Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jerome Mayhew and Ellie Reeves

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I think I am in the slightly novel position of being fresh to the Dispatch Box myself, but also able to welcome both the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to their new places, which I do with gusto.

Last month, the Attorney General published her new “Attorney General’s Legal Guidance”, a direction to all Government lawyers on how to advise Ministers on lawfulness and legal risk, which replaced the advice of Lord Hermer. Across the board, she has removed references to international law. She has removed Lord Hermer’s demand that

“the rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law”;

she has removed Lord Hermer’s direction that the Government

“should not invite Parliament to legislate contrary to international obligations”;

and she has removed the whole paragraph in which Lord Hermer instructed Government lawyers that compliance and respect for international law must be a critical factor in legal advice. She served as Solicitor General under Lord Hermer for a year. What persuaded her that his guidance to Government lawyers was wrong, and that the Conservatives were right all along that his guidance needed to be replaced?

[The Attorney General]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post, and I am pleased that he has raised the updated legal risk guidance. This is a Government committed to getting things done, and I make it clear in the revised guidance that, where there is a tenable legal argument, we can take action. On international law, my new guidance makes it clear that domestic law and international law should be treated in the same way. It is important that we adhere to both, and that is set out in the guidance.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Having removed Lord Hermer’s focus on the importance of international law, the Attorney General has in fact added a new consideration: whether an international court has jurisdiction. This could have Chagos written all over it. Without express United Kingdom consent, there is no international court with binding jurisdiction over the sovereignty of the Chagos islands. Applying her own legal guidance, does the Attorney General now agree that the decision to cede sovereignty of the Chagos islands has never been a legal imperative forced on the Government, but is instead a political decision, taken by Labour?

[The Attorney General]

The military base at Diego Garcia is critical for our national security, and for keeping people safe here in Britain. Our priority has always been clear: to secure the long-term, effective operation of that base. Since its creation, there have been challenges relating to the base in various international courts and tribunals, threatening its long-term, secure operation. That is why we continue to work closely with the US and with Mauritius to find a way forward that is in the UK’s best interests, and that continues to protect our national security.

Alleged Spying Case: Role of Attorney General’s Office

Debate between Jerome Mayhew and Ellie Reeves

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[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?