Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 days, 22 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Patrick
I have seen no such proposals. We have agreements in place with the European Union to ensure that there is engagement with Northern Ireland on any matters that might impact it.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Minister will be enjoying his opportunity to travel across Northern Ireland and see some of the wonderful groups we have. He knows the strength of this United Kingdom, and he knows that increasing the bonds across Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England is crucial. He should know that the last Government—supported by his Labour colleagues—agreed that through the East-West Council there should be educational collaboration, so that our young people can mix with one another and draw upon each other’s strengths. Could he indicate how many times he believes the East-West Council has progressed that matter and what plans he has to strengthen those bonds?
Hilary Benn
I join the hon. Gentleman in drawing attention to the wonderful zero emission buses being produced at Wrightbus, which I have had the pleasure of visiting two or three times. They are brilliant, one sees them on the streets in the rest of the United Kingdom and there is a very good reason to buy UK-made buses from Northern Ireland so that we can see more people travelling on them. That is an option that is open to local authorities.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has taken evidence from Lord Murphy on his review of the Windsor framework, which has made important recommendations that could support GB businesses moving goods to Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State update the House on his considerations on the Murphy review?
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol says that where we experience diversion of trade, we may take unilateral action. The Secretary of State will be well aware that three reports in the past month have noticed significant trade diversion affecting trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Will he be clear with the House about just how much trade diversion he is willing to stomach before he uses the powers he has under article 16?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for that answer. I also thank him for his energy and interest in Northern Ireland. We hope to have him in Strangford shortly for a visit. Between 2019 and 2022, there was an increase in economic value of 19% in the Northern Ireland film sector, and there is the potential for much more. I live on the beautiful Ards peninsula—it is not beautiful because I live there; it was beautiful before I ever lived there—and in my constituency of Strangford there is the potential for much more. How do the Northern Ireland Office and the Minister intend to work further with Northern Ireland Screen to promote the high quality and the lower costs in Northern Ireland? We have lots to offer—let’s take advantage of it.
Matthew Patrick
If you’re directing it, Mr Speaker! I look forward to my visit to Strangford—I do not see enough of the hon. Member in this House. The creative industries in Northern Ireland are booming, as he says, and they are backed all the way by this Government. We have a modern industrial strategy and a 10-year plan to back our strengths and unlock potential, and the Government have committed to increasing investment in the creative industries to £31 billion by 2035.
Hilary Benn
I recognise what the judge said in his judgment four years ago, and I strongly support what the last Government did to establish a public inquiry, but it is for the Irish Government to make that decision. I hope that with the unprecedented co-operation that the Irish Government have undertaken to give the inquiry, they will provide vital information for the inquiry to get to the bottom of what happened.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
As I hope that the Secretary of State knows, my party and I are hugely supportive of his efforts to move beyond the Tories’ failed legacy Act, provided the legitimate concerns of our veterans are fully met. Will he detail specifically, either now or in writing, which veterans’ groups he has consulted on the wording of the Bill, and which ones have expressed acceptance of the Bill as drafted?
Hilary Benn
On behalf of the whole House, I express our condolences to Kathleen on the loss of her son all those years ago. The names of those service personnel who died on deployment to Operation Banner are rightly listed on the armed forces memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum as a lasting record of their sacrifice. I do not know whether my hon. Friend’s constituent has had a chance to visit there, but perhaps that is something that my hon. Friend might like to facilitate.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Many thousands of our brave troops served in Northern Ireland, and many gave their lives for peace and for our country. Does the Secretary of State agree that they deserve a permanent memorial, not for some of them to be prosecuted?
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, may I extend a warm welcome to the President of the National Council of the Slovak Republic and his delegation, who are with us in the Gallery? May I also welcome the new Chief Minister of Saint Helena?
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Scotland qualified with fantastic goals, including a cracker from former Arsenal player Kieran Tierney, who was always a favourite with the fans.
My thoughts are with the communities across the country affected by severe flooding, particularly in Monmouthshire. I have been liaising with the First Minister of Wales, and I thank all our emergency services for their response.
My thoughts are also with the family and loved ones of Royal Fleet Auxiliary member James Elliot, who has sadly been lost. I know the contribution that the personnel of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary make, and the risks that they take in the line of duty. My thoughts and, I am sure, the thoughts of the whole House are with those who knew him at this tragic and difficult time for them.
Last Thursday, I visited Anglesey to announce the construction of the country’s first small modular reactor. That is the biggest investment in north Wales in a generation, creating more than 6,000 jobs.
On Monday, we introduced the largest overhaul of the asylum policy in modern times, restoring control and fairness, and creating safe and legal routes.
Today, I am pleased to announce that inflation is coming down. There is more to do, but it is an important step. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. [Laughter.] Conservative Members laugh, but working people paid a very heavy price for 14 years of economic failure. Austerity damaged the economy and decimated public services; the botched Brexit deal stifled growth; and the reckless borrowing of the mini-Budget saw mortgages and the cost of living soar.
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. We are determined to tackle inequality; he will be pleased to know that under this Government, wages are up, but we need to do more. We have had a pay increase for the 3.5 million lowest-paid, and the Chancellor will deliver a Budget based on Labour values.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I associate Conservative Members with the remarks the Prime Minister made about James Elliot.
Can the Prime Minister tell us why his Government are the first Government in history to float an increase in income tax rates, only to then U-turn on it—all after the actual Budget?
Mrs Badenoch
On energy policy, what we are doing is listening to industry. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Slinger, please, we do not want to have to sling you out.
Mrs Badenoch
Just this morning, we heard from the chair of one of our largest energy companies. Last week, I had a roundtable with energy companies, and what they had to say about this Prime Minister and his Energy Secretary is unprintable. They are absolutely furious. Our oil and gas industry is dying, and the Prime Minister is standing there, saying he has had meetings. People out there are struggling and the Budget chaos is causing real anxiety. People are not buying houses, businesses are not hiring and they are cancelling investment decisions. Two weeks ago, the Chancellor called a ridiculous press conference to blame everyone else for her having to raise income tax, then last week she U-turned on her own U-turn. We can see that they are instead planning to freeze income tax thresholds, which she said last year would be a breach of their manifesto. They are making it up as they go along. Does the country not deserve better than government by guesswork?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a brilliant champion for South Dorset, and he is right to champion the revitalisation of our high streets. The Heritage Minister will be delighted to discuss how we can get this iconic building reopened, as he wants. I am pleased that Weymouth secured £20 million in Pride in Place funding, giving his community the power and resources to make a real difference to people’s lives.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s opening remarks? May I also join him in congratulating Scotland on their amazing win against Denmark, and wish them well in the world cup? I hope that Wales will qualify to join England and Scotland.
Every year, there are more than 300 suicides related to problem gambling. It affects hundreds of thousands of families, tearing them apart. Meanwhile, online gambling firms are taking in record revenues of more than £7 billion a year. ITV News is reporting that one of them, Sky Bet, is moving its headquarters to Malta so that it can save tens of millions of pounds in corporation tax. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is time we taxed those firms on their UK profits so that they do not escape, wherever they are registered for tax?
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
Mr Speaker
Order. You might say it’s the way he tells them, but things might be worse, because it’s the way I tell them.
Lee Anderson
Our Reform-led councils have already identified savings of more than £330 million in the first six months.
Mr Speaker
To end no doubt on the subject of Scotland’s victory, I call Torcuil Chrichton.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
When the Prime Minister next meets the President of the United States, will he ask him if he knows any reasonably priced hotels near the MetLife stadium in New Jersey, where the world cup final is to be held, and, as we are about to provide the biggest boost to whisky exports since our trade deal was signed, will he gently ask the Chancellor to consider excise duties next week so that we Scots can continue celebrating at reasonable prices?
China Espionage: Government Security Response
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 days, 22 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Chinese espionage targeting UK democratic institutions, and on the Government’s action to counter the breadth of threats posed by China and wider state actors.
Before I begin, let me first pay tribute to the crew member of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Tidesurge who is missing off the coast of the Republic of Ireland. I know that the whole House will join me in sending our very best wishes to the ship’s company, and to their families back home. This tragic incident is a reminder of the sacrifice that members of our armed forces make in the service of our country.
Earlier today, MI5 issued an espionage alert to Members of this House, Members of the other place and parliamentary staff to warn them about ongoing targeting of our democratic institutions by Chinese actors. Before I set out the threat and what we are doing to meet it, let me thank you, Mr Speaker, for your support in issuing the alert, and for your tireless efforts to safeguard the security of this place and the people who serve within it. I encourage all parliamentary colleagues to read the alert, and to get in touch with the Parliamentary Security Department if they have any immediate concerns.
Our intelligence agencies have warned that China is attempting to recruit and cultivate individuals with access to sensitive information about Parliament and the UK Government. MI5 has stated that this activity is being carried out by a group of Chinese intelligence officers—often masked through the use of cover companies or external headhunters. It is not just parliamentarians who should be concerned by this; parliamentary staff, economists, think-tank employees, geopolitical consultants and Government officials have all been targeted for their networks and access to politicians. I urge all parliamentarians and their staff to be wary that China has a low threshold for what information is considered to be of value, and will gather individual pieces of information to build a wider picture.
Let me speak plainly: this activity involves a covert and calculated attempt by a foreign power to interfere with our sovereign affairs in favour of its own interests, and this Government will not tolerate it. It builds on a pattern of activity that we have seen from China, with cyber-operations by Chinese state-affiliated actors targeting parliamentarians’ emails in 2021, attempted foreign interference activity by Christine Lee in 2022, and other more recent cases. We will take all necessary measures to protect our national interests, our citizens and our democratic way of life, including by working with our allies and partners.
The world has changed a great deal since I first stepped forward to serve our country almost 30 years ago, and while some things have changed, some things remain the same. In the various roles I have held since then, I have always believed in the importance of being clear-eyed about the nature of the threats that we face, and about the need to ensure that the tools we use to respond to those threats are kept up to date. This Government’s first duty is to protect our national security, and we will not hesitate to hold all state actors to account.
On 6 November, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke with her Chinese counterpart, Director Wang Yi. She was clear with the Foreign Minister that any activity that threatens UK national security, particularly relating to the UK’s Parliament and democracy, will not be tolerated. Today, I am setting out a comprehensive package of measures that we are taking to disrupt and deter the threats posed by China, as well as by state actors more widely. We are launching a counter political interference and espionage action plan, which is supported by Ministers from across Government and co-ordinated by me. I will set out in detail to the House what that plan will entail.
First, we will strengthen the legislative tools available to Government to disrupt the threat. We will introduce the elections Bill, which will include measures to safeguard against covert political funding. They will include tougher risk assessment rules for donor recipients, and enhanced enforcement powers for the Electoral Commission. I can confirm that we are also working on new powers to counter foreign interference, including a proscription-type tool to disrupt proxy organisations that are undermining our security, and an extension to the maximum penalties for election interference offences.
Secondly, working with the parliamentary security authorities, we are launching a series of protective security campaigns, co-ordinated through the defending democracy taskforce. These will help all those who work in politics to recognise, resist and report suspicious state threat activity. The campaigns, which will build on the guidance that was launched by the National Protective Security Authority in October, will include tailored security briefings for the devolved Governments and for political parties via the parliamentary parties panel by the end of this year, as well as new security guidance in January for all candidates taking part in devolved and local elections in May.
Thirdly, we are building a campaign that uses all levers at the Government’s disposal to degrade the ecosystem of proxy cover companies, organisations and individuals that are being used by foreign states to facilitate interference and espionage targeting our democratic institutions. The National Protective Security Authority, building on its “Think Before You Link” campaign, will strengthen its engagement with professional networking sites to make them a more hostile operating environment for foreign agents.
As Security Minister, I am privileged to see the diligence of the security services, law enforcement and civil servants who work tirelessly, day and night, to keep the UK safe. Noting China’s low threshold for information gathering, this Government are providing the resources needed to protect our national interests. I can announce that the Government have committed to investing £170 million to renew the sovereign encrypted technology that our officials use to do their vital work. This programme of work will help to ensure that sensitive diplomatic, economic, trade, security, law enforcement and policy development arrangements are safeguarded from espionage by any state threat actor.
I can also announce that this Government have completed the removal of surveillance equipment manufactured by companies subject to the national intelligence law of the People’s Republic of China from all sensitive sites we maintain in the UK and around the world. Moreover, we will invest £130 million next year, through the integrated security fund, in building the UK’s resilience against threats posed by states such as China. Among other projects, this investment will build Counter Terrorism Policing’s ability to enforce the National Security Act 2023, and fund the National Cyber Security Centre and the National Protective Security Authority’s work supporting our most critical businesses in protecting their intellectual property. Indeed, the National Protective Security Authority’s work is an important reminder that China poses threats not just to our democratic institutions, but to other sectors. Let me talk briefly about two other sectors in particular.
The first sector is education, which is one of the UK’s most important global assets, in part due to the UK’s steadfast commitment to academic freedom and excellence. There is value for the UK in engagement with China on education. However, operating in today’s uncertain international context presents many challenges for our great universities. It is because of their excellence that states like China are attempting to influence these universities’ independent research, and to interfere with activity on campuses. Ministers have already raised our concerns about this activity with their counterparts in Beijing, and the Office for Students recently issued new guidance to help universities protect the freedoms that their staff and students enjoy. I can announce that as part of our ongoing commitment to working collectively to address these risks, Ministers will host a closed event with vice-chancellors to discuss the risks posed by foreign interference, and to signpost our plans to further increase the sector’s resilience.
Secondly, on advanced manufacturing, the Department for Business and Trade is working to strengthen and scale our new economic security advisory service, which will help businesses navigate economic security issues, such as espionage and intellectual property theft. The service is already engaging with businesses in the advanced manufacturing sector, and as it matures, it will support other sectors of the economy. It will provide a new digital offer, and will assist businesses with complex economic security cases in navigating the support from His Majesty’s Government.
In October, I told the House that this Government remain steadfast in our commitment to disrupting and holding state actors accountable for widescale cyber-espionage operations. We stand ready to go further to disrupt, degrade and protect against the dangerous and unrestrained offensive cyber-ecosystem that China has allowed to take hold. Earlier this year, the NCSC, with international allies, called out three technology companies, based in China, for their global malicious cyber-campaign targeting critical networks. Just last week, we introduced the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, which will help make it harder to target critical sectors of the economy and the public sector with cyber-attacks, including malicious cyber-activity emanating from China’s territory. The Government will continue to take further action against China-based actors involved in malicious cyber-activity against the UK and our allies. This will form part of a broader campaign that the UK is delivering to disrupt and degrade the dangerous cyber-ecosystem that China has allowed to take hold within its territory. Let me assure hon. Members that we will not shy away from using all the tools at our disposal, including sanctions, as necessary.
Our country has a long and proud history as a seafaring nation that trades with countries around the world that share our way of life, and with those that do not. China is the world’s second-largest economy, and, together with Hong Kong, is the UK’s third-largest trading partner. It is in our long-term strategic interests to continue to engage with China. We must co-operate on issues on which our interests align—climate, global health, trade, scientific research, illegal migration, and serious and organised crime, to name just a few—but we will always challenge any country, including China, that attempts to interfere, influence or undermine the integrity of our democratic institutions, and we will take all measures necessary to protect UK national security. That is why we have taken action today. I am clear that further steps can and absolutely will be taken to disrupt and deter China’s espionage activity, wherever it takes place. We will update our security powers to keep pace with the threat, help those who work in politics to recognise, resist and report the threat, and work with partners across the economy to strengthen their security against the threat.
Our strategy is not just to co-operate. We will engage China where necessary, but we will always act to defend our interests, and challenge where our values are threatened. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
The Minister took 14 minutes. This is a very important subject, so I have no problem with that, but it may be helpful to say to the shadow Minister that if she needs more minutes, they are there.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, not least for his opening remarks, which I know will have been shared by the whole House. He raises an important point about transnational repression. The Government take these matters incredibly seriously. We have relatively recently completed a very significant piece of work looking at the issue of transnational repression through the defending democracy taskforce. The Government are absolutely crystal clear that it is completely unacceptable for China—or any other country, for that matter—to target individuals resident in this country.
I recently met members of the Hong Kong community, who raised significant concerns about their being targeted. I was clear to them, as I am clear to my right hon. Friend, that none of that activity is remotely acceptable to the Government, and that we will do everything we can to ensure both that the individuals he refers to are kept safe and that they feel as though they are being kept safe.
Mr Speaker
I come to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, who obviously has some extra time allocated as well.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister, as always, for advance sight of the statement. The news that the CCP is waging a campaign to infiltrate our Parliament is deeply offensive to our sovereignty, though perhaps it is not surprising to those who have been paying attention to the recent collapsed espionage case and the uncovering of interference at a UK university. The attempts to corrupt our democracy and Government must be rooted out.
We therefore welcome the counter-political interference and espionage action plan as a first step. It is absolutely right that the Government implement those measures to challenge Beijing’s espionage capabilities in the UK and the transnational repression it exports to our shores. New measures to disrupt proxy organisations, new penalties for election interference and the removal of potentially compromised surveillance equipment have our full backing. However, in the face of persistent, flagrant transgressions by the CCP, the plan by itself is not sufficient.
Beijing has tried to bully our Government, most recently on permission for the proposed new Chinese embassy at Tower Bridge, warning of consequences if the Government do not approve the plans. Beijing has oppressed and intimidated British nationals. We cannot afford to shy away from this challenge and leave key, pressing issues unresolved. I note the Minister’s comments about the Chinese mega-embassy. May I put on record my party’s repeated call to urge the Government to block the plan, to show that attempts to intimidate will be firmly rebuked? I further note the Minister’s comments about FIRS. Will he update the House on his current thinking about when he might come back with a decision to add China to the scheme’s enhanced tier?
The Minister said that the forthcoming elections Bill will include measures
“to safeguard against covert political funding…tougher risk assessment rules for donor recipients and enhanced enforcement powers for the Electoral Commission.”
This is a good opportunity. Will the Minister confirm that that will include donations via cryptocurrency and the associated transparency concerns? Will he also confirm that there will be new risk assessment rules and enforcement powers for donations funnelled through third-party organisations such as think-tanks?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Sheffield is a great city, and she will know better than anyone that it is blessed with two outstanding academic institutions. She knows that as the local MP, and I know that from my time spent as the regional mayor. For reasons that I know she will understand, because there remain active inquiries into this matter, I am limited in what I can say about the specifics. I can say more generally that any attempt by any foreign state to intimidate and coerce universities to limit free speech and academic freedoms in the UK will not be tolerated. The Government made that clear to Beijing after learning of the case.
The new Office for Students recently issued guidance to make it explicit that universities should not tolerate attempts by foreign states to suppress academic freedom. I am pleased that she welcomes the closed event with vice-chancellors. We will make sure that both the vice-chancellors from the city of Sheffield are invited to attend. I am happy to discuss these matters further with her.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Does the Minister consider that China represents a current threat to this country? Will he also expand on the work his officials are doing with the Members and Members’ Staff Services Team to remove potential security weaknesses, not just from this building but from MPs’ constituency offices and our homes?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kanishka Narayan
I thank the hon. Member for raising these cases, which are very much in our minds. Each one is a deep tragedy. We have looked very carefully at this issue. Some chatbots, including live search and user-to-user engagement, are in scope of the Online Safety Act 2023, and we want to ensure that enforcement against them, where relevant, is robust. The Secretary of State has commissioned work to make sure that, if there are any gaps in the legislation, they will be looked at fully and robust action will be taken too.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The Minister says that the Government are looking deeply into this issue, but as part of my Committee’s inquiry into misinformation and algorithms, we heard conflicting evidence from Ministers and Ofcom as to whether generative artificial intelligence is covered by the Online Safety Act. The Government have refused to implement our call for legislation to bring generative AI under the same categorisation as other high-risk services. Under what circumstances is chatbot advice covered by the Online Safety Act, and will there be enforcement?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank my hon. Friend, both for the point she makes and for her ongoing insight and expertise on these questions. Let me be very clear about the current scope: chatbots that involve live search and user-to-user engagement are in scope of the Online Safety Act, as I mentioned. We are continuing to review its scope, and the Secretary of State has commissioned work. We will report its findings to the House.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
On 20 October, a phone mast serving thousands of people in Hebden Bridge and Mytholmroyd was removed without warning, cutting O2, Vodafone and Three coverage. Residents were told that they would be disconnected until April. It was only through the intervention of Baroness Lloyd and I that a temporary fix was found—after three weeks. Given the essential role of mobile services in our communities, this removal impacted businesses, GPs, safeguarding and many more areas. Our mobile phones have become a utility and they are regulated—
Liz Kendall
Mobile services are essential to communities, and it is not good enough that the mast in my hon. Friend’s constituency was decommissioned without warning. Prompt action by my Department ensured that services were restored by 7 November, and Virgin Media O2 and VodafoneThree have assured us that customers will be compensated. I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to champion his constituents’ needs.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
It is very tempting to ask the Secretary of State whether she is on Team Wes or Team Keir, but from the sounds of it today, she is on Team 4% Kendall. I will ask instead about one of the Prime Minister’s most cynical bloopers: mandatory digital ID. The Prime Minister says that mandatory digital ID will curb illegal migration. By how much will it do so by the end of this Parliament?
Mr Speaker
I welcome to the Gallery the Canadian Speaker and the Ministers who are with him today.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I know how committed my hon. Friend is to righting historic wrongs for our mining communities, and I assure her that I am too. She will know that we have already transferred £1.5 billion that was wrongly kept from over 100,000 former mineworkers. Ministers have met the BCSSS trustees on several occasions, and the industry Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald)—is meeting them later today. I will make sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) is updated in relation to that.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I associate my party with the Prime Minister’s comments about Remembrance Week and about Manfred Goldberg and Mervyn Kersh, who is in the Gallery today.
This morning on the BBC, the Health Secretary said that there is a “toxic culture” in Downing Street that needs to change. He is right, isn’t he?
The Prime Minister
This is a united team and we are delivering together. Look at what we are delivering: the fastest growth in the G7; five interest rate cuts; trade deals with the EU, the US and India—all of which the Conservatives opposed. We have delivered. I can update the House—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. If people want to audition for a pantomime, I suggest they go to the Old Vic.
The Prime Minister
I can update the House. The Bank of England has upgraded growth today. We have secured £230 billion of private investment. Just this morning—I thought the right hon. Lady might welcome this—SSE has announced £33 billion of investment in clean power. That is what this team are delivering for the country: fixing the mess that the Conservatives left.
The Prime Minister
The stupid mistakes were made over 14 long years. The Conservatives broke the economy and now they think they can lecture us. Now they have this unserious idea that they can find £47 billion of cuts without saying where they will come from. No wonder that is called flimsy. Meanwhile, we are rebuilding the country: wages up, investment up, mortgages down. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Philp, you are meant to be a senior person on the Front Bench. You are meant to set an example—it is certainly a bad one today.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My sympathy is with the people of Kent whose lives are being disrupted by the staggering incompetence of Reform. Kent county council was supposed to be the blueprint for what Reform would deliver across the country. Now we can see what that means: cutting local services, raising council tax and failing to protect the public. That is all Reform has to offer: grievance, division and total incompetence.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I associate myself with the earlier remarks of the Prime Minister and say what a great honour it was to join the royal family at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday to pay our respects to all those heroes who gave their lives for our country? We must never forget the sacrifice they made for our freedoms.
A great British institution is under attack from a foreign Government. President Trump is trying to destroy our BBC, not because he cares about the truth but because he wants to get away with his lies. Trump has undermined press freedom in America. Now he is trying to do the same here, disgracefully egged on by the leader of Reform. Will the Prime Minister tell President Trump to drop his demand for a $1 billion settlement from the BBC? Will he guarantee that President Trump will not get a single penny from British licence fee payers?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Anna McMorrin)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. As a proud Welsh MP I am honoured to be here for my first Welsh questions.
We fully recognise the role of farmers and the agricultural community in Wales. That is why one of the first things that I did as Minister was meet members of the Farmers’ Union of Wales at the farm of one of its members just two weeks ago. I will be meeting with the National Farmers’ Union later today to discuss important matters for its members, including inheritance tax. This Government have also made sure to protect the farm budget for Wales, ensuring that the full £337 million has been allocated to the Welsh Government.
Anna McMorrin
I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to her work in this role prior to my appointment. I completely agree: the Welsh Government published their outline draft budget earlier this month, and are working with Opposition parties to ensure that it has broad support. The question everyone in Wales wants the answer to is whether the Opposition parties will vote against billions of pounds for public services, including vital support for Welsh farmers, just like they did last year.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
I note that it takes three women to take me on now, but I very much welcome the Ministers to their places. Charles Rees, a fifth-generation Pembrokeshire farmer, has bravely and moving shared his battle with cancer on the BBC’s “Countryfile”, and I know this House will send him and his family our best wishes. His illness is not his only worry; he is also seriously concerned that his son, who is running his farm, could now be facing an unaffordable inheritance tax bill of £1 million, solely due to this Government’s catastrophic family farm tax. Despite Ministers saying differently, Charles and many other farmers across the country are fearing for their livelihoods, their way of life, their futures, and for food security. Will the Government scrap the family farm tax?
Jo Stevens
It is certainly not. The right hon. Gentleman will have heard of tax planning, and so will the people he has been talking about. Investment is up in Wales and we have had record inward investment in Wales, with a 23% increase on the previous financial year and a 30% increase in jobs created. The UK was the fastest growing economy in the G7 in the first half of this year. Businesses are growing, developing and creating jobs under this Government.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Under the watch of the current Secretary of State, opportunities for young people are now unbelievably dire. Despite what she says, unemployment is rising and employment is falling, and that situation is not good enough for the next generation in Wales. Last week, my colleague, Darren Millar, who is the Conservative leader of the Senedd group, met the Welsh First Minister—does anyone know who that is?—offering to potentially support the Welsh Government’s budget, provided Labour Ministers agree to scrapping Welsh stamp duty. That would help young people on to the property ladder in Wales, where it is the hardest to achieve that, and boost the Welsh economy. Will the Secretary of State confirm that she agrees with scrapping Welsh stamp duty? If so, what measures is she taking to persuade Baroness Morgan of Ely to scrap the tax in Wales?
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Jo Stevens
I am not sure whether the hon. Member has ever been to Caerphilly or even to Wales. If he has, that is good; if he has not, he needs to be careful about what he says about the people in Wales. He absolutely does not know what he is talking about. His party’s record in Scotland is nothing to boast about. Nationalists will divide the United Kingdom, costing Wales £21.5 billion every single year.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
I welcome last month’s news that Newport city council and Caerphilly county borough council will each receive £21.5 million from the UK Labour Government’s Pride in Place scheme. That funding will empower communities across my constituency to invest in community assets and their local high streets, drive local growth and create jobs, thus reducing the cost of living. Does the Secretary of State agree that at last in Wales, we have two Labour Governments delivering for the people of Wales?
Jo Stevens
Labour is the only party that is committed to investing in renewable energy, which will bring down bills and create thousands of jobs for people right across Wales. Plaid and Reform are against renewable infrastructure, and Plaid and the SNP do not want nuclear—Plaid’s economy spokesperson in the Senedd is anti-nuclear. Plaid is happy to see people pay higher bills, to spurn investment, and to see job opportunities slashed.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
During the second world war, over 200 people were forced to leave their homes and give up their land in the Epynt when more than half of the community was taken for use by the Ministry of Defence. The people of the Epynt understood why that sacrifice had to be made, but now, Bute Energy and its wealthy investment backers want to take the rest of the Epynt. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Epynt has already sacrificed enough, and will she work with me to defend the Welsh countryside from once again having its wealth extracted from it, with no benefit to local communities?
Anna McMorrin
We offer sanctuary for those who desperately need it, and we are proud of that, but we inherited contracts and a broken system from the Conservatives. Hotel use has nearly halved since the last election, and we have removed 30,000 people who have no right to be here, ensuring that those who do need to be here have the welcome and support that they need. It is not job done, but work in progress. We can compare that with the 14 years of the Tory Government.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
After wantonly scrapping the Rwanda scheme, the Labour Government are now overseeing record-breaking figures of illegal immigrants. It is reported that the scandal is now engulfing north Wales, where more than 200 illegal immigrants have tried to gain entry to the country on ferries from Dublin to Holyhead. Meanwhile, there is talk about Penally military camp in south-west Wales, which was previously condemned by the Welsh Labour Government. It appears that their policy, along with Reform’s, is from boats to barracks, as is happening in Scotland and Sussex, yet Plaid says that there is no such thing as illegal immigration. Does the Minister agree that her Government and Plaid have no idea about and no interest in how to make our borders safe?
Anna McMorrin
That money just did not exist. We are investing a historic £445 million in Welsh rail to right years of underfunding by previous Governments, unleashing Wales’s economic potential. That will mean new stations, faster trains on key lines, and connecting people with well-paid and better jobs right across Wales. Two Governments are working in partnership to deliver for the people of Wales.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, may I welcome, in the Gallery, the honourable Speaker of the Parliament of Sri Lanka and his delegation?
The Prime Minister
I share my hon. Friend’s determination that everyone should feel safe and secure in their community. Neighbourhood policing was decimated by the Conservative party, and we are restoring it with 3,000 extra officers by spring. We are also giving them the powers that they need, including tough new respect orders that allow the police to seize and destroy vehicles within 48 hours. The Tories walked through the Lobby, with Reform, to vote against our Crime and Policing Bill.
Mrs Badenoch
The Conservatives reduced the deficit every year until the pandemic. We more than doubled the personal allowance. We left 4 million more jobs than we found from Labour. We brought inflation down to 2%; it has nearly doubled—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Tufnell, you are in my sights. The pantomime season has not arrived—do not start it too early.
Mrs Badenoch
On our record, we brought inflation down to 2%; it has doubled under the Prime Minister. We left him the fastest growing economy in the G7; it is no longer. The truth is, the Government have no ideas; we are giving them some. There is another way to get growth: cutting welfare spending and getting people into work. Last month, I offered to work cross-party with him to bring down welfare spending, because he knows and we know that he would rather dip into people’s pockets than upset the people behind him. Instead of tax rises, will he work with us to find a way to cut welfare spending and get Britain working again?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this point. I am deeply concerned by the strikes. This underlines the fragility of the ceasefire deal. All sides need to uphold President Trump’s peace plan. It is the only route to long-term peace for Israelis and Palestinians. We are of course in close touch with the US and regional allies pushing for de-escalation. The scale of destruction in Gaza is unimaginable. The immediate priority remains getting aid in at the speed and the volume needed.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I associate myself with what the Prime Minister said about Jamaica, and indeed all the islands and countries affected by Hurricane Melissa? Our thoughts and prayers are with them all.
I am sure the whole House will also want to join me in paying tribute to Prunella Scales. I suspect I am not the only Member of the House with a “Fawlty Towers” DVD box set. She will be greatly missed.
Across Europe, in countries like Poland, Germany and France, we have seen evidence of dangerous Russian political interference. Last month, the former leader of a major party in Wales pleaded guilty to taking bribes to make pro-Russian statements. The evidence shows that Nathan Gill was a close confidant of the current Reform party leader for years. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that it is time we had an in-depth investigation into Russian meddling and money in British politics?
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Mr Speaker
Order. The problem is, one or two of you are trying to catch my eye. If we don’t get through this, you won’t get a chance.
Mike Wood
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The triple lock was a great achievement of the previous Government, and we will be keeping it. From April, pensioners with private pensions as low as £2 a month will be paying income tax for the first time. At last year’s Budget, the Chancellor was clear that extending the freeze on personal allowances would breach Labour’s manifesto commitment. Will the Prime Minister prove the media speculation wrong, keep his promise and guarantee that there will be no extension to the freeze on personal allowances?
The Prime Minister
Yes. She is bearing down on the challenges at the Home Office—most of them inherited from the last Government. We will make the changes necessary, and I have every confidence in the Secretary of State to do so.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
The Government routinely conduct and update assessments on a whole range of threats. On gov.uk, the Government publish the outcome of those assessments in the national risk register and in their chronic risks analysis, including on climate change, biodiversity loss and the impact on our ecosystems.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the new Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to his post. I know that he is one of the most able performers in the Government, and he is now in one of the most important and under- appreciated roles in Government. For the good of the country, I wish him well. He is also the first Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister. We Conservatives congratulate him on how well Downing Street has been run since he took over—we have enjoyed it greatly. Phase 2 is proving to be a real belter.
On the alleged spying on Members of this House, Downing Street has revealed that the Prime Minister became aware on 13 September that the case was about to collapse. When was the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister first told that the trial was unlikely to proceed, and who told him?
Mr Speaker
Perhaps I can help, then. Security does include the resilience and the security of this House. I can go through it a bit more if need be, but I am sure that the Minister will use his imagination to answer.
Dan Jarvis
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, let me tell the hon. Gentleman. The decision not to prosecute was taken independently by the Crown Prosecution Service. The Government were extremely disappointed by that decision and published the deputy National Security Adviser’s three witness statements. All three clearly articulate the very serious threats posed by China. No Minister or special adviser in this Government interfered with the case. I wonder whether Conservative Members could have said the same about their Government.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
He’s right there! Why doesn’t he answer?
Mr Speaker
Order. We have had one or two little bits of that, Mr Mayhew, and we do not need it. You should know better; you have been here long enough now. I expect a little bit more respect.
Dan Jarvis
For the purposes of transparency, the Prime Minister took the decision to publish the DNSA’s witness statements. He has been crystal clear that no Minister and no special adviser in this Government interfered in any way with the case. I would be very grateful if the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) confirmed whether that was the case under the previous Government.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The recent cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover is reported to have cost the UK £1.9 billion, making it the most expensive in British history. It follows similar crippling incidents for companies such as M&S and the Co-op. Individual companies are taking their own security decisions, but in our increasingly interdependent world, the impact of those decisions can be felt at national and international levels. Will the Minister update the House on the progress being made in that area under the Government’s resilience action plan, and when does he expect the introduction of the cyber-security and resilience Bill, which was mentioned in last year’s King’s Speech, so that we can assure the British public that such attacks are being treated as a pressing matter of national security?
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Minister without Portfolio (Anna Turley)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
This Government’s aim is to recruit the brightest and best talent into the civil service—brilliant people from across the UK with the skills to deliver the priorities of the British people. We have already taken steps to improve recruitment, with the first ever cross-Government standardised recruitment processes and benchmarks, to strengthen accountability and bring faster, higher-quality and more inclusive recruitment. Fast, fair, inclusive: that is our recruitment vision.
Anna Turley
The fast stream programme, of which I am proud to be a graduate, is the No. 1 graduate employee scheme in the country. We are proud that we have had over 70,000 applicants for just 754 appointments. We know that we have done very well in increasing diversity, with applications from ethnic minority candidates, women and people with disabilities, but we are falling short in applications from those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. I make no apologies about taking proactive decisions to ensure that people who do not necessarily have the same social capital or relationship strength as those from other higher social backgrounds can take internships. The number of working-class people in the civil service is three times smaller than the broader UK workforce, and we are taking action on that.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Last year, the Government promised us that they were going to slash the size of the civil service, but instead the latest figures showed that the size of the civil service has increased by 7,000 compared with last year. It is not only other Departments that have failed to get a grip: the headcount of the Minister’s own Department is up by 7%. Will the Minister guarantee that when the next set of figures is published, it will show a reduction in the size of the civil service and the size of the Cabinet Office?
Darren Jones
I am sorry to hear about the situation in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. He knows that the Government take flood risk very seriously, and it is a key risk in our national risk register. That is why the Government have increased spending on flood defences significantly in the recent Budget and spending review, but I absolutely recognise that there is more to do. I will ensure that we look at the specific circumstances in his constituency and help him to understand when funding will come to support his constituents.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I think the Government are right to identify economic growth as a key priority. I also agree with the Chancellor, who this week identified Brexit as one of the reasons that they are finding growth tough to find. Brexit red tape is a millstone around the neck of our economy; it has added 2 billion pieces of extra business paperwork, piled on costs and stifled innovation. Businesses in my constituency tell me they have stopped selling to our nearest neighbours in the world’s largest trading bloc altogether. Does the Minister agree that if the Government are serious about growing our economy, they should unleash trade by joining a bespoke customs union with the European Union?
Darren Jones
The answer is absolutely yes. All our constituents know from their experiences at home, whether they are trying to do their banking, do their shopping or book a holiday, that they have the power to do it, when they want to do it, how they want to do it, on their phone, with services delivered in the way they want. That is in complete contrast to a number of our public services, and the public rightly expect, when they are paying tax money for public services, that we catch up with the private sector and deliver better public services that work in the way they want.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for giving us a degree more clarity. Perhaps he will give us a degree more clarity again. Was he told that the alleged case of spying against Members of Parliament was due to collapse before the information became public and, if so, who told him?
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Darren Jones
The Government take seriously the risk of climate change and the risk it poses to national security. That is why we are taking action to mitigate that risk and to reduce our carbon emissions. As the hon. Lady will know, we publish the outcomes of routine assessments done by the Government in relation to the national risk register on gov.uk, and that will continue to be the case.
Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before we come on to the urgent question on the Chinese spy case, I would like to reiterate my remarks from last week. I remain disappointed by what has happened in this case. I am, alongside the Lord Speaker, continuing to seek advice from officials and specialist legal advice on what further steps might be taken to pursue this issue in other ways. While it would be not appropriate to talk in detail about security matters on the Floor of the House, I am also speaking to officials about access arrangements.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
Listen to that.
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not need any help from the Government Front Bench. This is a very important statement that really does affect Members of this House.
Dan Jarvis
As I have repeatedly made clear in this House, Ministers and special advisers were not involved in any aspect of the production of the evidence, and I stand by that statement today. The Prime Minister has also made clear that he was informed of the CPS’s decision only a matter of days before the case collapsed. There is nothing that the Prime Minister or any other Minister could have done at that point that would have changed the law and the policy under the previous Government between 2021 and 2023. Those who have read the DNSA’s statements will know that they clearly articulated the threats posed by China based on the previous Government’s policy at the time, detailing the damage caused by the alleged offences. Ultimately, it was an entirely independent decision by the CPS to discontinue the case, and the CPS has confirmed that it came under no outside pressure to do so.
Like Members from all parts of the House, I remain very frustrated that this case will not be heard in court. We wanted to see the trial go ahead. I have made it clear on many occasions that the decision not to proceed was an independent decision by the Crown Prosecution Service, and the Director of Public Prosecutions has given assurances that there was no Government interference in that decision.
I note that the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy will be undertaking an inquiry on the case and intends to hold public evidence sessions. The Intelligence and Security Committee has also indicated that it will investigate. We welcome the launch of the inquiry and the investigations, with which the Government will, of course, fully co-operate. I have already set out the range of activity that this Government are taking to combat the Chinese espionage threat, and I hope that that is well understood. Let me also provide the House with the reassurance that the Government will take all necessary action to keep the UK safe and secure.
Chris Philp
Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister told this House that no Minister or special adviser was involved in the handling of the China spy case, yet The Sunday Times has since reported that the Home Secretary had
“heard that the case might collapse and had made representations to ensure the evidence put forward was as ‘strong as possible’.”
So I ask the Minister: when did the Home Secretary become aware that the case might collapse, and what representations did she or her proxies make about the evidence and to whom? Why has the House been told—including just now—that Ministers and advisers were not involved in any way when The Sunday Times reports that they were?
The Sunday Times also reported on a key meeting that took place on 1 September—a meeting that the Government originally denied took place. Is it true that Jonathan Powell chaired that meeting? Did that meeting discuss the CPS view that the evidence provided to that point was inadequate, and the possibility of providing further evidence in the case? Will the Minister agree to publish the minutes of all meetings in which this case was discussed and the correspondence relating to it?
The Sunday Times reported that following the meeting, the Attorney General’s Office was asked to speak to the CPS. Did anyone from the AGO speak directly or indirectly to the CPS after that meeting? Can the Minister confirm that Dan Chugg from the Foreign Office was at the 1 September meeting, and that it was the same Dan Chugg who approached the Lord Speaker with a proposed deal in which the Chinese ambassador would be allowed back into Parliament? The Sunday Times also reported that the DNSA is understood to have acknowledged privately that the decision not to say that China is an ongoing threat was political in nature. Is that true?
Finally, the current Government’s position has been that all the evidence provided related to the previous Government’s policy, but we now know that that is categorically not true. In paragraph 8 of Matt Collins’s third statement, from August this year, which he copied and pasted from the Labour manifesto, he stressed the importance the current Government attach to a “positive relationship” with China, weakening the evidence compared with 2023 and bringing in current Government policy, contrary to what we have been told in recent weeks. Why have the Government been providing this House with inaccurate information, and why did Ministers know what the CPS wanted but refuse to give it to the CPS?
Dan Jarvis
With great respect, a lot of what has just been said does not actually relate to the urgent question that was initially asked by the shadow Home Secretary. I have to say, the Opposition’s position is confusing. They initially criticised the Government for intervening. Then—[Interruption.] I will answer the question. I am answering it. I think it is important that on these matters of national security, we try to debate things in a reasonable and sensible way. That is the approach that this Government will seek to take. If Members opposite—[Interruption.]
Dan Jarvis
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The Opposition’s position is confusing. They initially criticised the Government for intervening. Then, when it became absolutely clear that we had not done that, they criticised us for not intervening. They asked for greater transparency, then when we provided it they accused the Government—wrongly—of hanging people out to dry. Given that this urgent question relates to the activities of the Home Office, I am not at all clear why the shadow Home Secretary thinks it is appropriate—given accusations that have been made previously about hanging officials out to dry—to name an official in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. How does that relate to the urgent question that was asked? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I think I need to help a little bit. It is in order to mention another Department. You cannot ringfence this and not refer to other people. It might not be comfortable, but the fact is that a question has been asked that is within order, and that is what matters.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful for your guidance, Mr Speaker. I am simply pointing out to the shadow Home Secretary that Conservative Members have previously criticised Ministers and the Government for, to use their words, hanging officials out to dry, and now the shadow Home Secretary has just named twice an official from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I have said to the Government Front Bench that I do not need any chipping in. I certainly do not need it from all along the Opposition Front Bench.
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Philp, you have had the benefit of an urgent question. I have had the benefit—some might say—of listening to you, so I want you to have the benefit of listening to the Minister.
Dan Jarvis
The shadow Home Secretary would be well advised to listen to the points being made. I am seeking to respond to the questions that he and other right hon. and hon. Members have raised. I am trying to do that in good faith, and I would be grateful for the opportunity to do so.
I remind the shadow Home Secretary that we are here today only because the previous Conservative Government did not move quickly enough to fix the glaring holes that existed in our national security laws. The charges in this case, as I hope is well known, were brought under the Official Secrets Act 1911. This antiquated legislation was drawn up before the first world war, and the Conservatives began reviewing it in 2015 because it was widely known that it was not fit for purpose. But it took eight years for them to introduce the National Security Act 2023. Fortunately, the law has now been updated, with cross-party support, but not in time to protect our Parliament from Chinese espionage. If the Conservatives had acted more quickly and the National Security Act had been in place when these alleged offences happened, the prosecution would likely have proceeded. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Look, I am trying really hard. People who hold positions should know better.
Dan Jarvis
Let me make this point crystal clear: no member of this Government, nor any special adviser, was in any way involved in the evidence submitted to the CPS or the decision by the DPP not to proceed with the case.
There was an important omission from the shadow Home Secretary’s remarks. As hon. Members will know, the first substantive witness statement was provided under the previous Government, when the right hon. Member was a Home Office Minister, yet neither he nor the Leader of the Opposition have taken the opportunity to say what involvement Conservative Ministers and Conservative special advisers had in the main tranche of the evidence.
The Prime Minister has confirmed that no Labour Ministers or special advisers were involved with the provision of evidence for the case. Last Wednesday during Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister asked the Leader of the Opposition to confirm whether that was also the case under the previous Government. I was in the House last Wednesday, and I think that I heard the Leader of the Opposition confirming from a sedentary position that she did know the answer to that question, but the Conservative party has refused to confirm if any Conservative Ministers or special advisers were involved in the provision of evidence under the previous Government. I wonder if any of the former Ministers in the Chamber can provide the answer.
As Ministers have repeatedly said from the Dispatch Box, the Government are extremely disappointed that the case did not proceed to trial. I gently say to Opposition Front-Bench Members that they need to stop throwing mud and start coming to terms with what happened on their watch.
Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month 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
Chris Ward
Having now had the opportunity to read these statements, Members will have been able to confirm for themselves what the Prime Minister and other members of the Government—
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just say—[Interruption.] No, you are going to hear it, whether you like it or not. Mr Tugendhat, I expect better from you. You will be wanting to catch my eye, and this is not the best way to do it. Can we please show a little bit more respect, which I normally get from you?
Chris Ward
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Having now had the opportunity to read the statements, Members will be able to confirm for themselves what the Prime Minister and other members of the Government have stated repeatedly: the DNSA faithfully, and with full integrity, set out the position of the previous UK Government and the various threats posed by the Chinese state to the UK, and did so in order to try to support a successful prosecution.
The first and most substantive witness statement is from December 2023, under the last Government. The second and third, which are both much shorter, are from February and August 2025 respectively. It is clear from these statements that the substantive case and evidence submitted by the DNSA does not change materially throughout, and that all three documents clearly articulate the very serious threats posed by China. The second witness statement, in particular, highlights the specific details of some of the cyber-threats that we face, and emphasises that China is the “biggest state-based threat” to the UK’s national security. The third statement goes on to state that 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…security of the UK.”
It is clear from this evidence, which all can now see, that the DNSA took significant strides to articulate the threat from China in support of the prosecution. The decision on whether to proceed, as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, was taken purely by the CPS. It is also clear that the three statements are constrained by the position of the Conservative Government on China at the time of the alleged offences.
As the Prime Minister said yesterday and the Security Minister said on Monday, this Government’s first priority will always be national security and keeping this country safe. We wanted this case to proceed. I am sure all Members of the House did, and I know you did too, Mr Speaker. We are all profoundly disappointed that it did not.
Chris Ward
I thank the shadow Minister for that and, as I say, I do recognise how personally important this matter is to him and to many Members of the House.
On transparency, the Security Minister has given two statements to this House. The Prime Minister gave what I think we can all agree was a rather lengthy statement yesterday, and he used the pretty unusual process of publishing the evidence in full yesterday, so transparency is something the Government are trying to provide.
The key point the shadow Minister made was about why the Prime Minister or Ministers did not interfere or try to do so. As the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, this was a matter for the CPS independently, and an important principle of this Government—[Interruption.] Evidence was provided independently by the deputy National Security Adviser. The Prime Minister made it clear, and this is the bit I find confusing—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Cartlidge, you are very energetic there and even I can hear you from here, so please can we have a little bit less?
Chris Ward
This is the bit that I find slightly confusing about the Opposition’s approach. On Monday and today as well, they have accused this Government of political interference, including by the National Security Adviser. The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that that is completely untrue. On the other hand, they are saying there should have been political interference, and that the Prime Minister should have directed or tried to help the CPS. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that that is not the case, and that no Prime Minister and no Government would interfere with the CPS on a decision to charge, which is entirely for it to make.
In terms of the evidence in the three statements put forward yesterday, there is clear consistency across them. They all set out the very, very serious threats that China poses. I do not think anyone can think that that is not the case. [Interruption.] It was provided independently by the deputy National Security Adviser without interference from anyone else. They are his words. It is his choice what happens, and that is what happened.
We have been through this several times—on Monday, yesterday and today. The Prime Minister has provided the evidence. It is there for Ministers and Members to see. Ultimately, the decision was taken by the CPS not to proceed and we are all disappointed in that.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
It seems to me that the issue is this: given that all the deputy NSA’s witness statements refer to China as a threat, I cannot understand why the CPS took the nuclear option of collapsing the case rather than leaving it to a jury. Twenty years as a criminal barrister has given me absolute faith that the jury would have spent no time on how many angels can dance on the top of a pin, but would simply have looked at whether or not China was an enemy. They would have found it very easy to decide that that is exactly what it was and then moved on to whether or not these men had been spying on behalf of China. It does seem to me that the decision should have been left to a jury. Does my hon. Friend have any idea why on earth the CPS dropped the case?
Chris Ward
As I say, this was a decision taken by the CPS independently, with no interference or involvement from the Government. Members may or may not sympathise with that decision. It was a CPS decision. That is why it is important that the evidence is in the public domain now and that everyone can judge from that how things proceeded.
I will just make one final point. Obviously, the CPS decision was not based purely on the evidence put forward by the DNSA. It was based on much wider evidence collected over a much longer period, so the decision on whether to proceed was taken by the CPS on a much broader evidential basis.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Yesterday, we saw finger pointing and “gotcha” moments from both the Government and the Opposition Benches during Prime Minister’s questions, but the release of the witness statements last night provides further questions for both sides, including what pressure was being applied to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) from within their own party to dampen down their criticisms of China. This whole thing makes an absolutely mockery of what is a serious collapse of a case and a threat to our national security—a threat that is not going away but will only increase.
Did the CPS tell the Government in advance that the case was at risk of collapsing? Did it ask the Government to be more explicit in their wording, and if so, why were the Government not more explicit? Will the Minister commit today to a statutory independent inquiry, which would provide radical transparency and ensure that the right lessons are learned so that this does not happen again?
Chris Ward
I can promise that I will try to avoid all “gotcha” moments and finger pointing. On the question of when the CPS informed the Government, my understanding, and the Prime Minister made this clear yesterday, is that the Prime Minister was informed very shortly before the case collapsed—a matter of days before. That is on the record—it was in the House, if you need to refer to that, from the Prime Minister.
In terms of future inquiries, I should have said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) that this is an issue Select Committees will want to look at as well. There is a normal process for that, but I am unable to go beyond that today.
Chris Ward
As I say, parliamentary scrutiny and transparency is something that, despite the allegation, we are trying to provide with statements and by publishing evidence. I am sure, going forward, that that is something that will carry on. I will come back to my hon. Friend on the precise mechanism for how we will do that, but I am sure people will be made available to his Committee.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Obviously, this is too important for party politics; it is a matter of national security against an existential threat from China. The Prime Minister was clear yesterday when he said that no Minister would ever apply pressure to the CPS, and I completely believe him. But we would like to have clarity that Ministers had no discussions with civil servants and then subsequently civil servants with the CPS. We want to be absolutely clear that there was no ministerial involvement at all.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
May I apologise for earlier outbursts, Mr Speaker? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not in the position of needing any advice or help. I have had enough from the Opposition Benches; I do not want it starting on the Government Benches, too. I think we will take it that there was, in fairness, an apology to those on the Front Bench.
Tom Tugendhat
May I start by saying briefly quite how this feels, Mr Speaker? My home has been broken into, my files have been ransacked, somebody was put into my office by a hostile state, and the two parties are playing politics with it. This is the national security of the United Kingdom. The people of Tonbridge elected me; they may have chosen wrong, but they did. The people of other parts of the United Kingdom chose everybody else in this House—it is up to them to choose who represents them. Yet here we have two individuals seeking to extract information from us, and the Government’s response is not as mine was: do everything you can to make sure the prosecution works. No, no, it was “process, process”. Well, who the hell’s side are you on? This is not about bureaucracy; this is about leadership. We are not sent here to be civil servants. We are sent here to lead the country and to make decisions.
I feel nothing but fondness for the Minister in his place, and I am very sorry that he has been sent out on what is not quite his first outing, but pretty close—[Interruption.] Oh, it is his first outing! He has been sent out on his first outing to defend the indefensible. He now has the position in which he effectively has to say that he is not a politician, but a bureaucrat, that there is nothing he can do, and that frankly he should not even be here in the first place, because that seems to be the Prime Minister’s line. Former Attorneys General have got up and prosecuted on the state’s behalf. This Attorney General and this Prime Minister have said, “Not on my watch—not worth the effort.”
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Can the Minister tell us whether the Attorney General shares the concern of the CPS that there is not enough evidence to prosecute?
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Until the statement was published last night, some of us had no idea about the details of this case, but the Government appear to be unwilling to answer three questions that have been asked repeatedly in this Chamber, so can you, Mr Speaker, kindly help me to ascertain how we get answers to them? The first concerns proof that, for the 14 months the CPS asked about, the DNSA at no point spoke to any Ministers or the National Security Adviser. Why, when the Prime Minister was informed that the case would collapse, did he not do everything in his power, and is there any evidence that he took any action at all? And why, if the Government are so disappointed that the case collapsed, have there been to this day no repercussions for the Chinese Communist party, despite the Government in power having every tool in the box to make it clear that we will protect this House, this democracy and this country?
Mr Speaker
I cannot prolong the UQ. I know the hon. Lady well, and I know she will not leave it at that point of order. She will go and use all the options that are open to her, and I am sure that she will be coming back in not too distant a time.
Tom Tugendhat
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will not; I am going to raise a different argument, if I may. Given that the Government’s position is that the bureaucrats run the Government and are in charge of everything, may we dissolve this House and save the taxpayer the money, because clearly this is not a democracy any more?
Mr Speaker
I am sure the right hon. Member would not want to give up his seat quite so quickly.
Graham Stuart
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have taken a close interest in this issue, Mr Speaker—the fact that it goes to the heart of this Parliament on the protection of Members of Parliament and the secrets that we sometimes hold. I am sure that you will share my concern that someone on their very first outing has been sent out on this issue and that the Prime Minister used yesterday’s Prime Minister’s questions and has not faced proper scrutiny in this House in a statement. May I gently ask whether you would seek to have him make a statement to the House?
Mr Speaker
It is not even a point of order, and you know that—we are keeping the debate going. I do congratulate the Minister and feel sorry that this is his first outing, but I have to say, if you take the pay check, you also take the pain that goes with it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
As you have just said, Mr Speaker, today marks four years since the horrific murder of Sir David Amess. Sir David was much loved across the House, kind and generous, and I know it was a huge loss to many Members opposite. May he rest in peace.
As we remember Sir David and our friend Jo Cox, of course, I want to take this opportunity to condemn unequivocally the death threats made against the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). I know the whole House will welcome the justice that has been done. Whatever our disagreements, we are all parliamentarians, and I will not stand for violence or threats against our democracy.
Mr Speaker, on that point, may I update the House on the China spy case? I am deeply disappointed by the outcome. We wanted to see prosecutions. Mr Speaker, I know just how seriously, rightly, that you take these matters. National security will always be the first priority of this Government, and we will always defend against espionage. In recent weeks, baseless accusations have been put about by the party opposite. Let me set out the facts. The relevant period was when these offences took place. That was under the Conservative Government between the years of 2021 and 2023. That period was bookended by the integrated review of 2021—the beginning of the period—and the refresh of that review in 2023, setting out their policy. These statements of Government policy were very carefully worded to not describe China as an enemy. Instead—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Mr Stuart, somebody who is on the Speaker’s panel, and who I have told once before, should know better. Do not question my judgment. I thought it was important that the Prime Minister tells the House first rather than somewhere else. Please, this is very important to me and to the House. I take it seriously, so I do not need any more side comments.
The Prime Minister
The review of ’21 and the refresh of ’23 were very carefully worded to not describe China as an enemy. Instead, they stated that they would “increase…national security protections” where China poses “a threat” and that the then Government would “engage…with China” to “leave room” open for “constructive and predictable relations”.
The deputy National Security Adviser, Matt Collins, set out the then Government’s position in a substantive witness statement in 2023, which was subsequently supplemented by two further short statements. The Cabinet Secretary assures me that the DNSA faithfully set out the policy of the then Tory Government. I know at first hand that the DNSA is a civil servant of the utmost integrity, and those Opposition Members who worked with him, I am sure, would agree with that assessment.
Under this Government, no Minister or special adviser played any role in the provision of evidence. I cannot say what the position was of the previous Government in relation to the involvement of Ministers or special advisers. If the Leader of the Opposition knows the answer to that question, and I suspect that she does, I invite her to update the House.
Last night, the Crown Prosecution Service clarified that, in its view, the decision whether to publish the witness statements of the DNSA is for the Government. I therefore carefully considered this question this morning, and after legal advice, I have decided to publish the witness statements. Given the information contained, we will conduct a short process, but I want to make it clear that I intend to publish the witness statements in full.
To be clear, had the Conservatives been quicker in updating our legislation—a review that started in 2015—these individuals could have been prosecuted and we would not be where we are now. I am happy to answer any questions on this.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
The Prime Minister
We want a country where young people are supported, where the quality of teaching is raised and where every skilled apprentice is valued and respected. We have set a new target of two thirds of young people to be in an apprenticeship or university. That will smash the glass ceiling and renew our country. We have supported this with a record £3 billion budget for more apprenticeships, more technical colleges and guaranteed training, apprenticeships or work for all 18 to 21-year-olds.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Mr Speaker, thank you for marking four years since the terrible murder of Sir David Amess. I know the whole House will want to join me in remembering our former colleague. He is very much still in our hearts and minds. The way he died reminds us that the security of Members and this Parliament is paramount, so it concerns us all that the case against two people spying on Members of this House has collapsed. It is simply unbelievable.
Exactly as I expected, the Prime Minister had to be dragged out at the top of PMQs to give a statement that answers no questions. [Laughter.] I don’t know what they are laughing at; we are talking about the security of this Parliament. He had to be dragged out only to repeat more obfuscation. It is simply unbelievable that he is trying to say that the last Government did not classify China as a threat, so I will refresh his memory.
In 2021, the previous Government’s integrated review described China as
“the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security.”
In 2024, the then Minister for Security said from the Dispatch Box that China poses a threat. But let us leave aside the Government. In November 2022, the director general of MI5 classified China as a threat in his remarks. How is it possible that the Government failed to provide the evidence that the CPS needed to prosecute?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend will have heard at our conference from Pooja Kanda, who I have met a number of times. Her son Ronan was fatally stabbed. Iusb am proud that we have delivered Ronan’s law to tackle the sale of ninja swords; we have also banned zombie knives and strengthened controls for online knife sales. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work in setting up the city safety summits.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
May I associate myself and my party with the tributes to David Amess? On behalf of my party, may I also pay tribute to Ming Campbell, who is being laid to rest today? That is the reason why my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) cannot be here. I thank you, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister and other Members of this House for the very kind tributes paid yesterday.
We welcome the new level of transparency from the Prime Minister, and we will scrutinise the witness statements closely, but it is clear that there are still many questions to be answered, including questions from Hongkongers. Hongkongers in St Albans and across the UK settled in our communities after they fled repression at the hands of the Chinese state, but they now see a British Government who want to make it harder for them to settle here permanently, refuse to impose targeted sanctions on Chinese officials who put bounties on Hongkongers’ heads, refuse to rule out a Chinese super-embassy and are failing to tackle Chinese espionage. Hongkongers are starting to ask whether the Prime Minister is trading away their security and safety in our communities for a cosier relationship with Beijing. What is the Prime Minister’s answer to them?
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the statement that the Security Minister made earlier this week and then again in answer to a question today, I have been misquoted—and the misquote, I think, is significant. It has been said that I, in a speech at Mansion House, said that describing China as a threat was
“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise.”
The quote was that describing China or our policy “in one word” was
“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise.”
In that speech, I went on to say of our policy:
“First, we will strengthen our national security protections wherever Beijing’s actions pose a threat to our people or our prosperity.”
I finished by saying:
“And when there are tensions with other objectives, we will always put our national security first.”
How can I get redress for this misquote, Mr Speaker?
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman has put it on the record, and it is there now for all to see. I will leave it at that.
Speaker’s Statement
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before we start the statements, I want to say a few words about our former colleague Lord Campbell of Pittenweem—better known to us as Ming—who died during the conference recess.
Ming was universally liked and respected across the House, regardless of people’s party allegiance. Unflappable, kind, principled, incredibly active and held in great esteem by all parties, Ming achieved success as an Olympian, as a lawyer and as a formidable politician in both Houses of Parliament, as well as leadership of the Liberal Democrats. He was one of Westminster’s most authoritative voices on foreign affairs, particularly in articulating his party’s opposition to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
On a personal level, Ming was a loyal friend to me and to my family. He served with my father on the Trade and Industry Committee, where they conducted many inquiries, most notably into the Iraq supergun affair. The two often vented their frustration about the thwarting of their efforts to get Ministers, officials or even fellow Members to appear before their Committee, but despite that, they pursued the inquiry fearlessly in order to get to the truth. Some things have never changed.
I know that Ming was hit especially hard by the death of his wife Elspeth; they were, of course, married for more than 50 years. Courage, wisdom and integrity were Ming’s hallmarks. We have lost a dear colleague and, for many of us, a wonderful friend. Our thoughts are with Ming’s family, his friends, and his allies across the political parties.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I first thank you for that generous tribute to our dear friend Ming?
I want to let the House into a secret about Ming Campbell: he was obsessed with sport—as one might expect from someone who was the captain of the Scottish men’s team at the Commonwealth games. I remember him talking about how he had been captivated by the 1948 London Olympics at the age of seven, listening to it on the radio with his mother, and how he had decided back then that he wanted to run at a future Olympic games. It is a dream of so many young boys and girls, but Ming—thanks to his determination, drive and work ethic—actually made it happen: he represented our country at the Tokyo games in 1964.
For a man once known as “the Flying Scotsman”, who set a new British 100-metre record at 10.2 seconds and who was probably the fastest person ever elected to this House, Ming was never one to brag about his sporting accomplishments. In fact, he was such a gentleman and so averse to boastfulness that it could be hard to get him to talk about them at all. I remember when Wayne Rooney broke a metatarsal in his foot ahead of the 2006 World cup. Ming had told us a story about how he had suffered an injury before the 1964 Olympic games and how hard he had worked to overcome it. We were all begging him to go on the radio, tell that story and encourage Wayne Rooney—a rare chance for the Liberal Democrat leader to break into the biggest sport story of the day—but Ming would not do it. I have to admit that it was frustrating at the time, but it was also a mark of why he was so respected and admired. That level of modesty is rare in anyone, especially in a politician, but those of us who knew Ming knew that it was simply the kind of man that he was.
It says a lot about Ming’s many and varied accomplishments that his extraordinary sporting achievements—being Britain’s fastest man and representing his country at the Olympics—will not be what he is most remembered for. Nor will he be most remembered for his law career, though he excelled at that too. He was even offered the chance to become a judge on Scotland’s High Court in 1996, but he turned it down because by then, as he put it, politics had got into his blood. And so, what Ming will be most remembered for is his enormous contribution to British politics—a parliamentary career spanning five decades, including 28 years representing North East Fife.
I got to know Ming early during his first Parliament, when I was the party’s economics adviser based in our Whips Office. Even then, he already had so much gravitas. He was so charming, so thoughtful and so respected. Ming was among those few MPs who were genuinely grandees from the first day they were elected, but his calmness, reasonableness and intense decency masked a radical politician: a man who never forgot his roots after growing up in a Glasgow tenement, and who was driven by a deep commitment to social justice. He said it was his role and the role of the Liberal Democrats to “rattle the cage” of British politics, and he did—especially, as you said, Mr Speaker, when it came to foreign affairs and defence, on which he led for our party for over 18 years, including, of course, in the lead-up to and after the Iraq war.
I remember how difficult a decision it was for us to oppose that war. It felt like we were not just going against the Government, but taking on the full might of the British state and the United States too. The way Ming tackled it, with his typically steady, forensic and lawyerly approach, gave us both the confidence and resolve to speak up strongly for what we believed. He made our position firmly rooted in respect for international law. At a time when the world was in turmoil following the horrific terrorist attacks of 11 September, Ming provided principled leadership with his trademark combination of morality, courage and wisdom, and he continued to do so, whether as leader of our party, as a respected member of the Intelligence and Security Committee and of the Foreign Affairs Committee, or in the other place.
I benefited greatly from Ming’s advice and guidance over more than 30 years, and turned to him often about foreign affairs in my own time as leader. I will miss his wise counsel, as I know many of us will. But, more than that, he was an incredibly warm and caring friend—a colleague with such generosity and humour. He called his late wife Elspeth his rock, and she was always by his side—mostly with a cigarette. They were such good fun and such great company.
It was once said of Ming that he
“runs the risk of giving politicians a good name.”
Well, he certainly did that. His passing is a moment for us to consider how we are all viewed as politicians and what changes we could make, both individually and collectively, to further the cause of good, decent, hopeful politics—something that Ming embodied entirely.
Ming Campbell was a dedicated public servant, a tireless champion for Fife, St Andrews and the United Kingdom, and a true Liberal giant. I know all of us in the Liberal Democrat family and across this House will miss him terribly.
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Everyone in this House knows what an honour it is to represent our country, but for most of us that appreciation comes from the rather sedentary position on these Benches, not from the international running track where Lord Campbell of Pittenweem first represented Great Britain at the Olympic games in Tokyo in 1964. He remained quick on his feet as a barrister, before becoming an MP, where, I am told, he made the most of his talents by sprinting door to door while canvassing. Ultimately, of course, he became a respected voice on foreign and defence affairs, becoming leader of the Liberal Democrats. This was despite many overtures from one of my predecessors, his old Glasgow University friend John Smith, to join the Labour party as a young man. No, Ming, as many came to know him, was determined and he knew his own mind.
Ming Campbell was authoritative on the subjects that he was passionate about, so it was no wonder that he had the respect and admiration of colleagues across the House, who recognised his wisdom and unfailing kindness over 28 years of service as a Member of this Parliament. Today we remember his commitment to Scotland and in particular of course to Fife—championing its industries from fishing to, in his case, flying—as well as becoming chancellor of the University of St Andrews, where he spoke of his joy at meeting students and young people full of hope for the future—a future he had done so much to shape. It was a full life, well lived alongside Elspeth, his beloved wife of more than 50 years. We are all enriched by his sense of duty and commitment to this country. He stands in the finest traditions of this House, so it is a privilege, on behalf of the Labour Benches, to pay tribute to the “Flying Scotsman”. May he rest in peace.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Conservative party, I would like to add my voice to the tributes paid today to Lord Campbell. I had the pleasure of meeting Sir Ming Campbell, as he was then, just once—backstage before “Any Questions?”—and he was very courteous, very curious and very earnest. We all know how well respected he was across this House, not least because of the efforts he made to work cross-party, especially on international matters. He was a man with a clear sense of right and wrong, committed to doing the right thing even when it was difficult or unpopular, so I very much hope that his legacy of careful thought, integrity and public service endures. On behalf of myself and my party, I extend heartfelt condolences to Sir Ming’s family, his party and all those who knew him and loved him.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. For those of us on all sides who were here during the debate on the Iraq war, I want to thank Ming for the legal advice that he provided and the way that he addressed that debate, because he did so without seeking any party advantage. He simply set out the legal principles on which he was making his decision, and he did so with compassion and with the recognition of the moral duty that we all had. Many of us agreed with him and voted with him, and many did not, but everybody respected his judgment as a result. I believe he was a model MP, always speaking and voting on the basis of his conscience and the interests of his constituency and the country overall. He will be greatly missed, but I think his lesson will remain with many of us throughout our own parliamentary careers.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. As a Conservative, I want to join our Liberal friends in paying tribute to such a gallant and charming gentleman. His least successful period in this House was probably as leader of his party—perhaps he was just too nice; perhaps he could see both sides of the question—but what a great man and what a great foreign affairs spokesman. Following on from the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the whole episode of the Iraq war was so difficult for us in this House, particularly for those of us who broke with our party to oppose it. He gave us leadership and rigour, and he has been proved right. Of course, there are no prizes for being proved right, but history will prove him right.
Middle East
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Before I update the House on the peace process in the middle east and my trade visit to India, I want to put on record my utter condemnation of the vile antisemitic terrorist attack at the Heaton Park synagogue in Manchester, which killed two Jewish men: Adrian Daulby and Melvin Cravitz.
Antisemitism is not a new hatred. Here in Britain, Jews have had to deal with the shameful reality that their buildings, their way of life and their children need extra protection. We must also be crystal clear that while this was an attack on Jews because they were Jews, the Islamist extremism that motivated this sick individual is a threat to every citizen of this country. It is an attack on British values, British security and the British decency that holds our communities together.
Moreover, we can see clearly that antisemitism is on the rise in Britain once again. We will scale up the protection we provide for Jewish people. We will set out new measures to prevent hatred abusing the democratic right to protest. We will stop at nothing to root out antisemitism. The same applies to the arson attack on the Peacehaven mosque. An attack on British Muslims is also an attack on us all, so we condemn this despicable crime and the poison of anti-Muslim hatred. We will fight against hate in all its forms.
I now turn to the middle east, and to words I have longed to say in this House for a very long time: the surviving hostages are free, the bombardment of Gaza has stopped, and desperately needed aid is starting to enter. As a result of the peace plan led by President Trump, we have the chance—it is a chance—to bring a terrible chapter in history finally to a close. It is a moment of profound relief for the House, this nation, and indeed the whole world, but it is tempered, of course, by the knowledge that for the hostages and their families, the loved ones of those killed on 7 October and the innocent civilians in Gaza—the dead, the bereaved, the starving—this has been two years of living hell.
I think of Avinatan Or, who has family ties to the United Kingdom, returned at last to his family and his girlfriend Noa. Avinatan and Noa were taken from that music festival two years ago, the footage of their abduction filmed by Hamas—evil committed to camera. I have met Avinatan’s family, and heard for myself the agony that they suffered for two long years, waiting for him to come home. His frail condition is shocking evidence of the appalling treatment he must have endured. We await the release of the deceased hostages; their families need the chance to grieve, so we demand that they are returned to their families immediately.
My thoughts are also with the people of Gaza, almost all of whom will have lost family members—husbands, wives, brothers, sisters and, worst of all, sons and daughters. Over 20,000 children were killed. I think of people like Yara Yaghi, who I met a year ago. She was 17 years old and was studying at college in Hertfordshire. She had lost 44 members of her family—a pain that cannot be erased, even as we welcome the peace today.
Mercifully, the killing and destruction has now stopped, and aid is beginning to enter Gaza. To be clear, we urgently need to see more aid, and faster. All restrictions must now be lifted. The need for food, sanitation, healthcare and shelter are all still acute. While the signing yesterday was historic, what matters now is implementation and getting help in as quickly as possible.
The UK is providing £20 million in additional humanitarian support to get water, sanitation and hygiene products to tens of thousands of civilians across Gaza. That is in addition to the support we are already providing. Our two field hospitals in Gaza have already seen 600,000 patients, and earlier this month we evacuated the third group of sick and injured Palestinian children to the United Kingdom. They are now being treated by the NHS. We will work with the UN and our partners to go further and faster in providing the aid that is so desperately needed.
Let no one be in any doubt that none of this would have been possible without President Trump. This is his peace deal, delivered of course with President Sisi of Egypt, the Emir of Qatar and President Erdoğan of Türkiye. Alongside our partners, we offered the UK’s full support to these efforts. We have worked behind the scenes for months with the US and Arab and European nations to help deliver a ceasefire, get the hostages out, get aid in and secure a better future for Israel, Gaza and the west bank. I am proud of our contribution.
We are in a position to play this role precisely because of the approach this Government take. That includes our decision to recognise the state of Palestine. This move, taken alongside our allies—France, Canada, Australia and others—helped lead to the historic New York declaration, in which, for the first time, the entire Arab League condemned the atrocities of 7 October, urged Hamas to disarm and, crucially, demanded that it end its rule in Gaza.
But let me be clear that while we celebrate the relief of peace today, making that peace last will be no less difficult a task. Along with our allies, we will have absolute focus in the days and weeks ahead on the relentless implementation of the peace plan. That is no small challenge, so we stand ready to deploy our diplomacy and expertise in three key areas. The first is in supporting the reconstruction of Gaza, which is an immense task. The devastation defies description. This will require a truly international effort; we are ready to play our part, starting at a conference this week, here in the United Kingdom, hosted by the Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer). Secondly, to support transitional governance arrangements in Gaza, we will continue to work closely with the Palestinian Authority on the vital reforms that they need to make. Thirdly, we will help ensure security in Gaza through a ceasefire monitoring process and planning for the international stabilisation force. Drawing on our experience in Northern Ireland, we stand ready to play a full role in the decommissioning of Hamas weapons and capability, because, as the House knows, there can be no viable future for Gaza and no security for Israel if Hamas can still threaten bloodshed and terror, so we will work to put that threat out of action for good.
This is the first real chance we have had of a two-state solution since the Oslo accords over three decades ago, so we are fully committed to this, because a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state is the only way to secure lasting peace for the middle east. I have been clear all along that that must be our goal, so we will work now to follow through on the 20-point peace plan and deliver it in full, including by supporting a dialogue to agree on a political horizon for peaceful co-existence.
Finally, I want to update the House on my discussions with Prime Minister Modi last week in Mumbai. India is a growing force on the world stage, and is on track to have the third-largest economy by 2028. In addition to the bond that we already share—the living bridge of family and history—we are also united by the future and the incredible opportunities that we see before us. That is why, back in July, we signed a historic trade deal, opening up new opportunities for British businesses in India. That is why, last week, I led the biggest British trade delegation to India ever. We announced that more British universities are opening campuses in India, making us its leading international education provider. We are also deepening the UK-India technology security initiative to boost opportunities for our brilliant tech sector. We also announced new deals and investment, including in advanced manufacturing, defence, car production and Bollywood film making here in the United Kingdom. Those investments into the United Kingdom are worth £1.3 billion, and they will create 10,600 jobs. That is real change that people will see in their communities up and down the country.
I set that out because it speaks again to our approach on the world stage, as do our deals with the United States and the EU, and the approach that we bring to crises and conflicts as well. Instead of threatening to walk away or indulging in the cheap political theatre that comes from castigating our allies—allies we need to deliver peace and economic stability in a dangerous, volatile world—we stay in the room. We trust in diplomacy, and we back the reputation, talent and pride of this country to change the world to the benefit of the British people. This is a politics of national renewal, in which we work with our partners, rather than against them—a politics that solves problems, rather than exploiting them, and that believes that our openness to the world is what helps us take control of our future, rather than shutting the door and hoping for the best. That is how the Government deliver for Britain. I commend this statement to the House.
The Prime Minister
May I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her words about the hostages a moment ago? I know how heartfelt they are.
I was surprised and saddened that she spent more time attacking what we actually did to help the process than even mentioning the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, without setting out in terms the number of people who have been killed, who are starving and who have been subjected to denial of aid. When the immediate task for any serious Government is to work with allies to get that aid in at speed, I would have expected at least an acknowledgment of that terrible situation. It shows, yet again, just how far her party has slid from a serious statesperson’s approach to diplomacy.
This is not the time for a fight about what role any individual played. I am proud of what Steve Witkoff said about our National Security Adviser. He was negotiating this, he knows the role that we played, and this House should be proud of that. We were able to play that role only because of the relationship that this Government have with the Trump Administration: we are a trusted partner, working both before this peace deal and afterwards. And yes, I did discuss recognition of Palestine with President Trump when he was over here, because that is what grown-up, responsible partners do—unlike the discussion here. I stand by my words that in New York that was the first time that other countries in the region were clear in their condemnation of Hamas. That was a key aspect of what has now happened.
On her other questions, the Leader of the Opposition will know, from the reforms that have already been committed to, that the Palestinian Authority will not tolerate any election of individuals or parties that are not committed to a peaceful process. That is an absolute red line, it is part of the agreement and it is what we have been talking to other allies about for a very long time. On healthcare cases, as I reported, we have had such cases coming to the United Kingdom, as well as students. We are extremely careful in the checks that we carry out on everybody who comes to this country.
I return to the fact that this is a historic deal. It is important for the region and it is important for the world. It is to be celebrated across this House because of the relief it brings to the hostages and their families in particular, and to the many thousands of people in Gaza. As I said, I was surprised and saddened that the Leader of the Opposition has overlooked a really important part of the resolution of the conflict.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister, his Ministers and all the officials who I know have been working incredibly hard behind the scenes for the past two years to get to this historic point. He is right; it is a chance for peace. I am nervous about the next stages, but it is definitely a chance to get aid flooding into Gaza. Will he give us some more details about how that will happen in practice, with Israel controlling all the borders? Will he also speak about the role of UNRWA? I say to the Leader of the Opposition that UNRWA is a UN organisation that acts as the local authority, providing education, medical services, sewerage and desalination. It is an organisation that is central to supporting the Palestinians facing starvation and dealing with the consequences of genocide. I urge the Prime Minister to continue to rally the international community to put pressure on Israel to let that aid flood in and to ensure that the Palestinians are central in the future of their communities.