Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I regret to inform the House that there is a fundamental disagreement between the British and Israeli Governments about the nature of aid that needs to get into Gaza. We have spoken to them, and we have been clear that the United Nations is ready with a system that works and that is able to deliver aid at the scale required to try to address some of the horrific desperation that we see. The Israeli Government are clearly committed to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, with all of the problems that we have seen over the last three days.

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

The policy of successive UK Governments has been that the United Kingdom will recognise the state of Palestine when it is conducive to the peace process and the ultimate realisation of the two-state solution. Up to this point, I have accepted the argument that the Minister and his predecessors have made that that moment has not yet come. But has not the balance shifted decisively with a succession of moves to greater territorial change in the west bank by increased settlement activity and by increasingly blunt and frequent statements from members of the Israeli Government that they are going to restrict Palestinians to a sub-set of Gaza or restrict them from Gaza all together? That is what has changed my mind such that I now believe that it is necessary for the UK, hopefully in conjunction with others, to recognise the state of Palestine urgently. Why has it not yet changed the Government’s mind?

[Mr Falconer]

The right hon. and learned Member makes a very powerful point. One reason that the traditional positions of UK Government and many other Governments across the world has been that the recognition of a Palestinian state should come at the end or during a two-state solution process was the hope that we would move towards a two-state solution. Many minds have been changed, like the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s, because of the rhetoric of the Israeli Government—the clear statements by so many that they are no longer committed to a two-state solution. We see in the press many representatives of the Israeli Government criticising others for considering their position in relation to a Palestinian state. Exactly as the right hon. and learned Member says, it is the action of this Israeli Government that has made so many, including ourselves, review their position on these matters.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

Finally, how should this be done? It should be through separate or joint assessments, and then a panel meeting to deliberate—not a quasi-judicial panel, but evidence-led assessments where real choice is offered. Let us listen to the experts and hear their collective voice: the Bill is unsafe. That is why professional bodies are speaking out against the Bill. My amendments would nudge it to a safer place, but the scale of the concern far exceeds this change. Colleagues, we must follow the experts’ evidence.

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

In view of the number of hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate, I will restrict my remarks to amendments 47, 48 and 49, which stand in my name and the names of others. The amendments focus on the stage in the process that involves the multidisciplinary panel established by clause 14, and their purpose is to make that system work better.

A panel is intended to be an additional safeguard. The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) has made that very clear, and such panels are the successor to the involvement of a High Court judge assessing the merits of each case. The role of the panel is to determine whether it is satisfied of the matters set out in clause 15(2). Some of those matters are procedural—for example, whether the person seeking the certificate is aged over 18 or is resident in the UK, or whether declarations and assessments that should be made have been made. Others are matters of judgment, including professional judgment, such as whether an illness is terminal or whether the person applying for a certificate of eligibility has the mental capacity to do so.

The remaining category of matters to be considered are matters of broader judgment, and I suspect those are likely to be where the panel focuses most of its attention, particularly the final two listed in clause 15(2): first, whether

“the person has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”

and, secondly, that there is no coercion or pressure from anyone else. On those matters, the panel will hear from the relevant doctors, who will have had to make a judgment on those things, but I do not think that the intent of the Bill is or should be that the panel simply confirms that the doctor has reached a judgment and then adopts that judgment. The panel should, of course, reach its own judgment. It is right that the panel will also hear from the person wishing to die and will make its assessment of them.

Particularly on the last matter—the absence of coercion or pressure—it may well be that highly relevant evidence will come from others. It may come from family, friends or others who know the person well, and we are familiar with a least one scenario where a new partner isolated the person in question before they suddenly and unexpectedly changed their view on their own assisted death.

The problem is that under the Bill as it stands it is very difficult, and perhaps impossible, for those who know the person seeking a certificate well to know that those proceedings are under way or in prospect. They may not know, and nobody has to tell them, that the person has made the relevant declarations, or even that they have an intention to die, or indeed that there is any reason to submit any evidence they may have.

I am not saying that every case in which someone has not told their family and friends of their decision to seek an assisted death will be concerning, but I think it is fair to say that a disproportionate number of the concerning cases will be in that category. In those cases, the panel may be making a judgment in the absence of relevant—perhaps crucial—evidence and they simply cannot do their job properly if that is so.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Is the right hon. and learned Member as concerned as I am that the panel does not even need to consider looking at evidence from family, friends, or those caring for or treating the person? Is he also concerned that although the panel might be required to hear from the person, that will only be in exceptional circumstances and there will be no requirement to ask any questions at all?

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point and I have seen her amendments on the subject, which are very sensible. We need to think about the way in which the panel process will actually unfold. If we believe that this is an important safeguard, as, I think, is a common view, we need to do everything we can to make sure that it is an effective one. Like the hon. Lady’s amendments, my amendment 47 seeks to remedy the problem by ensuring that the assisted dying commissioner notifies anyone they think may have relevant evidence to give so that they can give it. That evidence may, of course, not change the panel’s decision, but in some of the most troubling cases it will, and the opportunity for the panel to consider that evidence, when the stakes are so high, must surely be provided for.

I accept that what I am proposing is an infringement of the privacy of the person wishing to die—it is a fetter on their ability to choose to die without informing their family or friends as they may wish—but the Bill is all about balancing the rights of a person to die as they wish with, on the other hand, our duty to protect the vulnerable from abuse. That is exactly why the stages through which a person must go in order to be assisted to die are in this Bill, including obtaining the grant of a certificate from a panel. To be of value, as I say, that must surely add new protections to the other stages.

[Sir John Hayes]

We were assured that one of the key safeguards in the Bill’s original incarnation was a legal test. That process—had it been retained, of course—would have enabled the collection of evidence in the very way that my right hon. and learned Friend is describing. It is partly because the safeguards have been weakened that we have the dilemma that his amendments seek to deal with.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I understand my right hon. Friend’s point, but I am not sure I entirely agree with him. I think some of the procedural problems I am describing would have existed even with the previous iteration of the Bill, but certainly they are there in its current iteration. At this Report stage, I am seeking to fix the problem that arises from the difficulty for the three qualified individuals who will constitute these panels to express a considered judgment. If we are to have added value in the panel stage of this process, we surely have to enable the panel to make good judgments. Good judgments come from the capacity to assess all the relevant evidence. The Bill, as it stands, makes it very hard for the panel to have access to all that evidence in every case, but perhaps especially in those cases where the additional safeguard is most needed.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

On the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about the panel, the Royal College of Psychiatrists said in point 5 of its concerns:

“It is not clear what a psychiatrist’s role on a…panel would be”.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I think we can expect that the psychiatrist on the panel will subject the requirement on mental capacity, in particular, to some considerable professional scrutiny, but nobody on the panel, whatever their professional competence may be, is capable of doing the job properly if they do not have access to the necessary evidence, so we must make sure they do.

The fact that the panel may sit in public is not a sufficient answer to the problem that I am raising. First, that is because there will be many panels considering many cases, and we cannot expect those who have evidence of coercion, for example, to watch the lists in case the person they know happens to appear in them—when, of course, they have no expectation that they will.

Secondly, the panel will not sit in public in every case. Paragraph 6 of schedule 2 says:

“Panels are to determine referrals in public”.

That is the clear presumption, and it is welcome, but paragraph 6(2) says:

“The chair of a panel may, at the request of the person to whom a referral relates, decide that the panel is to sit in private.”

I can see nothing in the Bill about any grounds on which the panel chair may refuse such a request, so it will occasionally, or perhaps often, be the case that the panel will sit in private, and no one will know what it is doing.

The next issue is the way a panel will go about making the judgments it needs to make, which brings me to amendment 48. As we all know, most judicial and quasi-judicial hearings in this country are conducted on an adversarial basis. That is, by the way, a reference not to the tone of proceedings but to the presentation of both sides of an argument so that the tribunal can reach the right conclusion. That is what our judges and lawyers are used to. That matters here because this quasi-judicial stage in the process of seeking assistance to die is being offered as important reassurance that things will be done safely, but that reassurance cannot be offered if panels are asked to adopt a process for which they are ill-equipped. That is not a criticism of those who will sit on the panels.

I accept that, under the Bill as it stands, a panel may hear from and question any other person beyond the person seeking the certificate and the relevant doctors, but as I have sought to address in amendment 47, as things stand those other persons will in all likelihood not know about the panel’s proceedings and therefore will not come forward of their own initiative with the evidence. The panel would have to go out and find them, and how exactly is it to do that? How does the panel know who may have relevant evidence to give, and with what resources will it seek them out?

The position on what resources will be available more generally for the process under the Bill remains unclear, but the impact assessment suggests that panels will be expected to deal with two cases a day. That suggests that they will spend somewhere between three and four hours on each. That is not much latitude for further investigation.

Amendment 48 proposes that the commissioner should notify a designated authority—the Secretary of State can choose the appropriate one—of an application for a certificate. That authority would then supply to the panel an advocate with the responsibility to raise arguments against the grant of the certificate, which the panel would not otherwise hear. I think that is important, because it would ensure that there was another participant in the panel process who could at least help the panel by prompting consideration of concerns, reservations or grounds for further inquiry before decisions were made.

My amendment 49 is about what happens once a panel has reached its conclusion. Clause 16 provides for a person seeking a certificate to be able to ask for reconsideration of a panel’s refusal to grant one, but of course the Bill currently provides no equivalent right to challenge the decision to someone who believes that a panel should not have granted a certificate. Anyone in that position would need to resort to judicial review, which is complex and expensive.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

May I gently suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he might be bringing his remarks to a close? There are many other Members who wish to contribute this afternoon.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I certainly am, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am doing my best, I hope as briefly as I can, to explain these technical amendments in a hugely important Bill, in a part of the Bill that the promoter has advocated for because she believes it is a safeguard. I think it is important, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we establish whether it is such a safeguard, and if it can be improved, how it can be improved—but I entirely take your strictures on board and I will come as quickly as I can to a conclusion.

This is not an equality of arms point—I accept that these are not opposing parties in the traditional sense—but it is really about the presentation of new evidence. Presumably the advice to someone whose application for a certificate has been refused and who has new evidence to present would be to reapply to the commissioner, but what is someone who has new evidence to challenge the basis for an existing certificate to do? Judicial review is no help. That is about the soundness of the decision already taken, which will be assessed using the evidence already presented to the panel that took the original decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I will give way one final time.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I am conscious of the confines of the Minister’s role in the process, but what assessment have the Government made of the capacity of a panel to investigate for itself anything that is not brought before it either by one of the relevant doctors or by the person seeking a certificate? The panel’s capacity to do so is surely important, if any issue that is not raised by either group is relevant to its consideration.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The Government’s position on the relevant clause is that the panel has to be satisfied that the correct steps have been taken, and there is not evidence of the points that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made. Our view is that the intended effect is already catered for in clause 15.

Amendment 38 would exclude from being provided with assistance a person who is not already terminally ill, as defined under the Bill. The reference to “standard medical treatment” is unclear. This could cause further uncertainty around eligibility, given that treatment could be individually tailored to each patient and their needs.

Amendment 81 would remove the requirement that any references to capacity in the Bill are to be read in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. That would effectively remove the definition of capacity in the Bill. In the absence of a new definition, the Mental Capacity Act may continue to apply by default. That would, of course, diverge from the familiar concepts in the Mental Capacity Act, which could create confusion for practitioners.

The stated intention of amendment 14 is to exclude a person who would not otherwise meet the definition of “terminally ill” if the person meets that definition solely as a result of voluntarily stopping eating or drinking. Our assessment is that the amendment risks introducing uncertainty over a person’s eligibility for assistance under the Bill. However, the substantive question is a policy choice for Parliament. Recognising the intent of the amendment, we do not believe that it would render the Bill unworkable.

Once again, I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I hope that these observations have helped them in their consideration of the amendments that have been tabled.

Chagos Islands

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

We are absolutely clear about the fact that national security is our top priority. We need to maintain our security in all parts of the world. We are in very dangerous geopolitical circumstances, as I think all Members recognise, and that is exactly why we are investing in our defence, in our NATO partnership, and in our relationships with the United States, our European counterparts and many others. We will always put the national security of our citizens and our country first.

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

I have asked the Minister this question before, but if he will forgive me for saying so, his answer could have benefited from additional clarity, so, with your permission, Mr Speaker, I am going to ask it again.

The Minister has made it very clear, as have his fellow Ministers, that the urgency and necessity of action in this instance is based on the imminence of an adverse court judgment against the UK. He knows that the International Court of Justice is not the court that we must be thinking of here, because the United Kingdom is not subject to the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ when it concerns disputes involving members or former members of the Commonwealth, so it cannot be an ICJ judgment that the Minister is worried about, can it? If it is not that, what is it?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have explained on a number of occasions, and the last Government knew the reasons, why it was necessary to proceed with a deal to secure the future operation of the base—that was very clear—and why our allies wanted us to secure it.

Let me give the right hon. and learned Gentleman an example. We currently have unrestricted and sole access to the electromagnetic spectrum, which is used to communicate with satellites and which is guaranteed and governed by the International Telecommunication Union, a United Nations body based in Geneva. If we lose it we can still communicate, but so can others. That is one of many examples. There are a series of aspects that are important to the operations and the security of the base, its maintenance into the future, and its ability to operate unimpeded. I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that all those considerations, and the protections that we have secured, have been part of why we have reached this deal. We would not have agreed a deal that did not secure the unimpeded operation of the base into the future and also left it continually at risk, as it is at present.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

The Prime Minister of Mauritius has made it very clear in his exchange of letters with the Prime Minister of this country and also in his statement yesterday that they are willing to conclude an agreement with us. That is very clear. Therefore, on the fundamentals, nothing has changed. We are engaged in conversation. It is only natural that, after an election, they would want to do that and to be able to scrutinise the agreement. That is entirely proper. That is why officials have been having these conversations, but I will not give a running commentary on private discussions.

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

I know the Minister will want to give the House the greatest possible clarity on what has brought us to this point. The Foreign Secretary has been clear that one of the central considerations for the Government was the likelihood, if not the inevitability, of a binding legal judgment against the UK in this matter. The Minister will know that the judgments of the International Court of Justice are not binding on the United Kingdom when disputes are between the UK and another state which is or was a member of the Commonwealth. That would include Mauritius. I do not expect the Minister to disclose the legal advice that the Government have received, but will he please give the House some more clarity about the nature of the legal jeopardy that the Government perceive here?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will not, for that very reason, go into that type of advice. The right hon. and learned Member knows that from his extensive and distinguished experience on these matters. I have to ask this fundamental question: if there was not a problem, why did his Government start negotiations on this?

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing that issue to my attention. I will find out why there has been such a protracted delay, and ensure that he gets a response in good time.

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

Whether China is a threat, a challenge, an opportunity or all of the above, the UK’s response to it will surely be enhanced by better Chinese language skills. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he is doing what he can with colleagues in Government to improve the UK’s capacity in that regard?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

In the integrated review published yesterday, we set out a comprehensive list of tools that we will be using to help us to continue to grow our Mandarin speakers, and more widely as well. I recommend that all Members of the House have a fulsome read of the integrated review in due course.

Iran Detainees

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that we need to change the practice of countries detaining other countries’ nationals unfairly. That is precisely what we are working on with our Canadian counterparts and others, but we need to act in concert to change the system and change the reactions we give overall. I cannot say more at this stage, but I hope to be able to say more soon.

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

This is a day of great joy and relief, not just for those flying home today but for their families, some of whom it is wonderful to be joined by today, and their wider families, including members of the Zaghari-Ratcliffe family who live in my constituency. I pay huge tribute to all involved, including, of course, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Opposition Members who have done such a tremendous job on behalf of their constituents. There will be many lessons wrongly drawn from this sad episode. Can I suggest to my right hon. Friend that there is one lesson that could be correctly drawn? The fact that these people were imprisoned in Iran is the fault of the Iranian regime. The difficulties that the UK Government have faced repaying the IMS loan are also the fault of the Iranian regime, because they largely relate to sanctions imposed upon the Iranian regime. Is this a lesson of wider application in the world today that if you find yourself subject to international sanctions, you will find that there are long and expensive consequences?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very effective point about sanctions. What we are seeing today in Russia—the fact that the Government of Russia are struggling to finance their appalling war in Ukraine, the fact that people are struggling to secure the goods and services that they have become used to, and that the country is being returned to something akin to the Soviet era—shows that sanctions do work and are effective.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I join the tributes to Richard Ratcliffe—it is great to see that he is able to join us—and to his entire family, some of whom live in my constituency, whose resilience and bravery have been truly remarkable during this long period. I also join the tributes to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), whose campaigning has been exemplary; many of us have been delighted to assist her in that.

I will make two points in the time available to me about the linkage of debt repayment to the detention of UK nationals and about the sanctions regime. First, I understand entirely and agree with the Government’s rejection of any suggestion by Iran that there is a connection between the repayment of a decades-old commercial debt and the release of UK citizens. However, I urge the Minister and his colleagues not to be hamstrung by what I might call the mirror image problem. Failing to repay a debt that would otherwise be repayable for fear of it being linked to the release of UK detainees is, in itself, to make a linkage that the Government have been at pains to say does not exist. If the debt should be repaid—and it seems clear that it should, subject to the remaining legal proceedings—then it should be repaid.

The UK’s adherence to standards of behaviour that states should maintain—standards which we argue Iran is not maintaining—demands that the debt be repaid promptly. How such a repayment is perceived should not, as a matter of principle, prevent us from making it.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the failure to pay an acknowledged debt creates a fig leaf for the Iranian Government to hide behind? It is not a matter of it being connected; it is an obstruction to things moving forward.

[Jeremy Wright]

I understand entirely the point made by the hon. Lady. However, as I say, I do not think it is necessary to accept any linkage—positive or negative, by the Iranians or by the UK—to justify the decision to repay a debt that is legally repayable. We should do that for its own reasons and for its own sake, regardless of what else may be happening.

That brings me to the issue of the sanctions regime as an obstacle to repayment. It seems that we require more ingenuity and more innovation. Certainly, in so far as my right hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues are concerned, I accept that a huge amount of personal effort has been put into this case. However, as others have said, something is still missing, and that may be the innovation that we need to find.

The debt predates the sanctions regime that we see as an obstacle to making the repayment. The purpose of that sanctions regime is to prevent the enrichment of Iran during the course of the sanctions period, but it does not seem to me that this repayment would do that. The repayment of the debt would, in effect, put Iran in the position it would have been in if the obligation had been fulfilled when it should have been—well prior to the beginning of the sanctions regime.

I know better than many that the Minister has access to some exceptionally good lawyers in government. I hope that he is instructing those lawyers to use their best imagination and innovation to find ways of resolving this legal problem, because that is what we will require to break this deadlock. I know he will do his best, but I hope that he will give instructions to apply innovation and ingenuity to the case, as well as simply effort.

ODA Budget

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I have already said how proud we all should be of our support to India. This is part of a long-standing bilateral relationship, perhaps one of the strongest in our history. All I can say in response to the hon. Gentleman’s broader question about ODA is that it is driven by circumstances and that we will get back up to the 0.7% as soon as the fiscal situation allows.

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

Will my right hon. Friend explain—if not now, perhaps in writing—why the Government seek to change the 0.7% target set out in the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015, rather than to utilise the provisions of the Act to explain why they are unable to meet it at this time? If indeed the Government are seeking to change the target and believe that they may do so without further legislation or parliamentary sanction, what does he believe that the 2015 Act was intended to do, if not to stop Governments doing exactly that?

[James Cleverly]

The 2015 Act envisaged that there might be circumstances in which a Government would be unable to meet the 0.7% target. As I said, this is a truly unique and unprecedented set of economic circumstances. We will look to get back up to 0.7% as soon as the situation allows. We will look at the situation with regard to legislation.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is good that we have international support on our calls, which reflects our belief that the charges are illegitimate and that her detention and that of other British dual nationals is unacceptable. We will continue to work with international partners and directly with Iran to secure all their releases, and we are grateful for the international support that we have received on this issue.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on not only what she said today but all she has said for her constituent. I echo the call for Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s proceedings to be ended forthwith, but if that is not the case, I am sure my right hon. Friend will accept that the fairness and transparency of the next set of proceedings against her will become fundamental. Will he redouble his efforts to ensure that those proceedings are observed by a representative of the UK Government and/or those who represent international organisations? I ask him to accept and to communicate that if these proceedings are fair—if these charges are fairly laid and are to be fairly tried—the Iranians have no reason to prevent the world from seeing them.

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very good point. We are seeking to be allowed to attend any future hearings. Our embassy in Tehran formally requested that last week, and we have consistently made the point with the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We are committed to securing the immediate and permanent release of all arbitrarily detained British dual nationals. The point he makes about the Iranian regime acting transparently is a good one.

UK Telecommunications

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

That is precisely what I set out in my statement.

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

The disadvantage that the House faces this afternoon is that the most important evidence in helping the Government to make these decisions comes from the intelligence agencies, yet almost all Members of the House will not see that evidence. As it happens, I have seen it—or at least a version of it—and I happen to think that the Government are making the right judgment on a difficult subject. Is it not right, however, that we should not allow ourselves, either in this place or in Government, to be distracted by one single supplier? We should not forget that there is American IP in Chinese components, and Chinese components in products sold by vendors who are not Chinese. The most important thing is to protect our supply network from vendors, whoever they may be, in order to enhance our security.

[Dominic Raab]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point about interoperability that was lost on some of the earlier remarks, and he is right in his assessment. On transparency—I appreciate that these are difficult issues for the House to grapple with—we have put as much into the public domain as possible. The telecoms supply chain review’s final report was published in July 2019, and the National Cyber Security Centre’s analysis is available on its website.