Direction of Government
Chris Law Excerpts(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. There is plenty there that I can agree with and work with him on. Too much power in the wrong hands—that is what I was saying to the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) a moment or so ago. Can anyone in this House say that the water industry is sufficiently accountable to their constituents?
The Prime Minister
Okay, Northern Ireland—[Interruption.] Scotland. My apologies. There are models elsewhere that we can follow.
Can anyone say, with water in England, that the money that is siphoned out in salaries and dividends is justifiable when the system could not provide a basic service to people this summer? When sewage spills out on to our beaches and into our lakes, can anyone justify that? I am surprised that there is not more recognition of that from the Conservative party. Thirty years of privatisation has not left the system in a good state.
Changing some of those big things will require the different approach that the right hon. Gentleman calls for. I was pleased that he came, while on his holiday, to the cross-party talks on social care. I give him a commitment that I will keep them going until Louise Casey reports next year with her options. I hope, even then, that we might be able to find a consensus option that we take forward. I do not want to leave this position without having put all my political capital into solving this issue. As Health Secretary 16 years ago, I could not defend leaving people to lose everything they had worked for, but often only getting in return care that was sub-standard and not good enough. I know from my own family experience that that cannot carry on any longer. Nor can we defend the poverty pay for those people who care for other people’s parents and give everything of themselves to those roles. We owe it to millions out there to fix that. This is a test for this Parliament—what remains of it—to see if we can do that. I will work with the right hon. Gentleman to do that.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion of a national commission, there is a democracy taskforce working out of the Cabinet Office and I could certainly involve him in the work that that is doing. I am interested in political reform. I am interested in looking at how we restore trust in politics. I am prepared to look at all those issues—alongside the voting system, too—and I think he knows that. I believe that this Parliament needs to be a circuit breaker for the country. I do not believe we can carry on as we are. We are losing the trust and faith of the public. We need to act together to turn it around, and I look forward to working with him, precisely on that theme.
The Prime Minister
That is entirely what the Hillsborough law is about. It builds on a duty of candour that was already there in the NHS, but will now go further to those running NHS organisations and all NHS bodies. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this in more detail, because I can see how much it matters to her. I hope that is a helpful commitment.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The Prime Minister has spoken about his desire for a written constitution, arguing that a formal legal framework is necessary for the devolution agenda, yet in his short time in office he has already attempted unilaterally to defy the legally binding Good Friday agreement by declaring that a border poll is “off the table”. Does the Prime Minister recognise that he has no mandate to defy the constitutional wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, the people of Scotland or the people of Wales, and that any written constitution or devolution agenda must include a pathway for each of those nations to choose their own future?
The Prime Minister
I think the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I said. I answered a media question on a visit to Northern Ireland before meeting the various parties. The question was whether a proposal was being put to the meeting about a border poll, and my answer was that the purpose of the visit was to get functional Government in Stormont, because in my view that would most serve the people of Northern Ireland right now, and that I was not there to distract from that to other issues. I am very aware of every word in the Good Friday agreement, and I will stick to it 100% as Prime Minister. I care about Northern Ireland, which I visit often, and—how do I put it?—that situation pre-empted the meeting we were about to have and I was not there to discuss that.
The Good Friday agreement—if the hon. Gentleman reads it, as I am sure he has—is quite clear on the circumstances in which that issue arises, and as I have said, I honour the words of the Good Friday agreement. However, our common challenge right now is achieving functional Government in Stormont, and I believe everybody should work together to achieve that. I have asked the Northern Ireland Secretary to support that process, and I recognise the concerns people have about the budget in Northern Ireland. Those are the issues to be dealt with first and foremost, and that was the answer I gave to the media.
Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response
Chris Law Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
I refer my hon. Friend to my earlier answer at the Dispatch Box in relation to calls for an investigation of Labour Together, which is a privately owned organisation outside Government and public service. As for to her invitation to name individuals who have been protected in the disclosure by third-party redactions that do not have a direct relationship with what we are discussing today, I am not at liberty to do that, but as I said in my statement, we have put those redactions before the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee for additional checks and balances.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Given that the key person in this scandal, Lord Mandelson, refused to hand over his personal WhatsApp messages, how can the Government guarantee that Parliament and the public have seen the full truth? Was the Prime Minister misled, or are the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister accepting partial disclosure?
Darren Jones
Let me gently remind members of the Scottish National party that Nicola Sturgeon was very effective at deleting messages during the covid inquiry. It is important that Ministers do not do that, and I am sure that the SNP has learned those lessons as much as everyone else. I made it very clear in my statement that the documents that we have available in front of us—[Interruption.]
Antisemitic Attacks
Chris Law Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of community relations. He is also right that we have seen a number of clearly calculated attacks in recent times. He will understand that I do not want to get in front of a live and ongoing police operation, and it is not for me to categorise the nature of these attacks, but I again make the point that the Metropolitan police has arrested a number of people over the weekend. Should any further individuals be considering conducting any more attacks, I strongly advise them against doing so.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The arson attacks targeting synagogues in recent days are sadly part of a pattern of escalating antisemitism designed to intimidate Jewish people, leaving them fearful for their safety. This vile form of racism can never be tolerated, and we must act collectively to defend our Jewish communities. Given the potential links between recent attacks, will the Minister keep the Scottish Government updated on this developing threat so that we can work together to protect the Jewish community in Scotland?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his point and the way in which he made it, not least because it gives me an opportunity to say that while we are primarily talking about London, I have concerns about these kind of activities right around the country. To answer his question directly, yes, it is always my default instinct to work closely with colleagues in the Scottish Government, and I give him an assurance that that is what we will do.
Security Vetting
Chris Law Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I do not know the precise date, but I will endeavour to find out.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Given that it is widely known that Peter Mandelson maintained a friendship with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, had close business links in both China and Russia, and was sacked from two Government posts, what I really want to ask the Prime Minister is this: what are the unique and defining human qualities of the man I have just described that so attracted the Prime Minister to the idea that he should be politically appointed as ambassador to the US, and why is he still defending him behind process, instead of calling out what is wrong, taking responsibility and resigning?
The Prime Minister
I am not defending him behind process. I am setting out the process to the House.
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion
Chris Law Excerpts(5 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The victims of Jeffrey Epstein have for too long had justice delayed or denied, and the very worst that we could do is to undermine a criminal investigation that may at last bring some justice for the horrors that they have suffered. That is why the Government are working closely with the Metropolitan police to ensure that we do everything we can to not prejudice that investigation. It is why there are some documents that we have chosen not to publish, at the request of the Metropolitan police, even though we might like to do so. I am grateful to the Metropolitan police for agreeing to allow us to put those documents before the Chair of the relevant Select Committee so that in some way, on behalf of the House, there can be independent verification that we are not misusing that process in any way to withhold any documents, when we are completely committed to full transparency.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Like all statements, it is not just what is in but what is left out. We learned today that the due diligence, which has not been spoken about in any detail in the statement, provided to the Prime Minister before Peter Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador, warned that it would pose a “general reputational risk”. This is not just about the Prime Minister sitting down and having a chat with Mandelson and not believing him. He was warned that this would pose a “general reputational risk”. My question to the Minister is very simple. Which failing does he think the Prime Minister suffers from: ignorance, arrogance or both?
Darren Jones
The Prime Minister has apologised for appointing Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States. He believed the lies that Peter Mandelson put to him in response to questions about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. As soon as all of us, including the Prime Minister, became aware that those were indeed lies, with the publication of the documents from Bloomberg and the United States Department of Justice, he was dismissed promptly.
China: Foreign Interference Arrests
Chris Law Excerpts(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the SIA. He is right that this Government have ensured that our intelligence services have access to the resources they need in a difficult and challenging world. I give him and the House an assurance that should there be a requirement for additional support, this Government will always ensure that both our police and our intelligence services have the resources they need to do the very difficult job that we ask them to do.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The Government will be well aware that, through the united front, the Chinese Communist party has created a global network of individuals and organisations that act as a political weapon to isolate, neutralise or counter Beijing’s critics. Indeed, a Jamestown Foundation report published this month shows that the UK is one of the four most exposed countries, with over 400 united front-linked organisations identified here. Why do the Government continue to refuse to take the necessary action to protect the nations of these islands by placing China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? That scheme may be new, but if it is going to be useful, it needs to be used.
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Gentleman makes some important points. He will have heard what I said about FIRS. It is an important capability, and we need ensure that it is deployed in the right way, but we have introduced a number of measures in recent months to ensure that the United Kingdom is the hardest possible operating environment for those who seek to undermine our democracy. We are doing lots of things that I am unable to talk about, but I give him the assurance that we are taking these matters incredibly seriously, and will do everything that we need to do.
US Department of Justice Release of Files
Chris Law Excerpts(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
As the hon. Lady knows from the discussion in the House today, it is not that we do not wish to take action in respect of Peter Mandelson; it is that we expect action to be taken that affects all Members of the House of Lords, including other peers who need to be removed from the Lords as a consequence of their behaviour. We stand ready to act swiftly on that, and have asked the House of Lords to bring forward proposals for doing just that.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The revelations in the press that Peter Mandelson was, while Business Secretary, leaking confidential Government secrets to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein should be more than enough evidence to warrant his expulsion from the House of Lords, yet we hear that this will not happen through legislation. Sadly, this is yet another scandal in the House of Lords. While Labour has promised major Lords reform for over 100 years, time and again it has kicked the can down the road. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree with many in this House that rather than our desperately trying to reform an embarrassingly broken system, it is time for the House of Lords finally to be abolished?
Darren Jones
The hon. Member knows that the Government have stated and believe that Peter Mandelson should not be a Member of the House of Lords and should not use his title, but he is right that the rules need to be updated to allow that action to be taken by the House of Lords. We have written to the House of Lords authorities today to say that this work must begin, and the Government stand ready to support them on that.
China and Japan
Chris Law Excerpts(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue and I can give him that assurance. I know how much it matters, and that is the approach we have taken.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Over the past weeks, thousands of Chinese fishing boats have been trapped, creating a blockage up to 300 miles long in the east China sea off Japan. This is seen by many as a strategy for a future blockade. Given the huge reliance on that route for trade, such action would cause a global economic shock, threaten thousands of jobs in Scotland and dramatically increase the cost of living. What explanation did the Prime Minister’s Chinese counterpart give for this behaviour? What subsequent discussions did he have with the Japanese Prime Minister about maintaining maritime security in the region?
The Prime Minister
That issue was raised in both China and Japan, because it is obviously a cause of concern. Regional instability matters not just in the region but globally, so I discussed it in both China and Japan.
Chinese Embassy
Chris Law Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
Try though I might, there was never going to be a scenario where I would be able to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman today in what I have been able to say. He and I have had exchanges on these matters on many occasions. It is completely intolerable and unacceptable that he and members of his family have been sanctioned, and he knows the Government’s position on that.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the issue of law. UK law is sacrosanct, and where anyone—whoever they might be—falls short of it, they will be held to account by this Government. He made a specific point about the potential for an increase in staff. Again, there are clear procedures that rest with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office: where a foreign nation seeks to bring additional staff resource into a country, that all has to go through the normal diplomatic channels and has to be agreed by the Foreign Secretary.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not support these proposals. I understand that he has strong views, which I have a lot of respect for, but I hope he can respect the fact that we have engaged seriously with this proposal. The security services have been involved from the outset. Ultimately, Government have to take a view. We have taken the view that the national security implications can be mitigated. We have also taken the view—and I know that some Opposition Members do not agree with it—that there could well be some security advantages as a consequence of these proposals. I undertake to keep him and other Members up to date, and if he wishes to discuss it outside this Chamber, I would be happy to do that.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Will the Minister confirm that the UK Government are happy with rewarding and emboldening a nation that has one of the worst human rights records, that conducts espionage on these islands and in our Parliament, that has imprisoned a UK national—Jimmy Lai—on trumped-up charges, that has committed crimes against humanity against the Uyghurs and that is the single most important enabler of Russia’s illegal war machine against Ukraine and its civilian population, which we as parliamentarians have stood united against?
Dan Jarvis
I am sorry to say that I do not agree with the framing of the hon. Gentleman’s question. While he is entirely right to raise specific concerns, this is not about rewarding China.
Dan Jarvis
It is not. It is about the importance of engaging confidently and pragmatically, in a way that will enable us to take opportunities where they present themselves and where it is in our national security. As I made clear in my earlier remarks, that is not just about economic co-operation; there are other areas where we need to co-operate with China. I referenced three in my opening comments: organised immigration crime, serious organised crime and narcotics trafficking. Those are important areas where we need to work with China. Ultimately, the most important thing is that we safeguard our national security. That is why we have worked incredibly hard to look carefully at the detail of this proposal and to make sure we have the right mitigations in place.
Foreign Interference
Chris Law Excerpts(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) for raising the existential threats from Russia and China, as well as more recently from the US with its national security strategy, which we heard of last week. I said earlier today on the Floor of the House that the special relationship is now well and truly over.
Foreign interference is not a new phenomenon, but it has undoubtedly become an increasing and urgent concern in recent years. Heightened aggression from hostile states and increased economic competition is creating a more polarised world in which those who seek to increase their power and influence are looking to maximise every possible avenue. Our increased reliance on digital infrastructure and the rise of social media and artificial intelligence, combined with an erosion of trust in established political systems and traditional media has opened up a significant space to be exploited.
Whether it be through espionage, cyber-attack, intellectual property theft, transnational repression, disinformation, electoral interference, foreign political donations or bribery, we are under attack on a daily basis. Regrettably, we have not responded quickly and coherently to that, and in some cases many remain naive to the threats posed.
Let us look at the behaviours of those who seek to undermine our society and our values, create global instability and remould the world on their own terms, and at how the Government have reacted in response. Russia’s war against Ukraine did not begin in 2022; it began in 2014 when Russian-backed militants seized towns and cities in the Donbas and Russian forces illegally annexed Crimea. The strategic defence review called Russia
“an immediate and pressing threat”
but that has been the case for decades.
When I visited Ukraine in 2018 for the first time as a Member of Parliament, I found a real and live war, and was shocked that there was so little discussion of it in our own media, and certainly within this Parliament. In fact, shockingly, the language used was of a “frozen conflict”, all because we wanted to continue to have supplies of oil and gas—business as usual. Despite the murder of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, it took until the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal and the death of Dawn Sturgess in Salisbury in March 2018 for the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 to be introduced to detain people at ports and borders to determine whether they are engaged in hostile state activity.
The Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report warned us as far back as 2020 of disinformation, political influence and aggressive cyber-operations. It criticised the UK Government’s response as playing catch-up, with unclear responsibility for defending democracy. Despite Russia’s malign intentions and behaviours, for years Russian state-funded broadcasters such as Sputnik and RT—Russia Today, as it was known—were given licence to disseminate disinformation during crucial elections and referendums. Yet, despite that, the UK Government continue to underfund the BBC World Service. It is time to step up and fully fund it again, because Russia is stepping into its place.
Russia has reportedly invested over $1 billion into ongoing disinformation campaigns aimed at diminishing western support for Ukraine, while recent events such as the 2024 Southport attacks and the summer race riots were both amplified by foreign interference. Of course, we now know that one of those recent investments was over £40,000 in bribes to the former leader of Reform in Wales, Nathan Gill, who is now spending more than 10 years in jail. We know through recent reports that at least eight other members of that party have made pro-Russia statements.
That is able to happen because of a fragmented institutional response from the Government. Their time- frames for handling disinformation are painfully slow. Each recent regulatory advance, such as the Online Safety Act, which the SNP does welcome, relies on reactive content takedowns that cannot match the speed at which hostile actors manipulate and spread disinformation. As was mentioned, the strategic defence review identified disinformation as a new top-tier threat across the UK, but there is still no single entity fully accountable for national cognitive security.
My first question is simply this: now that the threat has been identified—in fact, the evidence is overwhelming —what tangible steps are the Government taking to implement the shift from reactive responses to sustained strategic resilience? Will the establishment of a national disinformation agency be considered to enable a whole-of-society institutional response?
Furthermore, Russia has rightly been placed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, yet China, despite clearly meeting the criteria, has not and remains on the lower “political influence tier”, along with most other countries. I am pleased to hear that more voices from across the House are starting to raise this issue, because the UK Government are clearly not currently budging. Shockingly, Members of this House have been sanctioned and spied on—I consider myself, among others, to have been spied on in that process. When that was exposed, we were not defended by the Government of the day or, indeed, by the Government currently in place. It was the Speakers of this House and the other House who banned Chinese diplomats and the ambassador from coming into Parliament.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. Like some of our allies, we have had major issues with transnational repression, misinformation and disinformation, hostile cyber-attacks by our adversaries, spy ships surveilling our critical infrastructure and much more besides, which has cost British businesses and had a hugely detrimental impact on our national defence and security. In these increasingly tense times, when adversaries are testing our resolve, does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Defence Committee’s recommendation that we need a dedicated Minister for homeland security?
Chris Law
I have not had a chance to read that report, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised it, because it is now clearer than ever that we need a separate Minister and Department. That is a key point.
A cross-party Joint Committee on Human Rights report describes China as a “flagrant” perpetrator of transnational repression. The strategic defence review states that China is
“likely to continue seeking advantage through espionage and cyber-attacks, and through securing cutting-edge Intellectual Property through legitimate and illegitimate means.”
Why, then, have successive Governments continued to let China get away with this behaviour? Put simply, failing to put China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme leaves a systemic gap in the UK’s national security and defence, and ignores the fact that the criteria have already been fulfilled. Can the Minister explain why the Government continue to refuse to close the gap, and why they will not make this urgently needed change?
Instead, this Government seem intent on appeasing China. Not for the first or second time, but for the third time, they have reportedly delayed their decision on whether to approve a controversial new Chinese embassy in central London, after they were expected to approve the plans for a vast mega-embassy. It cannot go ahead. Uyghurs, Tibetans, Hongkongers, local residents, US security and US financial services all demand to have the decision revisited. Surely China’s continued harassment and bullying over services to the UK embassy in Beijing, for example, is not a reason to kowtow.
In conclusion, foreign interference is a daily reality that touches our security, our economy and the integrity of our democracy, but warnings from parliamentary Committees and the intelligence community have simply not been translated into policy. They cannot continue to be ignored, and the Government cannot continue to hide from the uncomfortable truths about hostile states and their escalating interference against us all.