Lindsay Hoyle
Main Page: Lindsay Hoyle (Speaker - Chorley)Department Debates - View all Lindsay Hoyle's debates with the Cabinet Office
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
As you have just said, Mr Speaker, today marks four years since the horrific murder of Sir David Amess. Sir David was much loved across the House, kind and generous, and I know it was a huge loss to many Members opposite. May he rest in peace.
As we remember Sir David and our friend Jo Cox, of course, I want to take this opportunity to condemn unequivocally the death threats made against the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). I know the whole House will welcome the justice that has been done. Whatever our disagreements, we are all parliamentarians, and I will not stand for violence or threats against our democracy.
Mr Speaker, on that point, may I update the House on the China spy case? I am deeply disappointed by the outcome. We wanted to see prosecutions. Mr Speaker, I know just how seriously, rightly, that you take these matters. National security will always be the first priority of this Government, and we will always defend against espionage. In recent weeks, baseless accusations have been put about by the party opposite. Let me set out the facts. The relevant period was when these offences took place. That was under the Conservative Government between the years of 2021 and 2023. That period was bookended by the integrated review of 2021—the beginning of the period—and the refresh of that review in 2023, setting out their policy. These statements of Government policy were very carefully worded to not describe China as an enemy. Instead—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Mr Stuart, somebody who is on the Speaker’s panel, and who I have told once before, should know better. Do not question my judgment. I thought it was important that the Prime Minister tells the House first rather than somewhere else. Please, this is very important to me and to the House. I take it seriously, so I do not need any more side comments.
The Prime Minister
The review of ’21 and the refresh of ’23 were very carefully worded to not describe China as an enemy. Instead, they stated that they would “increase…national security protections” where China poses “a threat” and that the then Government would “engage…with China” to “leave room” open for “constructive and predictable relations”.
The deputy National Security Adviser, Matt Collins, set out the then Government’s position in a substantive witness statement in 2023, which was subsequently supplemented by two further short statements. The Cabinet Secretary assures me that the DNSA faithfully set out the policy of the then Tory Government. I know at first hand that the DNSA is a civil servant of the utmost integrity, and those Opposition Members who worked with him, I am sure, would agree with that assessment.
Under this Government, no Minister or special adviser played any role in the provision of evidence. I cannot say what the position was of the previous Government in relation to the involvement of Ministers or special advisers. If the Leader of the Opposition knows the answer to that question, and I suspect that she does, I invite her to update the House.
Last night, the Crown Prosecution Service clarified that, in its view, the decision whether to publish the witness statements of the DNSA is for the Government. I therefore carefully considered this question this morning, and after legal advice, I have decided to publish the witness statements. Given the information contained, we will conduct a short process, but I want to make it clear that I intend to publish the witness statements in full.
To be clear, had the Conservatives been quicker in updating our legislation—a review that started in 2015—these individuals could have been prosecuted and we would not be where we are now. I am happy to answer any questions on this.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
The Prime Minister
We want a country where young people are supported, where the quality of teaching is raised and where every skilled apprentice is valued and respected. We have set a new target of two thirds of young people to be in an apprenticeship or university. That will smash the glass ceiling and renew our country. We have supported this with a record £3 billion budget for more apprenticeships, more technical colleges and guaranteed training, apprenticeships or work for all 18 to 21-year-olds.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Mr Speaker, thank you for marking four years since the terrible murder of Sir David Amess. I know the whole House will want to join me in remembering our former colleague. He is very much still in our hearts and minds. The way he died reminds us that the security of Members and this Parliament is paramount, so it concerns us all that the case against two people spying on Members of this House has collapsed. It is simply unbelievable.
Exactly as I expected, the Prime Minister had to be dragged out at the top of PMQs to give a statement that answers no questions. [Laughter.] I don’t know what they are laughing at; we are talking about the security of this Parliament. He had to be dragged out only to repeat more obfuscation. It is simply unbelievable that he is trying to say that the last Government did not classify China as a threat, so I will refresh his memory.
In 2021, the previous Government’s integrated review described China as
“the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security.”
In 2024, the then Minister for Security said from the Dispatch Box that China poses a threat. But let us leave aside the Government. In November 2022, the director general of MI5 classified China as a threat in his remarks. How is it possible that the Government failed to provide the evidence that the CPS needed to prosecute?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend will have heard at our conference from Pooja Kanda, who I have met a number of times. Her son Ronan was fatally stabbed. Iusb am proud that we have delivered Ronan’s law to tackle the sale of ninja swords; we have also banned zombie knives and strengthened controls for online knife sales. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work in setting up the city safety summits.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
May I associate myself and my party with the tributes to David Amess? On behalf of my party, may I also pay tribute to Ming Campbell, who is being laid to rest today? That is the reason why my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) cannot be here. I thank you, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister and other Members of this House for the very kind tributes paid yesterday.
We welcome the new level of transparency from the Prime Minister, and we will scrutinise the witness statements closely, but it is clear that there are still many questions to be answered, including questions from Hongkongers. Hongkongers in St Albans and across the UK settled in our communities after they fled repression at the hands of the Chinese state, but they now see a British Government who want to make it harder for them to settle here permanently, refuse to impose targeted sanctions on Chinese officials who put bounties on Hongkongers’ heads, refuse to rule out a Chinese super-embassy and are failing to tackle Chinese espionage. Hongkongers are starting to ask whether the Prime Minister is trading away their security and safety in our communities for a cosier relationship with Beijing. What is the Prime Minister’s answer to them?
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the statement that the Security Minister made earlier this week and then again in answer to a question today, I have been misquoted—and the misquote, I think, is significant. It has been said that I, in a speech at Mansion House, said that describing China as a threat was
“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise.”
The quote was that describing China or our policy “in one word” was
“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise.”
In that speech, I went on to say of our policy:
“First, we will strengthen our national security protections wherever Beijing’s actions pose a threat to our people or our prosperity.”
I finished by saying:
“And when there are tensions with other objectives, we will always put our national security first.”
How can I get redress for this misquote, Mr Speaker?
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman has put it on the record, and it is there now for all to see. I will leave it at that.