Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address Motion

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister to make a statement on the Government’s response to the Humble Address agreed by this House on 4 February 2026, including on progress made, timescales for compliance and the Government’s approach to any material it proposes to withhold or delay.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)]

Last week, the House made a Humble Address to His Majesty for the Government to disclose material surrounding the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America. On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister updated the House on further action that the Government are taking.

My right hon. Friend confirmed that the Government will bring forward legislation to ensure that peerages can be removed from disgraced peers, and that Peter Mandelson will be removed from the list of Privy Counsellors. He also explained how we have changed the process for relevant direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles. He also set out other areas where we recognise the need to go further, including tightening transparency and lobbying.

In that statement, my right hon. Friend also set out how the Government are responding to the Humble Address motion, and I am pleased to provide a further update to the House today. The Government will comply fully and publish documents as soon as possible. As I said in the House last week, we welcome both the principle and content of that motion, and we will deliver on it as soon as we can. As such, Departments have been instructed to retain any material that may be relevant, and work is under way to identify documents that fall within the scope of the motion. We will do so as soon as possible when the House returns from recess.

In line with the motion passed by this House, where the Government consider that documents may be prejudicial to UK national security or international relations, the Cabinet Office will refer that material to the independent Intelligence and Security Committee. The Prime Minister has written to the ISC, and senior officials have met the Committee to discuss what it requires in order to fulfil that role. As I said in the House last week, full resources will be made available to ensure that process happens, and we will work with the Committee to explain the Cabinet Office’s process for providing material relating to national security or international relations. The Government are very grateful to the ISC for its work, and we commit to full engagement with it to ensure timely and effective release.

The House will also be aware of the statement from the Metropolitan police regarding the ongoing police investigation. That statement made clear that the

“process to decide which documents should ultimately be published remains a matter for…parliament.”

That is absolutely right, and we agree, but as the House would expect, the Government rightly do not wish to release anything that may undermine an ongoing police investigation. As such, we are working with the police as they conduct their inquiries to manage this process. I think that is the right way forward, Mr Speaker, and I hope you and the House agree.

In conclusion, the Government continue to take this matter incredibly seriously, and given the nature of the issues at stake and the scope of material in play, we will comply fully and deliver this material as quickly and transparently as possible. The Government will keep the House updated as they do so, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will publish a written ministerial statement later today.

[Mr Speaker]

Now that you have brought me into it, I will just say that the Intelligence and Security Committee is private and independent, and therefore I would not like to see that it was blocked from information. It would not affect any police investigation, because that information would not go into the public arena. I just want the House to be aware of that.

I also thank the Minister for coming to the House. To me, on something as important as this a written ministerial statement is not good enough; I think it should have been brought to the House. All sides are interested in it, and it is right that this House should be informed, so I really am pleased. I am sorry that the Minister has got the short straw, but I thank him for being here.

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

[Alex Burghart]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker— I could not have put it better myself.

[Mr Speaker]

But I am sure you will have a go. [Laughter.]

[Alex Burghart]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, without which hon. Members would not have had a chance to question Ministers before recess. Obviously, the House will rise for recess having received very little in the way of information, so it is very important that we hear from the Minister today so that we can try to have some confidence in the process. Simply put, the purpose of our question today is to try to elicit from the Government a commitment to give the House a timetable, and to confirm—as I think the Minister may have done—that they intend to comply fully with the language in the Humble Address. I say that because press briefings from Government sources this week have suggested that the Government might try to reinterpret the address in some way. For the avoidance of doubt, were that to happen, the Government would have to return to this House for another vote.

Last week, the Prime Minister told us that the process would have integrity because it was being led by the Cabinet Secretary, and that any criticism or denigration of the Cabinet Secretary would not be right. This week, the political forces in No. 10 have been briefing that Sir Chris Wormald is to be replaced—what a turnaround! Will the Minister reassure the House that any change in the Cabinet Secretary will not delay disclosure or publication of the documents that the House has required?

I have several further questions that I will put quickly to the Minister. First, have the Government completed their scoping exercise, and if not, by when do they intend to do so?

Secondly, where the Government propose to release material to the Intelligence and Security Committee rather than directly to the House, will they provide public updates to the House that this has been done?

Thirdly, in respect of documents withheld at the request of the Metropolitan police, will the Government tell us the precise legal mechanism being relied on, and will they commit to publish those documents in full when the police no longer request them to be withheld?

Fourthly, will Ministers publish a Keeling schedule-style register of withheld or delayed documents, setting out the category, the reason for non-disclosure and the expected release date for each? There are strong precedents for this.

Fifthly, at the Dispatch Box last week, the Minister told me he would write to me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) about the Palantir contract. He has not yet done so. Please will he confirm that he will this week?

Lastly, and separately, will the Minister commit to publishing all documentation relating to the nomination of Matthew Doyle as a peer? That is now a matter of acute public interest. [Interruption.] I will sit down, Mr Speaker. The Minister will appreciate that confidence in this Government’s integrity is very low. I hope he will comply in full.

[Chris Ward]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. Let me try to rattle through those questions. First, and most importantly, we will comply fully. I made that clear in the House. The Government accept the principle and the content of the motion, and we will comply fully with it. A large amount of material—this touches on the scoping question—is potentially in play here, and it goes much broader than other Humble Addresses. That is not a criticism; it is just a factual observation about how long it will take to get through the material. The scoping has begun, and the Cabinet Office is working through that. I will update the House as soon as I can with more. We hope to publish the first tranche when the House comes back from recess. As I say, the scoping is being worked through. The conversations with the Metropolitan police have, as Mr Speaker pointed out, the primacy of this place at heart, but we also, as the House would expect, do not want to prejudice an ongoing police investigation. We are just working our way through that.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Cabinet Secretary. Obviously, it would not be appropriate for a Cabinet Office Minister to talk about the Cabinet Secretary—

[Alex Burghart]

Special advisers in your Department are.

[Chris Ward]

Thankfully, I am no longer an adviser. I am a Cabinet Office Minister, and it would not be appropriate for a Cabinet Office Minister to talk about the Cabinet Secretary. Let me reassure the House that the Cabinet Office is working hard and diligently on this. That process is ongoing. Any speculation around the Cabinet Secretary does not affect the process.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Palantir, and I committed to write to him. I have spoken to officials about that, and I promise we will get that to him. There was an urgent question on this matter, which I think the Ministry of Defence responded to, and which provided an update, but I promise I will come back to him on that.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman touched on Lord Doyle. That is outside the scope of this Humble Address and outside the scope of the papers, so the urgent question does not touch on that.

Lord Mandelson

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to require the Government to lay before this House all papers relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment as His Majesty’s Ambassador to the United States of America, including but not confined to the Cabinet Office due diligence which was passed to Number 10, the Conflict of Interest Form Lord Mandelson provided to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), material the FCDO and the Cabinet Office provided to UK Security Vetting about Lord Mandelson’s interests in relation to Global Counsel, including his work in relation to Russia and China, and his links to Jeffrey Epstein, papers for, and minutes of, meetings relating to the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson, electronic communications between the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff and Lord Mandelson, and between ministers and Lord Mandelson, in the six months prior to his appointment, minutes of meetings between Lord Mandelson and ministers in the six months prior to his appointment, all information on Lord Mandelson provided to the Prime Minister prior to his assurance to this House on 10 September 2025 that ‘full due process was followed during this appointment’, electronic communications and minutes of all meetings between Lord Mandelson and ministers, Government officials and special advisers during his time as Ambassador, and the details of any payments made to Lord Mandelson on his departure as Ambassador and from the Civil Service.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing time for this Opposition day debate on presenting an Humble Address.

I think the whole House has been shocked and disturbed by the revelations that have emerged once again over the past few days. Peter Mandelson, it seems, helped Jeffrey Epstein and his associates to make money. That money was used to run Mr Epstein’s paedophilic prostitution ring. Those who broke the law to give that information helped to make him rich and powerful, and they share in some of the responsibility for the crimes that were committed, because they gave him the power that he abused. No doubt for some of those involved, this was just a heady game of who had the best contacts and who could make the most money, played by a small set of men who took their thrill from existing outside the rules. It seems that the more this thread is pulled on, the more that network unravels, and the more shameful the whole episode appears.

Generally, three main things must concern this House. The first is the now-emerging conduct of Peter Mandelson when he was a member of the previous Labour Administration between 2009 and 2010. I understand that that is now subject to a police investigation, and it is good to see that the Government are co-operating fully with that investigation. I am sure that, when the police have finished their inquiries, there will be future opportunities for us to discuss the matter in this House.

The second issue, of similar import, is the judgment of the Prime Minister in appointing Peter Mandelson to our most senior diplomatic role.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In fairness, that is not a problem for Mr Burghart to address. Who responds is a matter for the Government.

[Alex Burghart]

I am glad that it is not my problem, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend is right: the appointment of this man was absolutely the Prime Minister’s responsibility. Today we are trying to dig into exactly what the Prime Minister knew, whether any information was kept from him, and, if so, who kept it from him.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

This is a serious issue, and my hon. Friend is dealing with it appropriately. He will have heard, as I did, the Prime Minister refer to the fact that the “extent of the relationship” between Mandelson and Epstein was “not known”. The common view among Members across the parties at the time was that any relationship should have precluded Peter Mandelson from the appointment to be His Majesty’s ambassador to Washington. Does my hon. Friend share that view?

[Alex Burghart]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point—one that is central to our considerations and to which I will return.

I have mentioned the conduct of Peter Mandelson while he was a member of the last Labour Government, and the Prime Minister’s judgment in appointing him, but I will also touch on Peter Mandelson’s conduct while he was our ambassador in Washington.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the shadow Minister and the Conservative party for bringing forward this matter for consideration. What we are listening to and what is happening is absolutely incredible. May I suggest that the five years during which Mandelson was EU trade commissioner should be part of the investigation as well? A full investigation should include every t that was crossed and every i that was dotted by Peter Mandelson. That is what this House and this nation want.

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. The more we pull on this thread, the more we seem to find. All Peter Mandelson’s dealings, as a politician and as a businessman, should now be laid out for the House and the country to consider.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

The Foreign Affairs Committee, on which I sit, called for Lord Mandelson to appear before us on multiple occasions to explain the circumstances and process of his unusual appointment. He did not adhere to that request. Does the shadow Minister agree that Lord Mandelson’s failure to come before the Committee sends the signal that the Government wanted to hide something, that there were issues in the appointment and vetting process, and that, had there been transparency in the early stages of his appointment, we would have avoided sending someone wholly unfit to fulfil one of the UK’s most senior diplomatic roles?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

That is a significant representation from a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. It must be said that a failure of transparency at each stage of the process appears to have compounded the problems that the Government are now dealing with.

What do we know now about the Prime Minister’s judgment and the process in No. 10 around this appointment? We now know that the Prime Minister was aware that Peter Mandelson had an ongoing friendship with Jeffrey Epstein that continued beyond the conviction for awful offences against children. Not only was that in the public domain, but a Financial Times journalist told the Prime Minister about it in January 2024. The Prime Minister admitted in the House today that it was part of the briefing note that he received from the Cabinet Office propriety and ethics team. We fully expect the report compiled by that team—the due diligence report—to appear for this House to consider.

Reports on that document have appeared in the New Statesman this morning. We are told that the due diligence report contains warnings of

“potential conflicts of interest surrounding Global Counsel”,

the lobbying firm established by Peter Mandelson, in which he retained a stake of around 28%. We know that Global Counsel had Russian and Chinese clients, about which, according to the reports in the press this morning, the propriety and ethics team had serious concerns. We know—or at least we are told in the press—that the due diligence report also referred to Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, stating clearly that Mandelson’s relationship had gone over the point of conviction, and drawing attention to the fact that Mandelson had used Epstein’s hospitality in America and Paris while the latter was in prison.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

The shadow Minister is absolutely right in his summary of all Jeffrey Epstein’s misdoings. We heard some shocking revelations during Prime Minister’s questions, such as the fact that the Prime Minister appointed Mandelson as ambassador despite knowing about his relationship with Epstein. Does the shadow Minister agree that the Prime Minister’s position is becoming increasingly untenable?

[Alex Burghart]

There is no doubt that the Prime Minister’s judgment is being called sharply into question at this moment. It is becoming harder to see how any of us can rely on his judgment in future.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Alex Burghart]

I will give way one more time, and then I must make some progress.

[Dr Murrison]

The Prime Minister’s judgment is most certainly in the frame. What about his candour? Does my hon. Friend remember that on 16 September, the Prime Minister himself introduced the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which at its heart has a duty of candour? Did we see candour displayed at Prime Minister’s questions today?

[Alex Burghart]

As my right hon. Friend knows, the Government developed an appetite for candour and then lost their appetite. That Bill has disappeared into the ether. Too much candour would do this Government harm.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Burghart]

I will give way in a moment; I would like to make a little progress.

It was reported this morning in the press that in September, following Peter Mandelson’s sacking, there was a Cabinet Office investigation into any further wrongdoing. Will the Paymaster General confirm whether he is aware of such a report and at least assure the House that, if such a report comes to light during his investigations, that will be published in response to this Humble Address?

The Conservatives fully understand that the Government have a duty to protect national security and our international relationships—of course they do. They must also understand, however, that security and our international affairs are completely entwined with this issue. The Paymaster General will have seen this morning that the Prime Minister of Poland, Donald Tusk, has announced that Poland, one of our strongest allies in Europe, will examine the paedophile’s links with the Russian intelligence services. As he said,

“More and more leads, more and more information, and more and more commentary…all relate to the suspicion that this unprecedented paedophilia scandal was co-organised by Russian intelligence services.”

Thousands of the documents released over the weekend refer to Putin and thousands more to Moscow. We know that Epstein recruited young Russian women and we know that he held parties in Russia. In some emails, I understand, Epstein said he could offer “insight” on Donald Trump to Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister. Those are all the ingredients of classic kompromat and this House cannot be deprived of consideration of such issues in the case of the Mandelson papers.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

It has been for years a matter of mystery and speculation where Epstein acquired his vast wealth. Does my hon. Friend think that the Russian connection may provide the definitive answer to that mystery?

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend is quite right that this is exactly one of the issues that must now be investigated and done so very seriously, not just by this Government but by our allies in other jurisdictions. Though we do not yet know for certain how the money came to Epstein, we do now know where some of it went. Understanding its ultimate source will help us construct a picture of this very complex and devious web.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

rose—

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

rose—

[Alex Burghart]

I will give way to my right hon. Friend.

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

At the heart of what we are talking about is this. Do we accept the amendment from the Government about

“national security or international relations”?

My hon. Friend and I have both served in the Cabinet Office and I am sure that he shares my sympathy with the need to protect national security. However, there is a vast difference between protecting national security—for example, in direct intelligence reports from agents on the ground or intercept—and subjective judgments made about things that may be embarrassing for national security or international relations. That is why the Leader of the Opposition was precisely correct in saying that we need some independent mechanism. Why on earth can we not agree that the Intelligence and Security Committee should look at each of the exemptions? If it feels they pass the threshold, that is fine and we will accept that, because we need to protect national security—but it cannot be to spare the Labour party’s blushes.

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend, who was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and who knows more about national security than almost anyone in this House, is right. The Government’s judgment and their behaviour are under investigation here. It cannot be the case that the Government can then decide what is disclosed. Fortunately for the House, there are mechanisms available to us, not least the ISC, which would do a very good job on behalf of the Government, working with them to decide what information could and could not be released.

Built into the Humble Address mechanism itself is an understanding that national security is protected. There is no need—

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)]

rose—

[Alex Burghart]

I promised to give way to my old adversary the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) first. Then, I will happily give way to the hon. Lady.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I compliment the hon. Member on the content of his speech so far. This inquiry will have massive ramifications. It is an inquiry into the gilded circle surrounding Mandelson, which extends very broadly around this House and the civil service, the business community, the media and internationally. Is it not time that we had a novel form of inquiry which is not undertaken solely by Parliament or the civil service, but which is a much broader, more public inquiry that will look into the whole issue? This is a basic corruption of our political system that we are looking at in the behaviour of Peter Mandelson.

[Alex Burghart]

The right hon. Gentleman appears to be correct in that there is certainly an indication that serious corruption may have taken place. In the light of that, the House must consider closely what the best means of getting to the bottom of all these relationships and influences will be.

[Claire Hanna]

The House is getting a lesson that many families in Northern Ireland, such as those of Sean Brown and the victims of Stakeknife, have learned over decades that national security is routinely deployed to cover the blushes of the UK Government. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is now arriving at that point. Would he support a wider review of his party and the Government’s application of “national security” to all sorts of disclosure cases?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

Without wishing to be distracted from the motion at play, I have seen Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland of all parties in successive Governments try hard to ensure that there is maximum disclosure for the people of Northern Ireland, while ensuring that national security is not compromised. I am afraid that I see things through a slightly different prism from the hon. Lady.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Alex Burghart]

I will give way one more time and then I intend to make some progress.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

There is a well-worn route for dealing with these matters, through Humble Addresses and otherwise. Previous Humble Addresses, when the Labour party was in opposition, would sometimes name a Select Committee. I was on the receiving end of that as the then Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. I genuinely want to ask the hon. Gentleman this: why did the Opposition not put in the Humble Address that this matter should go to a Select Committee? I think that there are still ways to use the Committee corridor to scrutinise anything that may be more sensitive than that which can go into the public domain.

[Alex Burghart]

I am glad that the hon. Lady agrees with us that the ISC should be used in this context. I am glad that there is agreement between her and me that those on the Government Front Bench should use the ISC to act in this way. I hope that other Labour Members will take the same view as that extremely experienced parliamentarian.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way on that?

[Alex Burghart]

I will give way one more time.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

Since my hon. Friend mentions the Intelligence and Security Committee, of which I am a member, may I put this to him? The purpose of the ISC is not to act as some filter to decide what should go to the rest of Parliament; it is to act on behalf of Parliament to consider material that Parliament, for good reason, cannot see. This is a motion about whether the Government should disclose all the relevant material to Parliament. In that context, is it not a perfectly usable and familiar mechanism for Parliament in circumstances such as these, by which the Government may disclose anything that they do not believe the whole Chamber can see to the Intelligence and Security Committee?

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. and learned Friend speaks from a position of experience. He is entirely right; the House is fortunate to have the ISC and that is one of the functions that it can perform. The Government can have reassurance on national security and the House can have reassurance that no material is being kept from it that the Government might find embarrassing.

In his remarks, will the Paymaster General, who I know will have had nothing to do with this and who I know is a man of integrity, think seriously about the options of gisting and the role that the ISC can play in that and make sure that the Government are not marking their own homework? It is important that our constituents and this House have confidence in what the Government provide us with.

Before I hand over to other Members, let me move briefly on to the conduct of Lord Mandelson while he was our ambassador in Washington, which I think is relevant to our debate because it again exposes the Prime Minister’s lack of judgment in appointing him. There is obviously strong evidence to suggest that Mandelson behaved entirely inappropriately when he was Secretary of State under the last Labour Government, but equally big questions are now outstanding about what was happening in 2025 in Washington—as I said, this is relevant now. On 27 February 2025, the Prime Minister, while in Washington, visited the American data and AI company Palantir at its headquarters. The meeting did not appear in the Prime Minister’s register of visits; it only came to light later.

Palantir, we should remind ourselves, was a client of Global Counsel, the company in which Peter Mandelson had a commanding share. Later that year, Palantir received from this Government a £240 million deal. That deal was granted by direct award. Given the allegations now coming to light about Mandelson’s conduct, will the Minister assure the House that the Cabinet Secretary will review the circumstances around the award of that contract, and assure himself that there are no other such contracts, no other undisclosed meetings, and that the Government will go through all communications and messages that Mandelson sent out while he was ambassador, some of which we must assume, were sent to old business contacts, a potential few business contacts, and so on?

The Prime Minister knew that Peter Mandelson had maintained an unhealthy relationship with a man who was a convicted paedophile, and he appointed him to the role of ambassador anyway. Everybody in this House should be shocked by that. It must be concluded that had the Prime Minister been pressed on that point at the time, the appointment would not have been made, because the Prime Minister knew, his aides knew—but the appointment was made anyway. What else did he know? Only after this Humble Address, and only if the Government treat it in good faith, will we know that. I very much hope that we do not find that there are gaps in our security and vetting process. If there are, the Government will be able to fix them. I think it also likely that we will see reports that consistently raised concerns which were swept away. It will then be the duty of the Government to disclose who swept them away, and why. Ultimate responsibility must rest with the Prime Minister. It is time for him to take responsibility.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Paymaster General to move the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous with his time. The Humble Address is obviously about Lord Mandelson’s appointment. However, the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) was about two contracts, at least one of which, by direct award, went to a business that was a client of Global Counsel. The Prime Minister met that company while in Washington and it did not appear on his register of interests. Will the Minister assure the House that the Cabinet Secretary will look into the process that led to that direct award?

[Chris Ward]

As I said, everything in the Humble Address will be dealt with. On that specific point, I will follow up with the Cabinet Secretary and write to the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith).

US Department of Justice Release of Files

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

The crimes of Jeffrey Epstein were truly terrible—paedophilia, sex trafficking, child prostitution. It was an awful abuse of power, and it is of course a great embarrassment to our country that its most senior ambassador should have been caught up with a man like him. In this latest set of releases from the US Department of Justice, it is clearer than ever that theirs was a relationship built not just on affection, but on the transfer of money from Epstein to Mandelson’s family and the transfer of information from Mandelson to Epstein. In some cases, this was apparently market-sensitive information that Mandelson received only by dint of being a member of the Labour Government.

So we of course welcome the belated announcement that there will be an investigation into Mandelson’s conduct while he was a Minister, but this should have happened long ago. I say that because we know that, in February last year, Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister, wrote to the Cabinet Secretary explicitly asking for an investigation into the

“veracity of information contained in the Epstein papers about the sale of assets arising from the banking collapse and communications about them between Lord Mandelson and Mr Epstein.”

That investigation never happened.

In any case, I am afraid that the investigation announced today alone will not do. It is not enough to consider Mandelson’s historical conduct; there also needs to be an investigation into his behaviour while he was our ambassador in Washington. Given that he abused his previous position, it is entirely conceivable that he abused his most recent one. For example, I understand that on 27 February last year, Mandelson arranged for the Prime Minister to meet Palantir, a client of Mandelson’s company, Global Counsel. How many more such meetings were there, and what other information was shared? We all have a right to know.

Likewise, the Government cannot hide from their responsibility in having made Mandelson their ambassador in the first place. This was a political appointment, and it happened only because of political pressure. So one of two things must be true: either there was the most terrible failure of the vetting system, or the Government chose to brush that vetting information away. Both are very serious, but the Government must now be honest with us about which it was. It seems very unlikely that the Government’s vetting system broke down entirely. Indeed, on 10 September, the Prime Minister told the House that

“full due process was followed during this appointment”.—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 859.]

Can it really be the case that this “full due process” did not pick up the extent of the relationship?

On 3 November, Olly Robbins, the then permanent secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, told the Foreign Affairs Committee:

“Back before Lord Mandelson was announced as the appointee, there was a process...within the Cabinet Office to make sure that the Prime Minister was aware of Lord Mandelson and the issues around his appointment...we can confidently say that the relationship with Epstein was indeed surfaced”.

So the Government knew that Mandelson had a long-maintained and unhealthy relationship with Epstein, yet they continued with their appointment anyway.

The question is: who in No. 10 knew what and when? The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has a duty to tell this House precisely what the Prime Minister knew when he made the appointment, and to disclose the documents that the Prime Minister saw. If the Prime Minister genuinely did not know, somebody must have done. Who was it? Was it his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who is reported to have personally pushed the appointment? Was it the now Deputy Prime Minister, who was then the Foreign Secretary and who would have been party to some of the information?

It is time for the Government to be open and clear with us all. Something went very badly wrong with this appointment. It has caused very great embarrassment to this country and it is time that someone took responsibility.

[Darren Jones]

The person who has to take responsibility for their failings is Peter Mandelson. The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster knows that the process for political appointments, whether to ambassadorships or otherwise, was one set up under the previous Conservative Government. It was a process that we inherited and have since updated. The Prime Minister has been very clear that the declarations of interest put forward by Peter Mandelson were not wholly truthful. When it became clear from the release of information that that had not been the case, the Prime Minister moved swiftly to remove Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States.

On the first point that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made, in relation to an investigation requested by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, I can confirm to the House that his statement was incorrect. The former Prime Minister did ask the Cabinet Secretary to investigate in order to look for any particular documents that related, as he said, to the sale of RBS assets to JP Morgan. That investigation was undertaken. The Cabinet Secretary did respond to the former Prime Minister to confirm that no documents in relation to those questions were held by the Government. Evidently, now that more documents have become available to the public and to the Government, further investigations are now taking place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

Since the Paymaster General was last in the Commons, the Health Secretary has said that Britain should rejoin the customs union, the Deputy Prime Minister has suggested rejoining the customs union, 13 Labour MPs have gone against the Whip and voted with the Liberal Democrats in favour of a customs union, 80% of Labour voters at the last election have said they want to rejoin the customs union, and the Business and Trade Secretary has said that it would be “crazy” not to join the customs union. It would seem that the only people in Labour opposed to the customs union are the Prime Minister and the Paymaster General. The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that in this one regard, I do not think he is crazy at all—I think he is doing the right thing. Will he tell the House why he thinks all the other members of the Labour party are so wrong?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

There is a real issue of democracy here, in the sense that we won a general election with a mandate to negotiate a closer UK-EU relationship. It is in our national interest to do so, and we have set out the red lines within which those negotiations are taking place. Listening to what the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is saying, it seems he has suddenly pivoted to supporting my approach—how welcome that would be.

[Alex Burghart]

I certainly support the right hon. Gentleman in telling the rest of the Labour party that they are wrong, although, given the success of the Labour Back Benchers in forcing U-turns on the Prime Minister recently, I wonder how long that position will hold.

Earlier this month, the Prime Minister told the BBC that he wants “closer alignment” with the single market—a serious policy development on which we have had no statement in the Commons. I hope that will be addressed very soon. Closer alignment will, of course, mean dynamic alignment, which will mean Britain following rules over which we have had no say. The Opposition will respectfully oppose such a move. In November, Downing Street sources told journalists that it was accepted that the UK would have to pay billions of pounds for closer alignment and market access. Will the Paymaster General confirm to the House that that is his understanding?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

To clarify, there are no access fees in regard to either the emissions trading system linkage or the food and drink agreement that is being negotiated. That is absolutely clear. In terms of moving forward, we take pragmatic decisions in the national interest in various sectors, which is why we opened negotiations on electricity trading before Christmas. The hon. Gentleman has crystalised the choice at the next general election: this Government are negotiating a deal that will bear down on food and energy bills, give law enforcement more tools to keep our country safe and create jobs; the Conservatives, for ideological reasons, are setting their face against those things. I would welcome that debate with them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

At the risk of overworking the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I would like to ask him a question. It is boring but important; my last boring question was to the Paymaster General. The Opposition have found that his Department often refuses to release information to Members in response to parliamentary questions, but then releases it in response to freedom of information requests. Does he agree that, in principle, that is wrong?

[Darren Jones]

I do, and I am happy to take a look at that.

[Alex Burghart]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply; I really appreciate it. In his role as chief of staff to the Prime Minister—

[Darren Jones]

indicated dissent.

[Alex Burghart]

In his role as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, will he please write to all other Government Departments to make sure that the good example that will now be set by the Cabinet Office is followed by other Departments?

[Darren Jones]

Mr Speaker, you will know that I take accountability to Parliament very seriously, as do the whole Government. As I said in my first answer, I am happy to take a look at that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I am sure people will be pleased to hear that the Labour party is going to honour some of its manifesto commitments.

Last week, it was announced that the Government’s attempt to join the new EU defence fund had failed. This is a major setback for our relationship with the EU, and it is a major embarrassment for the Government. Since that time, no Minister has come to the House to explain what on earth has gone so horribly wrong, so perhaps the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster can tell us: what has gone so horribly wrong?

[Darren Jones]

First, regardless of the negotiation on SAFE, our collaboration with European partners is stronger than ever on defence and defence procurement. In relation to SAFE in particular, about which the hon. Member asked, this was always going to be a negotiation between the EU and the UK, and the UK Government rightly have to consider value for money considerations in return for how much access British industry has to the contracts being negotiated in Europe. Irrespective of the position on SAFE, I can confirm to the House that UK companies will still be able to take part in European procurement for defence equipment, with an up to 35% allowance for British components in those manufactured goods.

[Alex Burghart]

I admire the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s chutzpah in answering. He pretends that this was in some way not a defeat, but a victory—many more such victories, and we are lost.

The House will remember that in May, No. 10 trumpeted a new agreement with the EU, which gave the EU privileged access to our fishing waters for 12 years—12 years—to

“pave the way for the UK defence industry to participate in the EU’s proposed new…defence fund”.

Now that the EU has killed off that deal with what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster rightly describes as an unreasonable demand for £5 billion, are we going to get our fish back?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Member will know that the agreement with the European Union was not just on one particular issue; it was a package of improvements in the relationship between the UK and the EU. He might want to welcome the agreement on food and drink regulation reforms, so we can get prices down on the shelves in British supermarkets, after they went through the roof under the last Conservative Administration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

A few weeks ago I wrote to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about Chinese ownership of critical national infrastructure, including the possible acquisition of Thames Water. I have not had a reply, but since then The Telegraph has been briefed by the Government that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would block such an acquisition. Can he confirm to the House that he will use his powers under the National Security and Investment Act 2021 to launch an investigation before any Chinese acquisition of Thames Water is allowed to proceed?

[Darren Jones]

The House will know that because of the quasi-judicial powers I have under the National Security and Investment Act 2021, I cannot comment on individual transactions. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are always willing to use those powers to protect the national interests and national security of this country. I do not recognise that briefing to The Telegraph, but I will ensure that he gets an answer to his correspondence shortly.

[Alex Burghart]

Well, someone was briefing in the right hon. Gentleman’s name. I thank him for his answer, but on the same theme, the electricity distribution network for London and much of the south-east, as well as the gas distribution network for about 5 million people in our country and the water supply for about another 3 million, are currently under Chinese ownership. That includes the power supply for the Palace of Westminster, Whitehall and many security capabilities. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster tell us whether he has reviewed the national security implications of these legacy acquisitions? If not, will he commit to doing so?

[Darren Jones]

I can reassure the hon. Member and the House that we constantly keep critical national infrastructure risks under review and will take interventions as required to protect the national interest and national security of the United Kingdom.

Official Secrets Act and Espionage

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I thank the Joint Committee for its work. Its report is a damning indictment of the Government’s handling of the China spy case. The investigation not only found

“serious systemic failures and deficiencies”,

but calls the Government’s handling of the matter “shambolic”, as the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) just said. It also found—surprise, surprise—that there was enough evidence to prosecute the alleged spies. The Committee writes that

“China posed a range of threats to the United Kingdom’s national security. In our view, it is plain that, taken together, these amounted to a more general active threat to the United Kingdom’s national security.”

The Labour party tried to blame the last Government for the collapse of the case, but this investigation has exposed the fact that that is plainly untrue. I was surprised to hear the Security Minister refer to the deficiencies of the 1911 Act. I draw his attention to paragraph 40 of the report; I think he probably should have read it before he came to the House. It was this Government’s incompetence that ultimately led to these two men not standing trial, and, most worryingly, the report reminds us that there may be many more such cases. Indeed, why should there not be, if foreign spies believe that they can act against this House with impunity and effective immunity?

It is obvious that this Government are not prepared to stand firm. Over the past few days we have heard from the press—not from reports to the House—that the Prime Minister is about to sign off the Chinese mega-embassy in London, despite major security concerns, and that he is preparing to travel to Beijing. Will he, I wonder, have the backbone to stand up for our interests while he is there?

I will ask the Security Minister three very simple and straightforward questions. First, did the Government provide the Joint Committee with the minutes of the 1 September meeting chaired by the National Security Adviser, and if not, why not? Secondly, during the many debates that we have had in the House on this matter, a number of Ministers appear to have made inaccurate and misleading statements on at least six occasions. Will the Minister ensure that corrections are made to Hansard, so that the record is straight? Thirdly, the Joint Committee has concluded, from the evidence it received, that China is a general threat to the United Kingdom’s national security; do the Government agree, and if they do, how can they justify supporting the mega-embassy?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Before I call the Minister, may I make the point to those on both Front Benches that the Minister responding to an urgent question has three minutes? The Opposition Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), should have taken two minutes, and I should advise the Liberal Democrat spokesperson that she has one minute. I commend the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) for managing to stay well within his two minutes. I call the Minister.

[Dan Jarvis]

A few moments ago, I spoke of the careful consideration and appropriate scrutiny that this matter deserves. Many Members of both Houses and Members of all parties on the Joint Committee have adopted that view, but I have to say that I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) continues to choose a different approach. He did not seem to want to mention that much of the report refers to the time when his party was in government. Some might have hoped that he would use his contribution today to show a bit of humility, both to the House and to those in our national security community, not least given some of the low-brow political point scoring and baseless accusations that we have heard over the past few weeks.

In the aftermath of the trial’s collapse, some Opposition Members accused Ministers, special advisers and civil servants of improper interference. This report makes it clear that that was baseless and untrue. There were some who suggested that some of our most experienced and most dedicated national security experts set out to deliberately withhold information from prosecutors in order to placate the Chinese Government. This report makes it clear that that was baseless and untrue. There were some who suggested that the Conservatives’ failure to update critical national security legislation was immaterial to the case that was being brought to trial. This report makes it clear that the root cause of the collapse was the years of dither and delay that left outdated, ineffective legislation on the statute book long after we knew that it did not protect our country from the modern threats that we face. Some Opposition Members—although not all of them—were all over the place on that legislation, and were all over the place with regard to China, and some of them, sadly, still are.

On China, as the Prime Minister observed this week,

“We had the golden age of relations under David Cameron and George Osborne, which then flipped to an ice age, that some still advocate”,

but no matter how much Opposition Members may wish it to be so, not engaging with China is no option at all. We have made it clear that we will co-operate where we can, but we will always challenge where we must. When we say that national security is the first priority of this Government, we mean it, and since the trial’s collapse, I have announced a comprehensive package that will help us to tackle the economic, academic, cyber and espionage threats that China presents. The report to which the hon. Member has referred provides further useful thought on how we can best safeguard our national security, and the Government genuinely welcome that constructive feedback. I look forward to engaging with the Committee, and with responsible Members in all parts of the House, as we continue to consider how best to go on protecting our democracy and our nation.

The hon. Member asked me about the minutes—[Interruption.] He is still asking me about the 1 September meeting.

[Alex Burghart]

You never answered.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am going to give the hon. Member the answer. The minutes were provided by the Government to the Intelligence and Security Committee, so there is his answer. He also referred, on several occasions, to the application for the Chinese embassy. Let me explain to him, for the sake of absolute crystal clarity, what the position is with regard to the embassy. I think that will be helpful to other Members as well.

As Members will know, an independent planning decision will be made by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government by 20 January. National security is the first duty of government, and it has been our core priority throughout this process. The Home Office and the Foreign Office provided views on the security implications of this build throughout the process, and we have been clear about the fact that a decision should not have been taken until we had confirmed that those considerations had been resolved. The letter recently sent to the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government now confirms that all national security issues raised have been addressed. Should the planning decision be approved, the new embassy will replace the seven different sites that currently comprise China’s diplomatic estate in London.

Ministerial Code

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister to make a statement on the ministerial code.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Josh Simons)]

Trust in Government and in politics is at an all-time low. For my constituents in Makerfield, Wigan and for others across the country, there is a crisis of faith and trust, and it is incumbent on all of us across this House to fix and restore it.

The Prime Minister has always been clear: serving this country is what we exist to do. The ethics of service must always guide all of us. We are committed to restoring trust in Government by ensuring that Ministers are held to the highest standards. That is why the Prime Minister strengthened the ministerial code when this Government came into office and why he has put the Nolan principles back on to the face of the code.

The ministerial code is a statement of values, not just a set of rules and guidance. Because public service is an immense privilege, this Government have implemented changes to raise the standards expected of Ministers, which includes giving new powers to the independent adviser, who can now initiate investigations without the risk of veto. The new code also closed loopholes on gifts and hospitality, mandating that information on Ministers’ gifts and hospitality are now published on a monthly basis, aligning more closely with the practices of Members across this House. We have also doubled the frequency of publication of information about Ministers’ interests from twice yearly to quarterly.

The Prime Minister further strengthened the ministerial code last month to implement reforms in relation to ministerial severance payments. Just last month, we set up the Ethics and Integrity Commission, as promised in our manifesto, and reformed the business appointment rules system. The reforms introduced on ministerial severance payments ensure that payments are proportionate and fair. Before the Government introduced those reforms, we saw thousands of pounds of public money going to waste after being claimed again and again by Conservative Members in the previous Parliament. As Members will no doubt remember, it did not matter whether former Conservative Ministers were reappointed or, in the worst cases, forced to resign due to unacceptable behaviour.

I digress, Mr Speaker. Unfortunately, it is not clear from the question which aspect of the ministerial code the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask about. For me, as for the Prime Minister, restoring public confidence and trust across the country in this House and in the Government is a defining mission. We will continue to seek to uphold standards in public life as we deliver and serve this great country.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I thank the Minister who has been sent here, for coming to the House.

Once again I must remind Ministers of the requirement in the Government’s own ministerial code that major announcements should be made in the House in the first instance, not in the media. I understand that media announcements must be managed carefully as long as the expectations remain as they are in the ministerial code. That is the problem. It is the ministerial code that is being broken. I will continue to uphold the rights of this House and its Members to be treated with respect and to be first to hear any major announcements. Unfortunately, last week, when I also had to criticise Ministers, some of them decided to make comments about “having a bugle”. The point is, those Ministers ought to learn the facts of the ministerial code before they make comments in the media.

[Alex Burghart]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I mean no offence to the Parliamentary Secretary, because I have been in his shoes, but when the Government send out a junior Minister to answer a very serious question, it is normally because they have something to hide. In this case, it is clear that the Government have a great deal to hide.

We have had a whole series of scandals since the summer break, and there have recently been a number of apparent breaches of the ministerial code, in addition to the one that you just raised, Mr Speaker, referring to paragraph 9.1 of the ministerial code about ensuring that this House hears about serious announcements first. We have seen pre-Budget briefing become entirely endemic—to the point where the Government have successfully spooked the markets in advance of the Chancellor’s speech. Goodness knows how they will react when they actually hear the Chancellor’s speech. Will the Minister at least condemn these briefings?

Even more serious is the case relating to paragraph 1.6.f of the ministerial code, which states that Ministers must ensure that no conflict of interest arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise. In the case of David Kogan and the Prime Minister, it is clear that a perceived conflict has arisen. Mr Kogan told the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on 7 May that he donated money to the Prime Minister’s leadership campaign. That was before the Prime Minister appointed him as football regulator. Surely given the circumstances, full transparency is required. How much money did the Prime Minister receive from Mr Kogan?

We also had the absurd situation of the Prime Minister clearing the Culture Secretary of wrongdoing in this case, despite the fact that the Prime Minister should have recused himself. How did this happen? Over the weekend the Prime Minister said that Ministers know that if there is any issue they must refer themselves to the independent adviser. Has the Prime Minister referred himself, and if not, why not? Surely the House will see that this is pure hypocrisy otherwise.

Lastly, the Information Commissioner’s Office has today said that Ministers’ criminal convictions do not have to be disclosed to the public. This seems odd. Will the Minister reassure the House that this Government will reveal any criminal convictions that Ministers have, and is he able to confirm that no current Minister has a criminal conviction?

[Josh Simons]

I thank the hon. Member for his series of questions—connected, I think, by virtue of being in relation to the ministerial code. Things happen in politics. Things go wrong and people misbehave. But the difference between us and the Conservatives is that whenever something has come up, we have always followed processes and then acted. That is why the Prime Minister has strengthened the ministerial code and put public service at its heart, and strengthened the role of the independent adviser.

I notice that the hon. Member is not joined on the Front Bench by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who when faced with bullying claims and having broken the ministerial code was not sacked by the Prime Minister at the time, to whom the hon. Member was a Parliamentary Private Secretary. Instead, the Prime Minister at the time made his independent adviser on standards quit. I notice that the hon. Member is also not joined by the shadow Housing Secretary—the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly)—who called a north-east town not that far from me a word that I will not repeat. We will not take lectures from the Conservatives, who were roundly rejected by the public for having corroded trust in politics.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

There clearly are new protections for veterans in the troubles Bill—throughout the legislation—that were never in the previous legislation that the last Government passed. We have laid them out to the House, and the veterans community and others can see clearly what they are.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

On 15 August 1998 in Omagh, the Real IRA murdered 29 people, including a woman who was pregnant with twins. It was the deadliest attack of the troubles, and the most wicked. Following the 2021 recommendation of Mr Justice Horner, the last Conservative Government launched the Omagh inquiry into whether UK state authorities could have done anything to prevent the bombing. However, the bombers planned and launched their attack from the Republic of Ireland, which is why Mr Justice Horner also said that an independent inquiry was needed in the Republic to ask whether Irish state authorities could have done anything. Given that the UK inquiry was announced three years ago, did the Secretary of State raise the question of an inquiry in the south with his counterparts on his recent trip to Dublin?

[Hilary Benn]

I have raised that question in my conversations with the Irish Government. It is, of course, for the Irish Government to decide whether they wish to hold a public inquiry but, as the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, the Irish Government have committed to co-operate fully with the inquiry that the last Government established, both through the memorandum of understanding on the provision of information and the commitment they have made to legislate to allow witnesses to give evidence to it.

[Alex Burghart]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, and I am aware that the Republic is sharing the information with our inquiry, but he will be aware that the Omagh inquiry is only capable of answering questions about what UK state authorities did and did not do. Four years ago, Mr Justice Horner said that there needed to be a parallel inquiry in the south. The victims and families recognise that; does the Secretary of State recognise it?

[Hilary Benn]

I recognise what the judge said in his judgment four years ago, and I strongly support what the last Government did to establish a public inquiry, but it is for the Irish Government to make that decision. I hope that with the unprecedented co-operation that the Irish Government have undertaken to give the inquiry, they will provide vital information for the inquiry to get to the bottom of what happened.

China Spying Case

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to release the minutes of the meeting chaired by the National Security Adviser on 1 September 2025, at which the prosecution of the two alleged Chinese spies, since dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service, was discussed, including all actions arising from that meeting; and further calls on the Government to publish the minutes of all other meetings where the case was discussed, whether by officials or with Ministers, all relevant correspondence between the Crown Prosecution Service and the Government and between Departments, including correspondence between the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Cabinet Office, Attorney General’s Office, and the Treasury, and advice provided to the Prime Minister relating to the China spy case.

The purpose of this Opposition day debate and of our motion is very simple: transparency—that is all that we ask for. The basic facts are that two men were arrested on suspicion of having spied on hon. Members of this House for China, and the Director of Public Prosecutions has acknowledged that this appears to have been a “gross breach of trust” against hon. Members, yet the case against the two men collapsed because, in the words of the senior Treasury counsel, Tom Little KC, the case was “effectively unsustainable”; it was brought to “a crashing halt” because the Government’s own witness, the deputy National Security Adviser, refused to provide the fatal piece of evidence.

Mr Little had what he called a million-dollar question: was China an active threat to national security? The deputy National Security Adviser repeatedly refused to say yes. The Government effectively refused to say what was patently apparent to anyone remotely alive to the facts of the case. This House has every reason to be told why they refused, and why, for example, the Prime Minister did not intervene to prevent the case collapsing, when we know he was warned that it was unlikely to proceed. It is also reported that the Home Secretary tried to intervene.

We do not call for the publication of this material lightly. We know it is an extraordinary measure to call for the Government to publish documents relating to the formation of policy, but this is an extraordinary event. We have reached this point because the Government have been unable or unwilling to answer basic questions about what they knew when, and why they acted as they did. They have hidden behind civil servants and advisers, when it is Ministers who are supposed to make decisions, and in doing so, they have brought the actions and decisions of those advisers and officials into the spotlight in a way that is most irregular.

Just as worryingly, there has been a persistent inaccuracy and inconsistency in the Government’s statements, to the point where this House can no longer trust a word of theirs. There are a number of examples. First, on 13 October, the Security Minister denied in this House that the mega-mandarin meeting on 1 September, which is the subject of our motion, took place. Last week, the Solicitor General admitted that the meeting did take place. We now know that it was led by the National Security Adviser and attended by the Cabinet Secretary, the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, senior representation from the Home Office and the Attorney General’s office, and the chief of MI5, but we still do not know what was said there, what was agreed or why the Government tried to deny its existence.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I was interested to see that the National Security Adviser was listed as being involved in that meeting. The National Security Adviser is a political appointee—he is a special adviser—and that is usually the reason why the deputy National Security Adviser is put forward to take all the flak. If the NSA himself is participating in policy meetings about this matter, why does he not come forward? Why is he sheltering behind a full-time official who is being hung out to dry?

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend makes a very pertinent point and is personally very experienced in such things. It has been reported that the National Security Adviser chaired that meeting. That is to say that he was taking a very active role in what was going on. That is why it is incredibly important that the Government come clean with us about what happened in that meeting, who attended and what was decided there.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The National Security Adviser has spent a great deal of time visiting various Chinese entities before and after his appointment. One appointment that he does not appear very keen on taking up is with the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, which has requested—quite legitimately, under the Osmotherly rules—that he appears before it, but Ministers appear to be blocking that. Why does my hon. Friend think that is?

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend is right: the National Security Adviser showed a great reluctance to attend. I understand that he has now agreed to attend, although the report I read said that he was going to attend in camera. If that report is correct—the Minister has the opportunity to say it is not true—I am not sure that that is the best level of transparency that this House might expect.

The second instance of inconsistency and inaccuracy that we draw attention to is from 7 October, when the Prime Minister told journalists that what mattered in this case was the designation of China as it had been in 2023, when the offences were alleged to have occurred. However, last week, on 24 October, the Director of Public Prosecutions said that that was categorically not the case. He said:

“The test was…positively not what the then Government was prepared to, or did, say in public about China…but rather whether China was—as a matter of fact—an active threat to national security.”

This is a most important point, and one that was revisited yesterday. There is a very serious question about why the deputy National Security Adviser believed that he would

“need to be in line with government policy at the time”,

when the Crown Prosecution Service said that it did not need to know about policy, but about the facts. The Minister should explain to the House why the deputy National Security Adviser chose to ignore the CPS in this case. He should also tell us whether he thinks the deputy National Security Adviser complied with civil procedure rule 35, which requires him to assist the court and overrides any other obligation.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can clarify what is happening here. Is the issue that the Government thought that China was a threat to national security but did not declare it, or that they declared it but China was not a threat? I am quite confused about the point he is making.

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Gentleman will have a perfectly good opportunity to question the people responsible in a few moments’ time. The point is that the Government have been unclear, inconsistent and inaccurate, and we are giving them an opportunity to clear this up right now.

[Dr Arthur]

I think the issue is that the Government in 2023 were not clear on whether or not China was a threat. Did they clearly make the statement that it was a threat, or was China a threat but the Government failed to make that statement?

[Alex Burghart]

The previous Government were clear on a number of occasions that China was a threat, but if the hon. Gentleman had been listening to what I just said, he would have heard that the Director of Public Prosecutions said last week that it was categorically not a question of what the last Government said. Now that I have the hon. Gentleman’s attention, I will repeat for his benefit what the DPP said: that the question was

“whether China was—as a matter of fact—an active threat to national security.”

It was not a question of policy; it was a matter of fact. [Interruption.] I am not going to go through it a third time.

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

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for setting out the story so far, but given that there have been so many variations on the truth, can he come up with an explanation of why the Government cannot alight on a single version of the truth of this matter?

[Alex Burghart]

I think there are basically two possible answers to my hon. Friend’s question. The first is that the Government cannot tell their elbow from their posterior; the second is that they do not want this House to know the truth. Either way, on a matter as serious as this, it is incredibly important that we get to the truth. Tonight’s motion presents the Government with an opportunity to be entirely transparent with us and set out the facts of the case as they were at the time—particularly on 1 October, when this all-important meeting took place.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I just want to clear up one small point. When the CPS originally decided to prosecute back in 2024, it was convinced on the basis of the then-required evidence that was in front of it that in this case, China was responsible, and therefore it posed a threat. What changed was the Roussev case, which redefined what the CPS needed to be able to say in order to go ahead with any further prosecution. It was made clear that all that needed to be done was to make the clear point that China was a persistent, continuous threat to the UK’s strategic interests. The reason why the CPS needed to make that statement had nothing to do with what had happened before; it was all about what resulted from the Roussev case. That was the key.

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and the Director of Public Prosecutions has been very clear and consistent on that point.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Alex Burghart]

I will give way one more time, and then I will make some progress.

[James Wild]

The first senior Treasury counsel, Tom Little, yesterday said that he took the extraordinary step of having a direct discussion with the deputy National Security Adviser because he could not understand why what he said was a relatively straightforward piece of evidence—namely, that China was an active and ongoing threat—had not been provided. Why did the Government not provide that commitment?

[Alex Burghart]

That is the million-dollar question. Why were the Government not prepared to say something that was manifestly evidentially true to all and sundry?

The third example is that on 15 October, the Prime Minister said that the deputy National Security Adviser acted entirely independently, without consultation with Ministers or special advisers, and without political involvement. However, the CPS has now made it clear that there were multiple discussions about what the DNSA would and would not say, starting with one such discussion on 3 July 2025. Moreover, the DNSA’s first witness statement was sighted by

“the then National Security Adviser and the…Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary”,

and

“sent to the…Prime Minister through No.10 private office”,

including special advisers.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Is it therefore not incredible either way that the deputy NSA did not discuss the biggest spy case this century with his boss, the National Security Adviser, and was left to his own devices to provide the evidence?

[Alex Burghart]

I think we all find it difficult to believe that the deputy National Security Adviser was left entirely to his own devices.

A fourth example is that on 20 October, the Minister for Security, who is in his place, told the House:

“Final evidence went in in August, and I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that there is nothing the Prime Minister or any Minister could have done thereafter.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 640.]

We now know that there were meetings between the CPS and the Government on 3 and 9 September to attempt to rescue the case. Why did the Security Minister tell the House something that was not correct?

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

As far as I can remember, the Attorney General told the House of Lords yesterday that 3 September was when he was informed that there were evidential difficulties with the case. The key point is that he had no power to intervene, because of the memorandum between the Attorney General’s Office and the CPS. The Attorney General does not get involved in evidential sufficiency.

[Alex Burghart]

Ministers do get involved; it is their job to be involved. Ministers represent the Government. Ministers represent all of us. It is not good enough for the Government to say that they are entirely powerless in this instance—they are not.

A fifth example is that yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary said that he did not believe that the chief of MI5 had described China as a threat. On 16 October 2025, Ken McCallum said:

“Do Chinese state actors present a UK national security threat? And the answer is, of course, yes they do every day.”

How on earth did the Cabinet Secretary not know that? This issue is of paramount importance. There are many other such examples.

The Government have an opportunity to be clear with us today, not just about the meetings and the dealings of the past six months, but on their position as it stands. Will the Minister tell us what the material difference is between “a range of threats” and “an active security threat”? The deputy National Security Adviser was keen to make that point yesterday. Perhaps most importantly of all, do the Government believe that China is an active security threat? If not, what would it take to cross that threshold? It is time for the Government to publish all the details so that we can see what really happened here.

I know that the Government will protest their innocence and claim that it is all the fault of the CPS, or the last Government, or the legislation, just as they have tried to do for weeks, but such pleas and protests are no good reason for them to refuse to publish the material we are requesting today. This House may have been spied upon. This House has a right to straight answers. This House has a right to see under the bonnet when the safety and privacy of its Members may have been compromised. This House has a right to know the Government’s real position and the Government’s real agenda. If this Government have nothing to hide, they should hide nothing from this House.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

In one moment.

In the motion, the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is seeking a wide range of documents. He was a Cabinet Office Minister himself, and he knows the sensitivity of those documents. He knows the legal professional privilege—

[Alex Burghart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will give the hon. Gentleman one more chance before I conclude. I say to him that highly classified material is subject to legal professional privilege and includes advice to the Prime Minister, which successive Governments have not released to the public. Why? Because it is in our interests to protect such material. The hon. Gentleman knows that in his heart of hearts.

[Alex Burghart]

I have always admired the shine on the Minister’s brass neck, and never so much as at this moment. I remember the Brexit debates, when he and many of the other gentlemen and ladies on the Labour Benches overrode legal privilege and asked for classified documents week after week. Members of this House may have been spied on, and the Government have a duty to be transparent. They cannot hide behind anything, given that they have previously asked for similar documents. Make them available!

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am looking at the hon. Gentleman and remembering the debates we had. Let me tell him the difference between what I was doing then and what is happening now. First, I was applying at the time, via a Humble Address mechanism, for a single document. By the way, his rather shambolic motion, which seems to be a fishing expedition, is totally imprecise. Secondly, that was not security material at this level, which is in our national interest.

[Alex Burghart]

You didn’t know that!

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Yes, I did.

Let me emphasise that I support parliamentary scrutiny. I support and welcome the ongoing process with the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. I support the Government’s continuing to engage with the ISC. What we will not do, though, is accede to the hon. Gentleman’s demand. He knows in his heart of hearts that it would be totally inappropriate for the long list of material he has stuck in the motion to be put in the public domain. Asking for open publication is completely different from the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny which, quite rightly, will go on.

Let me conclude by saying this. The Government and I are gravely disappointed that the trial did not proceed. In response to the point that was put to me by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), the DNSA’s evidence articulated clearly the range of threats that China posed to the UK’s national security and, indeed, our economic security at the material time. In the light of the threats that have been identified—I agree with the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—this is a very grave matter. The Government are resolute in our determination to work across all parties and in partnership with the parliamentary security authorities, as was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), to ensure that espionage and interference by China or any other country is not successful in the UK.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the new Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to his post. I know that he is one of the most able performers in the Government, and he is now in one of the most important and under- appreciated roles in Government. For the good of the country, I wish him well. He is also the first Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister. We Conservatives congratulate him on how well Downing Street has been run since he took over—we have enjoyed it greatly. Phase 2 is proving to be a real belter.

On the alleged spying on Members of this House, Downing Street has revealed that the Prime Minister became aware on 13 September that the case was about to collapse. When was the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister first told that the trial was unlikely to proceed, and who told him?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am slightly struggling to make the connection with resilience, Mr Speaker, but I am very happy to respond—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, let me tell the hon. Gentleman. The decision not to prosecute was taken independently by the Crown Prosecution Service. The Government were extremely disappointed by that decision and published the deputy National Security Adviser’s three witness statements. All three clearly articulate the very serious threats posed by China. No Minister or special adviser in this Government interfered with the case. I wonder whether Conservative Members could have said the same about their Government.

[Alex Burghart]

Okay, I will repeat the question for the Security Minister, because either he did not hear it or he chose not to answer it. My question was very specific. We know that the Prime Minister was told on 13 September that the trial was unlikely to proceed—Downing Street has told us that. My question is: when was the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told, and who told him? He oversees the Cabinet Office’s National Security Secretariat, and he chairs the National Security Council. When was he told?

[Dan Jarvis]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for giving us a degree more clarity. Perhaps he will give us a degree more clarity again. Was he told that the alleged case of spying against Members of Parliament was due to collapse before the information became public and, if so, who told him?

[Darren Jones]

I was not informed.

[Alex Burghart]

I believe the right hon. Gentleman, but I find that answer extraordinary, and I think he should find it extraordinary, too. As we have already said, the right hon. Gentleman chairs the National Security Council. He oversees the Cabinet Office’s national security secretariat. The Prime Minister knew, the Home Secretary knew, the Cabinet Secretary knew, the chief of MI5 knew, the Attorney General’s Office knew, but the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister did not. Has he asked why he was not told, and what answer was he given?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Member seems to be confused by his list of institutions. The only relevant institution in this case is the Crown Prosecution Service. It is the CPS that independently decides whether to bring forward these cases, and it was the independent decision of the Crown Prosecution Service not to proceed. Might I just point out that the Opposition’s arguments over the last few weeks have been quite bemusing? They started with an accusation that there was political interference in a Crown Prosecution Service case. That was proven not to be the case, so they changed their argument and are now asking, “Why did you not politically interfere, because that is the way we do things in this country?”