Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Government’s accountability to the House in connection to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States of America.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this important debate.

The Prime Minister personally decided to appoint a serious, known national security risk to our most sensitive diplomatic post. Peter Mandelson was not just a man who had already been sacked twice from Government for lying and not just a man who had a public relationship with a convicted paedophile, but a man with links to the Kremlin and China—links so close that they were raised as red flags with the Prime Minister before his appointment.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister did not deny that he knew about those links before he appointed Mandelson. He could not deny that because by his own admission he had seen the documents that proved the links. I cannot overstate how serious a matter this is. The Prime Minister sent a known security risk to Washington, to a position where he would see our most important ally’s top secret intelligence. What if he had seen something and leaked it to one of our enemies? How much would that have damaged our security partnership? We cannot even be sure that that did not happen.

What is most extraordinary is that the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson before vetting was complete. He did that despite a letter from the then Cabinet Secretary, Lord Case, clearly expressing to the Prime Minister that the process required security vetting to be done before the appointment. So how can he then have claimed on the Floor of the House that the process was followed, when he knew that it had not been? The Prime Minister mentioned the word “process” more than 100 times in Parliament yesterday, but he was the one who did not follow that process.

This morning, we have heard the bombshell testimony of the former permanent secretary of the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins. Sir Olly Robbins had a long and distinguished career serving Ministers. He is not the sort of person to give us a frank personal account of how things played out last January. So when he told us today that Downing Street put the Foreign Office under “constant pressure” to clear Peter Mandelson, that No. 10 showed a “dismissive approach” to Mandelson’s vetting process, that it would have been “very difficult indeed” to deny clearance and that doing so would have “damaged US-UK relationships”, we know he is giving us only the slightest indication of how bad things were. And that there was actually an overwhelming drive from the Prime Minister’s office to ensure Peter Mandelson was installed as ambassador.

Sir Olly Robbins has told us that No. 10 showed no interest in the vetting—no desire to wait and ensure that due process was followed. In fact, the Cabinet Office even questioned the need for Peter Mandelson to be vetted at all: the same Cabinet Office that had discovered Mandelson’s links to Epstein, China and Russia in its due diligence—the Cabinet Office that the Minister is in charge of right now. Instead, according to Robbins,

“The focus was on getting Mandelson out to Washington quickly”,

and before the vetting even started Peter Mandelson had already been granted access to

“highly classified briefing on a case-by-case basis”.

This is what the Prime Minister calls full due process.

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

Did my right hon. Friend not find it astonishing that in the testimony today the ex-leader of the Foreign Office said that he was made to understand that before they had completed their clearances, Mandelson already had STRAP clearance, which gave him access to the most secure and most dangerous information held by Government?

[Mrs Badenoch]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right: it is extraordinary and it is shocking.

The Prime Minister might have refused to answer my question around his knowledge of Mandelson’s links to the Russian defence company Sistema yesterday, but that is only because he knows that we know the answer. It was there in the due diligence: his choice of ambassador retaining an interest in a Russian company linked to Vladimir Putin after the invasion of Crimea. And the Prime Minister’s response to seeing that information? According to Robbins, “constant pressure” on the Foreign Office to get the appointment done.

The Prime Minister, as my right hon. Friend has just mentioned, placed top secret intelligence in the hands of a man he knew to be a national security risk. He did so before the official security vetting not just knowingly but deliberately, and to an extent that left a senior civil servant with a distinguished career under the clear and obvious impression that the vetting must return only one possible outcome: that Peter Mandelson should be appointed. None of that was following full due process by the letter or the spirit of that phrase. This is no longer just about what the Prime Minister was or was not told; this is about what he did before the vetting process had even started.

And we now know that Mandelson was not a one-off. According to Sir Olly Robbins, No. 10 also asked for the disgraced Matthew Doyle, the Prime Minister’s then director of communications, to be made an ambassador. Astonishingly, the Prime Minister’s office even told Robbins to keep the request a secret from the Foreign Secretary. The idea that it is No. 10 who are the victims of others not following due process is, quite frankly, laughable.

The Prime Minister told Parliament yesterday that it was “staggering” that Olly Robbins had not shared the recommendations of UK Security Vetting with the then Cabinet Secretary, Chris Wormald. But today we learned from Robbins that he had never seen the original vetting file. If the Prime Minister is furious that Sir Olly Robbins did not share the vetting details with him or the former Cabinet Secretary, why is he not furious with the Cabinet Office for not sharing it? Put simply, why exactly did he sack Olly Robbins?

It is no surprise that the Prime Minister is not here today. These are difficult questions. He cannot claim not to have known about the risk that Mandelson posed, because, as he said yesterday, he saw the due diligence that disclosed it. I still find it inconceivable that, despite that failure of vetting being a front-page news story, no one in No. 10 was aware of it. He cannot deny that his decision put Britain at risk. The British public deserve to know how this failure happened and they deserve to hear it from the Prime Minister himself.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister had the chance to set the record straight, but Members on all sides—and no doubt the public—were left wholly unsatisfied with the answers he gave. I am sure they will share my deep disappointment that the Prime Minister has chosen not to be here today. There remain serious questions about the decisions that he took over the appointment of Peter Mandelson, but the Prime Minister does not want to answer any more questions today, so, in typical fashion, he has thrown someone else under the bus. I feel for the Minister sent out as a human shield for the Prime Minister. It is not this Minister who made the Mandelson appointment; that was above his pay grade. He cannot tell us what the Prime Minister was thinking when he made those decisions and he will not be able to provide this House with the answers that it deserves to hear.

This is simply what the Prime Minister does. Sue Gray, Matthew Doyle, Morgan McSweeney, Chris Wormald, Olly Robbins, Peter Mandelson—those appointments were the Prime Minister’s decision, people the Prime Minister chose to appoint and all people he then chose to sack. Are we meant to believe that all these people are the problem, rather than the Prime Minister’s judgment?

As usual, the Prime Minister’s explanations yesterday left us with even more questions than answers. He says that he was justified in appointing Mandelson before vetting because of advice he received from the then Cabinet Secretary, Chris Wormald. But how can that make sense, when that advice only came after the scandal had erupted? Post hoc advice is pointless. Soon after that, he then sacked Chris Wormald. Why is the Prime Minister now relying on the evidence of the very man he told us was doing so badly in the job that he sacked him?

Let us move on to the Prime Minister’s claim that no one in No. 10 was aware that Mandelson had failed his vetting. Enough people in Whitehall knew. Enough people knew for journalists from The Independent, the Mail and Sky News to find out. Journalists have released texts with the Prime Minister’s director of communications, where they made No. 10 aware of this fact. He did not deny that the story was true. Why not? Something simply does not add up. Despite this, the Prime Minister went on to assure the House and the public that Mandelson’s appointment was down to a failure of vetting. I cannot fathom how the Prime Minister can still claim not to have misled the House on this point.

It is telling that when given the opportunity yesterday to apologise for misleading the House, even inadvertently, by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), the Prime Minister chose not to. I suspect that he chose not to do so because he knows that if he did, he would be bound by his own words and by the standards to which he held previous Prime Ministers from this very Dispatch Box. In 2022, he said that if the Prime Minister misleads the House, he must resign—either the Prime Minister is a man of his word, or he thinks there is one rule for him and another for everyone else.

Unbelievably, half the permanent secretaries who were in post when Labour took office less than two years ago have now gone. The sacking of senior civil servants to carry the can for the Prime Minister’s failures has already cost taxpayers more than £1.5 million in payouts—that is before the sacking of Sir Olly Robbins. It is quite something for the former Cabinet Secretary Lord O’Donnell to warn that the Prime Minister has created

“one of the worst crises in relations between ministers and mandarins of modern times”,

adding that the sacking of Sir Olly Robbins

“risks having a serious and sustained chilling effect on serving and prospective civil servants”.

Another former Cabinet Secretary, Lord Butler, has said that the Prime Minister put Sir Olly in an “impossible” position. These are serious people who are calling out the Prime Minister’s behaviour. The former head of propriety and ethics and deputy Cabinet Secretary, Helen MacNamara, has called the decision to sack Robbins “unacceptable”. She said that if the Government had published the papers that Parliament demanded back in February, this argument would be so much easier for everyone because we would all be operating on the basis of the same facts, and she is right.

The delay in publishing the information required by the Humble Address is shocking. Where are the key annotations, decisions and meeting records—the box returns, as they are called in Downing Street? Why are crucial forms left blank? These missing documents add to the mystery. Why are the Government still trying to cover this up?

--- Later in debate ---

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

Everybody has said pretty much everything, but I am going to say some of it again, as is my wont in this Chamber.

First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who laid out a powerful case against the Government, particularly against the Prime Minister and his excuses in all this. I think that something very intriguing took place today. The person who has just been sacked was brought to the Foreign Affairs Committee to give testimony about what this was all about. What we learned was that the Government wanted so much for Peter Mandelson to take over the role of ambassador that they drove everything aside in pursuit of it—bullying civil servants, essentially sacking one of them because he did not give the answers it appears that they wanted, and excusing themselves on the basis that everybody else was wrong and they were right. Well they were not, and that has now come home to roost.

The essential fact is that many of us knew about Mandelson’s activities. I have a whole dossier with me here about his links to China, with hundreds of names of people he had met and given details of all sorts of things to. We know now that he lobbied the Government, including over electric vehicles and the tariff. It is outrageous, really; he continued to put pressure on them, even when he was given the job. That is the nature of a man still repaying his links to China. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) about his links with Sistema in Russia.

Even on that alone, there was copious evidence in the public domain about why Peter Mandelson should never have been allowed in any Government post whatsoever—that is before there was any attempt at inspection.

There is no way on earth that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) can get up and talk about faults in the system and about not getting clarity—nonsense! Everybody who wanted to know, knew. In the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, we knew about it. We had all the details and they were published. There is no excuse for the Government to say, “We waited for the Foreign Office to deliver this great thing, and it did not tell us.” They knew.

Secondly, the way the Government manipulated this is absolutely shocking. The outgoing Cabinet Secretary saw what was in the Cabinet Office’s review of the due diligence—by the way, that was to have a look and give recommendations to Government, which was not the same as what the Foreign Office was doing—and it showed just how tainted this corrupt and corrupting man was and what he had been up to. Having seen that, the outgoing Cabinet Secretary advised the Government—that was his job—that they should not go ahead to appoint Peter Mandelson but wait for the full review to take place, and, one way or the other, for him to be cleared or not cleared. But the Government did not do that.

That is the other question: why, despite that sensible, reasonable advice did the Government go ahead and press on—and at such speed? They put His Majesty the King in the firing line. When they approved the appointment, it went to the King—because they had declared it—even though they had not had clearance, and the agrément was given by our US partners. What in heaven’s name could have happened later on? None of the stuff to do with Epstein had yet come into the middle of the argument. The Government wanted this man, who is utterly corrupt, as our ambassador.

The other bit from today that I find astonishing is the admission by the ex-permanent secretary Olly Robbins that, despite the fact that Peter Mandelson had not been cleared, he was given STRAP clearance to see documents of such importance that they could have brought the Government and the country down.

I will end on this, Madam Deputy Speaker—you have been most tolerant. I simply say this: the Prime Minister is in the firing line on this one, and for very good reasons. He is in charge, and he knew what was going on. The people he sacked are still in the firing line. They cannot weasel out of this. They committed an offence in the books of anybody in the Chamber. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will be in the firing line, because he has been put here literally to try to tell some story about how none of this is the Prime Minister’s fault. The Prime Minister has been economical with the actualité and terminologically inexact. All I can say is, no more terminological inexactitudes, please, when the right hon. Gentleman gets to the Dispatch Box.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Lady will know that I am not at liberty to comment in respect of any potential claim to the employment tribunal.

Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was carried out by UKSV between 23 December 2024 and 28 January 2025. That included collecting relevant information and interviewing the applicant, in this case on two occasions. One issue has been raised in the debate about that time period; there is a suggestion that No. 10 applied pressure on officials at the Foreign Office in relation to the security vetting process. It was confirmed in testimony today before the Foreign Affairs Committee that no such pressure was applied beyond asking for the process to be completed as quickly as possible, and confirmed by Sir Olly Robbins that there was no personal contact by telephone or message. That is testimony from the official himself in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

On 28 January 2025, UKSV recommended to the Foreign Office that developed vetting clearance should not be granted to Peter Mandelson. The following day, on 29 January 2025, Foreign Office officials made the decision to grant developed vetting clearance for Peter Mandelson none the less. This was an established process for the Foreign Office, which had the authority to be able to make those decisions. It is worth reiterating for the sake of clarity, as the Prime Minister did yesterday, that UKSV makes decisions for many Government Departments, but not for the Foreign Office. The final decision on developed vetting clearance is made by Foreign Office officials, not by UKSV.

When I became aware of the details of Peter Mandelson’s case following the publication of reporting in The Guardian last Thursday, I was briefed on the matter that evening at the Cabinet Office by officials in respect of both the case of Peter Mandelson and the existing policy on UKSV recommendations and the Foreign Office’s decisions. I immediately suspended the right for the Foreign Office to overrule UKSV recommendations pending further investigation. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), I can confirm that the review that Adrian Fulford will conduct for the Government should be completed in around four weeks, so that we can take a quick decision on the proper functioning of the process.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

In Olly Robbins’ letter to the Foreign Affairs Committee today, he countermands what the right hon. Gentleman has said from the Dispatch Box. He says:

“I believe the Cabinet Office (CO) raised whether Developed Vetting (DV) was actually necessary. I understand the FCDO insisted that DV was a requirement before Mandelson took up his post in Washington.”

After due diligence, the Cabinet Office was insisting that it was not necessary. Surely the right hon. Gentleman needs to retract his remarks.

[Darren Jones]

I repeat my words and refer back to them.

Much has been said about the ability of officials to disclose sensitive vetting information. As the Prime Minister has set out, I accept that the sensitive personal information provided by an individual being vetted must be protected from disclosure. If that were not the case, the integrity of the whole process would be compromised. However, neither the Prime Minister nor I accept that the appointing Minister cannot be told of the recommendation made by UKSV. Nor do the Government accept that Foreign Office officials could not have informed the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or the Cabinet Secretary of UKSV’s recommendation while maintaining the necessary confidentiality that vetting requires.

The civil service code on this issue is clear, not just in normal practice but especially in relation to when Ministers are giving evidence to Parliament, as was the case via correspondence from the current Foreign Secretary to the Foreign Affairs Committee. There is no law that stops civil servants sensibly flagging UKSV recommendations while protecting detailed, sensitive vetting information in order to allow Ministers to make judgments on appointments or to explain matters to Parliament.

The Government have also changed the direct ministerial appointments process so that due diligence is now required as standard. The Prime Minister has also changed the process so that public announcements about direct ministerial appointments can now not be made until security vetting has been completed.

What clearly came to light about Peter Mandelson following the release of files by the United States Department of Justice was clearly deeply disturbing. In February this year, the Prime Minister instructed officials to carry out a review of the national security vetting process to ensure that it is fit for purpose. I can confirm that the terms of reference for that review have been updated to include the means by which all decisions are made in relation to national security vetting. The Government have appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead that review and, for completeness, have separately asked the Government Security Group in the Cabinet Office to look at any security concerns raised during Peter Mandelson’s tenure as ambassador to the United States, in answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas). We will publish terms of reference, and the Government commit to return to the House on their findings and recommendations.

On two other questions that were raised during the debate, accusations have been made of the Prime Minister both in this House of misleading and outside this House of lying. Those have been shown today by evidence in the Foreign Affairs Committee not to be true in any way. I am sure the House will be as concerned as I am that while officials felt unable to provide this information to Ministers, it was made available to The Guardian. As a consequence, I can confirm that a leak inquiry is now under way.

I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to today’s debate. This is my sixth address to this House on the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America. I recognise that the House will want to know about the next steps in respect of the publication of the remainder of the information relevant to the Humble Address that was not included in the first tranche. I commit to the House that we will release that further material shortly, subject to the processes ongoing with the Metropolitan police and the Intelligence and Security Committee, and we will continue to keep Members updated as we make progress. I commend this statement to the House.

Security Vetting

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The process was that UKSV informs the FCDO of its findings and its recommendation, and then there is an escalation process, which is part of the process in the sense that it is for the FCDO, in these particular cases, to make the final decision, which is what it did in this case.

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

Can I return to the nub of what this is about? The Prime Minister knew, as we all knew, of the representations about who should be the ambassador—in this case, a man who had been sacked twice out of Cabinet but, more than that, a man whose clear links with Chinese companies and whose meetings with Xi were in the public domain at the time, as were his time at Sistema, where he stayed after the invasion in 2014, and his meetings with Putin. There was also, of course, his relationship with Deripaska, who was negotiating on the tax levels and tariffs on aluminium when he was the EU commissioner responsible. With all that going on at the time of the Prime Minister’s announcement of that man into the ambassadorial position, why did he think he did not know something about him? The Prime Minister knew that he was corrupt, he was corrupting and he was the wrong choice. Surely that is why the Prime Minister overturned Case’s advice to have the review before he made the decision.

[The Prime Minister]

No, that is not the case. The judgment call to appoint him was my judgment call. That was an error and I have apologised for it, particularly to the victims of Epstein. The developed vetting process was carried out in the way I have indicated to the House. I should have been told at the time of the recommendation. Had I been told, I would not have made the appointment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. It is shocking and horrifying to hear what those children have to go through. I am absolutely clear in my mind that this should not be happening. I can inform him that I have instructed Justice Ministers to look at what they can do. They will review the payments, and see what else they can do. I am really pleased that he has raised this issue, so that we can now act on it, and I will ensure that he gets the meeting he is asking for.

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

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is responsible for the rise of antisemitism worldwide and here in the United Kingdom; for inciting extreme Islamist attacks; for attacking dissident Iranians and British citizens; and for fomenting all sorts of hate marches. I have a very simple question. We are now at war with Iran, whether we like it or not, yet the reality is that we have never dealt with this organisation. This is not party political; will the Prime Minister make the decision now to proscribe this brutal bunch of thugs and send them packing, or arrest them and put them in jail right now? Get rid of this organisation.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that really important and serious point. He knows that we have sanctioned the IRGC in its entirety, and have imposed over 230 sanctions since coming into office. The existing proscription powers are not designed for a state organisation, but we keep this under review—as did the last Government.

Middle East

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I will resist setting out the full international law test, but it is clear what the test is—I think that is not disputed. As far as I know, nobody is challenging the Attorney General’s advice, the summary of which has been published for all to see; I do not think anybody is saying that that is the wrong advice. [Interruption.] I will look at the shadow Attorney General’s advice. I would be surprised if he advises that it would have been unequivocally lawful to have joined the initial action, but if the Leader of the Opposition will give me that advice, I will carefully consider it.

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

May I take the Prime Minister back to his earlier position? I do not think his own MPs quite realise what he has said. He said that his reason originally for not allowing RAF Fairford, for example—or even Diego Garcia—to be used was that it would constitute, for him, a breach of international law, because it would mean that we were condoning an offensive operation. However, he has changed his position because of attacks on allies and on a UK base. That means that he is authorising the Americans to act in defence by taking out those kinds of missiles that would attack us. Surely that means that the UK armed forces—in this case, the Royal Air Force—could now be used by the Government in no breach of international law in a defensive action to take out those missiles as well.

[The Prime Minister]

There are two separate considerations, obviously; the first was the decision on whether to join the US and Israel in the first place, and the second was the decision that we took last night. We started taking defensive action on Saturday by deploying our pilots to the skies in the region, so we had already taken that action. We added to that defensive action last night by permitting the US to use our bases to strike at the capability of Iran to issue the strikes in the first place.

Standards in Public Life

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I can confirm for my hon. Friend that the rules have been updated to ensure that national security vetting must receive full clearance before any direct ministerial appointments are confirmed publicly, or then confirmed for appointments at later stages. As I recently said to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the process for ambassadors in particular can often be stretched out over a number of days—from announcement to being confirmed by the host country and then fully being in post—but we will update the rules to ensure that what happened in these circumstances with Peter Mandelson cannot happen again.

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

I do not doubt the right hon. Gentleman’s desire to put things right. What I slightly doubt today is this: everything is about the Prime Minister’s judgment right now, and this looks a lot like smoke to me—this is right, but not right now. The point is that all this stuff about Mandelson was known in conversation and discussion. He was sacked twice for impropriety in Government office. He ended up on Deripaska’s yacht when the EU was discussing taxation on aluminium—improper again. All this stuff leads to the final question: why him? Then, of course, the vetting was not good enough, but it could have been, had they bothered to check everything. There is a big question to be asked here. Surely this is ultimately about the Prime Minister’s judgment in overruling anything that he found and deciding for his own purposes that this man should be appointed as our ambassador.

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Prime Minister apologised last Thursday for having appointed Peter Mandelson to the post. As he said repeatedly, had he seen the information that we are now able to see from the release of documents from the US Department of Justice—which showed not only the level of corruption but the deep and extensive relationship that existed between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, about which Peter Mandelson lied to the Prime Minister at the point of his appointment—he would never have appointed him in the first place.

Chinese Embassy

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I listened carefully to what the shadow Home Secretary had to say. There was a glaring gap in his analysis: he did not seem to want to say anything about the level of challenge that we inherited from the previous Government in the laydown of the diplomatic estate. He did not want to accept that, as with other countries, there is a degree of risk that has to be managed. I explained that very carefully and made sure that he had the opportunity to come in this morning for a briefing. I was also at pains to stress in my opening remarks that although, of course, balanced views have to be taken about these things, there are national security advantages to the proposals that have been agreed. I know that he and other Conservative Members do not want to agree with that, but I think it is important that we debate—

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

Nonsense.

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman says it is nonsense. He is entitled to his opinion, as are this Government. I hope that he takes the opportunity to look carefully at what the director general of MI5 and the director of GCHQ have to say. I also say to him and to some, but not all, Conservative Members that this is a moment when I would have hoped we could discuss these things in a sensible and reasonable way. That is how we should approach matters relating to national security.

I do not think it would be such a bad thing to hear a bit of humility from some Conservative Members, not least because the attack that we heard from the shadow Home Secretary and which other hon. Members have already engaged in might have landed a bit fairer and a bit truer if they had not spent 14 years in government flitting between hot and cold, neither consistent nor credible on what is, after all, one of the most complex geopolitical challenges that we face. The Conservatives went from golden age to ice age, and from welcoming China with open arms to choosing to disengage almost entirely with the world’s largest nation, which, along with Hong Kong, is our second-largest trading partner. It is convenient for some Conservative Members to forget that it was Boris Johnson, as Conservative Foreign Secretary in 2018, who granted consent for the Royal Mint site to be used as diplomatic premises. He said he was proud to

“welcome the fact this is China’s largest overseas diplomatic investment.”

That was a Conservative Foreign Secretary. In recent times, we have seen Conservative MPs U-turn on the original position of their Government and take a different approach.

This Government will ensure that the approach we take is underpinned by consistent and pragmatic engagement with China, but we will do so a way that absolutely ensures our national security. The House will have heard the important contributions that have been made by the ISC, and the conclusion that it has drawn. The House and the country will have heard the comments from the directors general. These are important contributions. Nobody should underestimate how seriously the Government have taken this matter. We have engaged with it incredibly closely. The intelligence and security agencies have been involved in the process from the outset. I can give an assurance to those who have doubts that we will, of course, continue to monitor this process carefully, but we believe that this is the right judgment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend has a long and proud track record in this area, and I listen carefully to what he has to say. He will forgive me if I disagree with his analysis of the chilling effect of this decision, not least given the points about consolidation and the security advantage. He has asked about the seven sites. Let me give him and the House an absolute assurance that that is part of the deal agreed with China. The deal is that the seven diplomatic sites forming the existing diplomatic footprint in London will be consolidated in the individual site.

In terms of the precise details about construction and other activities, my hon. Friend will understand that there are agreed procedures for these kinds of activities. I think a point was made earlier about the relationship with the United States and the concerns that they might have expressed—which I do not recognise—but it is useful to note that China built a new embassy in the United States not so long ago, so this is not a particularly uncommon occurrence. However, I give my hon. Friend an assurance that we will keep a close eye on the points he makes.

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

I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that I raise these issues as a sanctioned individual. Not only am I sanctioned, but my whole family is sanctioned, I have been trolled by operatives from the security service of China, and I am under constant watch by them, all the way through. On the basis of that, I simply ask him this. When the Secretary of State issued his letter, he said—this was quoted earlier—that the concern about cables should not present a problem for “a lawful embassy use”. Nothing about the Chinese is lawful here in the United Kingdom. Is it lawful for them to attack Hongkongers who have fled here? Is it lawful for pop-up police stations to go on pulling people in? Is it lawful for them to place bounties on people’s heads? Is it lawful for them to be asking British citizens living next door to Hongkongers to bring them into the embassy, so they may collect their bounty? These are all unlawful acts. The truth is that this Chinese embassy, with its 200 extra staff, will increase that. In every place where China has put more people in its embassy, transnational repression has increased. Does the Minister not agree with that?

[Dan Jarvis]

Try though I might, there was never going to be a scenario where I would be able to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman today in what I have been able to say. He and I have had exchanges on these matters on many occasions. It is completely intolerable and unacceptable that he and members of his family have been sanctioned, and he knows the Government’s position on that.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the issue of law. UK law is sacrosanct, and where anyone—whoever they might be—falls short of it, they will be held to account by this Government. He made a specific point about the potential for an increase in staff. Again, there are clear procedures that rest with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office: where a foreign nation seeks to bring additional staff resource into a country, that all has to go through the normal diplomatic channels and has to be agreed by the Foreign Secretary.

I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not support these proposals. I understand that he has strong views, which I have a lot of respect for, but I hope he can respect the fact that we have engaged seriously with this proposal. The security services have been involved from the outset. Ultimately, Government have to take a view. We have taken the view that the national security implications can be mitigated. We have also taken the view—and I know that some Opposition Members do not agree with it—that there could well be some security advantages as a consequence of these proposals. I undertake to keep him and other Members up to date, and if he wishes to discuss it outside this Chamber, I would be happy to do that.

Digital ID

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Sir Edward. The number of Members here and the demand for the debate show two things: first, it should be held in the main Chamber, not here, and secondly there are massive levels of public concern over the statement made by the Prime Minister. I will refer to two quotes that I have received from constituents and that summarise the situation very well. One states:

“Digital ID is a deeply illiberal idea that threatens privacy, autonomy, and the open society we should be standing for. It risks creating a two-tier Britain, where access to basic services—healthcare, housing, employment, even voting—depends on whether someone has the right app, paperwork, or digital trail.”

The second states that such measures

“entrench a presumption of suspicion, not trust, and put disproportionate burdens on the most vulnerable: migrants, the digitally excluded, the disabled, the elderly, and those without stable housing or documentation.”

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

The right hon. Gentleman is making a very good case. I am utterly opposed to digital ID, as are many of my constituents. One of them has made the point that in fact our great liberty, our great freedom, which is that the state has to prove that a person is guilty of a charge—innocence before guilt—is reversed by this, such that almost everybody on an ID card is assumed to have guilt until they have discharged themselves as innocent. Does that not go against all our freedoms?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The right hon. Member makes an important point. The huge number of people who have signed this petition indicates to me that many in this country are deeply concerned about the direction in which we are travelling. ID cards are one thing; restricting jury trials is another. Facial recognition at tube stations and now even in supermarkets is something that people find deeply disturbing. Across the country there is a whole vein of thought where people are feeling a quite reasonable sense of paranoia about the levels of surveillance that they are under at the present time. Members of Parliament would do well to try to understand that.

This attack on civil liberties—that is what it is—means that utterly vast amounts of information on all of us will be stored, as they are already in the health service. Unfortunately, the Government are now making that available to private healthcare interests at the same time. There is a huge issue here about our data, our information and our privacy, which we would do well to remember.

The last point I want to make is that the debate on this issue is being pushed by commercial interests that will make a great deal of money out of providing the necessary technical equipment to set up this surveillance system. They will do very well out of it, and we are being pushed into agreeing it by them. It is time for Members of Parliament to listen to what people are saying, listen to the concerns, have a proper debate in the main Chamber about this and say no to the Government, as we have said no before.

China Espionage: Government Security Response

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman speaks with great authority on this matter, and he will know that I am limited in the way in which I can describe the nature of the relationship. I have given him the characterisation that I think is appropriate. We have to be pragmatic in the world that we live in. We have to do what we can to secure our national security, while at the same time ensuring that we are engaging in a way that is advantageous to our country and our economy. Any Government—the previous one and this one—have to balance those sometimes competing interests, but this Government will do it in a way that always ensures that we safeguard our national security.

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

I have great respect for the Minister. However, listening to what he has said today about the China espionage case, which follows the collapsed spy case, the Christine Lee case and the other spying that took place here in the House, does he not look back and think that it is peculiar? We now have Hongkongers here in the UK with bounties on their heads who are being threatened daily by China and dragged into illegal police stations. He talked about all the other things: threats to our democracy, threats to our industry, cyber threats through the internet of things, threats to our universities, and threats to our MPs who are sanctioned and who have to face these challenges daily. Does that not make a mockery of the idea that China is not a continuing threat, and of the fact that it is not in the upper tier of FIRS, as my hon. Friend the shadow Minister called for? Surely it is time for that to happen. The No. 1 priority for a Government is the defence of the realm. Balancing priorities does not trump defence of the realm.

[Dan Jarvis]

I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Gentleman, who has engaged with these matters consistently for a number of years, and rightly so. We have today announced a comprehensive set of measures, but I have been clear about the Government’s willingness to go further where required. I have also been clear on this and previous occasions about the nature of the threat and the Government’s concerns about it. He is right that the defence of the realm is the most important job of any Government, but we must also be honest about the fact that we need to engage with China. We must therefore engage on our terms and in a way that is advantageous to us.

I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a long-standing interest in the embassy, and he knows what my response about that will be. I understand his point about FIRS; he will have heard the response that I have already given. I hope that, despite the concerns he has expressed, he acknowledges that we take these matters seriously and are doing everything we can to address the nature of the threat.

China Spying Case

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a particular pleasure that you should be in the Chair for this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, because like me and the others, some of whom have been named, you are sanctioned by a brutal Chinese Government. I think it is excellent that you are here to invigilate this debate and to keep us on track—forgive me if I go over. [Laughter.]

I am not going to take the blandishments of the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) who told us to look in the mirror. I stopped looking in the mirror a long, long time ago. In fact, when I was elected in 1992 I was told by a journalist at the Express that I could look in the mirror and see my career behind me. I feel like I have been walking backwards ever since.

Can I just say, I think the whole principle that underlies all this is the Government’s behaviour over this decision? I will come to the decision in a second, but I want to address how the Government dealt with the decision—and how they have publicly dealt with it, which is really rather peculiar. It has been almost impossible throughout this to drag information out of the Government about why the DNSA took the decisions he took, where the Government were in this and when meetings took place. Denials slid towards acceptances that dates were in fact as they stood. As I understand it, it was even exclaimed by the Prime Minister that The Sunday Times was lying when it raised the idea of there being a meeting on 1 September containing all the various individuals, including the DNSA.

It has been a sort of meticulous nonsense. Dodge, duck, dive, dip, and dodge—the five Ds of dodgeball, or in this case the five Ds of dodge the spying case. Getting to the truth of this has been painful, and if it is painful for the Government, they have only themselves to blame. Had they come out straightaway at the beginning and been clear about all this, instead of hiding behind the DNSA, they might have found it easier.

I find ridiculous the position that the DNSA stated yesterday—that he was bound to reflect the position of the Government. The DNSA is not bound to reflect the position of the Government. He was asked by the DPP—and therefore bound to respond to the DPP—whether or not he said that China was an active security threat. What I do not understand is how the then DNSA, both at the time and again when giving evidence yesterday, was able to say that China posed a range of threats—just as the Minister said—on different areas all across the board, from sanctions right the way through to espionage. I do not understand the difference between posing a series of significant threats to our national security in different areas across the board and being a threat to our national security. It is impossible to even conceive that we could define this so narrowly that we are unable to come out with the very simple statement: “They pose a threat to our national security.”

From my standpoint, I face a threat. I have been chased and regularly followed by wolf warriors, which are low-level intelligence operatives of China. They have impersonated me abroad and spread lies about what I have said, and those of us who have been sanctioned have been spied on. I know what a threat looks like. It looks like that. It is not a duck; it is a threat. There is no reason why any self-respecting Government could not have said that. The DNSA should have said that straight off—not go out and tell us that the police asked him to introduce what had been in the manifesto of the Labour party in the last election and then say that he knew nothing at all about it previously but had to put this in context. He was not asked to put it in context. The DSNA was asked to state clearly, from what he sees and the evidence he has taken, whether China poses an active security threat.

At the nub of this is another particularly important point. The 1 September meeting is critical in all this, because we have been given assurances throughout this—by the Prime Minister, for example, at Prime Minister’s questions on 15 October. He said:

“There was no further submission of evidence, one way or the other, after any discussion in September.”—[Official Report, 15 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 368.]

Yet we know that now not to be the case. Why was the Prime Minister making such a fundamental statement at Prime Minister’s questions trying to shut this down? Did nobody bother to tell him that this had gone to a meeting? By the way, we were told that at no stage was the National Security Adviser or any other appointed individual at any meetings with or in contact with the DNSA throughout the submission of evidence. That is utterly untrue. We know that the DNSA was at the meeting chaired by the National Security Adviser on 1 September. What did they discuss? Was it football scores or what was right in front of them there and then: the still-unfinished business of whether or not the DNSA was going to comply with the DPP’s requirement for a very clear statement? It is that bit of subterfuge, with dipping and dodging throughout, that is really quite peculiar.

I have respect for the Minister. When he gets to his feet, can we not have this ridiculous game of “You did this” and “You said that”? I would simply like him to recognise that China poses a national security threat. Let us deal with that threat and take clear action, and not play games with terminological inexactitudes about what happened at what meeting.

We now know that the DNSA met all those characters —we do not know who they are—so the minutes of the meeting should be released. If the Government will not release them to Parliament, they can do it in camera to the Intelligence and Security Committee. They should do it to clear the record; I recommend that they do. People like me, the Chairman of Ways and Means and others have suffered attacks from this brutal regime, which has massacred people in China and committed genocide. Surely now is the time to make our position clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard]

If we have the directors of all the intelligence agencies suggesting that China is a threat, it does not get much better than that. We have great deputy national security advisers, but their line managers—their directors, their bosses—were also clearly stating that China was a national security threat. In fact, the word “threat” is mentioned 284 times in that 207-page report.

The key word in this whole episode involving the deputy National Security Adviser—that is, the DNSA for intelligence, defence and security, not the other two remaining DNSAs, unless the Minister wants to correct me—is “active”. The question is whether China was an active threat, as underscored by the testimony to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy yesterday. The evidence in the ISC’s report would suggest that China has been known to be an active threat for some time. I have mentioned the various reviews. Indeed, in his own witness statement, the DSNA refers to China conducting “large-scale espionage operations”. Again, this is not a historical reference or a past-tense reference; it is clearly referring to the here-and-now operations taking place today. There is clearly an active threat, not just a general or undetermined threat.

China being an active threat was also underscored by the director general of the Security Service’s recent speech, in which he referred to China’s

“cyber-espionage…clandestine technology transfer…interference in UK public life”

and

“harassment and intimidation of opponents”.

Once more, these threats are not just historical; they are current and active, happening in the UK right now. They have not stopped. They are increasing. They continue.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend’s excellent speech. Did he see, in the testimony yesterday, the intervention in which Sir Chris Wormald suddenly said that he did not believe that Ken McCallum, the chief of MI5, had described China as a threat? He intervened on the DNSA to make that point. That is fundamentally untrue, is it not?

[Mark Pritchard]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. I think hon. Members will take their own view on who they think is the expert on national security. I think it will be Sir Ken McCallum, who is a long-serving and distinguished member of the UK intelligence community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I put on record my anger at the collapse of the case. Colleagues have talked about the particulars of the case, so I will use the short time that I have available to broaden the lens and look again at the foundations of our security.

When the Conservative party brings Opposition day debates to the House, I attend because I am interested to hear the development of thinking in the party as it seeks to become a future Government. I also think about the party’s record in government and where it is going. I will make two points that I think the Opposition will disagree with, but I hope some Members will agree with my third point.

First, any Government, from whichever party, have a duty to invest in the institutions, infrastructure, capabilities and knowledge that enable our long-term advantage and security. Those are not built in five minutes, but they can be built in 14 years. It is my view that in the 14 years that the Conservatives were in power, they gave insufficient regard to building those things that can shore up our security.

Secondly, in cases where the Conservative Government did bother to build or pursue infrastructure, they opened the door to Chinese firms. While the Conservative leadership pretend to know what they think about China now, in truth they did not know what to think about China when they were in office, and that is an important reality to stare at. When it came to Huawei and 5G, the Conservatives were in, then they were out. When it came to nuclear, the Conservatives were in, then they were out. We are still unpacking George Osborne’s mistake on that front.

That contrasts sharply with the position of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I rediscovered his 2020 Hudson Institute speech, and I thought it was a very good insight into the situation at that time. Looking back at it five years on, it had considerable foresight on what has occurred. I am very sorry and saddened that he has experienced what he has at the hands of the Chinese leadership—other colleagues have experienced the same—but he is in a minority in his party in standing up on these issues.

I do not believe that the Conservative leadership have been as clear in their thinking or as forceful in their condemnation, and for the leadership of the right hon. Gentleman’s party to now pretend that they were is inaccurate and does him a disservice. We should contrast his position with the words of the Leader of the Opposition when she was in Cabinet. As the Business Secretary pursuing business, she said:

“We certainly should not be describing China as a foe”.

We should contrast his position with that of one of the nine Conservative Foreign Secretaries, who said it would be

“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise”

to sum up China in one word as a threat. As a leadership team, the Conservatives need to stop throwing mud and to come to terms with what happened on their watch.

We must also look reality in the face: we cannot shy away from engagement with China. I bet that most Opposition Members have an iPhone in their pocket that was made in China; I bet they have other things in their home that were made in China. We must engage, but all of us in this Parliament must do so with our eyes wide open about the risks that that involves. Some of us in this Parliament have prophesied about that for many years and for longer than others, but we must be aware of that.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I was not going to intervene, but the hon. Gentleman made a statement about me justifying the position of the Opposition, as opposed to the Government. I assure him that had the two sides been switched, I would be carrying out exactly the same cross-examination that I have done today. No matter who has been in government, I seem to have been in opposition, and I want to say so. I am not doing this for any betterment; I am doing this because it is right.

[Tom Hayes]

I apologise if I misrepresented what I was saying. I was saying that throughout his time on these Benches, the right hon. Gentleman has been forceful in his condemnation. Whoever was in government, I believe that he would have done that, but I do not believe that the Conservative leadership either on the Opposition Benches or in office did the same. That is the point I was trying to make.

The Opposition called this debate to throw mud, but it is an opportunity to think about the wider security context in which we operate. As the months go on, I am intrigued to see what the Conservative party’s posture will be as it contemplates the security and intelligence environment we are in. Will it shy away from engagement with China—a significant market and economic opportunity for us—or seek to engage with China with its eyes wide open?

The Conservatives need to accept that they did less than they could have done in office to create the foundations for our security and economic growth. In so doing, they made us more vulnerable. Until they accept that and apologise for it, it begs the question: why should any of us in this Chamber and in the constituencies we represent listen to them ever again on the subject of keeping our country safe?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

Let me just finish my point. I will come back to the right hon. and learned Gentleman if time allows.

The meeting was specifically set up to provide the FCDO with an opportunity to discuss—at an appropriately senior official level; no Ministers attended the meeting—what the approach would be to handling engagement with China across a range of scenarios related to this case, as well as in relation to wider issues that would come up. Those who attended the meeting were operating on the basis that the trial would go ahead at the start of October.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

rose—

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

rose—

[Dan Jarvis]

I am going to make a bit of progress, because time is against me.

Meetings such as this are a routine part of the NSA’s role.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

The Minister did say he would give way to me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) nailed the myths, I thought very effectively, in his contribution. The right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) described his duck. It felt as if his contribution was as much aimed at the DPP and the CPS as at the Government, but it was engaging none the less. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) raised important points about some of the critiques that have been levelled, and I agree with him about trying to establish cross-party consensus.

The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green spoke about the nature and the description of the threats we face from China. Let me say to him that it is completely unacceptable that he and other Members of this House are sanctioned, and I give him an absolute assurance of the seriousness with which this Government take those particular threats. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) spoke about transnational repression. He has raised it previously, and I can tell him that the defending democracy taskforce has concluded a review, and the Government have developed a range of support and security mechanisms. Most importantly, however, we condemn any malign activity towards anyone here in the UK.

The right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) spoke about the work of the ISC, and he was right to do so. The Government welcome the work of the ISC in looking carefully at the circumstances of this case, as we do the important work of the JCNSS. I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) made the really important point that, given the concerns that have rightly been expressed right across this House about what has happened, we should be trying to seek to work together and establish a consensus. I thought he made that point very powerfully.

Time is running short, so let me say to the House that national security is the first duty of this Government. That is why we oppose the Opposition’s motion, which would see the release not only of information subject to legal professional privilege, but of information vital to the security of the United Kingdom, including advice to the Prime Minister. Successive Governments, including the previous Government in which the shadow Home Secretary served as a Minister, have maintained that position. This is not a question about parliamentary scrutiny. We welcome the ongoing process with the JCNSS, and we look forward to continuing to work with it, as we do with the ISC. This Government will continue to develop a consistent and pragmatic approach to economic engagement, but without compromising our national security.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I have a very simple question: if the Minister will not give the minutes of that meeting to the House, will he give them to the Intelligence and Security Committee, which sits in camera?

[Dan Jarvis]

The Government have given a very clear commitment that we will co-operate and work closely with all of the Committees of this House.

It is precisely because everything this Government do is rooted in the national interest that I say that this Government are extremely disappointed that this case has collapsed. It is right that the matter is being investigated by the appropriate parliamentary Committees, and we look forward to co-operating with that work.

Question put.

Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman refers to what he described as a “highly political” appointment. With great respect to him, and he knows that I hold him in the highest regard, I disagree with his characterisation of that appointment. The National Security Adviser is someone who has huge experience of government, is extremely well connected—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may think it is not a good thing that we have somebody occupying a very important role in government who is known around the world; the Government contend that it is a good thing. We only need to look at the comments made by President Trump’s foreign affairs adviser just the other day, commending the important work that the National Security Adviser has done. He works incredibly hard to secure the security of our nation. Rather than talking him down, we should get behind him and ensure that he is supported to do the important job that he has been given.

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

As has been mentioned, the spokesman for the Prime Minister, when asked whether China was a threat, referred to the DNSA’s statement, which said that China conducts “large scale espionage operations” that

“threaten the UK’s economic prosperity and resilience, and the integrity of our democratic institutions”.

By anyone’s definition, that would mean that China is a threat. I am a sanctioned Member of this Parliament. That is what this is all about: I have been spied upon, and I have had a wolf warrior from China follow me around the world and impersonate me very threateningly. Does the Minister think that I ought to refer to China as a threat?

[Dan Jarvis]

It is for the right hon. Gentleman to choose his own words. He is a very experienced Member of this House. The activities that he describes are completely unacceptable. That is why this Government have been clear on numerous occasions that we want to work across the House to ensure that all right hon. and hon. Members have the protections they need to speak their views in this place without fear or favour. If he wants to discuss those matters further, I would be very happy to do so. I hope that we can find a way of discussing these incredibly serious issues in a more grown-up way, as has been the case previously.