Alleged Spying Case: Role of Attorney General’s Office Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Attorney General
Jerome Mayhew
Main Page: Jerome Mayhew (Conservative - Broadland and Fakenham)Department Debates - View all Jerome Mayhew's debates with the Attorney General
Alleged Spying Case: Role of Attorney General’s Office
Jerome Mayhew Excerpts(2 days, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate 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 Solicitor General
I politely remind the right hon. Gentleman that this case was to be tried under the Government’s position in relation to China between 2021 and 2023, when his party was in Government.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Solicitor General has repeatedly said that prosecutors and not politicians should decide whether to prosecute. Of course that is the case, but that is a straw man argument. The issue here is not political interference in the decision to prosecute, but political interference in the evidence that was given to the CPS, affecting its ability to prosecute. We have been told that the Attorney General was informed. Why was he informed, if not to allow him to take action to perfect the evidence? Why did he not?
The Solicitor General
The Prime Minister and the DPP have both confirmed that there was no political interference in the evidence given by the deputy National Security Adviser, and rightly so. The Conservative party cannot have it both ways: first, the argument was that we interfered with the evidence and now it seems to be that we did not. Which is it?