Lord Mandelson

Luke Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making excellent points. It is a surprise not to see the Prime Minister answering these questions himself. At the end of the day, he made the decision to appoint Mandelson to the post of ambassador, so he must explain his decision-making process, and what he knew and when. Why is he not here?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In fairness, that is not a problem for Mr Burghart to address. Who responds is a matter for the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

As I think I have already said, I will take the point away. My hon. Friend knows from our personal details on a different matter my respect for the Intelligence and Security Committee and its work.

[Dr Luke Evans]

rose—

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I am not sure what extent of friendship with a known, convicted sex trafficker is appropriate for somebody who is to be put in our most senior diplomatic position. In 2019, Channel 4’s “Dispatches” interviewed a witness who saw Epstein, while he was in prison for child sex trafficking, take a phone call from Mandelson. Mandelson asked for a favour—to meet the then chief executive officer of J.P. Morgan. All this information was in the public domain.

[Dr Evans]

The hon. Lady’s point is exactly right: this information was in the public domain, often in the US. One of the questions that the Government have not answered is whether the US was asked if there were any concerns. This relationship was public—we knew that it existed—so was the US asked for any information, or about any concerns it had? I have not heard the Government explain that point; has the hon. Lady?

[Lisa Smart]

I am sure that I have been listening as intently as the hon. Gentleman. There are so many questions that it is right for the Government to answer, and we believe that a public inquiry, after any police investigation has concluded, is the way to get to the bottom of them. There are questions swirling around about which advisers said what, when, but the decision to hire Mandelson was ultimately the Prime Minister’s, and he must be held responsible for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

Once we get the revelations from the documents as to precisely what occurred in the case of Lord Mandelson, that is bound to raise questions about what procedures were followed in the case of other appointees, particularly Jonathan Powell, who in many ways is the Foreign Secretary of this country.

We were told that the second stage of the process was the “due diligence” carried out by the Cabinet Office. The due diligence consisted of “identification of information” and judgment about it. However, all the information that was obtained in the due diligence was actually in the public domain already. No additional investigation took place; it was simply, essentially, an internet trawl. That due diligence report was presented to the Cabinet Secretary for onward transmission to the Prime Minister. However, due diligence through an internet trawl, even at that time, would already have shown up the fact that Peter Mandelson had stayed in the townhouse belonging to Jeffrey Epstein after his conviction, so the continuing association after his conviction had already been reported in the press and was therefore bound to form part of the due diligence process.

The question that has been raised several times in this debate already is this: when the appointment was made, did the Prime Minister know? We understand that, potentially, he did, which I assume was contained in the due diligence report. That was put directly to the Cabinet Secretary:

“did you tell the Prime Minister about Mandelson staying in the Manhattan townhouse when Epstein was in jail?”

All that the Cabinet Secretary said to us was:

“I will consider whether there is further information that can be shared and write to the Committee.”

We have never had a full answer to that question.

The third part of the process was the developed vetting, which we are told is a usual process for very senior appointments. We are told that it consists of a wide range of different investigations into staff files, company records checks, spent and unspent criminal records, credit history, a check of security service records, and an interview—not just of the candidate, but of the referees supplied—by a trained investigating officer. We will need to see the outcome of that report, even if it can only be provided, as the Government have now conceded, to the Intelligence and Security Committee.

With those three processes, the Prime Minister still decided that there was no obstacle to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. We then come to the question put to him at Prime Minister’s questions following the Bloomberg report of the large number of emails. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office learnt of those emails the night before Prime Minister’s questions. I pressed the permanent under-secretary on whether No. 10 had been told that the emails contained material evidence that could potentially change the whole perception of Lord Mandelson’s relationship. He said that he had a “duty of care” to Lord Mandelson and therefore needed to make checks. He essentially told us that No. 10 had not been informed. I find that very hard to believe. As somebody who used to prepare a Prime Minister for answering questions, I find the idea that the Prime Minister was not told something of that order absolutely extraordinary.

There is another question that needs to be asked. The British Government say that they discovered all the emails that proved the relationship was of very long standing and much closer than had ever been admitted by Lord Mandelson, because Bloomberg obtained copies in a leak. They were held by the US Government in the Department of Justice for months. The US Government knew all about them, but we are told it was only when Bloomberg obtained them that the British Government found out.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Does my right hon. Friend believe it is conceivable that the Government did not ask, “Is there any kompromat on the British ambassador to the US?” The idea seems incredulous. As he rightly points out, this has been known about for years.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are two possible questions. First, why did the British Government never ask the US Government, who they knew had all this material from Jeffrey Epstein, whether it contained any additional information that might be relevant to the appointment of Peter Mandelson? Equally, we are told that our relationship with the US is so close that we share intelligence. Is it really the case that they did not feel it necessary to tell us? Either way, it is an appalling breakdown of communication, and I have to say that I find it very difficult to believe.

These are all questions on which we pressed the permanent under-secretary and the Cabinet Secretary, and on which we failed to obtain any answers. I have to say that my confidence in a further investigation by the Cabinet Secretary is influenced by his failure to answer any of those questions when he came before the Foreign Affairs Committee the first time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

“Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.” That is a slightly obscure quote from a Trojan priest—the one who spotted the danger. Many Members will know the wider story of the Trojan horse. The moral of that story is that warnings were there but were ignored. That is fundamental to what we are seeing today. Troy did not fall because there were no warnings; it fell because they were dismissed, sent away, ignored. That led to catastrophe.

Let us apply that to our Prime Minister. He appointed as ambassador a man known for decades as “the dark knight” for operating behind the scenes. That was his reputation—and not only on that basis. He was sacked not once but twice from Cabinet roles. Every instinct in me says that no other Member of Parliament, on whatever side of the House, would think him a suitable candidate to be this great nation’s ambassador to one of our greatest allies.

We have heard that we cannot have more information because of national security concerns, but we Conservatives are not asking to see the blueprints of the horse, or the blueprints of the walls of Troy; we are simply asking whether the Prime Minister was warned before he wheeled into Government the Trojan horse that was Mandelson. Did he receive any information? Did he know anything? I was thinking about that this morning, until I heard the Prime Minister speak at Prime Minister’s questions. As was rightly pointed out in the speech before mine, he did know. This is not analogue or digital; he knew that there were concerns but he made the appointment. This is not about the intelligence but about judgment. We want to understand whether advice was given and whether it was followed. It is not about how that advice was written, but simply whether it was acknowledged, passed on and ignored.

What has not been mentioned is that we have been over this once before. Just before Christmas, we had a debate under Standing Order No. 24. At the time, I asked why the Prime Minister had not come to the House. By his own admission, he makes the decisions, so he must have all the answers. When he came into government, he said at the door of No. 10 that he wanted to do things differently. All he has proved is that he cannot show leadership by coming to answer the questions put to him.

Yet again, we are spending parliamentary time debating whether information will be released, when the Prime Minister knows that information. In the five hours that we will have spent debating this motion, he could have answered our questions and set this right. Instead, he is not here. Members might say that convention shows no other Prime Minister has done that. Well, some of them did, but, more importantly, this Prime Minister said that he was going to be different; he told us that he wanted to see change.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

I found it shocking today when the Prime Minister openly admitted that he knew that Mandelson had an ongoing relationship with a convicted paedophile when he appointed him. Regardless of anything else we discuss today, that goes against any value that I stand for in my life and that my constituents would stand for. Does my hon. Friend believe that it is untenable for the Prime Minister to stay in his position?

[Dr Evans]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Troy fell because leaders ignored the advice given when the horse was at the gate, and Prime Ministers fall for the same reason. The Prime Minister is either saying that his judgment was so catastrophic that he did not see what all of us have seen instinctively or that he chose to ignore the information. Whichever the outcome, that is the problem that faces us today.

It is customary in these kinds of debates for a speaker to pose questions to the ministerial team. I will not do that; instead, my question is to the people sitting behind them on the Government Back Benches. Why are we having a Humble Address? This is the very opportunity—the literal reason for them—for Humble Addresses. They exist in moments such as this one, when there is stalling in scrutiny, when we cannot get the answers that this House demands and when there is obfuscation and no way forward. Today, we ask the Monarch to compel the Government to give out that information. That is important not only for party politics but for both sides of this House and the wider country. The motion does not ask those on the Government Benches to condemn but simply to clarify. We need to know who said what, when and why, who knew what, and with whom and what were the discussions. I think that can be supported on all sides of the House. Clarity is what the Humble Address strives for.

Back Benchers are not being asked to defend or attack the appointment; they are simply being asked to step forward and vote for a motion that means all of us, here in this House and across the country, get to understand why the Prime Minister made his decision. If he will not come to the Dispatch Box and answer the questions about that, maybe the documentation that he saw and signed off will show the answers. I ask Members on the Government Benches to support this motion, to stand up for that simple transparency and to let us have some clarity on what has happened and what will happen going forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

If the Prime Minister was here, I am sure that he would be able to answer that question. What has always amazed me—and a lot of others, I am sure—is how Mandelson has risen again from the ashes after each disgrace.

[Dr Evans]

Can my hon. Friend tell us what we can learn about the documentation, and how the investigation was run back then? As he pointed out, Mandelson was exonerated, yet other papers were found, and suddenly he was guilty. It would be helpful to understand what needs to be done to ensure that we have the right information, as we need to make inferences and decisions about what was going on.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I was going to conclude by saying that I go along with those people who have called for a public inquiry, because it would be able to require the production of the documents. We know from the experience of Sir Anthony Hammond that a non-judicially led public inquiry cannot necessarily get access to all the documents needed. We do not want some whitewash inquiry by the Cabinet Office, and then to find out a couple of years later that it did not have all the documents in front of it. That is the argument in favour of having a public inquiry.

How is it that this Teflon-coated Mandelson has been able to hold high office in the Labour party for all these years? One of the most important speeches today was given by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon). He and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) know what it is like to be on the receiving end of the Stasi—in this case, the New Labour Stasi. The only explanation for Mandelson continuing to be reinstated after all this bad behaviour is that he was seen as a key party member, and an enforcer of the New Labour Stasi. He was plausible and well connected, and knew how to ingratiate himself with the rich and powerful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Actually, I think the appointment has been made. I have met the gentleman concerned, who is an esteemed member of the diplomatic corps. He was present at Mr Speaker’s dinner in honour of the Speaker of the House of Representatives two or three weeks ago. We are in safer, more secure hands.

[Dr Luke Evans]

We have heard during the course of this debate that a manuscript amendment to amendment (a) will be moved, stating:

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

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that all the information we are requesting will, under that amendment, go to the ISC? We have not as yet heard from the Government what will happen with that information, where the reports will come and what will be done. We have not heard the judgment about whether an embarrassment for a Labour Government is different from national security and international relations. Does he share my concern that, unless the Government set out what that framework will look like, it will be hard to vote for their amendment, given the risk of losing that transparency?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am not going to suggest that we do not vote in support of our own motion. We know from the course of this debate that a lot more questions are being raised. In due course, with the forensic leadership shown by the Leader of the Opposition, I think we will be able to get to the bottom of these issues and get the answers we deserve. In the meantime, it is frustrating for people.

I will finish with this final note. I did not go to Oxford, but we should show solidarity with the people of Oxford University, who had the wisdom not to elect Mandelson as their chancellor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans]

Is the wider point not that, if the Prime Minister had been duped, he would have released the papers back in September when we had the Standing Order No. 24 debate or put them out there now, rather than leaving it until this debate forced his hand? The only reason some papers are being released is that his hand has been forced by the Leader of the Opposition. Does my hon. Friend not think that is bizarre?

[Saqib Bhatti]

Well, it is not bizarre, because we have been here many times before. The Government have been dragged along time after time, scandal after scandal. I say to Government Back Benchers: this is a Prime Minister who is flailing. He has admitted, after months and months of pushing, that he knew—he knew about the relationship that Mandelson had with Epstein, and yet he thought it was a risk worth taking anyway.

I made this point earlier, but that “risk” was not just in denigrating the experience of the victims; it was in marching all those Labour Members up the hill and risking their careers. We are Members of Parliament; it is okay that we care about our careers, wherever they may end up, but the truth is that the Prime Minister did not care about them. That journey is not over yet, because he is going to use those people over and over again; he will throw other people under the bus before he throws his chief of staff under the bus—but that will happen too, I can almost guarantee it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

This has been an absolutely extraordinary day in British politics. It is not often that there is an audible intake of breath in this Chamber, but we all heard it earlier—that gasp when the Prime Minister admitted that, yes, he had known that Peter Mandelson had had an ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein when he appointed him as our ambassador to Washington. It was a truly extraordinary admission.

The argument that the Prime Minister is now making, which is quite incredible, is that he knew, but he did not know the depth and extent. That implies that there is some reasonable extent to which a person can be in a long-term relationship with the world’s most famous paedophile and still be appointed our ambassador to Washington. It implies that a person can, to a certain reasonable depth, be involved with the world’s most corrupt man and still be appointed His Majesty’s ambassador. The Prime Minister is now asking to be taken on trust. Well, after this whole sordid affair, I am afraid that is just not good enough any more.

The Prime Minister knew that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s house while he was in jail for child prostitution. Did that not set some alarm bells ringing in the Prime Minister’s mind, or is that not deep enough a relationship to have worried him? My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) told the House earlier that the British Government were warned by one of our closest international allies about their deep concerns before Mandelson’s appointment. Did that not set some alarm bells ringing in the Prime Minister’s mind? No, instead he appointed a man who twice had to resign over corruption, and now—unbelievably—his argument is, “If only there had been some sign that Peter Mandelson was like this?” It is unbelievable, and this may be just the beginning.

We now really need the Minister to answer a specific point that Ministers ducked and refused to address earlier—the whole House will hear if he does not answer. Will the Government agree to a full investigation into Mandelson’s behaviour while he was our ambassador in Washington? On 27 February last year, Mandelson arranged for the Prime Minister to meet Palantir—a client of Mandelson’s company, Global Counsel. That meeting was not recorded in the PM’s register of meetings and emerged only later. Palantir was then awarded a £240 million contract by the Government as a direct award rather than through a competition. We need the Cabinet Secretary to examine the circumstances of that contract. Does the Minister agree—yes or no?

Why was that prime ministerial meeting not recorded in the normal way? How many more such lobbyist meetings were there? What other inside information was shared with Mandelson’s clients? Will the Minister now agree to a full inquiry into Mandelson’s time as our ambassador—yes or no? Furthermore, can the Minister reassure the House that the proper process has been followed for all No. 10’s other recent appointments? Can he give the House that reassurance very clearly?

Before I come to the manuscript amendment, let me say something positive about some of the contributions we have heard today from Labour Back Benchers. The hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) gave a genuinely superb speech, in which he said that he would not be able to look victims in the eye if he voted for the Government’s amendment. It was a brave speech, but he was not completely alone. We also heard sensible comments from other Labour Back Benchers, including the hon. Members for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) and for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), all of whom pointed out that the Government’s cover-up amendment was simply not going to fly. I think the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) actually said that she would be ashamed to vote for it, and she was totally right.

All those Labour Back Benchers have shown their character today, but what a contrast with the Prime Minister’s behaviour. He is not here, and he has still not apologised for appointing Mandelson. A few hours ago he was telling this House that these documents could not be published—he said at PMQs that the Leader of the Opposition was outrageous and silly for even asking—yet here we are, just a few hours later, and the Government have had a total U-turn because they know that they cannot get their own people to vote for this shameful proposed cover-up.

The Prime Minister has not been decisive—he only sacked Peter Mandelson because we forced him to. He said again and again that he had full confidence in him, and I think many voters will be thinking, “Why on earth was the Prime Minister so deeply in hock to this man?” The truth is that Mandelson was not out on a limb over in Washington; he was a deeply embedded part of the Prime Minister’s operation. He was involved in the selection of some of the MPs who are in the Chamber today. He was involved in the Prime Minister’s reshuffle, and was part of the “toxic culture” in No. 10 that the Health Secretary—the Labour Health Secretary—has warned about. Most shamefully of all, a former Labour Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, tried to get documents about some of the things that Peter Mandelson had done and was rebuffed. Funnily enough, those documents could not be found. Whatever people think of Gordon Brown, if they are choosing Peter Mandelson over him, they are making the wrong decision.

I now come to the manuscript amendment that has been hastily produced by the Government. For the people watching at home, this is an amendment to an amendment—a U-turn on top of a U-turn. Given the chaos we have seen from the Government, we now need three clear assurances, and we will all be listening to the Minister when he comes to the Dispatch Box. First, we need an assurance that everything that people in No. 10 do not want to publish will be sent to the ISC in unredacted form. Secondly, we need an assurance that it will be the ISC, not No. 10, that determines the handling of those documents. This comes back to the very good question posed by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington: if the ISC says that documents deemed sensitive by No. 10 can be released, will it be able to release them without any veto from No. 10?

[Dr Luke Evans]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is really important that we get clarity from the Government on that point, because there could be individual documents, as opposed to a report? The independent committee can produce a report, but we need to know whether individual documents that could be challenged could be put out if the committee felt it was correct to do so.

[Neil O’Brien]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I want to know whether the Minister agrees that the ISC should be able to give the gist of documents, even if they are not fully released.

Thirdly on this hastily proposed manuscript amendment, can we be reassured that we will not be waiting for months—that this will not turn out like the grooming gangs, where nothing happens in the end? Can we have an assurance that we will not be waiting for ages, and that there will be a clear and short timeframe for getting the documents published and to the ISC?

China and Japan

Luke Evans Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is a champion for Harlow, and it has been so good to visit it so many times. We had 60 businesses in the delegation with us. They were enthusiastic about the opportunities that this visit would open up for them and for all the associated businesses—including in his constituency—that will be able to work with them on projects in the future.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

It is widely reported in the media that the Prime Minister and his entourage had burner phones when they went to China. Could he confirm that? If so, was the reason that he was worried he was being spied upon?

[The Prime Minister]

We took appropriate precautions, as we do whichever country we visit.

Chinese Embassy

Luke Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

Not at all—I am seeking to explain to her that this Government, like the last Government, manage a range of national security risks. That would be the case whatever decision was taken around this proposal.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I am going to ask again: does this make the British public safer—yes or no?

[Dan Jarvis]

Fundamentally, Government are there to make the British people safer. For the reasons that I have explained, I am confident that this is the right decision from a national security perspective.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My thoughts, and the thoughts of the whole House, are with all those so awfully impacted by the terrible road traffic accident in my hon. Friend’s constituency over the weekend. On her question, we are determined to restore the dream of home ownership. That is why there has been £39 billion of investment to deliver the biggest boost in social and affordable housing in a generation. Through planning reforms, the new homes accelerator and new towns, we are determined to deliver the homes that people need.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Q10. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to the violence against women and girls strategy, but I and many others have concerns about stigmatising young boys, men and masculinity as inherently toxic, especially when suicide is the No. 1 killer of young men. Is it about time that we had a Minister for men and boys? This is about women and men, not women or men.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for what we are doing about violence against women and girls. I agree that this is not about women or men, or boys or girls; it is about both. That is why I was very pleased to bring forward our men’s health strategy, one of the first of its sort, to deal with the challenges that young men in particular, in my view, have growing up, particularly to do with social media, and to go further on the question of suicide, which I know the whole House is prepared to work together on—and quite right, too.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend, who has fought for her constituents on this issue for years. Meanwhile, decades of SNP cuts and broken promises have left schools crumbling. What a contrast: by the end of this Parliament, every school in England will be either RAAC free or rebuilt entirely. We delivered the largest settlement for the Scottish Government in the history of devolution, so the question for SNP is: after decades of decline, what is their excuse?

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Q7. Mr Speaker, I feel for the Prime Minister. It must be tough, wherever he goes in the UK, because of his policies: a pub, higher taxes; a restaurant, higher taxes; a café, higher taxes; a farm, higher taxes; a GP, higher taxes; a care home, higher taxes; a hospice, higher taxes. Is that the reason the Prime Minister chooses to spend so much time out of this country?

[The Prime Minister]

What a load of nonsense. We are at a critical stage of progress in Ukraine, which will affect Ukraine’s sovereignty, the whole of Europe and the values that we hold dear. We are one of the leading countries seeking to strengthen NATO at a vital time for defence and security in Europe; we have secured trade deals that the Conservatives tried for years to achieve but never did, because of our international engagement; and we have got better relations with the EU, all of which is good for our country. Ridiculous question!

Ministerial Code

Luke Evans Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Josh Simons]

I thank the hon. Member for drawing my attention to that issue. I do not know the details of it, but I am happy to look into it and to refer that to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I will try a fourth time. We know that the chair of the football regulator—the chap who is now in charge—donated to the Labour party, to both the Prime Minister and the Culture Secretary, before he was appointed. At what point did the Prime Minister know personally that he was signing off a Labour donor to be chair of the football regulator?

China Spying Case

Luke Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

That is the million-dollar question. Why were the Government not prepared to say something that was manifestly evidentially true to all and sundry?

The third example is that on 15 October, the Prime Minister said that the deputy National Security Adviser acted entirely independently, without consultation with Ministers or special advisers, and without political involvement. However, the CPS has now made it clear that there were multiple discussions about what the DNSA would and would not say, starting with one such discussion on 3 July 2025. Moreover, the DNSA’s first witness statement was sighted by

“the then National Security Adviser and the…Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary”,

and

“sent to the…Prime Minister through No.10 private office”,

including special advisers.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Is it therefore not incredible either way that the deputy NSA did not discuss the biggest spy case this century with his boss, the National Security Adviser, and was left to his own devices to provide the evidence?

[Alex Burghart]

I think we all find it difficult to believe that the deputy National Security Adviser was left entirely to his own devices.

A fourth example is that on 20 October, the Minister for Security, who is in his place, told the House:

“Final evidence went in in August, and I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that there is nothing the Prime Minister or any Minister could have done thereafter.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 640.]

We now know that there were meetings between the CPS and the Government on 3 and 9 September to attempt to rescue the case. Why did the Security Minister tell the House something that was not correct?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Swallow]

The Minister quite clearly set out the range of threats posed by China. I am clear that China poses a threat. I also think that we have to be mature enough in this Chamber to accept that the way we deal with the second-largest economy in the world has to be to recognise the threats it poses to our democracy and our national security, but also all the ways in which we have to work with it.

I stood for election on a manifesto that committed to our co-operating with China where we can, challenging them where we must, and competing with them where we need to. I genuinely think that is a mature way of dealing with a state that does not share our values, and that poses a great threat to our democracy and to the way that citizens and residents of this country operate within a democracy, but that is also the second-largest economy in the world. As the former director of MI6 said on the “Today” show on the BBC this morning,

“we need to learn to walk and chew gum at the same time.”

We need a mature acceptance of the risks that China poses, and that means recognising that we cannot just walk off the pitch and not deal with the second-largest economy in the world. It is infantile and not realistic to suggest otherwise.

If the new Act had been in place sooner, it is possible that these men could have been prosecuted successfully under it. I therefore have a simple question for Conservative Front Benchers, and they need to be clear on this point: why did they wait so long to replace a vital piece of security legislation, and make sure that we had the appropriate tools to keep this country safe? I am happy to take interventions on that point.

[Dr Evans]

Tony Blair was Prime Minister for a very long time. Did he amend the legislation?

[Peter Swallow]

As has already been set out, the threat from China has evolved over time. I would have loved it if the previous Labour Government had amended the Act, but it was the Conservative party that held a consultation, and then sat on the results for eight years and did nothing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

In its inquiry on China from July 2023, the Intelligence and Security Committee, of which I was a member at the time, concluded that China was a threat. The Committee took evidence not from junior security officials, but from the chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, the director general of the Security Service and the director of GCHQ, the chief of Defence Intelligence and—this is an important “and”—all the deputy National Security Advisers at the time. That is already public; they reported to the Committee.

That report is clear and unambiguous in calling out China as a national security threat to UK interests. It is also crystal clear, taking the report as a whole, that China’s threat is both live and active. The report was from July 2023, and the alleged offences took place, apparently, from December ’21 to February ’23. I am aware that the refresh of the integrated review of ’21 was in March ’23. However, the Committee’s inquiry started taking evidence from those senior officials from November 2017 to a similar time in 2019, and then the subsequent Committee carried on its work. Senior national security officials were giving evidence to the ISC about China being a national security threat well before the offences happened in this place.

[Dr Evans]

Is that an assertion of fact from the Committee’s report?

[Mark Pritchard]

If we have the directors of all the intelligence agencies suggesting that China is a threat, it does not get much better than that. We have great deputy national security advisers, but their line managers—their directors, their bosses—were also clearly stating that China was a national security threat. In fact, the word “threat” is mentioned 284 times in that 207-page report.

The key word in this whole episode involving the deputy National Security Adviser—that is, the DNSA for intelligence, defence and security, not the other two remaining DNSAs, unless the Minister wants to correct me—is “active”. The question is whether China was an active threat, as underscored by the testimony to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy yesterday. The evidence in the ISC’s report would suggest that China has been known to be an active threat for some time. I have mentioned the various reviews. Indeed, in his own witness statement, the DSNA refers to China conducting “large-scale espionage operations”. Again, this is not a historical reference or a past-tense reference; it is clearly referring to the here-and-now operations taking place today. There is clearly an active threat, not just a general or undetermined threat.

China being an active threat was also underscored by the director general of the Security Service’s recent speech, in which he referred to China’s

“cyber-espionage…clandestine technology transfer…interference in UK public life”

and

“harassment and intimidation of opponents”.

Once more, these threats are not just historical; they are current and active, happening in the UK right now. They have not stopped. They are increasing. They continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

The real threat to our security is not necessarily what others do in the shadows; it is what one’s own Government hide from the light. That is the essence of what we are trying to get to in the motion before us—we are asking the Government to publish the papers.

Let me take a step back from this issue to look at the way in which the public will perceive it. This is the biggest spy story in this country’s history, at least in this century. We can get into the tit-for-tat about what the PM did or did not know, whether the National Security Adviser speaks to his deputy or not, who told the deputy National Security Adviser that he needs to toe the Government line, and how the Labour manifesto got into the witness statements, but I want to concentrate more on the bigger picture.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) rightly pointed out the behaviour of the Government. The Prime Minister could have sorted this out by coming to the House and speaking about this topic. He could have laid it all out and put it all forward. The only thing we have had has been a statement before Prime Minister’s questions. Of course, we Back Benchers cannot ask questions after such statements—there is no way for us to do so. If the Government are so angry, why is more action not being taken? Why are people not being fired, and why are we still having this debate several weeks on if all the information is so crystal clear that this House can move on?

I am worried that this is a pattern of behaviour with the Prime Minister, because we saw this with the ambassador. The Prime Minister was the decision maker on that issue, but he did not come to this House; he sent one of his Ministers. I expect that the retort from Labour Members will be, “It was always thus”, but the reason this saddens me so much is that the Prime Minister is being judged by the standard that he set. He said that he would do things differently, but he is not. He is not coming to the House to explain when he could do so. We know that the information and the decisions rest with him.

When I pushed the Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), about leadership last time, that was not directed at him—I have a great deal of respect for him. He is following the leadership of the Prime Minister, who has not come to this House to explain what is going on. If this issue is as clearcut as Labour Members have said, that would be an easy case to make and this House would believe the Prime Minister, but we are not there. That is why I worry, because it leads to a wider debate and wider concerns among the public about whether something is going on.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the most obvious point is that, despite the Government’s disappointment at the collapse of the trial—we have heard numerous Ministers, including the Prime Minister himself, stress that—it is shocking that they appear not to have done every single thing possible to bolster the case and put the CPS in the best possible position to secure a prosecution? The two just do not add up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Evans]

Absolutely. Not only have the Government not done anything with the case, there are wider debates that could take place—about what legislation needs to change and other measures that could be included in the Budget, for example.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

It is true that the Government have repeatedly expressed disappointment, but—still more disturbingly, in a sense—so has MI5. It is quite unusual for MI5 to intervene, by means of a speech by its head which made it very clear that MI5 was profoundly disappointed that this matter had not gone to court. Had it done so, it would have been the culmination of years of work done by MI5 to try to deal with Chinese espionage in Whitehall and Westminster.

[Dr Evans]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. It is because of these unprecedented facts that I would expect the Prime Minister to come forward and provide answers, not send a Minister in his place.

[Peter Swallow]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Evans]

I will not, because I have taken two interventions already. My worry is about what the public perceive, because it is a statement of fact that since the Chancellor went to China, decisions have been made about the Chagos islands, for example, or British Steel and £1 billion—what is going on there? A spy case has now been dropped, and there is the possibility of a super-embassy and even ID cards. My constituents are coming to me seeing a running theme.

[Tom Hayes]

When I hear the hon. Gentleman speak, I listen to what he is saying—I think he could be a very good replacement for the shadow Minister on the Front Bench. The question I want to ask, though, is this: what is his view on the relationship of the UK to China? Ought we to engage and, if so, on what terms, or should we be economically decoupling? What is his view about the nature of that relationship?

[Dr Evans]

To repeat the quote we heard earlier, we need to walk and chew gum at the same time. It is easy to call China a threat, but still to engage. That is exactly what the Chinese Government do to us: they say, “We’re embarrassed. We’re upset. You promised us something”, and we just say, “Oh, I’m terribly sorry about that.” We could stand up for ourselves and say what we think. Let us not forget that we are in a trade deficit with China; it is economically in China’s interest to be working with us, as much as it is in our interest to be working with China.

My worry, though, is that the public are joining dots. The Government will say that there are no dots to be joined, but the longer this goes on and the more incidents come out, it becomes harder to make that argument. That brings us full circle to where I started, because this is about transparency and releasing the documentation.

[Peter Swallow]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way and for bringing us back to where he started. He started his speech by suggesting that the Government were intervening unduly in this case. He then went on to suggest that the Government did not intervene unduly enough. Can he be clear on this: is his position and that of the Opposition that the Government should have interfered in an independent prosecution, or not? It is unhelpful to be saying both things at the same time.

[Dr Evans]

I feel I am being misquoted, because I have simply asked for all this to be resolved by publishing the information. The Government could come out and say that China is a threat. I have also said that we can call it a threat and work economically with the Chinese. That is what I hope will happen. [Interruption.] I will finish at that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman—whom I hold in high regard, not least for the work that he did on the ISC—that I can give him the assurances that he seeks. I can also assure him and the House how seriously this Government take the challenges that we face from countries right around the world.

Let me return to the DNSA’s evidence. As his written evidence makes clear—this is an important point that the House will want to note—from the moment the DNSA’s witness statement was submitted, he was a fully bound witness in criminal proceedings. His evidence had not yet been heard or tested in court, so his witness evidence could not be and was not shared, and this was later confirmed by the CPS.

In this debate and in recent weeks, there have been a number of different, and at times conflicting, claims about this Government’s involvement in the case, and I want to address those claims directly today. At the DNSA’s request, the word “enemy” was removed from the first witness statement during the drafting process, because it did not reflect the Government’s policy at the time. The DNSA made amendments to ensure that his witness statement text reflected his assessment of the strongest elements of the evidential material provided by Counter Terrorism Policing, by demonstrating that the information that was alleged to have been provided was prejudicial to the safety or the interests of the UK.

When CTP approached the DNSA to write a supplementary statement in November 2024, he was specifically asked to comment on whether China posed an active threat to the UK’s national security during the period of 31 December 2021 to 3 February 2023, and to confirm whether that remains the position at the time of writing. That is why paragraph 6 of the second statement references part of the current Government policy towards China.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The Minister is making a powerful point about the active threat. At this point in time, do the Government perceive China to be an active threat?

[Dan Jarvis]

As the hon. Gentleman knows—I think I may have even said this to him previously, and certainly to the House—China presents a series of threats to the Government. I will say a little bit more about that.

As time is short, I want to focus on the DNSA and the evidence that he has given, because that is important for the House. The DNSA confirmed to the JCNSS yesterday that he used language from an answer to a parliamentary question in his third statement, in which he provided the current Government’s position as context, as had been requested. The DNSA’s third statement was written in a way that ensured consistency with his first two statements.

For the sake of clarity, I will say it again: the current National Security Adviser had no role in either the substance of the case or the evidence provided. There has been misreporting, speculation and fabrication about the officials’ meeting that the National Security Adviser chaired on 1 September—the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned it just a moment ago. I can tell him and the House that a meeting of senior officials took place on 1 September to discuss the UK’s relationship with China. The meeting was specifically set up to provide—

Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement

Luke Evans Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

We do not recognise those claims. Of course, given the quasi-judicial nature of the process, it would have been entirely improper for anybody to have made any comment that basically cut across the legal process that is being led by the Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I appreciate the Minister’s clarity, which he keeps talking about. On that basis, let me say this. The case collapsed. This is about leadership. He has seen all the evidence in public, and all the evidence in private. Was China spying on two Members of Parliament in this case—yes or no?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am happy to debate issues of leadership with anyone in this House, not least because I have spent all my professional life trying to keep the country safe. I will continue to serve in government to make sure that we do everything we can to stand against the threats we face. I had hoped, entering into government, that that process would be consensual, and that we could work across the House to keep the country safe. That has been the approach of this Government, and I am sad that Conservative Members do not want to proceed on that basis.

Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

Luke Evans Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is the Minister for Security. I have been here for almost an hour and a half, and I have not heard him answer this question: was China spying on Parliament, or is it even a consideration that it is spying on Parliament?

[Dan Jarvis]

I have been crystal clear—[Interruption.] If hon. Members will allow me, let me say that China poses a series of threats to the United Kingdom, and I was very clear about what they were. I referred specifically to a number of particular issues. I could not have been clearer about that.

Official Secrets Act

Luke Evans Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for the work he does on the Committee. I hope that when I gave evidence to the Committee, I conveyed the seriousness and importance that we attach to matters relating to transnational repression. I am genuinely grateful to the Committee for the work it has done and the report it published. I will respond to it as soon as I am able to do so.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

The Minister has repeatedly said that it is not his job to speculate on the CPS. He is right, but it is his job to defend the security of this country and therefore to ask the CPS why it has not brought charges. Has he done that? Has he rung the CPS before he came to the House to speak to it and to understand why it has not gone ahead? If not, why not?

[Dan Jarvis]

I accept the charge the hon. Gentleman makes against me that it is my responsibility to defend our national security, and I hope he understands that that is something I take incredibly seriously. The decision was communicated this morning. This was an independent decision, but I give him and others an assurance that we will, of course, look incredibly closely at it.