Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

This morning’s Foreign Affairs Committee session lasted for two-and-a-half hours. It was certainly one of the more remarkable sessions that I have attended, and I have been involved in a number of quite controversial Select Committee hearings over the years. It showed the Select Committee system at its best, and Members across the House worked together.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), a fellow member of the Committee who spoke earlier. I share his view that Sir Olly Robbins, who gave us evidence, put in an impressive performance. He is clearly angry at the way in which he is being treated; he has a distinguished career that has been brought to a premature end, and he is clearly very upset by that. In his evidence, he made some extraordinary revelations. He had given evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee in November last year, when, as the Chair of the Committee suggested in her introduction, we may have heard the truth and nothing but the truth, but probably not the whole truth.

This morning, we heard a lot more of the whole truth. What became absolutely clear, which had already been suggested in the previous hearing, was that No. 10 Downing Street was absolutely determined that Lord Mandelson should become the ambassador of his country to the United States. Sir Olly told us that his predecessor, Philip Barton, had strongly advised that that should not happen until after the developed vetting process had been completed. Despite that advice from the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, he was ignored—indeed, we are told that the Cabinet Office went on to suggest that developed vetting might not even be necessary.

This was not just a routine appointment, and it was not routine for two reasons. First, it was the appointment of probably the most important ambassadorial post that this country has. Secondly, and very unusually, it was a direct ministerial appointment. Most of the time, ambassadorial appointments are made from within the civil service, and people have already had the vetting procedure. This was somebody being brought in from the outside who had not been vetted and already had a track record of having had to resign from Government twice.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The role of Prime Minister is the highest honour in UK politics and demands sound judgment. The reality is that there was no sound judgment when the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson—a disgraced individual who had two resignations and well-documented associations with a sex offender. What we are hearing from Members on the Labour Benches today is like hearing lambs to the slaughter. They are defending the indefensible, and the general public are hearing that and hearing how disgraced this place is by the decision of the Prime Minister to appoint Peter Mandelson.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady. It is somehow being suggested by Labour Members that this was about people advising the Prime Minister—I think one speaker earlier said that the Prime Minister had been persuaded to appoint Peter Mandelson. Well, I worked for a Prime Minister, and she coined a phrase: “Advisers advise; Ministers decide.” In this case, as the hon. Lady says, it was the decision of the Prime Minister.

Sir Olly Robbins also pointed out that by the time he took up his position, he was essentially presented with a fait accompli. He set that out to us—he said that

“I took over as PUS on 20 January”,

and that due diligence had already been completed. We know that that process, which included an interview with Morgan McSweeney, had revealed the ongoing relationship between Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, but that it was ignored. We were told that approval of the appointment had already been given by the King, it had been announced publicly to the press, and agrément had been given by the United States. Sir Olly Robbins made clear that agrément is not just a formality; it was a very significant development. Lord Mandelson had also been given access to the FCDO building and IT access, and finally, he was being granted access to highly classified briefings on a case-by-case basis. I asked Sir Olly Robbins whether, given that all that was already in place, it would damage our relationship with the United States of America if he were to have the appointment withdrawn. He replied very clearly, “Yes, it would.”

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) set out, we already had a very good ambassador in Washington, but Downing Street had nevertheless said to the US Administration that it wanted Lord Mandelson to be appointed, and the White House had given its agreement through the agrément procedure. For Sir Olly Robbins to then withdraw the appointment would have caused real damage to our foreign policy. One can argue that if Sir Olly Robbins were told that the UKSV process had resulted in a clear recommendation of denial, he might—or perhaps even should—still have done so, but he also told us this morning that he was not told that. We were told that he did not see the UKSV report, and that he did not even know that the report has a red box saying “deny” with a tick in it. He said that he had never seen those documents before, and that that would be normal, because access is very restricted for the reasons that the hon. Member for Halesowen set out.

All that Sir Olly Robbins was told was that there had been a leaning towards refusal, and that it was a borderline case. Whether or not that was an accurate reflection of what the report actually said is another matter, and we can perhaps debate at what stage, or how far, the message from Downing Street—“We want this person to be appointed”—had been transmitted, to try to make that appointment as possible as it was. However, we are told that after Sir Olly Robbins had arrived as permanent secretary, he was subjected to regular calls from No. 10 saying, “Get it done.” He also told us that the message was not, “Get it done subject to security clearance,” which in his view, it should have been. The press release announcing the appointment of Lord Mandelson did not say “subject to security clearance”—that was never mentioned. This was announced as a decision that had already been taken.

Why was the decision taken? That is a matter that is open to conjecture. There is a view among some Labour Members that it was somehow a reward for services given in getting the Prime Minister his job. The leader of the Liberal Democrats said that it might have been an attempt to cosy up to President Trump, although as my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington pointed out, our previous ambassador had done a really good job in representing this country to President Trump. We may never know, but what we do know is that the Prime Minister was absolutely determined that that appointment should be made.

Even after the appointment was made, when all of these things began to be revealed—in particular, the ongoing relationship between Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, which the Prime Minister said he was unaware of the closeness of and he was very angry when he was told about—inquiries had already been made. Journalists had been ringing up No. 10 and saying, “We have been told that Lord Mandelson failed his security vetting,” and No. 10 put out a denial. With journalists calling up and asking, “Is it true that he did not pass the UKSV assessment, and it recommended denial of security vetting?” one would expect that before saying, “No, that’s complete rubbish,” No. 10 might actually begin to ask questions. People in No. 10 might say to the Prime Minister, “You should be aware that we’ve had an inquiry about this.” Apparently none of that happened, or if it did, it was simply swept under the carpet. The end result of this process is that for more than a year we had someone representing this country at the most senior level in America, which is our closest ally, who the security agencies had concluded was a security risk. We do not know the full extent of the damage that may have been done during that time.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I am afraid that Madam Deputy Speaker is coughing at me, so I will not give way.

I fear that there is still more to come. I hope that I can say on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee that we will continue to pursue this matter.

Security Vetting

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I do not accept that that is a reason for withholding from me the information about security clearance.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

The result of the Prime Minister’s terrible failure of judgment is that for over a year this country’s interests were represented in the United States by someone that our own security services deemed to be a security risk. Will he assure us that an investigation will take place into all aspects where our national security may have been damaged, and that the results of that will be made available to the Intelligence and Security Committee and, where possible, to Parliament?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I will.

Middle East

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I assure my hon. Friend that I spoke to the President of Cyprus yesterday, and I am hoping to speak to him again later today. I repeat what I said earlier, because it is important for reasons that he and the House will understand. The bases in Cyprus are not being used and are not going to be used by the US. [Interruption.] I hear the question, “Why not?” The answer is that they are not suitable. It is very important that that is made clear, because the President and I have been discussing that, as my hon. Friend will understand.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

On Saturday, Prime Minister Carney said:

“Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.”

Why was our Prime Minister not able to make the same statement? Was Prime Minister Carney wrong?

[The Prime Minister]

I am not trying to pick divisions between our allies on this. I was presented with a different scenario: whether we should accede to two requests in relation to action to be taken. That is different and it requires careful consideration of both the lawful basis and the viable plan. That is the basis on which I took the two decisions that fell to me. Different decisions fall to other Prime Ministers.

Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

The independent ethics adviser is able to conduct inquiries in the time that he considers necessary in relation to the facts, the number of documents and the conversations that need to be had, but I agree that the advice ought to be made available to the Prime Minister as quickly as possible. I would certainly hope for that to be the case in the coming days.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister may be aware that at the end of this week the UK takes on the chair of the global Media Freedom Coalition—a partnership of 51 countries pledged to protect journalists and the freedom of the press. How could the UK have any credibility in that role, given the revelations of the behaviour of a member of this Government, which are more akin to that of the worst authoritarian states?

[Darren Jones]

I think that the right hon. Member talks down the country. The UK is rightly proud of the freedom of the press and its role in our democracy, and I know that both his party and mine support those principles. He has referred to allegations being made, and that is why an independent process is looking at the veracity of those allegations and any denial that is put. As soon as its advice has been made available, it will be put to the Prime Minister to make a call on it.

Standards in Public Life

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is right to bring us back to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and to all women and girls who have been subjected to these atrocious crimes across the country, because evidently their voices continue to not be heard and these crimes continue to perpetuate. That is why the Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls and why we have introduced measures to ensure standards of public life are enforced in this place and in the other place.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

May I tell the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, in relation to his previous answer, that the Foreign Affairs Committee repeatedly asked for Lord Mandelson to appear, but he refused to come, and that what the Committee did hear, from the permanent under-secretary, was that Lord Mandelson would be entitled to a payoff in relation to the terms of his contract? Can the Chief Secretary say how much Lord Mandelson received and whether he will be asked to repay it?

[Darren Jones]

The Foreign Office is currently reviewing the terms of the contract that led to the suggestion of severance payments when Peter Mandelson was sacked, and it is due to update the House in due course.

Lord Mandelson

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

We have heard some very powerful speeches in this debate. It is a credit to this House that we are discussing this issue and the appalling behaviour of Jeffrey Epstein in a way that is not happening in Washington. However, what we have heard in the last few days has been truly shocking. There have been the photos, the emails, and the revelations of the very close nature of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, which raise questions of potential criminality, and even treason.

The House is asking how it was that somebody who was already established, who had already had to resign twice from Government in disgrace, who was the subject of questions about his performance in the European Commission, and who was known to have maintained a very close friendship with a convicted paedophile, ever came to be regarded as an appropriate appointee to the position of ambassador in Washington. That was the critical issue that the Foreign Affairs Committee was anxious to examine. We repeatedly asked that Peter Mandelson come before the Committee; he did not. We were told eventually that we had had an opportunity to speak to him briefly over breakfast when we were in Washington, and that was sufficient. It was not sufficient. We were not able to ask him any of our questions.

We did subsequently have the opportunity to ask those questions of the Cabinet Secretary and the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office. The Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), has already set out some of the issues that were raised, but I think it is worth repeating that we were told that Lord Mandelson’s appointment process had three stages. On the first stage, because this was a political appointment at the direct instruction of the Prime Minister, there was no interview panel, and there was not the “fireside chat” that would normally take place between an appointing Minister and a candidate. Instead, the Foreign Office was told that this was the wish of the Prime Minister, and Lord Mandelson was asked to fill in a conflict of interest form, so that there could be an understanding of private interests that “might” conflict with his position.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Prime Minister made a huge deal about the process that had been gone through when he answered questions from the Leader of the Opposition earlier today. If I understand it correctly, the process was that the Prime Minister wanted Peter Mandelson.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

That was made absolutely clear right from the start. Indeed, the permanent under-secretary described this as a political appointment, which was made on the direct instruction of the Prime Minister.

I want to go through the three stages. The first stage was the conflicts of interest form. As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee said, this essentially consisted of Peter Mandelson being asked to fill in a form and to choose what to put on it, and there was no subsequent questioning about anything that did not appear on his form. Of course, we have not seen the form. I believe that as part of the motion, which we are likely to pass today, that form should now be made public.

Given the potential conflict of interest, I raised with the permanent under-secretary the question of Lord Mandelson’s continuing shareholding in Global Counsel. The permanent under-secretary replied:

“This was honestly the hardest bit of this bit of the process for both of us. Lord Mandelson was a founder of the company…While he was confident that he could conduct his role as ambassador without giving rise to a conflict, we wanted to make sure we managed and mitigated that possibility in some particular ways.”

The conclusion was not that Lord Mandelson should dispose of his shareholding. Instead, some Chinese walls were put in place to ensure that he was not aware of who the clients of Global Counsel were, or of the work being undertaken. I listened with concern to what my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) said about the meeting that took place with Palantir. That raises real questions about the effectiveness of the so-called undertakings that were put in place by the Foreign Office, and we need to understand that.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I rise with incredulity, having learned that there was not a requirement to dispose of the interest. I recall going through ethics and propriety when being made a Minister, and I was told that it would be entirely inappropriate to hold things. I know of colleagues who had to dispose of their interests. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the noble Baroness Gray had still been running propriety and ethics, something like this would not have happened?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I completely share the view of my right hon. Friend. Like her, I went through a process in which I was required to get rid of shareholding interests, which were rather smaller than those held by Lord Mandelson. This is just one of a huge range of questions to which we need to know the answers.

[Alicia Kearns]

Another appointment that we have had is that of the National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, who some might argue is the de facto Foreign Secretary. Given that he is running around having secret meetings with Wang Yi and other Chinese senior officials, how can we have confidence that he went through the appropriate vetting, when we cannot have confidence that it was done for our ambassador to America?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

Once we get the revelations from the documents as to precisely what occurred in the case of Lord Mandelson, that is bound to raise questions about what procedures were followed in the case of other appointees, particularly Jonathan Powell, who in many ways is the Foreign Secretary of this country.

We were told that the second stage of the process was the “due diligence” carried out by the Cabinet Office. The due diligence consisted of “identification of information” and judgment about it. However, all the information that was obtained in the due diligence was actually in the public domain already. No additional investigation took place; it was simply, essentially, an internet trawl. That due diligence report was presented to the Cabinet Secretary for onward transmission to the Prime Minister. However, due diligence through an internet trawl, even at that time, would already have shown up the fact that Peter Mandelson had stayed in the townhouse belonging to Jeffrey Epstein after his conviction, so the continuing association after his conviction had already been reported in the press and was therefore bound to form part of the due diligence process.

The question that has been raised several times in this debate already is this: when the appointment was made, did the Prime Minister know? We understand that, potentially, he did, which I assume was contained in the due diligence report. That was put directly to the Cabinet Secretary:

“did you tell the Prime Minister about Mandelson staying in the Manhattan townhouse when Epstein was in jail?”

All that the Cabinet Secretary said to us was:

“I will consider whether there is further information that can be shared and write to the Committee.”

We have never had a full answer to that question.

The third part of the process was the developed vetting, which we are told is a usual process for very senior appointments. We are told that it consists of a wide range of different investigations into staff files, company records checks, spent and unspent criminal records, credit history, a check of security service records, and an interview—not just of the candidate, but of the referees supplied—by a trained investigating officer. We will need to see the outcome of that report, even if it can only be provided, as the Government have now conceded, to the Intelligence and Security Committee.

With those three processes, the Prime Minister still decided that there was no obstacle to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. We then come to the question put to him at Prime Minister’s questions following the Bloomberg report of the large number of emails. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office learnt of those emails the night before Prime Minister’s questions. I pressed the permanent under-secretary on whether No. 10 had been told that the emails contained material evidence that could potentially change the whole perception of Lord Mandelson’s relationship. He said that he had a “duty of care” to Lord Mandelson and therefore needed to make checks. He essentially told us that No. 10 had not been informed. I find that very hard to believe. As somebody who used to prepare a Prime Minister for answering questions, I find the idea that the Prime Minister was not told something of that order absolutely extraordinary.

There is another question that needs to be asked. The British Government say that they discovered all the emails that proved the relationship was of very long standing and much closer than had ever been admitted by Lord Mandelson, because Bloomberg obtained copies in a leak. They were held by the US Government in the Department of Justice for months. The US Government knew all about them, but we are told it was only when Bloomberg obtained them that the British Government found out.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Does my right hon. Friend believe it is conceivable that the Government did not ask, “Is there any kompromat on the British ambassador to the US?” The idea seems incredulous. As he rightly points out, this has been known about for years.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are two possible questions. First, why did the British Government never ask the US Government, who they knew had all this material from Jeffrey Epstein, whether it contained any additional information that might be relevant to the appointment of Peter Mandelson? Equally, we are told that our relationship with the US is so close that we share intelligence. Is it really the case that they did not feel it necessary to tell us? Either way, it is an appalling breakdown of communication, and I have to say that I find it very difficult to believe.

These are all questions on which we pressed the permanent under-secretary and the Cabinet Secretary, and on which we failed to obtain any answers. I have to say that my confidence in a further investigation by the Cabinet Secretary is influenced by his failure to answer any of those questions when he came before the Foreign Affairs Committee the first time.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

As I am sure my right hon. Friend remembers, once the Bloomberg leak had happened, many of us said to the Government that now that those things had turned out to be true, we should turn Lord Peter Mandelson inside out as if he had been outed as a spy; surely, had the Government done so, the things that were released over the weekend would have come out. Is he surprised, as I am, that the Government did not seem to do an investigation into Peter Mandelson subsequent to him being fired?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I completely share my hon. Friend’s astonishment. As further revelations come out about the behaviour of Jeffrey Epstein, particularly in relation to his links with Russia and other hostile powerhouses, one would have thought that the Government would say, “Please, if there is anything involving Peter Mandelson, we wish to know about it.” The potential damage to our national interest that may have occurred as a result of Lord Mandelson continuing to feed information to Jeffrey Epstein is huge. That is something that has not even begun to be properly exposed yet.

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

In his interrogation of the permanent under-secretary of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Cabinet Secretary, was my right hon. Friend able to shed any light on another part of our motion as to whether severance payments were paid to Lord Mandelson and, if so, how much they were? If payments were made, we should be seeking to get them back for the taxpayer.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and actually he anticipates my next point. I asked the permanent under-secretary whether or not Lord Mandelson was still on the civil service payroll and was told that he was not. When I asked whether a settlement or payment had been made, I was told that he had resigned but that his contract would be honoured; when I asked whether that included a payment, I was told that was a confidential matter between Lord Mandelson and the civil service. I will read the direct quote, because the exact wording is worth quoting again. I said:

“So the Foreign Office is not going to give any information as to whether payment was made to him”.

The permanent under-secretary replied:

“Any implications of his termination will be reported in our annual report and accounts, but termination payments below a particular threshold, which I think is £300,000, do not get itemised”—

I think the quick answer is no. However, I hope that is also something the Government have indicated will now be made public.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I was just thinking about the response that my right hon. Friend got from the permanent under- secretary. Does he think that was a permanent under-secretary trying to be helpful to the Committee, or was it him obfuscating and telling elected Members of Parliament to get their noses out of his business?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I have to say to my hon. Friend that I regarded the whole session as a sort of masterpiece in Sir Humphrey-speak—an awful lot of words that conveyed very little substance.

I absolutely understand the necessity of not revealing information that may be damaging to national security. However, as one or two Members have already said, transparency is really important here, and I therefore hope that the Government will make public as much as possible. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I will certainly be pressing the Committee to look at all the information that is published and to follow up on the rather unsatisfactory session that we have already had.

I will conclude with my overall impression, having looked at this process in some depth. It was clear that the Prime Minister wanted Peter Mandelson to be our ambassador to the United States. The Foreign Office had to go through the usual procedures—we heard about the three parts of the process—but I believe that the clear message that was sent to the Foreign Office was: “Go through your motions, but make sure that it ends up with his approval being granted.” The overriding impression is that, to some extent, boxes were ticked, but the Foreign Office was told very clearly that Mandelson was to be the next ambassador, and that was a direct instruction from the Prime Minister.

China and Japan

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, we did discuss the car manufacturing going on at the moment and the potential for further work in that regard, along with other issues of trade broadening between our two countries.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

The Prime Minister will be aware that some 80% of the sanctioned dual-use items that Russia needs for the drones and missiles it is firing at civilians and children on a daily basis come from China. He says that he raised that matter. Did he get any assurance that China will stop supplying Russia?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to this issue. That is precisely why I raised it again in terms. I will not go into the details of the discussion, but I did raise it, for the very reasons that he sets out. Across this House, we are committed to a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. This has been an issue of concern for a considerable period, which is why I raised it.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are replacing a failed settlement system with one that is fair and that recognises contribution. It is right to apply more stringent controls, and we are currently consulting on the right approach. I recognise the huge contribution of those working in our NHS, and we will not change the rules for those who already have settled status.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Jimmy Lai is 78 and is a British citizen. He has already been in prison in Hong Kong for five years, simply for being a journalist. If he receives a further sentence on 12 January, he is likely to die in prison. Will the Prime Minister make it clear that his visit to Beijing can go ahead only if Jimmy Lai is released?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this really important case. As he knows, we continually raise it with our counterparts, and we will continue to do so. I condemn the conviction. Obviously we await the sentence, but it is absolutely clear that Jimmy Lai has been targeted by the authorities. It is wrongful, and I call it out. It is important that we continue to engage, so that we can raise this issue with those counterparts.

G20 and Ukraine

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, of course I will. From my discussions with President Zelensky this morning, I will need to look precisely at that, but I suspect it will not be the whole of the agreement that needs to be reached, because obviously the discussions so far have been predominantly Ukraine/US. Obviously, there are European elements that are important and NATO elements that are important which need further discussion, and of course none of this has been back to the Russian side yet. I will have a look at the report and look behind the headline, and if there is anything material to report, I will of course do so. My sense is that it will probably be progress on the Geneva exercise rather than the agreement of all elements.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that, if Ukraine has agreed to a proposal that has been brokered by the United States, it must be made acceptable to Russia and that we need to exert every possible pressure on Russia through increased military support, sanctions and the use of frozen assets to make Russia accept a ceasefire?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly agree with that wholeheartedly. We will see; I suspect it is the version that emerged from Geneva yesterday that is being talked about, but of course the next step is Russia, and we need to exert every pressure, whether that is capability, the assets, or oil and gas, on which we have been bearing down for a considerable period of time.

Official Secrets Act

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I certainly agree with the hon. Member in his assessment of my being not happy. The decision was communicated this morning. The points he raised were reasonable, constructive and helpful, so let me take them away and consider them with colleagues across Government.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

The threat to our national security from China is real, and I share the disappointment and concern expressed. However, the Minister will also be aware that China has used entirely bogus national security charges to imprison a British citizen, Jimmy Lai, who has now been in solitary confinement for five years and whose health is deteriorating rapidly. This morning, his son Sebastien Lai asked to see the Prime Minister to press him to do more. Will the Minister reinforce that case and take every action possible to get the Chinese to release Jimmy Lai?

[Dan Jarvis]

Jimmy Lai should be released immediately.