Oral Answers to Questions
Ellie Reeves Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Attorney General (Ellie Reeves)
We remain completely committed to upholding international law. That commitment reflects our values, but also the real benefits that international law brings to our everyday lives. It underpins the global rules that allow us to travel on holiday more easily and UK businesses to sell their goods abroad, and it enables greater co-operation between international law enforcement agencies, keeping our streets safer at home.
Edward Morello
President Trump’s Administration stated that they would dismantle the International Criminal Court “brick by brick”, and have imposed sanctions following ICC judge Navi Pillay being awarded the 2026 Nobel peace prize. The International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor has had access to emails and bank accounts removed, following sanctions by President Trump. What steps are the Government taking with European allies to uphold international law and human rights in the face of threats to the ICC by the US Administration?
The Attorney General
The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important point. The UK stands with the International Criminal Court, and we stand united with our partners in strongly disagreeing with the sanctions imposed on the Court. The ICC must be permitted to continue its critical work of holding perpetrators of the most horrific international crimes to account. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is in close contact with the Court and individuals impacted, to support them during this period.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Sometimes, this topic can seem abstract to residents in my constituency of Harlow, so could the Attorney General talk about the practical ways in which obeying international law can benefit my residents in Harlow?
The Attorney General
My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for the people of Harlow, including on the topic of international law, which brings real benefits to us. For example, when his constituents set off for their summer holidays—presumably from Stansted airport—the Chicago convention, which governs flights, enables them to do so safely and securely.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I think I am in the slightly novel position of being fresh to the Dispatch Box myself, but also able to welcome both the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to their new places, which I do with gusto.
Last month, the Attorney General published her new “Attorney General’s Legal Guidance”, a direction to all Government lawyers on how to advise Ministers on lawfulness and legal risk, which replaced the advice of Lord Hermer. Across the board, she has removed references to international law. She has removed Lord Hermer’s demand that
“the rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law”;
she has removed Lord Hermer’s direction that the Government
“should not invite Parliament to legislate contrary to international obligations”;
and she has removed the whole paragraph in which Lord Hermer instructed Government lawyers that compliance and respect for international law must be a critical factor in legal advice. She served as Solicitor General under Lord Hermer for a year. What persuaded her that his guidance to Government lawyers was wrong, and that the Conservatives were right all along that his guidance needed to be replaced?
The Attorney General
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post, and I am pleased that he has raised the updated legal risk guidance. This is a Government committed to getting things done, and I make it clear in the revised guidance that, where there is a tenable legal argument, we can take action. On international law, my new guidance makes it clear that domestic law and international law should be treated in the same way. It is important that we adhere to both, and that is set out in the guidance.
Jerome Mayhew
Having removed Lord Hermer’s focus on the importance of international law, the Attorney General has in fact added a new consideration: whether an international court has jurisdiction. This could have Chagos written all over it. Without express United Kingdom consent, there is no international court with binding jurisdiction over the sovereignty of the Chagos islands. Applying her own legal guidance, does the Attorney General now agree that the decision to cede sovereignty of the Chagos islands has never been a legal imperative forced on the Government, but is instead a political decision, taken by Labour?
The Attorney General
The military base at Diego Garcia is critical for our national security, and for keeping people safe here in Britain. Our priority has always been clear: to secure the long-term, effective operation of that base. Since its creation, there have been challenges relating to the base in various international courts and tribunals, threatening its long-term, secure operation. That is why we continue to work closely with the US and with Mauritius to find a way forward that is in the UK’s best interests, and that continues to protect our national security.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
The Attorney General (Ellie Reeves)
Stalking in all its forms is a horrendous, life-shattering crime. In September, I spoke at the national multi-agency conference, at which the Government and the third sector came together to discuss this issue; that involved analysing a non-domestic stalking case. We have asked Richard Wright KC to review the criminal law on stalking, which will be published shortly, and we have widened stalking protection orders, so that they can be put in place to protect victims after a conviction, as well as an acquittal.
Anna Dixon
I thank the Attorney General for her response. I recently spoke to two of my constituents, Julie and Jodie, about the repeated harassment they had experienced at the hands of a former neighbour. The police failed to link the incidents and reports, and to identify a pattern of behaviour as stalking. Could the Attorney General give additional assurance to me and my constituents that she will urgently look into how the CPS and the police assess and deal with non-domestic stalking, and ensure that training and standards are improved?
The Attorney General
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and I am deeply sorry to hear of Jodie and Julie’s experience. As part of our strategy to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, the Government will soon issue new statutory, multi-agency guidance on stalking, setting out a robust framework for the police, the CPS, local authorities and healthcare services, so that they can better recognise and respond to this crime. In the meantime, if my hon. Friend wants to pass on details of this case, I will happily raise it with the CPS.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
The Attorney General (Ellie Reeves)
Last month, I announced the national roll-out of the CPS victim transformation programme, including a universal service for all victims, and an enhanced service for domestic abuse survivors; an enhanced service is already offered to victims of rape. Under the enhanced service, every domestic abuse victim will have a dedicated victim liaison officer, who will remain a point of contact from charge through to trial. I said that I would put victims at the heart of the justice system, and we are getting on and delivering on that commitment.
Zöe Franklin
I thank the Attorney General for her answer, but a constituent from Guildford has endured repeated delays to a domestic abuse prosecution. Causes included the Crown Prosecution Service failing to secure a barrister, and a trial collapsing after eight days as the proceedings had overrun and jurors could no longer continue, due to other commitments. She now faces the prospect of waiting for justice until June 2028, almost five years after her husband’s arrest. By then, there is a real risk that crucial evidence will have been lost. Does the Attorney General recognise that administrative failures like these undermine victims’ confidence in the criminal justice system? What accountability is there when CPS failings cause such devastating delays?
The Attorney General
I am very sorry to hear of the hon. Member’s constituent’s experience. If she wants to provide details of the case, I will raise it directly with the CPS. She is absolutely right that victims deserve timely justice. Delays can have a profound impact on victims. That is why the Government are taking action to deliver a faster and more effective justice system, including investing at record levels in maximising court capacity. We have invested an additional £96 million in the CPS, increasing its funding by more than 10% between 2026 and 2029. That means more prosecutors being able to make charging decisions, prepare cases for court and bring offenders to justice.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
With Cumbria experiencing rates of domestic abuse significantly higher than the England average, and with victims often feeling traumatised by the process of securing justice, how is the Attorney General working with the CPS to ensure victims’ voices are not ignored by the justice system?
The Attorney General
Under the enhanced service that victims of domestic abuse will now be offered by the CPS, they will have a dedicated victim liaison officer supporting them from charge through to trial. Also, in three CPS areas, we are piloting offering victims of domestic abuse in the Crown court a pre-trial meeting with the prosecution team, to support them on their journey to justice.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Attorney General (Ellie Reeves)
Last month, the Government announced plans to roll out specialist rape and serious sexual offences courtrooms in every Crown court across England and Wales. The courtrooms will transform how the justice system treats survivors of some of the most serious crimes, and will ensure a victim-focused, trauma-informed approach. The changes are designed to encourage more victims to come forward, and will prioritise their cases by fixing trial dates to avoid delays and last-minute changes.
Lee Barron
It is almost two years since Harshita Brella was murdered in Corby, her body dumped in the boot of a car. An arrest warrant was issued for Harshita’s husband, who fled the country. Will the Minister raise Harshita’s case with other relevant Departments, and give her family the reassurance that all is being done to bring Harshita the justice that she and her family so desperately deserve?
The Attorney General
My hon. Friend raises a deeply concerning case. Our thoughts remain with Harshita’s family as they continue to seek justice for their daughter. I would, of course, be happy to raise this matter with my ministerial colleagues and get back to him.
Sarah Olney
Last year, the Public Accounts Committee warned that the Government would not meet their manifesto commitment to halve violence against women and girls if they did not get to grips with the evolving nature of abuse. Technologically facilitated abuse is growing rapidly; referrals to Refuge rose by nearly 80% last year. This includes intimate image abuse; offences rose by 27%. However, over the same period, the proportion of cases resulting in a charge fell from 5.8% to 4.5%. What steps is the Attorney General taking to help increase prosecution rates in cases of technologically facilitated abuse?
The Attorney General
The hon. Lady is right to point out the deeply worrying rise in tech-facilitated abuse. In July, I hosted a roundtable with the CPS, police and third sector, specifically to focus on tech-facilitated violence against women and girls. The CPS will publish a dedicated action plan on tech-facilitated violence against women and girls, building on its VAWG strategy, which was published last November.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The Attorney General (Ellie Reeves)
The Government are clear that it is firmly in the UK’s interests to remain a member of the European convention on human rights. The ECHR has allowed people to object when “do not resuscitate” orders are put on their beds without their consent, and it is the reason why victims of rapists such as John Warboys have been able to force the police to investigate rather than being turned away. That is why I will continue to defend the ECHR, and why the UK played a leading role in the Chiinău declaration, working to modernise the ECHR with our European partners.
Susan Murray
The Conservatives and Reform want to leave the ECHR—a convention Winston Churchill championed—putting us alongside Russia and Belarus. Does the Attorney General agree that that is no place for a country that helped to write it?
The Attorney General
Our commitment to the ECHR is clear. It plays an important role in all aspects of our life, including in the Good Friday agreement, for example, which would unravel without it. It is important that we ensure that we modernise where necessary, but our commitment is steadfast.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The Attorney General (Ellie Reeves)
Domestic abuse has a significant impact on victims and their families, and those who are brave enough to come forward deserve to have their cases resolved quickly. Last month, I announced the national roll-out of enhanced services for survivors of domestic abuse. That service will mean that victims of domestic abuse will be provided with a dedicated victim liaison officer, providing better support from charge to trial.
Mr Forster
Last month, Your Sanctuary, a women’s refuge in my constituency, hosted a conference to tackle domestic abuse. One of its key asks is tackling the 2020 harm review, “Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases”, which has not been implemented. What steps is the Attorney General taking to correct that wrong?
The Attorney General
I have taken many steps to tackle domestic abuse, from rolling out the enhanced service offered to victims of domestic abuse to piloting pre-trial meetings with the prosecution team for victims of domestic abuse. This is a Government who are committed to halving violence against women and girls in a decade, and we are getting on with the job.
Early Victims’ Right to Review: Rape and Serious Sexual Offences
Ellie Reeves Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Solicitor General (Ellie Reeves)
The Government are committed to improving victims’ confidence in the criminal justice system and ensuring that victims’ voices are heard throughout the prosecution process.
Today, I am pleased to announce that, following successful testing in four Crown Prosecution Service areas since summer 2025, this new, early review—called the “early victims’ right to review”—will be extended across England and Wales from 13 July 2026 for victims of rape and serious sexual offences.
Under the current victims’ right to review scheme, victims may request a review of certain CPS decisions after a case has concluded. However, where a prosecutor formally offers no evidence and proceedings are brought to an end, the prosecution cannot be restarted, even if a reviewing prosecutor subsequently reaches a different conclusion.
To address this, the CPS is piloting a new approach in RASSO cases. Where a prosecutor proposes to offer no evidence, victims will be notified before the decision becomes final and given the opportunity to request a review at that stage. If the reviewing prosecutor reaches a different conclusion, the prosecution will be able to continue. This provides an important opportunity that is not available once proceedings have formally ended under the current arrangements.
Once a victim has been told by a prosecutor about a proposed decision to end their case, the victim can decide if they want a further review by an independent prosecutor. To ensure certainty for victims and defendants, requests must be made within five working days of the victim being notified of the proposed decision, or sooner in urgent cases. The CPS will aim to complete reviews within 20 working days, although reviews may be completed more quickly where forthcoming trial dates require a faster response.
If the victim does not request a review within the specified period, the proposed decision will proceed through the usual approval process and, if approved, no evidence will be offered. In all cases which are stopped victims will continue to have access to the existing victims’ right to review scheme in the usual way. Information on how to exercise that right will be provided when the CPS confirms its final decision.
This new process represents a significant step towards strengthening victims’ rights and ensuring that victims of rape and serious sexual offences have an earlier opportunity to challenge a proposed decision that would otherwise bring proceedings to an end.
The pilot will be available in all CPS areas across England and Wales. Its operation and impact will be monitored and evaluated.
[HCWS182]
Alleged Spying Case: Role of Attorney General’s Office
Ellie Reeves Excerpts(1 year 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
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Solicitor General if she will make a statement about the role of the Attorney General’s Office in the decision to drop the China spy prosecution.
The Solicitor General (Ellie Reeves)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this urgent question, following the deeply disappointing collapse of the prosecution case concerning two individuals charged under the Official Secrets Act 1911.
It is a bedrock constitutional principle that prosecutions in this country are free from political influence. This means that it is prosecutors, not politicians, who decide which cases to prosecute; it is prosecutors, not politicians, who decide what evidence will be used at criminal trials; and it is prosecutors, not politicians, who decide when cases should be dropped.
Although individual decisions are made independently and protected from political influence, the Crown Prosecution Service as an organisation is superintended by the Attorney General by virtue of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The details of what that means in practice are set out in the framework agreement between the Law Officers and the Director of Public Prosecutions, signed by the then Attorney General under the previous Government. The framework makes it plain that the role of the CPS is to take independent decisions on individual cases referred to it by the police and other criminal investigation authorities based on the evidence available and the public interest in pursuing a prosecution, which accords with the code for Crown prosecutors.
There are a limited number of offences, including those under the Official Secrets Act, for which Parliament has made statutory provision requiring the Attorney General’s consent to prosecute in individual cases. In doing so, the Law Officer acts in a quasi-judicial capacity independently of Government and applies the same two- stage test as the code. Consent was given by my predecessor on 3 April 2024. Following that date, no Law Officer intervened in the case at any stage; it would have been wholly inappropriate for them to do so.
Once consent is given, the Law Officer plays no ongoing role. If the prosecutor contemplates dropping the case because of evidential reasons, they are required to inform the Attorney General of the decision as soon as it has been taken. That is what happened in this case. The DPP and senior Treasury counsel have already confirmed that the decision to offer no evidence in this case was made without any political influence, and the Cabinet Secretary, Director of Public Prosecutions, Attorney General and Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will all give written and oral evidence to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy this and next week.
The ongoing disinformation around the collapse of this case is now distracting from the most important issue that we should all be focused on, which is how the Government can work across parties and with the UK law enforcement community to ensure that Chinese espionage and interference is not successful in the UK.
Robert Jenrick
Let me cut to the chase. It is standard practice for the CPS to inform the Attorney General if a case of political significance that had required Attorney General consent in the first place is likely to be dropped. We are told that the Attorney General was informed that this case was at risk but had not formally been ended in August. Is this correct? Can the Solicitor General provide the exact date of that meeting?
It would have been the Attorney General’s duty to ask why the case was at risk. That does not mean seeking to change the independent judgment of the CPS on whether to proceed, but it could and should have meant asking and ensuring that more evidence be provided to the CPS at its request. It was abundantly clear that the CPS was asking for further evidence on the question of whether China posed a current threat to national security, so the Attorney General and the Government had a decision to make: whether to provide the evidence or not, even if they thought that it was excessive to do so.
The Attorney General must have understood what was required. We are told that he is an eminent lawyer, so what did he do the moment he knew? Who did he inform within Government, and when? Did he inform the Prime Minister or his office? Did he take any steps to ensure that the evidence was provided?
We know that on 1 September the director general of the AG’s Office attended a meeting at which the case was discussed. At that point, the case could still have been salvaged. At that meeting, did the Attorney General’s Office push for further evidence to be provided? Following that meeting, The Sunday Times has reported that the Attorney General’s Office was asked to speak to the CPS. Can the SG confirm whether anyone from the AGO spoke directly or indirectly to the CPS?
The AG knew that the case was going to collapse in August. He knew what was required to save it, but—unless the Solicitor General can provide a compelling account today—we must all conclude that the AG, on behalf of the Government, chose not to provide it. He may not have killed the case, but he allowed it to die. There are examples in the recent past of AGs having the candour to come to the House and explain that the Government and the prosecuting authorities have chosen to drop cases that raise the highest national security questions for diplomatic reasons. Will the SG today have the candour to do exactly the same with this case?
The Solicitor General
Today we have heard from the shadow Justice Secretary yet more of the baseless smears that have characterised the Conservative party’s approach to a matter of such importance to this House and the whole nation. He knows that the Attorney General will give evidence next week—as soon as Tuesday—to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy.
Like me, the shadow Justice Secretary trained and practised in law, so he should know the importance of consistency when putting a case together. Yet his words today have brought only more confusion to the Conservatives’ chaotic approach. First, they accused the Government of political interference in this case without evidence. When that was disproven, they argued that we did not interfere but should have interfered in an independent prosecution—so which is it? Their approach has served only to distract from their own failings, and frankly does a disservice to the history and heritage of their party.
I respectfully remind the House that part of the reason we find ourselves in this situation is because the Conservatives spent their years in government fighting among themselves and not fixing glaring holes in our national security laws. The charges in this case were brought under the Official Secrets Act—
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Jenrick, when you get a UQ, you get your time, and I want you to be heard in silence, quite rightly, because this is an important issue that affects this House—but I do not need barracking from the Opposition Benches. I want you to help me. If you wish to catch my eye in the future, this is not the best way to do so.
The Solicitor General
The charges in this case were brought under the Official Secrets Act 1911—outdated legislation, drawn up even before the dawn of world war one. As I said, the Attorney General, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, the deputy National Security Adviser, the Cabinet Secretary and the Director of Public Prosecutions will all appear before the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy next week, and the Government have committed to fully engaging with Committees across both Houses as this issue is rightly scrutinised.
Along with proper parliamentary scrutiny, another core tenet of our democracy is a prosecution service free of political interference. That is something that we on this side of the House will always defend.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Given that the Conservatives, during their 14 years of chaotic power, sought to develop an even closer relationship with China, can I urge the Government to continue Labour’s approach, which is to look at opportunities to work together while not compromising our values and national interest at any time?
The Solicitor General
I agree with my hon. Friend’s position. I remind the House that the test in this case applied to how China was viewed under the previous Government, not this one.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Throughout these revelations, Ministers and the Prime Minister’s spokesperson have repeatedly claimed that the Government had no sight of the witness statements and no input. The PM himself said that at Prime Minister’s questions last week. But the Government Legal Service’s own guidance requires the Attorney General to be consulted on the most sensitive legal cases involving the Government. In a case as high profile as this, where the very integrity of Parliament and our national security was at stake, did the Attorney General—the Government’s top legal adviser—really not review the witness statements before they were submitted on behalf of the Government? If not, please could the Solicitor General tell us why not? Given the very serious national security implications, will the SG commit to a statutory independent inquiry into why the case collapsed, and will she please update the House as to when the Government will share the full China audit with the Intelligence and Security Committee?
The Solicitor General
As I set out in my answer to the urgent question, the previous Law Officers gave consent to prosecute in April 2024. After that happens, it is right that there is no further involvement of Law Officers in cases. In accordance with the framework, that is how things work. It is right that politicians do not interfere with prosecutions in criminal cases, and that is what happened in this case once consent to prosecute was granted.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
May I just start by saying that nobody in this House is disputing the independence of the prosecution or indeed the judicial officers? Nobody has had any dispute on that point at all. The question is a different one. It is whether an official who is giving evidence not on his behalf, but on behalf of the Government, should have had any communication with his own Government after the prosecutor said that the evidence was not sufficient.
One argument is that if the Government are not supplying enough evidence, surely they should supply a little bit more. But the argument that the Government are using is that the official gave evidence on the basis of the previous Government’s view between 2021 and 2023. Well, that is a little odd, because the Labour party manifesto was not written until 2024, and yet he quotes it in his evidence. There is an incoherence here: either he is giving evidence on the basis of the previous Government’s view between 2021 and 2023, in which case the Labour party manifesto is irrelevant, or he is reflecting the view of the Government post 2024, in which case the quotation of the Labour party manifesto is relevant. Which is it?
The Solicitor General
In terms of the witness statements, to start with the first and by far most substantive witness statement was the one made under the previous Government. In relation to more recent statements, the Conservatives’ starting argument was that the Government in some way interfered with the evidence, and now they seem to be criticising the fact that we did not interfere with the evidence. It is right that the deputy National Security Adviser gave that evidence free from any political interference, as has been confirmed numerous times in this House already.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) is quite right. Throughout the whole saga, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) made clear, there have been conflicting stories about who did what, and why it could or could not be done, all in the same breath. But we know the rules require that the Attorney General is consulted on matters that are politically sensitive. It does not cut across his independence; it simply means that he or she has to be informed at the time. We understand from the Director of Public Prosecutions that the Attorney General must have been told that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. If so, the Attorney General’s role in this matter—independently—is to say to the authorities in the Government, “You are not providing sufficient evidence. This prosecution will collapse unless you do.” Did the Attorney General say to the Government, “You are not providing enough evidence to secure a prosecution. It is over to you to do as you have been asked by the DPP”?
The Solicitor General
The Attorney General will be giving his evidence to the Committee next week. I think it is right to say that the case was dropped by the CPS not on public interest grounds but on evidential grounds. When a case is dropped on evidential grounds, the framework sets out that the Law Officers be informed when that has happened, and not that there is consultation beforehand. This is a case that did not continue on evidential grounds.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Given the important national security implications of this whole sorry case, what assessment has the Attorney General’s Office made of the impact that the decision may have on confidence in our ability to prosecute alleged foreign interference?
The Solicitor General
This case was prosecuted under legislation that was in force when the alleged offences were committed in 2021 to 2023. The law has now changed—it took the Conservative party many years to tighten up national security legislation; it passed with support from Labour Members—and under the legislation as it stands now, it is easier to bring prosecutions of this nature because the enemy test no longer has to be satisfied.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Attorney General has a duty to superintend prosecution agencies. The Government have previously defined superintendence as, inter alia,
“a right for the Attorney General to be consulted and informed about difficult, sensitive and high-profile cases”,
of which this is clearly one. Given that the Attorney General is responsible by statute for the superintendence of the Crown Prosecution Service and overall super- intendency of the DPP, and additionally has the requirement for consent to prosecute certain categories of criminal offences such as those relating to official secrets, what action did the Attorney General take once he had been informed of the potential collapse of the China spying trial?
The Solicitor General
As I have set out, consent to prosecute in this case had to be granted by Law Officers, and that was done under the previous Government. Once consent is granted, it is for the CPS to prosecute a case, rightly without political interference. This case was discontinued by the CPS on evidential grounds, as opposed to public interest grounds. I am sure that the hon. Member is aware of the two-part test for prosecutors. When a case is discontinued on evidential grounds, it is not for the CPS to consult with Law Officers in advance of that. I say again that the Attorney General will first give written evidence this week and then oral evidence on Tuesday.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
None of it makes sense—not the collapsed trial, Chagos or the embassy—but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) says, it all makes sense if the Government have prioritised a strategic relationship with communist China, does it not?
The Solicitor General
I politely remind the right hon. Gentleman that this case was to be tried under the Government’s position in relation to China between 2021 and 2023, when his party was in Government.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Solicitor General has repeatedly said that prosecutors and not politicians should decide whether to prosecute. Of course that is the case, but that is a straw man argument. The issue here is not political interference in the decision to prosecute, but political interference in the evidence that was given to the CPS, affecting its ability to prosecute. We have been told that the Attorney General was informed. Why was he informed, if not to allow him to take action to perfect the evidence? Why did he not?
The Solicitor General
The Prime Minister and the DPP have both confirmed that there was no political interference in the evidence given by the deputy National Security Adviser, and rightly so. The Conservative party cannot have it both ways: first, the argument was that we interfered with the evidence and now it seems to be that we did not. Which is it?
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
The Sunday Times reported that, following a key meeting on 1 September, the Attorney General’s Office was asked to speak to the CPS. Did anyone from the Attorney General’s Office speak directly or indirectly to the CPS after that meeting?
The Solicitor General
There was a meeting on 1 September in relation to this matter, which, as I understand it, took place on the basis that the prosecution would go ahead. It was to discuss bilateral relations with China in the context of the ongoing legal case.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Director of Public Prosecutions has said that the case was dropped because efforts over many months to get evidence that China represented a threat to national security were not forthcoming from this Government. When was the Attorney General informed that the case was at risk and what did he do?
The Solicitor General
In order for this case to succeed, it was based on the relationship with China at the time of the offences and how China was viewed then. I have already referred to the meeting on 1 September, which was on the presumption that the case would continue. The Attorney General will set out his evidence to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy next week.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I previously asked the Security Minister about the lack of inclusion of China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. What input or advice has the Attorney General or the Solicitor General given to the Government on that? Given the ongoing situation, will she now reconsider and push for the Government to do that?
The Solicitor General
Under the law as it now stands, it would be easier to bring prosecutions in cases such as these. We are deeply disappointed that this prosecution did not go ahead, but I will get back to him on the specific points that he raises.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Solicitor General has expressed several times her and, presumably, the Government’s disappointment at the fact that this did not go to trial. That disappointment would suggest that she and the Government wish for an alternative outcome. The simple point that I and my constituents cannot get our heads around—they have contacted me about this because they are outraged and concerned—is that if the Government wish for an alternative outcome, why did they not exhaust every single possibility to bolster the case of the CPS? Regardless of interference, and there is no question of political interference, why did they not exhaust every single opportunity to put the CPS in the strongest possible position to ensure a successful prosecution?
The Solicitor General
The Government are disappointed that this prosecution did not go ahead. If the previous Conservative Government had tightened our laws in relation to national security before 2022, we may not have found ourselves in this position. It is absolutely right that there was no political interference with the witness evidence. It is an important part of our constitution that criminal prosecutions are done without political interference.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
When was the Attorney General informed that the case was going to collapse?
The Solicitor General
The Attorney General will be setting out his evidence to the Joint Committee next Tuesday.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
To be perfectly honest, I do not know what the point is in me asking this question, because we have had two weeks of statements and urgent questions, and Ministers keep attacking straw men and answering questions that are not actually being asked. It is pathetic.
On Monday, the Security Minister came to the House and was asked several times when the Home Secretary knew that the case was going to collapse and what representations she made to ensure that the case was as strong as possible. He did not answer that several times. When did the Home Secretary know? What representations did she make and to whom did she make them? Surely among them was the National Security Adviser, the Prime Minister and the Attorney General.
The Solicitor General
I do not speak on behalf of the Home Secretary, but I am sure that she will be happy to address the hon. Member’s points.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the Solicitor General to her new role and wish her every success and happiness in it—hopefully it will not be as hard the next time round. As the Chinese spy prosecution case rolls on and on, concerns on the ground are growing about the state of national security and our intelligence community. Does she accept the lack of confidence that has arisen from the handling of this case? What can be done to assure British citizens that their interests and security are the top priority for this Government, not trade links with China?
The Solicitor General
I thank the hon. Member for those kind words. This case was brought under the Official Secrets Act. There is now new legislation in place, which means it is no longer necessary to prove the enemy part of the test in order to bring a successful prosecution. That will make it easier to bring prosecutions of this nature in future. It is regretful that the previous Government did not bring in this legislation sooner. Had they done so, I expect we would not have found ourselves in the situation we are in today.
Robert Jenrick
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I ask your advice? Unusually, the Attorney General does not sit in the House of Commons. When I submitted written parliamentary questions to the Attorney General, they were answered by the Solicitor General, but the Solicitor General refused to provide answers for the Attorney General, only answering for herself. Today, understandably, the Attorney General could not come to the House because he is not a Member of the House, but the Solicitor General repeatedly refused to give answers on behalf of the Attorney General. She referred to the Attorney General’s written answers and to a Select Committee hearing which is ordinarily held in private. How does the House of Commons hold the Attorney General to account?