Chinese Embassy
Debate between Dan Jarvis and Kieran Mullan(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
It is not. It is about the importance of engaging confidently and pragmatically, in a way that will enable us to take opportunities where they present themselves and where it is in our national security. As I made clear in my earlier remarks, that is not just about economic co-operation; there are other areas where we need to co-operate with China. I referenced three in my opening comments: organised immigration crime, serious organised crime and narcotics trafficking. Those are important areas where we need to work with China. Ultimately, the most important thing is that we safeguard our national security. That is why we have worked incredibly hard to look carefully at the detail of this proposal and to make sure we have the right mitigations in place.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Will the Minister explain how, by giving China the embassy it wants, the Government are demonstrating that they are holding China responsible for—in his words—“unacceptable behaviour” that they will not stand for?
Dan Jarvis
In part, it is because of the reduction in the diplomatic estate from seven sites to one.
Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case
Debate between Dan Jarvis and Kieran Mullan(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Member referenced the China audit; I am sure that he will acknowledge that the then Foreign Secretary came to the House to give a statement specifically on the China audit. The reason why the China audit has not been published is that it is at a higher classification than documents that would normally be published.
I hope that the hon. Member’s second point was at least a tacit welcome of the Government’s elections Bill. There will be a number of measures in there, which I hope that he and his colleagues will be able to support. It is important that we seek to work together to transform the political landscape to make it much, much harder for those who seek to interfere in our democracy to do so.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Minister has made great play of the need to work cross-party on this issue. May I gently suggest to him that the time to do that was before the case collapsed, not afterwards?
The Minister has leant heavily on what officials are willing to say about the threat or otherwise that China poses, but officials do not make Government policy and do not state the position of the UK Government; Ministers do. If the Government were struggling to find an official who would say in a witness statement that China was a threat, is there any good reason why they could not have asked the former Security Minister to do so, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who was happy to give a statement at the Dispatch Box? I am sure that many other former Government Ministers would have happily given evidence that China was a threat, enabling the case to proceed. What possible reason was there for not doing that?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Member talks about my making great play of the need to work cross-party, but that is because I genuinely believe that on important matters of national security, we should proceed in a certain way, and where possible, we seek to work across the political divide to establish consensus. I thought there was a slight irony in the point that he went on to make. I agree with him that Ministers are accountable, and if Opposition Members want to hold Ministers to account, that is absolutely a matter for them. What I think is most unfortunate—I am not saying that he was responsible for doing this, but others have done it—is when Members seek to blame officials or imply criticism of them. I do not think that is the right way to proceed.