Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend and the others who attended the UN Commission on the Status of Women event. We are committed to halving violence against women and girls wherever it takes place, whether that is online, offline or on our streets. That includes banning deepfakes and tackling non-consensual intimate images and abusive, vile content online.

Following up from last week, I was deeply concerned that Travelodge cancelled its meeting with MPs. I want it to put that right and put it right swiftly.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

Q2. In January last year, I raised with the Prime Minister the issue of inadequate and inaccessible compensation for those injured by covid vaccinations. The Prime Minister undertook to look into it, along with the Health Secretary, but I am afraid that more than a year later no significant progress has been made. I know that the Prime Minister and the Government recognise the risk that this issue poses to public confidence in mass vaccination—all the more important given the Prime Minister’s opening remarks in this session—and, indeed, the pain it has caused to those who have been injured or lost loved ones for doing only what their Government asked them to do. Will the Prime Minister please re-engage with this issue and ensure that his Government make swift progress in resolving it?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. and learned Member for raising that, and I acknowledge the question he asked me last year. I pay tribute to him and to Kate for her campaign. It is vital that we look closely at the rare and tragic cases where things went wrong. We must not fail to do so, so that we maintain confidence in our health service—important in relation to covid, of course, but, as he rightly points out, important today as well. We are committed to looking at reforms to the vaccine damage payment scheme and engaging with those affected to ensure that it meets their needs. We expect the fourth module of the covid inquiry to report next month, which will look specifically at the issue he has raised. I can reassure him that we will look at other recommendations very closely.

China: Foreign Interference Arrests

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

As I hope the Minister would accept, the last trial of those accused of alleged espionage on behalf of China foundered—to put it at its mildest—because of a lack of shared understanding between the Crown Prosecution Service and the Government about the evidence that the Government could properly submit in support of that prosecution. I do not expect him to comment about the specifics of this case, but would he accept that it would be sensible for the Government now to ensure that as this matter develops, no such misunderstanding occurs, and that the relationship between the CPS and the Government is in the right place to ensure that evidential conversations are held early rather than late? Finally, would he accept that it would be sensible for the Intelligence and Security Committee to be kept up to date as this matter develops, given that we meet in private and the risks of prejudicing future prosecutions are lower in our case?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member and share in much of the analysis that he has brought forward. Misunderstandings are never helpful and, under these circumstances, above all else we will ensure that there are no misunderstandings. He knows the disappointment that is felt across Government, and within the agencies and law enforcement, about where we got to back in the autumn. Of course, I give him an absolute assurance and commitment that we will do everything we need to do to ensure that the CPS is able to make a judgment; but, as he will understand, that has to be independent of Government. His point about the ISC is absolutely right. He will understand that events have moved incredibly quickly this morning and that we will want to take a moment later today to reflect on what needs to happen next, but I give him an absolute assurance that we want to work closely with the ISC as part of the process.

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address Motion

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Ward]

Yes, absolutely; that should be the guiding principle as we go through. The test at the end should be not only whether we have complied with the motion, which obviously we will, but whether it has helped to restore transparency and trust for the public.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr Speaker; I apologise for having missed the Minister’s opening remarks, but I did hear him endorse the integrity of the ISC. I entirely agree. It is important that I say from the Conservative Benches, just as my Committee colleague the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) said from the Liberal Democrat Benches, that we have full confidence in the integrity of the Labour members of the ISC to do the job that the House has commissioned us to do.

May I put to the Minister a point about the problems that the Government now have? It seems to me that the potential problems for them in complying with the Humble Address are: first, the volume of material that it may cover and, secondly, what the Metropolitan police wish us to hold for the purposes of their investigation. On the first point, does he agree that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) put it to him—if the Government seek to moderate the terms of the Humble Address in any way to take account of the volume, they must come back to the House for its consent? On the material that may concern the Metropolitan police, does he agree that as it will not be made public if it is submitted to the ISC, there is no reason to slow down the referral of documents to my Committee simply because of concerns the police may have that if material is made public it may prejudice a future trial?

[Chris Ward]

I completely endorse the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes about the independence and integrity of the ISC. He identifies two very fair points. I say that not as a reason not to comply; it is just the reality of the complexity of what we are dealing with. The volume is larger than in other Humble Addresses—that is not a complaint, but a statement of fact. However, there is no attempt to narrow the scope and no attempt to narrow the motion. The process that the Cabinet Office is going through is to define the scope and harness what falls within it.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about the Metropolitan police is well made. The Met and the Government both recognise that, ultimately, Parliament retains the right to publish material, but obviously a responsible Government will wish to act in a way that does not prejudice an ongoing live case, which we would all like to see reach a conclusion. We are working through these matters; they are complicated, but he raises them in exactly the right fashion.

Royal Assent

Lord Mandelson

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

I am glad that the hon. Lady agrees with us that the ISC should be used in this context. I am glad that there is agreement between her and me that those on the Government Front Bench should use the ISC to act in this way. I hope that other Labour Members will take the same view as that extremely experienced parliamentarian.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that?

[Alex Burghart]

I will give way one more time.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

Since my hon. Friend mentions the Intelligence and Security Committee, of which I am a member, may I put this to him? The purpose of the ISC is not to act as some filter to decide what should go to the rest of Parliament; it is to act on behalf of Parliament to consider material that Parliament, for good reason, cannot see. This is a motion about whether the Government should disclose all the relevant material to Parliament. In that context, is it not a perfectly usable and familiar mechanism for Parliament in circumstances such as these, by which the Government may disclose anything that they do not believe the whole Chamber can see to the Intelligence and Security Committee?

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. and learned Friend speaks from a position of experience. He is entirely right; the House is fortunate to have the ISC and that is one of the functions that it can perform. The Government can have reassurance on national security and the House can have reassurance that no material is being kept from it that the Government might find embarrassing.

In his remarks, will the Paymaster General, who I know will have had nothing to do with this and who I know is a man of integrity, think seriously about the options of gisting and the role that the ISC can play in that and make sure that the Government are not marking their own homework? It is important that our constituents and this House have confidence in what the Government provide us with.

Before I hand over to other Members, let me move briefly on to the conduct of Lord Mandelson while he was our ambassador in Washington, which I think is relevant to our debate because it again exposes the Prime Minister’s lack of judgment in appointing him. There is obviously strong evidence to suggest that Mandelson behaved entirely inappropriately when he was Secretary of State under the last Labour Government, but equally big questions are now outstanding about what was happening in 2025 in Washington—as I said, this is relevant now. On 27 February 2025, the Prime Minister, while in Washington, visited the American data and AI company Palantir at its headquarters. The meeting did not appear in the Prime Minister’s register of visits; it only came to light later.

Palantir, we should remind ourselves, was a client of Global Counsel, the company in which Peter Mandelson had a commanding share. Later that year, Palantir received from this Government a £240 million deal. That deal was granted by direct award. Given the allegations now coming to light about Mandelson’s conduct, will the Minister assure the House that the Cabinet Secretary will review the circumstances around the award of that contract, and assure himself that there are no other such contracts, no other undisclosed meetings, and that the Government will go through all communications and messages that Mandelson sent out while he was ambassador, some of which we must assume, were sent to old business contacts, a potential few business contacts, and so on?

The Prime Minister knew that Peter Mandelson had maintained an unhealthy relationship with a man who was a convicted paedophile, and he appointed him to the role of ambassador anyway. Everybody in this House should be shocked by that. It must be concluded that had the Prime Minister been pressed on that point at the time, the appointment would not have been made, because the Prime Minister knew, his aides knew—but the appointment was made anyway. What else did he know? Only after this Humble Address, and only if the Government treat it in good faith, will we know that. I very much hope that we do not find that there are gaps in our security and vetting process. If there are, the Government will be able to fix them. I think it also likely that we will see reports that consistently raised concerns which were swept away. It will then be the duty of the Government to disclose who swept them away, and why. Ultimate responsibility must rest with the Prime Minister. It is time for him to take responsibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I think my hon. Friend and I have similar memories of that particular Parliament. To give an example, in the motion relating to Lebedev, we included the words,

“in a form which may contain redactions, but such redactions shall be solely for the purposes of national security.”

When I was involved in drafting Humble Addresses, I was very precise about that.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I am really grateful to the Minister for giving way. I know that he takes the role of the ISC very seriously, and I appreciate that he is trying to help the House with what he has just said. However, he will appreciate that the difficulty for the House is that it needs to decide what to do in relation to the motion before it today; Members on both sides will have to decide how they should cast their vote. Although there is some reassurance in the fact that the Intelligence and Security Committee will be involved in the Cabinet Secretary’s process, that will not be possible before we have to reach a decision on this motion.

The principle here is surely this: the whole House cannot see everything. I have sympathy with the Minister in relation to national security material and, I am bound to say, rather more sympathy than my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) with regard to potentially sensitive material on international relations. Following the comments made by Government Members, including the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), is not the answer today that those on the Opposition Front would accept their motion including the concept that, if material is sensitive, it would be supplied only to the ISC, not to the whole House, but that everything should be disclosed to the House either via that route or via a route to the whole House?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Beyond the deadline to amend the motion—a familiar situation that the right hon. and learned Member and I have found ourselves in before—I want to say something very clearly. I hope the House takes my previous answer on this as having been given in good faith—

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to disturb the debate in this way. I have tried to follow it as much as possible while I have been in and out of the Chamber with other duties. A manuscript amendment has been agreed, with, I take it, cross-party agreement. People will be making up their minds on how to vote on that amendment, and we therefore need clarity—those on the Front Bench could intervene now to clarify this for me. I want to get this absolutely clear. We are all going to vote for the material to be released; there is consensus on that. The difference is with regard to who interprets what is released. The manuscript amendment excepts elements of information that are prejudicial to national security and international relations,

“which shall instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.”

I agree with that, but I would like clarity on whether the Intelligence and Security Committee will make the decision about publication, or—[Interruption.] Please listen. Will it make the decision or will it simply advise the Government and the final decision will rest with the Government? It would be helpful to have that clarified before we vote.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I recognise that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asks in order to assist the House. If it is of assistance, the answer to his question is that when the material is referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Committee, which is independent, will act independently: it will consider the material referred to it and then decide how to respond, what to refer to publicly and what not to refer to publicly. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Committee will act independently in this matter, as it does in all matters.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ward]

I will give way one more time to the former Attorney General, and then I will move on.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way; I know he wants to move on to the motion, but just before he does so, I would be grateful for some reassurance from him on a point that was raised by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. The Minister has moved the manuscript amendment. If the House passes this motion with the manuscript amendment, a volume of material will reach the Intelligence and Security Committee. He knows that our administrative resources are limited, and we do not know what volume of material may be coming our way. The House will expect us to do a thorough job and we will seek to do one, but can he reassure me, and the House, that the Committee will have the additional administrative resources, if it needs them, to consider that material properly?

[Chris Ward]

I thank the right and learned Member for his speech earlier and for his point. Absolutely, yes; I completely recognise the point he is making. A lot of documents are covered by this motion—that is not a complaint; it is an observation. The ISC has the authority and respect of this House, and it would need resources to go with this task. If that is agreed, we will ensure that it gets those resources in the usual way.

Chinese Embassy

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the vice-chair of the ISC.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

As you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House would expect, the Intelligence and Security Committee has investigated the security implications of this proposal, and specifically whether the intelligence community had sufficient opportunity to feed in any security concerns, and whether Ministers had the necessary information on which to base a decision. I want to quote directly from our conclusions, which represent the Committee’s unanimous view:

“On the basis of the evidence we have received, and having carefully reviewed the nuanced national security considerations, the Committee has concluded that, taken as a whole, the national security concerns that arise can be satisfactorily mitigated.”

I will say, though, that we have been concerned solely with the national security perspective, not with the other arguments for or against a new embassy.

It has proved more difficult than it should have been to get straightforward answers to our basic questions. The process in Government does not seem to be effectively co-ordinated, or as robust as would have been expected. In particular, there was a lack of clarity about the role that national security considerations play in planning decisions. We will take those matters up further with the Government, as I know the Minister would expect.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and to all members of his Committee. Parliament entrusts the ISC with holding Government to account, and the ISC is able to do that in a way that other right hon. and hon. Members cannot. He made two key points. First, he shared the Committee’s analysis of the concerns expressed about national security. I hope that Members in all parts of the House listen carefully to what he says, and look carefully at the judgment that his Committee arrived at. Secondly, he made an important point about process, which I take seriously. I have no doubt that quite a lot can be learned from the process, and I am happy to talk with him and his Committee to identify the lessons that should be learned, and to ensure that we do things better next time.

China Espionage: Government Security Response

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I welcome a great deal of what the Minister said in his statement. As I am sure he agrees, just as we know that China can simultaneously represent a national security threat and economic opportunity, China knows it too. That means that—even if it were not the right thing to do in and of itself, which of course it is—standing up for our national security is unlikely to prejudice any international trading relationship that we seek to pursue with China, because China respects strength.

May I ask the Minister for help on one specific question in relation to the embassy? I know that he respects the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee. He knows that that Committee is relied upon by this House to provide judgment on matters in which intelligence is involved and the House cannot do so itself. The embassy is clearly one such matter. If the Government seek to make a decision on that before Christmas—he may not be able to say whether that is still the case—will he ensure that the ISC has all the material we need to make a judgment on behalf of the House? As yet, we do not have it.

[Dan Jarvis]

I often find myself in violent agreement with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who makes good points in a reasonable way. It is not necessarily for me to talk about the nature of our diplomatic relationship with China, because, as he will understand, that is an issue on which the Foreign Office leads, but he is right in his characterisation of our approach. I believe in being straight with this House and with the countries that we deal with. He is right that it does not in any way disadvantage us to be straightforward and strong. That is why I have chosen the language that I have used today very carefully to indicate the strength of feeling about the nature of the threat that we face.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman made an entirely reasonable point about the embassy. I will not bore him and the House with further discussion about it being a quasi-judicial decision that will be made by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, although that is clearly the case. There is an important role for the ISC in considering the nature of the decision. At the appropriate moment, when we are able to do so, I will ensure that his Committee is properly briefed on that issue.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

No, they will not be able to, but that is not a deficiency of this Bill; it is a long-standing constitutional rule. This will be about offences moving forward. But I will just make the point—because I do think it is important—that these measures will apply across the United Kingdom, and I would like to place on record my thanks to the devolved Governments for their collaboration on this.

I can also announce that the Government intend to bring forward an amendment to extend this duty to local authority investigations in England, which will make sure that when an inquiry or investigation is set up by a local authority—for example, the Kerslake inquiry into the Manchester Arena bombings—there can also be that duty of co-operation and candour in the search for the truth.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I recognise the strength of the case that the Prime Minister is making. He will understand the interest that the Intelligence and Security Committee has in clause 6 of the Bill, which provides for certain exemptions for those who work for the intelligence agencies. It then says that those people should report internally within their organisation any information that may be of use to an inquiry or investigation. Will he give some thought to how the Government might develop a concept of what then happens to that information, about which the Bill is broadly silent? He will understand that many will be concerned to ensure that when information is reported internally within the intelligence agencies, it none the less finds its way to those who should have it, in order to give reassurance about what the Government are seeking to achieve more broadly in this Bill.

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously, a lot of thought has been given to the particular issue of the security and intelligence services. The Bill is clear that the duty applies, but has a different way of applying it. I think that gets the balance right, and obviously there are various national and public interests to protect in so doing.

Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise her concerns in the way that she does. I hope that she understands, as the House does, that this Government have been absolutely clear that no interference in our democratic process is remotely acceptable and that there are no circumstances under which we will tolerate countries, wherever they may be, seeking to cause harm to anybody who is resident in the United Kingdom. She specifically mentioned transnational repression. That is something that the Government take incredibly seriously, and we have done a lot of work on it through the defending democracy taskforce. Let me say again to her and to the House that it is completely unacceptable that China or any other country should seek to harm anybody who lives here in the United Kingdom.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I first of all thank the Minister for what he said about co-operation with the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee on this matter. I agree with him, as I often do, that the Government are entitled to clarity about what the question they are being asked is. The question for me is not whether the Government sought to intervene to persuade the DPP to take a different view. I do not think the Government did that. Neither do I think the Government went back and sought to change evidence it had already submitted. The question is, when the CPS asked for additional evidence, as it undoubtedly did, whether the Government chose to supply that evidence or not. That is not about interference; it is about responding to a request made to Government by the CPS. Given that we now know that the request was to make it clear in terms that, during the relevant period, China was a current national security threat to the UK, who in the Home Office or elsewhere decided that that could not be submitted in a further statement of evidence in very clear terms?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman; the remarks I made earlier about the ISC, which he sits on, are genuinely meant. I think that the ISC has an important role to play in looking at precisely what has happened here, and I give him an absolute commitment that we want to work very closely with his Committee on this specific issue and on others.

Let me try to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman a bit of detail, because he asked his question in an entirely reasonable way. I reiterate the point, which I hope is understood by him and his Committee, that the final evidence went in August this year, and there was nothing that any Minister could have done post that. I hope he is crystal clear, as I am, that there was no political interference.

Let me just say something about the DNSA: he is an outstanding public servant who does a very important job and does it very well, and I think it is a terrible shame that there has been commentary about him as an individual. He has acted with integrity throughout this process, and we as a Parliament owe him a debt of gratitude for the service that he has offered. Let me say something about the evidence that he gave: in each of the three statements, the DNSA makes it crystal clear that China poses wide-ranging threats to the UK. In his third statement, he says:

“the Chinese intelligence services are highly capable and conduct large scale espionage operations against the UK to advance the Chinese state’s interests and harm the interests and security of the UK.”

He was very clear about that. He adds:

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

He has been very clear in the evidence statements that he provided. I do not think that there is much more that I can add to that, other than to reiterate that it was then ultimately a decision for the DPP.

Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Ward]

The deputy National Security Adviser was reflecting Government policy at the time. That was his choice of words, and it was his decision to include that. But if we look across the statements, we see there is broad consistency and no material difference on the policy relating to China, which has been pretty much shared across the House.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

It is now clear that the Crown Prosecution Service asked the Government more than once, over more than a year, for some additional evidence on what the CPS considered to be the crucial question of whether China constituted a national security threat during the relevant period. It seems to me, having read those statements, that at least two important questions arise.

The first is the one just asked by the hon. Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg). Given that it was clear at the point when the deputy National Security Adviser made his second and third statements that the question he was being asked to comment on was whether that bar of being a national security threat was met or not, what is the possible relevance of the inclusion of information about China as an economic opportunity? Surely the Minister and the Government can see that that only weakens the substance of the question that that witness was being asked to answer. It would be useful to understand whether the DNSA came to that view on his own or had it suggested to him that that would be a useful thing to include.

The second question is this. The Government have been clear—the Minister has been today, and the Prime Minister was yesterday—about how disappointed they are at the outcome of the trial and how much they wanted the prosecution to proceed. Given the length of time and the number of requests received by the CPS, surely it would be logical to assume that the Government would be straining every sinew to find extra evidence to meet the CPS’s requirement. Whether they thought the CPS was right to ask for it or not, it was clear that, with that extra evidence, the CPS would have proceeded with the case as the Government say they wanted. What evidence can the Government provide to us that every sinew was strained and that they did everything they could to find that evidence? If that evidence is in fact available and others could find it, will the Government not have some explaining to do?

[Chris Ward]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the tone of his question. On the first point—[Interruption.] I am so sorry; will he remind me what that was?

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

The first question was about why the deputy National Security Adviser included reference to economic opportunity in his statement when he knew that that was not the question he was being asked, nor the relevant question.

[Chris Ward]

I am so sorry; I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman. That was done to provide broader context of the Government’s position on China at the time, but it was an independent decision—taken freely, without interference from Ministers or advisers—of the DSNA to do so. [Interruption.] It is not my position to account for that. That was his decision, and that was the evidence submitted under consecutive Governments. I am afraid that is all I can add on that point.

Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

The safety and security of Hongkongers in the UK is of the utmost importance, and any attempt by any foreign power to intimidate, harass or harm individuals or communities in the UK will not be tolerated. On my hon. Friend’s second point, and not wanting to get in trouble with Madam Deputy Speaker, I just say that using a position of public office to effectively further Russia’s malign interests while benefiting financially will not stand. It is a betrayal of our democratic values and of our electorate.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

The Minister has told us that his Government’s assessment of China is a mixture of national security threats and opportunities for engagement, including economically, but does he accept that that is exactly the assessment made by the last Government? That combination, with reference to the Act and the offence we are concerned with, does not require a country only to present a national security threat, simply that it does so, perhaps in combination with other things. That is the key point, and the Minister has been clear about that, so can we be clear about what happened with the Government’s evidence? Was it the case that the Government could find no evidence of China presenting a national security threat? Was it the case that the Government internally decided that the evidence it could find would not meet the CPS’s requirements? If so, who made that determination? Was it the case that the Government did supply evidence to the CPS on that specific point, and the CPS decided it was not significant enough? If it is the latter, will the Minister publish the evidence to the House? If he does not think that is appropriate—it may not be—will he give authority to the deputy National Security Adviser to share that evidence in full with the Intelligence and Security Committee?

[Dan Jarvis]

I have a lot of time for the right hon. and learned Gentleman, not least because he brings an almost unique perspective from his understanding of the law and of matters relating to intelligence. He correctly made the observation that ultimately, any Government strategy on China has to take consideration of national security issues. At the same time, any fair-minded, reasonable Government have to understand the economic opportunities that exist. As a former Attorney General, he would not recommend that I get into the business of second-guessing judgments and decisions taken by the DPP. On his point about publishing the evidence, he hopefully will have heard the response I gave a moment ago. [Interruption.] I am responding to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s serious question about publishing the evidence. I hope that he will have heard the response I gave a moment ago.