Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
It is a reflection of the depth and extent of the work being undertaken by Government to comply with the Humble Address that it is taking some time to be able to process the documents. We moved at pace to publish the first tranche of documents last week and, as I have said to the House, we are going to publish the second tranche as soon as possible.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) referred to very specific documents—meeting notes and decision notes—that have not been disclosed. May I point out that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister himself must not mislead the House? So, do these documents actually exist? Are there decision notes and meeting notes that have been withheld, or do they not exist?
Darren Jones
Documents owned by the Government that are within the scope of the Humble Address have been published, as I have set out.
Standards in Public Life
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
As I have repeated to the House, there must be rules that apply in all circumstances, to all people, in respect of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and to appointments to such roles, as well as clear consequences for people who lie or breach those rules. Those are the reforms that the Government are bringing forward.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Yesterday, the Prime Minister’s adviser, Morgan McSweeney, resigned because he had advised the Prime Minister to make this appointment. What advice did the National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, give the Prime Minister? If he gave the same advice, should he not resign as well?
Darren Jones
The hon. Member will know that it would not be appropriate for me to speak from the Dispatch Box on behalf of civil servants and special advisers. The statements released by Morgan McSweeney and Keir Starmer yesterday answer his questions about Morgan McSweeney’s decision to resign from his post.
Chinese Embassy
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Let me point out that when the previous Conservative Government proclaimed a “golden era” of relations with China—when David Cameron welcomed President Xi for a state visit in 2015, as Theresa May was championing Huawei for our 5G infrastructure—the security services supported their then Prime Minister; or they were brought into line, which I expect is what happens under these circumstances. Can we ensure that we are not using the security services for propaganda purposes? I predict that in the fullness of history, we will look back at this decision with great regret.
Dan Jarvis
I know that the hon. Gentleman gives a lot of thought and dedication to these matters. He reflected on the engagement that had taken place under the previous Government, under former Prime Minister David Cameron. The hon. Gentleman will understand, because he thinks about these things very carefully, that there is obviously a need to engage with China. President Trump will be visiting China in the next couple of months. President Macron has been, I think, three times over the past years. Prime Minister Carney has been there recently. Serious, grown-up people understand the need to have engagement and to work closely with countries like China. Sensible people will get that and will also understand that sometimes that involves tough choices. This Government do not shy away from making the tough choices. I accept the challenge that the hon. Gentleman offers—that the decision will be judged over the long term—but I think that this is the right thing to do and I am pleased that the security services agree.
Oral Answers to Questions
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for raising this matter. Nobody could forget the shocking scenes at Lockerbie, and I know the huge impact it has had on the community that he grew up in, where people have responded with such compassion and strength. He has rightly stood by their search for justice and truth through all the intervening years, and I pay tribute to that. All our thoughts remain with the families and friends of all the victims, who deserve truth, and I urge the Scottish authorities to consider the points that he raises.
Mr Speaker
You did not ask a question, so I do not know how you can have a point of order.
Mr Speaker
No, you did not ask a question. Maybe if it came from somebody who had asked a question, that would be better.
Oral Answers to Questions
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this, and I am delighted that her constituency will benefit from one of the 250 new centres. Neighbourhood health centres will provide simpler, more convenient access to a full range of health and care services on people’s doorsteps, and GP services will be protected before they come online. This is about early intervention, continuing to drive down NHS waiting lists and creating a more modern NHS that is fit for the future.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Could the Prime Minister give his assessment of the latest news that President Putin has again turned down terms for peace in Ukraine? In an extraordinary outburst designed to destabilise our understanding of the truth, he did say that Russia is ready for war with NATO. How ready are we?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this; I updated the House last week on the attempts to get a lasting peace. We all know that Putin is the aggressor here. We all know that Putin is dragging his feet, not wanting to come to the table, not wanting to reach an agreement. We have to continue to put pressure on in every conceivable way—that is, in supporting Ukraine with capability and resource, but also ensuring that our sanctions, acting with allies, do as much damage to the economy in Russia as we can, and pressure that we can put on. We will continue to do so but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this, and I thank him for doing so.
G20 and Ukraine
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
In particular, the Global Fund is so important—my hon. Friend heard the statistics that I went through. In relation to the wider situation, the focus is very much on a cessation of hostilities and on humanitarian support, which is desperately needed.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree with many assessments that make it clear that Russia is actually in a far weaker position than President Putin pretends, so long as we continue to support the war effort in Ukraine? That depends on us developing more independent, non-American capability, and the best way to do that is to fund the Ukrainians to develop their own capabilities so that they can continue to defend their own country.
The Prime Minister
It is important that we make it clear that Russia is in a much weaker position than it pretends. We should always remember that the early briefings and intelligence in relation to this conflict indicated, at the very beginning of the war, that Russia would achieve its end in a matter of a few weeks. Here we are, nearly four years in, and because of the fearless defence of the Ukrainians, supported by others, that has not been the case.
In relation to the damage being done to Russia’s economy by sanctions and other financial issues, we can see that they are doing real damage if we look at the inflation rate and the impact on its economy. The hon. Gentleman’s central point is really important. The plans of the coalition of the willing are premised on Ukraine having the capability that it needs, around which the plans that we have put in place would operate—not as a substitute or an alternative, but based on the Ukrainians having the ability and capability within Ukraine to do what it needs to do to safeguard and self-protect.
Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
Hon. Members will know that there is a very long-standing custom whereby Ministers do not comment on the contents of the Prime Minister’s box, but under these particular circumstances I am very happy to confirm that there was no note to the Prime Minister.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I first invite the Minister to clarify what he said in response to my question last week? I pointed out that, in his letter to the Select Committee Chairs, the Director of Public Prosecutions was clear that he had asked for a statement that China was a national security threat, and it was not forthcoming. The Minister shook his head and appeared to dispute that. Will he now acknowledge that that statement was not forthcoming?
Furthermore, when the DPP informally approached the Government after the third statement of evidence had been supplied to him to complain that the words “national security threat” were still not contained in that document, the Government consciously chose not to give any further response. Is that correct? Why, at that point, given all the things that the DNSA had already said, did nobody in the Government think that they could use the three words “national security threat”?
Dan Jarvis
This is the third time that I have appeared at the Dispatch Box to answer questions from Members, including from the hon. Gentleman, so I hope that he will forgive me if I cannot remember the specific detail of the question that he put to me when we were last here. I have sought to provide clarity. In response to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) a moment ago, I gave a detailed account of the three statements from the deputy National Security Adviser.
We have been clear—as was the deputy National Security Adviser in the statements that we provided. The fact that China poses a range of threats to the UK is not in doubt. As the Government have said before, the question in this case was whether the overall legal threshold for a realistic prospect of conviction had been met in the totality of the evidence available to the CPS. Although I understand why Members will focus on the three individual statements from the deputy National Security Adviser, there was clearly other evidence available for the CPS to consider as part of this process. I could not have said more times or been more clear that the decision lies with the DPP.
Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Given that the deputy National Security Adviser is a civil servant and therefore accountable, who was holding him to account for the job that he was doing? May I just emphasise that I am sure he was doing his level and honourable best in the circumstances in which he found himself, but it is really beyond belief that—as became apparent from the third inquiry, where the Director of Public Prosecutions was asking for a clear statement that China was a national security threat—nobody was capable of telling him, “Well, actually, you’d better say that”? The idea that he was somehow beyond any influence from anybody is laughable. One can only conclude that this conspiracy of omission was something that the Government wanted because they did not want this trial to go ahead.
Chris Ward
No, that is really not the case. First, people who have worked with the DNSA will know that he is of the highest calibre and integrity on this matter. He presented evidence under successive Governments on this, devoid of any influence from advisers or Government on this side—I cannot say if that was the case under the previous Government, but I am sure it was. He presented that evidence freely and to the best of his ability under successive Governments.
Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
Any decision about the enhanced tier of FIRS will be brought forward to Parliament in the normal way. I can say to the hon. Member that any attempt by any foreign power to intimidate, harass or harm individuals or communities here in the UK will not be tolerated.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
We know the very basic facts, which is that the Director of Public Prosecutions asked for a statement from the Government to clarify that, at the time of the offence, China was a threat to national security. He says in his letter that such an assurance, or evidence, or a statement from the Government were not forthcoming. We know that the Government withheld that vital element of the case. The Minister is shaking his head, but who decided that, in the words of the DPP, it would “not be forthcoming”. Somebody decided that. He seems to be saying that it was the deputy National Security Adviser who is somehow accountable for making those decisions, but I question that point. To whom are they accountable, if not the National Security Adviser?
Dan Jarvis
Let me seek to clarify. The deputy National Security Adviser, who is a senior and highly regarded official with extensive experience in matters relating to national security, provided a witness statement in December 2023. That was under the previous Government, and I made that point earlier. Further witness statements were requested and provided, as I said earlier, in February and July this year. All the evidence provided by the deputy National Security Adviser was based on the law at the time of the offence and the policy position of the Government at the time. I can give the hon. Member an assurance that every effort was made to provide evidence to support this case within the constraints that I have just outlined. The decision about whether to proceed with the prosecution was ultimately taken by the DPP and the CPS, which were hamstrung by antiquated legislation.
G7 and NATO Summits
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. It is, of course, Armed Forces Week. Among other things, we have given the armed forces their single biggest pay increase in many years, and made a strong commitment to other aspects, including their accommodation. It is important that we recognise and reflect what they do for our country, and that we ensure we are able to retain the brilliance of our armed forces.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I very much welcome NATO’s commitment to 3.5% core defence spending, and 5% on a broader definition by 2035, for all NATO member states. However, the Prime Minister and the Government have published spending figures only up until 2030. When will they publish public spending plans for 2030 to 2035? Is it not incumbent on them to show how the target of 3.5% for core defence spending will be met by the Government? Otherwise, it is just an unfunded promise.
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman will know, when we presented the strategic defence review, we had already set out the path to 2.5% and the ambition for 3%. I think it is right that all NATO allies have now agreed the 5% by 2035, subject, of course, to review in 2029 of both the trajectory and balance. The reason for that, as he will understand, is that NATO itself is reviewing its capabilities in 2029, and the reviews will therefore coincide.