5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
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?
I am grateful. The new Secretary of State has been asked this several times, but we never heard an answer: can he point to a small or medium-sized business that actually supports this Bill?
The Minister euphemistically described our relationship with China as “complex”. It is not complex. It is characterised by espionage, malign behaviour and a massive trade imbalance. How is that complex, and why do this Government persist in opposing the views of their advisers and permitting—even facilitating—this massive centre for espionage close to the centre of our financial quarter?
In opposition, those now in government probably rightly criticised the Conservative Government for introducing Henry VIII powers, yet the Bill is absolutely riddled with them. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Attorney General that such powers strike at the heart of the rule of law?
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I am sure you will be pleased to hear that His Majesty’s Opposition do not propose to divide the Committee on the regulations. As the Minister set out, they arise from the Building Safety Act 2022, which was passed by the Conservative party in Government. After extensive consultation, the regulations should command broad support. We welcome in particular the commitment to enshrine the exemptions for smaller sites and for other types of development, about which extensive representation has been made about how the imposition of a costly levy would significantly inhibit their deliverability. We support the proposal for regular reporting on the outcome. We are aware that there has been extensive consultation with the 295 local authorities that act as building regulations authorities, and that their representations are reflected in the grant award to ensure that there are sufficient resources to get the system up and running. I am sure we will scrutinise the resulting reports in due course.
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your guidance? I led an Adjournment debate last Wednesday. In an intervention on the Minister for Secondary Care, the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) made reference to “the misquoting of things that have been said”.—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 1010.] The quotation that I referred to in the debate were his words, sourced from My London news, which reported that the hon. Member told the Local Democracy Reporting Service that the Hillingdon Conservatives who organised the petition against the closure of the hospital were guilty of “faux outrage on this matter”, which he said was “both laughable and offensive”. If the hon. Member has been notified of my intent to raise this point of order and disputes the words reported by the Local Democracy Reporting Service, I am sure that he can say so, but how can I place on the record that the words I ascribed to him—“faux outrage”—were a direct quotation of his?
I seek leave to propose that the House debates a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the appointment process and circumstances leading to the dismissal of the former ambassador of the United Kingdom to the United States, Lord Mandelson. This is a matter of utmost concern across the House and across party lines. Our ambassador in Washington stands at the centre of Britain’s most vital bilateral relationship. It is a role of exceptional sensitivity, with more classified intelligence crossing the ambassador’s desk than reaches most Cabinet Ministers. The post carries immense responsibility. The ambassador represents Britain’s interests to our most powerful ally and, in so doing, shapes our reputation abroad. His conduct, both prior to appointment and during, must reflect the highest standards of professionalism, discretion and integrity—nothing less will do. Lord Mandelson failed that test long before last week’s revelation, long before the understandable public outrage at the disgraceful behaviour with the paedophile Epstein, and long before the families of his victims quite rightly criticised the appointment. What was public about Mandelson’s past is more than enough to disqualify him from consideration for ambassador, from his resignation from Government not once but twice—first in 1998 for not telling the truth about an interest-free loan, and then in 2001 for helping a wealthy businessman get a passport—to his links to the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a gangster capitalist who benefited to the tune of many millions of pounds from policies promoted and signed off by Lord Mandelson when he was EU Trade Commissioner, and, particularly relevant today, his commercial links defending China. All of that was in the public domain before the Prime Minister appointed Lord Mandelson as our ambassador. Why was it ever thought acceptable to appoint a man with such a chequered and murky background to such a vitally important position? The House needs to know what vetting was done and when, what the opinions were of the Foreign Office, the Foreign Secretary, the Cabinet Office and the security services, and when the Prime Minister was told. We need to know who knew what, and when. The Government must take the House with them on these appointments, but their behaviour to date on this issue has been marked by obfuscation and delay, by recrimination and cover-up. It is not just a question of the Prime Minister’s political judgment, important as that is; it is a question of ethics. It is a question of what is deemed acceptable behaviour, when in positions of power. The House must have the opportunity to debate this matter before the recess.
In the positive spirit in which the Secretary of State speaks, will he commit on the Floor of the House that the reference period used to calculate hours for sectors that have serious seasonality—we have heard about boat building, hospitality, tourism and farming—will not be a ridiculously short period, such as 12 weeks? Will it be long enough to reflect the seasonal nature of that type of work?
I intend to speak mainly to the provisions dealing with guaranteed hours, but I begin with a word of thanks to the Government for what they have announced about special constables. It is not quite as good as adopting the amendment, but I welcome the review. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) for the work he has done. I hope the review will report quickly, and I hope for a growth in the number of special constables, not only in neighbourhood policing, which my hon. Friend rightly mentioned, but among people working in the tech sector. We need cyber-specials to tackle the scourge of cyber-crime and fraud, which is now the single largest category of crime, and is, sadly, growing once again.
I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for suggesting that he will try. I turn to the provisions dealing with guaranteed hours and zero-hours contracts. I understand why it is attractive to the Government and the Labour party to seek to restrict the availability of contracts that do not have a guaranteed number of hours. From listening to Labour colleagues, it seems almost as if “exploitative zero-hours contracts” is one word. It is as if those words must always go together. We all want to end exploitation—that is why, in 2015, the then Government passed legislation to stop employers imposing exclusivity. We said, “If you are not going to guarantee your employee a minimum number of hours, it is not all right to say that they must not work for somebody else.” But not all zero-hours contracts are necessarily exploitative. One of the biggest users of zero-hours contracts in our country is none other than the national health service, through its use of bank staff. I notice that the Liberal Democrats announced a new policy today, which would require extra pay for people on zero-hours contracts; I do not know whether they have yet costed that policy. By the way, for many of the people working as bank staff in the NHS, that is not their primary job but a second job. This allows a hospital or other setting to respond to spikes in demand. For many people with a zero-hours contract job, it is their second job, not their primary source of income. Zero-hours contract jobs are also very important to people coming back into work, as the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) said powerfully in an intervention. Many people on zero-hours contracts are students. Particularly in hospitality, there is a pattern of work whereby an employee lives in two places: at home, and at their term-time address. They can stay on the books of their employer at home—it might be a local pub—while they are away studying during term time. It could be the other way around: they could have a job in their university town, and stay on the books when they come home. They can dial up or dial down their hours; for example, many students do not want to work a lot of hours, or any hours, during exam time. Contrary to what we might expect, and contrary to the all-one-word conception of “exploitative zero-hours contracts”, some people actually prefer a zero-hours contract.
And some people do not, as the hon. Gentleman quite rightly says. When I was working at the Department for Work and Pensions, the issue of zero-hours contracts became a totemic issue under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the immediate predecessor of the current leader of the Labour party. There was this idea that there had been a huge increase in the number of people in the country on a zero-hours contract. We discovered that less than 3% of people had a zero-hours contract as their primary source of income, and the average number of hours those people worked was not zero or close to zero, but 25. Even more unexpectedly—this was the bit that really got people—the average job satisfaction of people on a zero-hours contract was higher than it was for the rest of the workforce. I think we understand why the Labour Government wish to legislate in this way. It is something for Labour MPs to bring home. When so much else in their manifesto is falling apart before our eyes, they can say, “At least we’ve killed off this modern scourge, this huge growth in zero-hours contracts.” As I say, the number of those contracts is not nearly as big as most people think. If you think about it, we have always had zero-hours contracts in all sorts of forms, whether it be piecework, commission-only sales, agency catalogue work or casual labour. In fact, it is possible that today, there are fewer people on a zero-hours contract than ever before in the history of the labour market. Many colleagues might reflect on their first job. Mine was washing dishes in a restaurant. We did not have the phrase at that time, but it certainly would have been a zero-hours contract, apart from the fact that there was no contract at all. If the Government wish to reform this area, as they may, I ask them to consider the situation in sectors with great seasonality, including hospitality, tourism and retail, and to please look again at the concept of a 12-week reference period, which does not reflect the reality of seasonality. I know that this will be introduced through regulations, not the primary legislation, and I welcome what the Secretary of State said; I think he indicated that the Government were open to looking at a more sensible length of time. The Government could also do things differentially by sector; there could be one period for employers in general, and another for sectors or sub-sectors that have particularly strong patterns of seasonality. I also ask the Government to reconsider the requirement to not just offer guaranteed hours once, but keep on doing it. That is introducing unnecessary bureaucracy. If the Government want to make changes in this area, I encourage them to at least ensure that once an employer has made the offer once, the right can become an opt-in right. The Government think that these provisions are something for Back-Bench Labour MPs to take home, but I ask Labour colleagues whether they really want to take them home. Do they want to take home higher unemployment, and particularly youth unemployment? Do they want to take home fewer opportunities for people returning to the workplace after many years away? Do they want to take home fewer opportunities for ex-offenders—those furthest from the labour market? Do they want to take home—because this will come as well, as night follows day—a further trend away from permanent employment and towards fixed-term temporary employment? Do they want to take home a shift from waged or salaried work to more self-employment? Is that really what Labour wants to deliver?
I welcome members of the new Government Front Bench team to their places. The previous ministerial team had been clear that they wanted to stop the use of large sites to house asylum seekers, but there has been some indication that that position may have changed. Will the Home Secretary or the Minister clarify the position, and confirm that if they are changing that position, they will learn the lessons of what went wrong previously?
The Minister made the point that the charges brought were under the old legislation, the Official Secrets Act, which has now been superseded. Has he made an assessment of whether the charges would have proceeded had the new offences been in place at the time the charges were brought? Will he be working with ministerial colleagues, law enforcement and others to look at whether new offences are needed in this case and in others?
I warmly welcome the Home Secretary to her place. I very much look forward to the exchanges that we will have, so long as the Prime Minister leaves her in post. When it comes to human rights, does she not accept that tinkering around the edges simply will not work? She said in her answer a second ago that she wants to see the ECHR reformed, but her own Government’s Attorney General Lord Hermer said just four days ago that ECHR reform is a “political trick”. Perhaps she and the Attorney General should get themselves on the same page. Given that the Attorney General says that reform is not possible, does she not agree that more fundamental changes are needed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) said a moment ago? This year has been the worst in history for illegal immigrants crossing the channel—the number is up 38%, compared with last year. Only radical change will fix this mess, so will the Home Secretary back the Conservative plans to completely disapply the Human Rights Act 1998 and ensure that all illegal immigrants are immediately removed upon arrival?
Does the Home Secretary accept that her predecessor was moved because this Government are failing on immigration? Indeed, 75% of the public think that the Government are failing. Illegal migration is up 38%, making this the worst year in history. Let me try again: will the Home Secretary take this opportunity to commit to real action, back our plans to disapply the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to all immigration matters, and immediately remove every illegal immigrant upon arrival?
The Home Secretary has some brass neck. This has been the worst year in history, with illegal migration up by 38%. Press reports this week suggest that a handful of illegal migrants might be removed to France—she has been silent about that so far—but that amounts to only 5% of people crossing. Does she accept that allowing 95% of illegal immigrants to stay will be no deterrent, and will she commit to publishing full data on a weekly basis?
Let me start by thanking the Security Minister for the briefing and information he provided ahead of his statement. Let me also join him in paying tribute to the officers in our police force and in the security service. They work so hard and take personal risks to keep us safe. Let us start with Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee’s assessment of China, published a year or two ago. It found that China had penetrated every sector of our economy. When the Security Minister a moment ago said that China merely posed a “challenge”, he was wrong I think to use that word. China poses a threat. It poses a threat because it participates and organises systemic espionage into our public institutions, including Parliament. It purloins intellectual property from universities and from companies, particularly in the technology sectors, and it routinely spies on the UK as a state. They also engage in transnational repression of Chinese citizens here, for instance running secret, undeclared police stations and putting bounties on the heads of individuals. The word “challenge” is not strong enough; the state of China poses a threat. The Security Minister said that the Government would “robustly challenge China”, but let me gently point to some of the decisions that the Government have taken in practice. We saw a signal back at the G7 last year, when the Prime Minister was, I am afraid to say, obsequious in dealing with President Xi, appearing to prioritise economic links above security considerations. We have not seen any decision to place China in the enhanced tier of the FIRS scheme, although that regime has been in place for several months, and the Government seem to be viewing with favour the application for a new super-embassy in London, to which our allies, including America, are urging us not to consent and which many of our intelligence services say will be used as a base for espionage activities. So the Government’s record on China causes deep concern, but of equal concern is this specific case—and, Mr Speaker, you explained why that is of particular concern to Parliament, given that the alleged espionage activities touch directly on Parliament and the way in which Members of Parliament do their duty. I have in front of me a briefing provided to the press by the Crown Prosecution Service, dated 26 April 2024, when these charges were first laid. That briefing states that one of the subjects was commissioned over a period exceeding a year, between December 2021 and February 2023, by a Chinese intelligence asset. There are 34 reports on what this note describes as “very specific topics”, some of which relate directly and personally to Members of Parliament. One of the deputy national security advisers told the Crown Prosecution Service that he assessed this information to be “directly or indirectly, useful” to the Chinese state, and said that it was “prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.” Given the gravity of that assessment, it is astonishing that these charges have now been withdrawn. The Crown Prosecution Service clearly assessed these allegations, and the evidence, against the law—against the 1911 Act —in 2024, and found the test to have been met; so why today, more than a year later, have we suddenly been told that the test is no longer met? My question to the Security Minister is a simple one: given the gravity of the charges that I have just read out, what has changed between last year and this year? Why has a case that met the threshold and met the test in April 2024 all of a sudden been determined not to do so? May I ask specifically whether anyone in the Government put any pressure on the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to this case? Did the Government co-operate fully with the police, the security services and the CPS in providing the information required, including information relating to the definition of “an enemy”? Can the Security Minister give the House those express assurances? I certainly share your concern, Mr Speaker, and, I am sure, the concern of many others, that what appears to be extremely serious espionage, assessed as such in the written disclosure that I read out—assessed by the deputy national security adviser as being prejudicial to our national interests—has all of a sudden, and with no explanation, been dropped, even though previously, just a year and a bit ago, it was assessed that this case did meet the threshold. The House and the country need to know what exactly has changed.
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that Lords amendments 66, 88, 90, 91 and 101 engage Commons financial privilege. If any of those Lords amendments is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal. After Clause 22 Contractual duties of confidentiality relating to harassment and discrimination 4.43 pm
With this it will be convenient to discuss: Lords amendment 22 and Government amendment (b). Lords amendment 1, and Government motion to disagree. Lords amendment 7, and Government motion to disagree. Lords amendment 8, and Government motion to disagree. Lords amendment 21, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu. Lords amendment 23, and Government motion to disagree. Lords amendment 106, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) to the words so restored to the Bill. Lords amendments 107 to 120, and Government motions to disagree. Lords amendments 46 to 49, and Government motions to disagree. Lords amendments 60 to 62, and Government motions to disagree. Lords amendment 72, and Government motion to disagree. Lords amendment 121, and Government motion to disagree. Lords amendments 2 to 6, 9 to 20, 24 to 45, 50 to 59, 63 to 71, 73 to 105 and 122 to 169.
I welcome the Home Secretary to her position. Does she have plans to introduce a statutory cap on in-bound migration?
Last week was Rural Crime Action Week. I recently had an opportunity to join Cambridgeshire constabulary’s rural crime action team to see the work that it does, despite having to cover a huge county of eight constituencies with just 14 officers. Those officers have recently been reallocated from being designated operational support unit officers to neighbourhood policing officers, thus bolstering the number of officers the Government will classify as neighbourhood police and helping them to reach the target of 3,000 officers. However, those officers are neither new nor dedicated neighbourhood police. Can the Home Secretary explain why she is artificially inflating neighbourhood policing numbers by reclassifying those in specialist roles?
In early June, the Government told me that the report regarding the inclusion of China in the enhanced tier would come forward in due course. As the Minister said in his statement, the chargé d’affaires at the Chinese embassy has now been démarched. Can the Minister outline why China has not been included in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, because if national security is the first duty of Government and nothing will get in the way of that, why are the Government dithering when it comes to formally challenging China?
Is the Home Secretary aware that 20% of officers in the Metropolitan police are currently either suspended or on restricted duties, with senior officers warning that the situation is unsustainable? Does she agree that we need urgently to review both welfare and disciplinary processes in our police services so that towns such as Romford can get more police actually patrolling our streets?
I welcome the new Secretary of State to his place, and congratulate him as well as the hon. Members for Halifax (Kate Dearden) and for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) on their appointments. His is a vital role in Government, and it will surely be a delight and a privilege for him to champion our hard-working, innovative businesses in Cabinet and on the world stage as President of the Board of Trade. I particularly welcome his comments that the Government’s priority must be to “double down” on growth and position themselves as “an active partner that delivers success, supports new business and backs wealth creation.” Where he does that, he can be assured of our support, but if that is really his view, we should not be debating this Bill today and the Government should never have brought it forward. In fact, I well understand why Ministers may well be concerned about job insecurity and last-minute shift cancellations. After all, their predecessors, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) and the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), had their own Front Bench shifts today cancelled by the Prime Minister with barely a week’s notice. Apparently, that boss did not even have the decency to fire them in person, but at least they can take comfort in knowing that with the current rate of departures from No. 10, there will soon not be anyone left to do the sacking.
The shadow Minister absolutely understands that. He does so and understands the implication of clause 23 from having spoken to Make UK, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses, all of whom urge the Government to rethink on this clause. Business does not recognise a process that ends in a full legal tribunal, flanked by lawyers, after typically a two-year wait and lost management time, as light-touch. Legal fees alone for defending an unfair dismissal case range from £15,000 to £20,000.
Of course not all dismissals are unfair, but if it was not a process that ended up in court or in a tribunal, we would not be facing a backlog of 491,000 individuals with current open cases—by the Government’s own figures—and business organisations would not be citing legal fees in that order of magnitude.
My right hon. Friend, with his experience, is exactly right. Just think about the impact on a small business of a fee of that magnitude and the length of time it takes to get justice. What is going to happen? This is a really important point. Those on the Government Benches will be living this reality over the remainder of their term, and they will have to account for it. Businesses will be discouraged from hiring anybody without a perfect CV and a proven track record of work. Who are we talking about? We are talking about young people, people with dyslexia and related conditions, and people with a period of inactivity on their CVs—such as former prisoners seeking a second chance to go straight. Those will be the victims of that particular measure. Labour Ministers should realise that they will be the first victims of disagreeing with Lords amendment 62. The long-standing principle here is a simple one: we should not be allowing strikes to be called when a majority of union members have not even voted, let alone voted in favour. A strike could still proceed with just over a quarter of those eligible. Opposing this amendment will guarantee that unions are held hostage by a militant minority who force strikes even when the union’s own members do not support one. We can ill afford more strikes that crush growth, prevent workers from getting to work and endanger lives, and the public will not forget the change that this Government seek to make. Amendment 61 is a Cross-Bench Lords amendment that would maintain a consensus arrived at by the Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding Committee—that only those who actively choose to contribute to a political fund opt in to do so. This is a basic principle that the Government have applied to services everywhere else in the economy, from beauty boxes, gyms and meditation apps to Netflix and newspaper subscriptions. Why should Britain’s workers not enjoy the same right? The only conceivable reason—it brings shame on anyone who votes against the amendment—is to swell the coffers of one political party. Lords amendment 47, on the right to be accompanied, tries to finally level the playing field for the 80% of workers who are not in a union, but should have the same rights as trade union members to be supported in a disciplinary or grievance hearing. By voting against this modest but important reform, Labour is preserving what is essentially a closed shop that unions use to push people who do not want to join into doing so. We scrapped the closed shop decades ago, and no one should be bringing it back as a means of pressuring vulnerable workers into paying into union coffers.
I will happily give way if the hon. Gentleman will talk about the other organisations that will do a brilliant job of representing employees.
The hon. Member has probably wilfully misinterpreted what I said. I am talking about the right for individuals to be represented by a trade union or by a qualified professional from another domain, such as a qualified lawyer.
Of course I will give way to the hon. Gentleman—we are missing him already.
The hon. Member has done a great deal of work on the Bill, and it is a great shame that he was cut short in his prime, but with respect the point is about choice for the individual. In many cases, the long-standing right will be to be represented by a trade union, but it could also be a mediator or a qualified professional in any other domain. The point is not to extinguish that choice, which is absolutely—he will know this—what the amendment would do. The Bill—from a Government who in too many domains are now tolerant of a two-tier system—creates a two-tier system for workers’ rights. Lords amendment 1 is a typical example of where the Government do not understand or have failed to listen to businesses, particularly hospitality and seasonal businesses. What started as an attempt to ban zero-hours contracts has morphed into a chain around the necks of both employers and workers. The Government will no doubt cry about unintended consequences when the time comes, but I can tell them now that the consequences will be clear, and a cacophony of business groups such as UK Hospitality, the British Retail Consortium and the Federation of Small Businesses have explained this precisely to them. I gently say that if the Government feel so strongly about zero-hours contracts, the best way of putting their own house in order would be to start with tackling precisely those that operate in the armed forces reserves. Lords amendment 48 would protect the countless businesses across the country that rely directly on seasonal work. From the coasts of Devon and Cornwall to Great Yarmouth, and from the Secretary of State’s and my own county of Sussex to Ayrshire, there are millions of workers employed in seasonal industries. Seasonal work often takes place in communities that are heavily reliant on tourism, both foreign and domestic, and that are competing in a competitive international market. The Government have already taken an axe to the hospitality and retail industries with the removals of relief. The amendment would be a very good way of going in some direction to support them. In opposing Lords amendment 49, the Government are showing their commitment to ignore small business above all others. The Secretary of State says that he wants to listen to businesses, and I take him at his word, but why then oppose this amendment, which would codify precisely that? Countless small business will have a real challenge in dealing with this Bill, which is now 330 pages of red tape. Why on earth would the Government put their Members through the Lobby to oppose listening and consulting with small businesses? We support Lords amendment 60, which has cross-party support, at the behest of millions of those who enjoy heritage railway attractions. If the Secretary of State has not yet made it to the Amberley museum, which is not that far from his constituency—[Interruption.] He knows of it? Well, he is welcome to come and visit and listen to how the volunteers who are gaining valuable experience will be affected. I am perplexed about why the Government are so opposed to Lords amendment 46 on the protection of whistleblowers. It is genuinely confusing. Time and again Ministers on both sides of this House have come to the Dispatch Box to talk about Government scandals. We have seen brave people in organisations try to speak up and raise their concerns, only to have them dismissed. The Government claim that the Bill is about workers’ rights yet seem to have zero interest in protecting workers who try to reveal serious problems in the private and public sectors. I urge all colleagues to read that for themselves and to make up their own minds on where they think the right place to be is. Good luck to those who vote against that entirely reasonable amendment, which would protect people who do the right thing, and then have to try to explain to their constituents why they did so.
I will be responding in a personal capacity, but may I start by thanking you, Mr Speaker, for the support you have given to us over the past two years? I also place on record my gratitude to our intelligence community and counter-terrorism police, who are exceptional. From a securities perspective, today’s events are disastrous. They will embolden our enemies and make us look unwilling to defend our own nation, even when attacked in this place, the mother of all Parliaments. I am relieved that the National Security Act will make it safer and easier in future to prosecute foreign spies, but I urge the Minister to reform the Treason Act so that traitors are prosecuted and face justice, put China in the enhanced tier, and support private prosecution. It remains unclear to me why Chris Cash and Christopher Berry cannot be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act. The evidence shows a clear line between those two, the United Front Work Department and the politburo—the very top of the Chinese Communist party. The information shared was prejudicial to the safety and interests of the UK, and I believe it put Members at personal risk. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) was told by agency heads that the evidence was overwhelming and the case beyond doubt. Counter-terrorism police this morning agreed and said the same to me—that the evidential standard had been met at the time of charges. My question for the Minister is simple: if officials, the security services and the police agree that the case was a slam dunk, why has the Crown Prosecution Service not been able to get it over the line? If the CPS was not confident, why, given the compelling evidence, did it not put it to a jury and test it? Whoever is responsible for this decision—whether the Director of Public Prosecutions, an official in his own Department or the Attorney General—they have weakened the defence of our country today and I am desperately sorry to see it.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. That is very kind. I shall be returning home to my four-month-old in a couple of hours. On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Government Front Benchers are unable to answer the questions of this House regarding the decision making of the Crown Prosecution Service, so can you kindly advise how this House can scrutinise the Crown Prosecution Service and its decisions, as that is clearly the will of the House?
The Minister is a decent man, and the House knows that the business of the House was delayed while he hurriedly had to rewrite the statement that he was expected to make, but he is stretching the bounds of credibility too far. Yesterday, the Prime Minister told the House that he had full confidence in a man who befriended the vilest of convicted paedophiles. He should not have been appointed in the first place—that was a gross error of judgment and everybody in this House knows it—and the Prime Minister has to take responsibility. Now that Lord Mandelson has gone, will there be a Cabinet Office inquiry into the manner in which Mandelson was negotiating with a convicted paedophile while he was a Minister?
Discovery Park in my constituency at Sandwich is the phoenix that rose from the ashes of Pfizer. It is now a cluster of over 100 enterprising and successful small companies in the life sciences field. The loss of cornerstones such as AstraZeneca and MSD could have a devastating effect upon the architecture of the pharmaceutical industry in this country. What are the Government going to do, practically, to reverse the decline in confidence in that industry?
I too welcome the new Leader of the House to his position. I suspect he will have rather more fun at the Dispatch Box than his successor in the Government Whips Office will. I associate myself with his kind remarks about Colin Lee, whose service as one of the Clerks of the House has been exemplary. As one of the longest-serving members of the Speaker’s Panel of Chairs, I have had the pleasure of working with Colin over very many years. He will be sorely missed, and the House owes him a huge debt of gratitude. Charities in the United Kingdom working in Africa tell me that as a result of the withdrawal of the United States Agency for International Development, women and children are dying in droves. The House will not be sitting when President Trump visits the United Kingdom, so we will not have an opportunity to send a clear message from this House at that time, but the Prime Minister will have an opportunity. Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to place on the agenda for discussion in the margins the withdrawal of USAID from Africa, which is having such a devastating effect?
Economic growth is, of course, one of the stated aims of the High Speed 2 project, but the Secretary of State knows well that it has adverse effects on communities along the line of construction. She knows also that those communities need to make plans for land that will be made available to them when construction is over and HS2 no longer needs it. At Transport questions on 27 March, I asked her about the land disposal strategy, which was by then long overdue. Six months later, we still have not seen it. Can she tell us when we will?
The announcement by the Secretary of State of the investment in the M54-M6 link road was very much welcomed, but a number of local businesses, including Hollies farm shop and Cate’s Cakes, will potentially be impacted, as people may not be able to access them during construction. Will the Secretary of State arrange for one of her senior officials to meet me and a number of local businesses to discuss how these issues can best be mitigated?
The diplomatic service code states that diplomats’ “behaviour, action or inaction must not significantly disrupt or damage the performance or reputation of the Diplomatic Service.” It also states that diplomats “must…set out the facts and relevant issues truthfully, and correct any errors as soon as possible”. In the light of that, did Lord Mandelson set out how many payments he had received from the sanctioned Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska to accounts in this country, Switzerland or other areas, and has there been one set of rules for civil servants and another set of rules for friends of the Prime Minister and Jeffrey Epstein?
Obviously this is a very sad day for the United States, with 9/11 and the assassination last night. Our relationship with the United States is crucial, and there is a dark cloud over the upcoming state visit, so will the Minister forgive me if I give him some gentle advice? In my experience of such scandals, the cover-up, the lack of due process and allegations of cronyism are much more serious than any original offence, or alleged offence. Will he ensure that every single document about the process is released post haste, including about the meeting that Mandelson requested with Prime Minister Blair over Epstein? We need everything released straightaway, and we need to move on and get a new ambassador.