20 years to do something, and they have failed. It is a Labour Government who have chosen to bring forward this Bill and to do something about this, to ensure that families get parity on legal aid and that a duty of candour applies across all our public services.
A number of speeches this evening addressed protection for whistleblowers. I reaffirm my commitment to hon. Members that the Bill does require all authorities to set out a process to raise concerns, and to ensure that procedures are clear and accessible for whistleblowers. The hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), who is vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for whistleblowing, requested a meeting with me. I will happily meet her to discuss this matter further, because it is important that we address it.
A number of Members raised the issue of the media, but they will know that that is out of scope of this Bill. This Bill provides a duty of candour for public authorities and public servants. We will ensure that public service broadcasters operate within what they are permitted. However, it is important to note that since the calls for Leveson and Leveson 2 were introduced, the media landscape has drastically and dramatically moved on.
The public do not consume media in the same way any more. The vast majority of the British public consume their media via social media. I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was on the Front Bench when these issues were raised. She has made a commitment, and she has already met some of the families of victims to discuss what more we can do to tackle disinformation and misinformation, particularly about disasters and issues that arise in public and are then put on social media. I will continue my conversations with her as the Bill progresses to ensure that we address that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) gave a fantastic speech about how we need to be reasonable, proportionate and fair. I want to assure him that, when it comes to legal aid and the parity of arms that is so integral to the Bill, coroners do have the powers to enforce what is considered reasonable and proportionate under the Bill to ensure that families are not faced with an army of barristers when they have a publicly funded lawyer advocating for them. That is not the intention, and we have put that in the Bill.
A number of hon. Members mentioned the definition of harm, and I want to reassure Members again that there is a very low bar for meeting this test. We have ensured that it does cover mental distress, and that that is not the only measure for a criminal offence. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) mentioned those who falsify statistics—crime statistics, for example—where harm would not necessarily come into play. If an officer falsified crime or other statistics to make himself or the police force look better, that would come under the offence of misconduct in public office, so they would be captured in another criminal offence in the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) talked about something that is very close to my heart. He made an excellent contribution on the need for inquest reform, and inquiry reform more broadly. I wholeheartedly agree with him, as do this Government, which is why the Cabinet Office is taking its time to get this right. It is looking at quite a substantial piece of work, and I will endeavour to keep him updated on it as we are actively developing our proposals.
I hate to have to admit it to my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) but I am also a red, so I think it is actually Liverpool 3—Everton 1. I want to reaffirm my commitment to working with him and all Merseyside MPs—in fact, all Members in this House—and the families, as the Bill progresses, to ensure that it is the strongest possible Bill.
There were excellent speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for St Helens North (David Baines), for Liverpool West Derby, for Knowsley and for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), who have been excellent advocates for the families of the Hillsborough disaster during their tireless campaigning. I am determined to work with all of them as the Bill progresses to ensure that there is no carve-out for the security services. Just to reassure the House, there is no carve-out: the duty of candour applies to everyone, including the security services and including individuals. However, what is different for the security services is the way in which they report such a breach—they must report it to a senior individual within the service to ensure that national security is protected—and I think we have struck the right balance in the Bill. However, I hear the concerns raised in this House, as there have been concerns raised outside it, and I am keen to engage in such conversations to see if there is anything further we can do on this point.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) mentioned the Chinook disaster. A commitment has been made to meet Members and families of the victims of the Chinook disaster, and I have made a commitment to be at that meeting to progress those issues.
There were fantastic contributions from Sheffield Members who, as well as the Merseyside MPs, have felt the urgency to bring forward this legislation and the pain of the Hillsborough disaster in their constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) said she gave birth not long after the Hillsborough disaster, and talked about how it has always stuck with her that her baby was at home while so many parents did not get to bring their children home.
Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and for the role he has played in these proceedings. Yes, I give him the absolute assurance he seeks. There is an important role for the House to play in looking carefully at precisely what has gone on. That is why, on behalf of the Government, I very much welcome the work that will now be done by the JCNSS and the ISC. Both those important Committees have an important role, and I am sure that hon. Members across the House will want to make other contributions as part of that process.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
What a mess. We have three questions for the Minister. First, what conversations has he had with all relevant parliamentary authorities—that might include the Speaker’s Office—about plans to tighten vetting or ongoing monitoring of researchers and staff to ensure this does not happen again?
Secondly, in the witness statements released by this Government, there is a reference to the use by the previous Government of “back channels” to attempt to dissuade the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) from raising concerns about Confucius institutes. What is the Minister’s understanding, based on the evidence, statements and any other information available, of the meaning of “back channels” in that context? Does it refer to the previous Government’s Whips Office, Government officials or somebody else?
Thirdly, given that the Prime Minister’s spokesperson still refuses today to say that China is a threat to Britain’s national security, would the Minister be comfortable with Labour MPs accepting meeting requests from representatives of the Chinese Communist party or any nations allied to China?
Middle East
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his words in relation to Alaa Abd el-Fattah and for his long campaign to raise that important issue. On the two doctors, what I can say is that the cases have been raised. I do not yet know what the status is, but I will do my best to find out and get a better answer to him as quickly as we can.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Beneath all the peace rhetoric, the brutal Hamas regime were openly executing people yesterday, and refused to give up their weapons. Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that he is going to remove them by force if necessary, and he refuses to accept a state in the west bank. It may be naive, but cannot both sides of the House unite in saying that we are absolutely, completely committed to creating a Palestinian state in the west bank? That is their God-given right and it is the only way we are going to end the cycle of despair and violence.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I associate myself with the tributes paid to Lord Campbell across the House, and I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I also welcome the release of all hostages and several hundred Palestinian detainees, but we must remember that more than 10,000 captives—some prisoners, but many held without charge—are still held in Israeli prisons. I hope that the Government will work towards the release of the innocents being held. The rebuilding and the interim and final governance of Gaza must be Palestinian-led, not led by western actors. The Palestinians have suffered over two years of relentless genocide and decades of Israeli siege, occupation, military violence and oppression. I totally agree with the position that Hamas must play no role in the future governance of Palestine, and there is no excuse for what happened on 7 October, but one of the root causes that is preventing a two-state solution from becoming reality is the unlawful—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please get to his question?
Iqbal Mohamed
Will the Prime Minister confirm to the House when the Government will be in full compliance with the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on not doing anything that helps perpetuate the unlawful occupation?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an important issue about some of the hurdles and barriers that are put in the way of those wanting to deliver aid, and we are working with others to scale up the volume and speed with which aid can get in.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Caroline Nokes ExcerptsThursday 4th September 2025
(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 View all House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 4 September 2025 - (4 Sep 2025)
Pete Wishart
That is the way to do it. I hope the rest of the Members on the Conservative Benches are paying close attention, because that is how they defend the indefensible Conservative peers.
I have detected one other thing in this debate. There seems to be a concession that there will not be a democratic second Chamber—I have not heard that properly yet, so perhaps the Minister can clarify in his summing up. That was implied and suggested, and I have not heard anything thus far that contradicts it. Perhaps we could hear the Minister say that that idea is now gone, because I do not think that there will be any more reform than this. I think this is it; I said in the earlier stages of the Bill that this is as far as Lords reform goes in this Parliament. The great, Gordon Brownian vision of a senate of the nations and regions is totally for the birds. It is some sort of fever dream; it is not going to happen. This Bill is all that this House will do about Lords reform.
I find the amendments to be a snivelling, contemptuous bunch of amendments. They demonstrate the Lords’ contempt for parliamentary democracy and for the democratic will of this House—us, the Members of Parliament who are democratically elected to represent the people of this country. This House passed the Bill with a large majority, and for all its faults, this Government said that they would pass it. It was a manifesto commitment, so they should be allowed to get on with it, but since then, the Lords have done everything possible to thwart the Bill. Barely had we finished voting before the Conservatives in the House of Lords commenced their “save the aristocrat” campaign. For them, the principle of democracy through birthright was something that had to be defended and protected.
Since the Bill went down the corridor, those peers have tried to delay it through filibustering, keeping the Lords up half the night and stacking the Bill full of amendments. It only has two pages, but they spent 52 hours and 10 minutes debating it; it only has four clauses, but 154 amendments were tabled to it. Defending the hereditaries was much more important to the House of Lords than addressing things like poverty, growing the economy or global conflict. I paid real attention to its Hansard, and some of the contributions were truly bizarre. The oozing sense of entitlement from our upper and ruling classes was simply extraordinary.
The thing that got me was when those contributions started to get a little threatening—I think the Minister implied this. The noble Lord True warned that if the purge went ahead, we would face very aggressive procedural action, which could involve filibustering, wrecking amendments and, even worse, the parliamentary nuclear option of more ping-pong. He said that this toff rebellion would only be stood down if a goodly number of the hereditaries were to remain. I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am positively quaking in my oiky boots. The prospect of a be-ermined banshee charging me with a vintage claret jug and snuff box practically terrifies me half to death.
The thing is, these peers really do believe that they were born to rule—that their role in our legislature through birthright is a gift that we should be eternally grateful for. They have now returned the Bill with these amendments, with the main one being to keep the aristocrats in place until death or retirement by rewarding them with a life peerage. That is not getting rid of the hereditaries; it is giving them a retirement plan. After seeing these amendments, I just wish that we could introduce even more amendments ourselves. I would table an amendment that would get them out tomorrow. I would also be thinking about stripping them of their lands and titles. [Interruption.] I have got more—maybe a little bit of re-education, such as a couple of shifts in Aldi or Lidl, living on the living wage for a week or, even worse, having them speak in regional accents just for a day. Given that these peers have made this about public contribution—given that that is so important to them—how about handing over some of their mansions and castles for social housing? There is a suggestion for how they could be publicly useful.
I know that I am being a little bit comical, Madam Deputy Speaker, but what this does is endorse the view that the House of Lords is the most embarrassing, bizarre legislature anywhere in the world. This weird assortment of aristocrats, be-cassocked bishops, party donors, cronies and placemen feel that they can continue with impunity, and they are probably right in that assumption. The aristocrats will soon be gone—I do not think there is any real desire to defend them any more—but the other members of that circus will continue unabashed. They will continue to develop, grow and thrive. The House of Lords is increasingly going to become a House of patronage—a plaything for Prime Ministers.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Mr Wishart, we are debating the amendments, not your vision for the future of the House of Lords. Perhaps you should stick to the amendments.
Pete Wishart
Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am getting a little bit carried away.
The amendments would ensure that the aristocrats remain in the other place, but they will not succeed in that aim—I think we have all sort of agreed on that; it looks like they are gone—but the rest of the strange assortment of people who we find in the House of Lords will still be there. It will become a House of patronage from the Prime Minister, and we are already beginning to see that. Some 57 new Labour peers have been introduced to the House of Lords since the last general election, and we have heard from The Guardian that dozens of new Labour peers are about to be introduced. That does not seem like a Government who are keen on even more House of Lords reform; it seems like a Government who want to create a new set of Labour Lords at the expense of the hereditaries, and the public are thoroughly and utterly sick of it. Only 21% of the British public approve of the House of Lords in its current condition. Most want to see it abolished. Certainly nearly everybody wants to see the hereditaries gone, and I support them in that vision. The Labour party promised, 115 years ago, to abolish the House of Lords. I think it will take at least another 115 years before we see the next set of reforms.
Pete Wishart
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, was it right to say to me that I was going off topic when it came to a small Bill with a number of Lords amendments, when it seems like the hon. Gentleman is doing exactly the same thing? From what I recall, practically everybody else has done that, too.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Just to be entirely clear, it was the property rights element of the hon. Member’s contribution that I thought was beyond scope. I think all Members—the House will be conscious that I have not been in the Chair very long—might like to stick to the scope of the amendments and what we are actually debating this afternoon.
Jack Rankin
That is the tension that I am trying to bring out. Who would seek to frustrate such an agenda—the Lords might, in their current form. I find it exciting—and this is a warning—that a majority in this House, gained from 33.7% of the vote on a 59.7% turnout, which is almost exactly 20% of the adults in this country, can remove their opposition from the other place. Labour Members may not agree with the hereditary principle, but who else does not get elected in the other place and cannot be removed by elections? It is the life peers. I say honestly, the lack of respect you might have for a millennia-old principle, I have for a lot of the backgrounds—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have plenty of respect for it.
Jack Rankin
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point I am trying to make to those on the Government Benches is that if a Government can expel their political opponents from the other place because the majority in this place says they are not elected, while placing no limit on the Prime Minister’s patronage, so can a new Government—so take the compromise. Be careful what you wish for.