Conservative and Unionist Party: a sourced timeline of public activity, with filters by source type and a sidebar of tracked totals

Conservative and Unionist Party

Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

  1. ParliamentDavid Simmonds

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)

    That was a fairly shameless political pitch, but we should just reflect on the debates that took place across the Dispatch Boxes yesterday during Housing, Communities and Local Government questions, when it was highlighted that we have a Mayor of London who is quite happy to issue precepts to indulge his personal political priorities but is an abject failure in discharging his mayoral functions around housing. Thousands of people are unable to find homes in the capital because the mayor is failing to build out more than 300,000 planning permissions that have already been granted by the local authorities. That is an injustice that is being inflicted on the citizens of our capital, and this provision, as envisaged by this Labour Government, potentially inflicts the same, or an even greater, injustice on other areas of the country. For those reasons, we remain deeply concerned about it. Particularly in an environment where, as we heard earlier, local authorities were left £1.5 billion worse off—net—by the Government’s decision to introduce additional taxes on their employees, the temptation will be for the mayoral precept to be seen as the catch-all or safety valve through which additional taxes can be extracted to meet whatever demand central Government choose to impose, without central Government being accountable for it. That is why we oppose the measures.

    Hansard source

  2. ParliamentDavid Simmonds

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I have two questions for the Minister. First, given that these budgets, and the precepts that the amendments relate to, will sit within that bit of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, will the requirement for budgets to be balanced in-year apply to all the accounts that the Secretary of State will be giving direction to? The second question—the Minister may wish to write to the Committee on this—is, will the consistency that she referred to be introduced by giving the Secretary of State individual, and in effect case-by-case, power to issue these directions for different authorities? Clearly, our concern is that if the door has been opened to, in effect, unlimited precept rises, and these were to be used by the Secretary of State to bail out a significant amount of debt in one of these reorganised local authorities—which I know is a significant concern of many of the local authorities that are proposing reorganisation—that would not apply everywhere. There are certain parts of the country where there are very high levels of debt, and others where those levels of debt do not exist at all. It would be, in effect, a condition of those constituent authorities’ doing the devolution at all that they were not asked to bear that cost. Yet this Bill introduces a back-door power for the Secretary of State to direct that they would go down that route. How do the Government propose to ensure that that is forestalled, so that they can have the assurances that they would need as a necessary minimum?

    Hansard source

  3. ParliamentDavid Simmonds

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)

    Turning to the question of how a mayoral precept will be used under this group of amendments that the Government have tabled, if we think of the reorganisation in Thurrock or Surrey, both those local authority areas contain a single authority that has a very high level of capital borrowing, or a high level of debt. Those authorities have been assured that there will be three years’ worth of revenue support; in effect, there will be a Government grant to cover the revenue cost of the borrowing for three years. However, the borrowing cost is extended over 40 or 50 years, so there will be a very long period of time where, as things currently stand, that local authority will be expected to meet that cost, when it comes into being. Clearly, one way of doing that is for the Secretary to State to say, “You will raise your precept, and that is how we will deal with the debt,” but that runs contrary to the proposals for devolution where those authorities have said, “We will do this, but it is simply not fair or ethical for us to accept those debts on to our books.” I am just seeking an assurance from the Minister that either the existing provisions that require the in-year balancing will apply, in which case the Government will deal with this prior to the devolution arrangement coming into existence, or the provisions will not apply, in which case those authorities need to be mindful that the likely consequence of devolution will be a massive increase in the precept levy purely for the purpose of paying off someone else’s debt.

    Hansard source

  4. ParliamentDavid Simmonds

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I want to make sure that I can reconcile the Minister’s observations and the import of the amendments with her reply to me earlier, when she said that the requirement to balance in-year will apply. Clearly, the provisions essentially state that the Secretary of State can give consent for a substantial degree of borrowing, but it is not at all clear in the clause or the amendments what the purpose of the borrowing would be. Manchester’s improvements to its transport system are fantastic, but they were funded by central Government as part of the devolution deal, and they are now creating a significant ongoing deficit in the mayoral budget, which has to be covered, essentially, through precepting—by levying those in the local area to cover the cost. There is clearly a concern with that. If the borrowing is for capital purposes there is a clear strategy for its repayment, and it must be for the purposes of capital investment. However, if borrowing is undertaken to cover shortfalls between revenue and the mayor’s expenditure on day-to-day costs, this House would have significant concerns about it in relation to our national accounts. Can the Minister tell the Committee how that decision making will sufficiently constrain a mayor or combined authority from undertaking borrowing that is for the purposes of day-to-day revenue expenditure, so that we do not find a large debt bubble growing underneath these new bodies?

    Hansard source

  5. ParliamentDavid Simmonds

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)

    Again, I seek a point of clarification from the Minister. I understand the purpose of the clause, but clearly there is a distinction between a levy, where it is the constituent authority that is required to pay, and a precept, where it is the taxpayer who is paying for it through their council tax bill. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify, if necessary in writing, how it will work where there is a dispute about the payment. If we take London as an example, we have a London-wide concessionary travel scheme, but it is has very different application in different boroughs. It is easy to foresee a situation where, particularly if the purpose of the overall transport levy does not benefit the whole of the mayoral combined authority area, there will be a dispute about whether that is an appropriate way forward. Particularly if the levy is large, it would have a significant impact on the budget of the constituent local authority. Can the Minister set out how that type of process will be addressed in practice?

    Hansard source

  6. ParliamentDavid Simmonds

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)

    Again, I have a question of clarification; can the Minister tell the Committee whether these powers apply to a transfer of functions, as opposed to the conferral of functions? We know there have been situations, and we can certainly envisage some within the overall package of the Bill, where the statutory duties of the constituent authorities could be transferred over to the mayor, either en bloc or in part. Indeed, there might be times when it might be a sensible approach; if there is an example of a significant failure in one authority, that could be looked after by the mayoral office while the situation is turned around—that goes to the point raised about South Northamptonshire. However, can the Minister clarify whether this refers solely to new powers that are conferred, or opens up the door to the transfer of functions that are currently statutory duties of constituent authorities?

    Hansard source

  7. ParliamentDavid Simmonds

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)

    The Opposition have a high degree of sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. It is very striking when we compare our local and regional democracy with those of other countries: in our nearest neighbour, France, with the cumul des mandats, there is almost an expectation enshrined in their politics that, for someone to become Member of the national Parliament, they will have represented their area as a mayor. Indeed, when President Chirac cast around to find someone who was eminently qualified to become Prime Minister of that country, he took the view that there was nobody within the National Assembly who could possibly meet that standard; it needed to be somebody from local or regional government. He lighted on Alain Juppé, the well-reputed mayor of Bordeaux, who served with great distinction as Prime Minister. If we begin to introduce restrictions of this nature, it will significantly constrain the ability of our politics to rise to the challenges that our communities and our areas face.

    Hansard source

  8. ParliamentDavid Simmonds

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I ask the Minister to reflect that it used to be the practice of this House that any MP appointed as a Minister had to resign and fight a by-election, because they were undertaking a function different from that for which their constituents had originally elected them. That practice was abandoned because of the extent of the disruption it caused to the work of government and of the House, as well as the cost of those by-elections, so I ask the Government to reflect. We have learned from experience, cross-party, that having these types of requirements is not conducive to good democracy. Perhaps the Minister will undertake to reflect on that.

    Hansard source

  9. ParliamentDavid Simmonds

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)

    The Opposition have sympathy with the points the hon. Member made. We can rarely have too much transparency, but we are conscious that these new bodies and devolution arrangements will be subject to a degree of political oversight. There will be manifestos, on which the public will have a vote. There will be the element of scrutiny, which we have not heard enough about yet but which we would like to think will be built into the new arrangements for these authorities. There will also be a regular process of elections, which will determine who provides the necessary level of leadership. Layered over that, there will be both the political priorities of the devolved authority and those things that are more part of the administrative function. Local authorities have historically had council plans and forward plans that set out decision making, all of which are part of this arrangement. Although the points have been well made, the Opposition are therefore not convinced that what the amendment would add is sufficient to justify its inclusion in the Bill.

    Hansard source

  10. ParliamentDavid Mundell

    Topical Questions

    Will the Minister confirm that there is now a timetable to ensure that everyone who has a radio teleswitch meter will have it replaced without losing their electricity, heating or hot water?

    Hansard source

  11. ParliamentDavid Mundell

    Middle East

    I very much welcome the release of the hostages and what the Prime Minister said about aid. However, flooding Gaza with aid is not an end in itself; this is about its distribution to those who need it most. What reassurances can he give the House that gangsters and criminal gangs will not play any part as intermediaries in the distribution of that aid?

    Hansard source

  12. ParliamentDavid Davis

    Northern Ireland Troubles

    In March of this year, it was widely reported that the Secretary of State gave his word to Mairead Kelly, the sister of IRA murderer Patrick Kelly, that there would be an inquest on the Loughgall incident. Is this remedial order a fulfilment of that promise? If so, it means that 30 years on, the Government are dragging veterans into court over an operation that stopped eight heavily armed IRA murderers—men who had already killed and who were on their way to kill again, with weapons that had been used in 40 previous murders. Let us be clear: by stopping the attack, those soldiers prevented the murder of many more innocent Northern Ireland citizens. What justice is served by punishing those brave soldiers with a stressful and unnecessary process? The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) described it as a persecution, punishing them for doing nothing more than their duty. Is this really what the Secretary of State intends?

    Hansard source

  13. ParliamentClaire Coutinho

    Energy Prices: Economic Growth

    I welcome the new Ministers to the Front Bench. On the first day of recess, away from scrutiny, the Labour party published the prices for its allocation round 7 of the renewables auction. Labour used to say that renewables were nine times cheaper, but the prices that the Secretary of State has said he is willing to pay are 40% higher than the current cost of electricity—they are the highest prices in a decade—and he has extended the contract length to 20 years. Those are not just the prices that we will be paying; they are the prices that our children will be paying. Will the Minister explain how locking us into higher prices for longer will cut bills by £300?

    Hansard source

  14. ParliamentClaire Coutinho

    Topical Questions

    The carbon tax on electricity pushes up the cost of gas, wind, solar and nuclear in this country. It does not need to be there—the Secretary of State could axe the carbon tax tomorrow to instantly cut bills for every single family in this country. Why will he not?

    Hansard source

  15. ParliamentClaire Coutinho

    Topical Questions

    The Secretary of State is trying to conflate two emissions trading schemes. He does not want to talk about the carbon tax on electricity, because he has increased it by 70% since the start of the year, pushing up everybody’s bills in the process. He is making electricity more expensive at the same time as taxing, banning and bribing people into electric cars and electric home heating—that is totally backwards. He is the worst enemy of a decarbonisation agenda in this country. Our cheap power plan would instantly cut electricity bills by 20%. The Secretary of State could do so tomorrow; what is he waiting for?

    Hansard source

  16. ParliamentCaroline Nokes

  17. ParliamentCaroline Nokes

    Middle East

    Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please get to his question?

    Hansard source

  18. ParliamentCaroline Nokes

    Middle East

    I thank the Prime Minister for his statement.

    Hansard source

  19. ParliamentCaroline Nokes

    Northern Ireland Troubles

    I call the shadow Secretary of State.

    Hansard source

  20. ParliamentCaroline Nokes

    Northern Ireland Troubles

    I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

    Hansard source

  21. ParliamentCaroline Nokes

    Northern Ireland Troubles

    I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source

  22. ParliamentBob Blackman

    Middle East

    Over the past two years, as co-Chair of the all-party parliamentary group on UK-Israel, I have hosted innumerable meetings where the families of hostages have come before us pleading for our support and help. In addition, we have screened multiple films of the terror events on 7 October 2023 that use real-life footage captured from Hamas terrorists. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) said, the Jewish community in this country feels unsafe and that this is not a safe place to live any more. The Prime Minister rightly alluded to the growing rise in antisemitism in this country. What will he do on a concrete basis to eliminate that scourge, in particular at our places of education, including at universities, so that our Jewish students feel safe on campus, and at all our schools, so that young people growing up in this country are no longer exposed to antisemitism?

    Hansard source

  23. ParliamentBen Obese-Jecty

    Northern Ireland Troubles

    As a veteran, I am deeply concerned by the Government’s dogged pursuit of this legislation, which has the support neither of Northern Ireland veterans nor of veterans in my generation, who have concerns about their own service in Iraq and Afghanistan. What guarantees can the Secretary of State give the British public that this legislation will achieve justice and that terrorists guilty of the murders of British service personnel will now be held to account? How many cases does he believe will be reopened in order to pursue IRA terrorists in the way that British personnel are now vulnerable to being pursued?

    Hansard source

  24. ParliamentAndrew Bowie

    Great British Energy: Public Sector Renewable Energy Use

    They did not need GBE to do it.

    Hansard source

  25. ParliamentAndrew Bowie

    Net Zero: Impact on Manufacturing

    How many jobs have to be sacrificed on the altar of this Secretary of State’s vainglorious eco-zealotry before the Government acknowledge the utter destruction of the UK’s industrial base that is being wreaked by policies driven by an out-of-touch green lobby that has captured what is laughably still called the Department for Energy Security?

    Hansard source

  26. ParliamentAndrew Bowie

    Net Zero: Impact on Manufacturing

    On their watch, two oil refineries have closed in just one year, with Jim Ratcliffe warning of a million job losses to come. Thousands are being laid off in the North sea, as companies divest themselves of assets and investment dries up. Factories are closing and plants are shutting down. It is no wonder that the head of Unite the union is calling for the Secretary of State to be sacked. We know that the Prime Minister tried to do that but failed, so, short of that, will they instead consider our plans, which would save industry and jobs: scrapping the Climate Change Act 2008, scrapping the levies, scrapping the windfall tax and putting cheap energy first?

    Hansard source

  27. ParliamentAndrew Bowie

    Energy Profits Levy: North-east Scotland

    I commend my hon. Friend on her speech and on securing the debate. As she knows, this issue is also felt incredibly keenly in the neighbouring constituency of West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, which I represent. While the debate about whether it is renewables or oil and gas is a false one, the fact is that skilled workers, whose jobs are being lost in the North sea right now, are the exact workers who we will need in the future to deliver cleaner energy and a more sustainable future. Those jobs do not exist in the UK right now, and they are being lost to the United Arab Emirates, Riyadh, Australia, Mexico and Canada. We need to do what we can to maintain those jobs in north-east Scotland by supporting our oil and gas industry and removing the punitive energy profits levy, which is driving people away from the country and driving companies to make redundancies.

    Hansard source

  28. ParliamentAlex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles

    I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. The last Government legislated to draw a line under troubles-era litigation. That litigation was inevitably weighted against those who sought to protect our country from terrorism. It was inevitably weighted against those who keep records, and whose servicemen are easy to locate and contact. Even today, vexatious claims are being made. Only last week a judicial review of a 1991 case was rightly thrown out by the High Court in Belfast. The judge described the challenge as “utterly divorced from…reality”, but not before the former special forces soldier at the centre of it had had to endure four years of investigation. Mindful of cases such as this, the last Government sought to draw a line. Through their actions today this Government are erasing that line, and as they do so, many former servicemen will again feel, with profound unease, that the lawyers are coming. I hope the House will spare a thought for them this afternoon. I know we will have a lot of time to debate the legislation that the Government are laying, but there are a number of specific questions that I would like to ask the Secretary of State. First, on the resumption of inquests, will he tell the House how many inquests will be restored and how many will be referred to the Solicitor General? Can he specifically tell the House whether that list will include the 1987 Loughgall case? Secondly, civil cases are to reopen. It is thought that at the time of prohibition, many hundreds of such cases—affecting perhaps thousands of people—were before the Belfast courts. What is the Northern Ireland Office’s calculation of the number of civil cases that are now likely to proceed? I ask that because there are clear financial consequences to reopening legacy in this way. The Secretary of State referred to the £250 million already committed—indeed, it was committed by the last Government to deal with the legacy as we framed it—but it is now clear that the new legacy commission is to have a much bigger remit than the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. If so, will its budget be increased? If not, how will it be expected to function? Similarly, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has raised very serious concerns about the amount of money that it will need to support reopened inquests and civil cases. Policy Exchange has placed the cost on the police at around £90 million, at a time when police numbers in Northern Ireland are at an all-time low. There is a very real prospect that without additional funding from the Secretary of State, frontline policing in Northern Ireland will be further reduced. Can the Secretary of State make a commitment that that will not happen? Thirdly, the Government have today briefed journalists that legislation will ban Gerry Adams from receiving compensation for his detention in the 1970s, but the Secretary of State’s statement made no reference to that. Can he tell the House unequivocally that Mr Adams will not receive one penny of compensation? Fourthly, the Secretary of State listed a number of protections for veterans in court, but it is already the case that anonymity, age-related considerations and remote hearings are available at the discretion of the court. That was apparent to the Tánaiste on 19 September, when he emphasised that no new protections would be available to veterans. Does the Secretary of State agree with Mr Harris? There has also been some confusion about whether these protections will extend to paramilitaries. On 25 September, the Prime Minister claimed that they will not. Can the Secretary of State be definitive for the House? Lastly, there is the question of the involvement of the Republic of Ireland in legacy. This has proved deeply controversial, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will be asked questions about it this afternoon. However, I was interested to see that the Republic has made commitments to get the Garda to investigate unresolved troubles-related incidents within its jurisdiction, and to legislate to enable the fullest possible co-operation of the relevant Irish authorities with the legacy commission. If that is to happen, it is to be welcomed, because during the troubles the UK repeatedly sought extraditions from the Republic to bring terrorist charges. In the vast majority of cases, they were turned down. Following 1998, the former Irish Justice Minister, Michael McDowell, said that the Irish Government gave a de facto amnesty to the IRA. Indeed, there are many instances of possible collusion between the Garda and the Provisional IRA, which have never received the attention they deserve: Kingsmill, the murder of Ian Sproule, Bloody Friday, Teebane, La Mon—the list goes on. I sincerely hope that the Republic will now engage sincerely, deeply and honestly, and I hope the Secretary of State will ensure that it does.

    Hansard source

  29. ParliamentWendy Morton

    The Global Irregular Migration and Trafficking in Persons Sanctions Regulations 2025

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and to speak about the regulations on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I thank the Minister for setting them out a bit more detail. In the context of these regulations, it is important to come straight to the point: Labour has lost control of our borders. I therefore have a number of important questions to ask the Minister. The Government first announced the new sanctions regime in January, which is 10 months ago, and only now are we seeing the enabling legislation come before Parliament. Why has it taken so long to get here? That delay hardly reflects a sense of urgency on the part of a Government who claim to be serious about stopping the boats and smashing the criminal gangs. Crucially, when will we see the sanctions take effect? Has the FCDO identified targets? How many individuals or entities are being considered? Is it tens, hundreds or just a handful? It would also be helpful if the Minister could give us the confidence to know that the sanctions unit has sufficient resourcing and expertise to deliver on the new regime, while also maintaining capacity to deal with existing sanctions work on Russia, Iran and other priority areas. The test for any sanctions regime is not its announcement, but the implementation and the impact. The measures must lead to real disruption of trafficking routes, real consequences for those financing or profiting from the trade and, ultimately, fewer people illegally crossing the channel. Unfortunately, the Government’s record speaks for itself, as it is important again to note in the context of the regulations: this year we have seen record high numbers of small boat crossings, with more than 34,000 already, including over 1,000 in just one day the other week. Meanwhile, more asylum seekers are being housed in hotels than when this Government came to office. Ministers promised to “smash the gangs”, but the gangs are still operating, the boats are still coming and the traffickers still see the UK as a soft target. And no wonder, given that Labour—including the Prime Minister and the current Foreign Secretary—voted against life sentences for people-smuggling gangs, the very same gangs that this Government now claim they want to smash. To be clear, the previous Conservative Government delivered the powers that this Government now claim that they want: powers to impose visa penalties on countries refusing to take back their nationals; a landmark returns agreement with Albania, which cut illegal crossings from the country by more than 90%; and a deterrent approach to illegal migration that our European partners are now seeking to emulate. Instead of building on that record, this Government have repealed the Rwanda deterrent, weakened our border laws, and allowed illegal immigrants to claim asylum and even access British citizenship. To conclude, the Government must show that the measures in this regime are more than just another announcement or gimmick, like the one in, one out deal with France that has removed just over a couple of dozen people while thousands more have arrived. The Opposition will not oppose these regulations today, but we expect to see them work.

    Hansard source

  30. ParliamentTom Tugendhat

    Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

    The Minister and I have been friends for many years, so it gives me no pleasure to say this. The statement that he read out today, no doubt under instruction, has thrown out more chaff and set up more straw men than a Russian disinformation campaign. It is pure fabrication to claim that those are the relevant points and, sadly, he knows it. The Minister knows it, because we discussed many of these issues when he was in opposition and I was in his place. He knows it, because the various security and defence reviews that have been updated in the past four years have set out the clear position of the threat. He knows it, because I stood at the Dispatch Box, as he now does, on 15 April 2024 and made clear the position of China being a threat. And the Minister knows it, I am afraid, because the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, set out how the DPP has asked a very clear question: why have we not had the information in time for these cases to proceed? That is exactly the right question. The DPP did not say that the evidential threshold was not met. If it had not been met, the arrests should never have happened and the Minister should rightly be hauling the head of MI5, the head of counter-terror policing and the Treasury solicitor before him for abuse of power. He is not doing that because he knows the threshold was met. Instead, the Minister should read the words of the DPP—the threshold is “no longer met”. That means there has been a change, and there has been a change because something has changed. That change could either be a commission or an omission, and from what we have heard today—from the way in which the Government have very carefully used language—it sounds much more likely that something has not been done than that it has. As my friend the Minister knows, simply ignoring an order is not the same thing as not receiving one. I am afraid that what this has done, and what this statement does, is advertise that the UK is not willing to defend itself against threats from hostile states. I know that that is not a position he wishes to advocate.

    Hansard source

  31. ParliamentSteve Barclay

    Topical Questions

    In April, the Government described their decision to approve a major scheme to unlock over 8,500 homes next to Cambridge North station after six years in planning as “nationally significant”. Just four months later, the Government scrapped the whole thing. How is that consistent with the Secretary of State’s announcement that he will back getting Britain building?

    Hansard source

  32. ParliamentSir Julian Smith

    Devolution: Impact on Economic Growth

    Devolution is starting off well in North Yorkshire, but North Yorkshire council is really concerned about the upcoming local government settlement, which will obviously be challenging for all councils. May I urge the Secretary of State in his new role to look carefully at the most rural county in England and the particular challenges that it has in delivering services?

    Hansard source

  33. ParliamentSir Julian Lewis

    Topical Questions

    Do the Government accept that it is possible to bring in elected mayors and new strategic authorities without forcibly merging county and district councils in unwanted, cumbersome and remote unitary authorities?

    Hansard source

  34. ParliamentSir Julian Lewis

    Manchester Terrorism Attack

    As in the case of the attack on Parliament in 2017, this attack was a combination of the use of a vehicle as a deadly weapon and an attempt to break into premises to kill people indiscriminately. On both occasions, brave men had to sacrifice their life to prevent access. Would it not be a sensible first step for all vulnerable premises to have doors that can be easily locked, so that people do not have to put themselves at risk physically holding them closed? I congratulate the Home Secretary on an excellent statement.

    Hansard source

  35. ParliamentSir Julian Lewis

    Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

    The Minister says that it is for another Department to decide whether the Chinese Government should have a new embassy. That is certainly true, but the proposed new embassy is so large that it would be the biggest embassy in any country anywhere in Europe. That has national security implications, and if the Minister wants to encourage people to believe that the Government are not cosying up to communist China, he should make recommendations accordingly. May I just ask the Minister about the extract he read from the 1911 Act? I will read a slightly fuller one, though still one with ellipses: “If any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State…obtains or communicates to any other person any…document or information which…might be…directly or indirectly useful to an enemy; he shall be guilty of felony”. My reading of that extract from the Act is that the felony lies in the disclosure to anyone at all—it does not have to be directly to an enemy. Whether or not China was regarded as an enemy at the time, the nature of the sensitive material disclosed meant it was a felony, even if it was disclosed to a China that was not regarded as an enemy. Surely the trial should have gone ahead.

    Hansard source

  36. ParliamentSir John Whittingdale

    Topical Questions

    T2. Whether Essex ends up with three, four or five authorities under the local government reforms, my constituents will certainly come under an authority that is no longer local. As part of the reforms, will more powers be devolved to town and parish councils that are able to understand and properly reflect their local residents?

    Hansard source

  37. ParliamentSir John Hayes

    Digital ID

    If it were not so sinister, it would be quaint to hear the Secretary of State say that it is international, novel and modern, and therefore it must be good. Try telling that to Jaguar Land Rover workers, M&S customers, or postmasters and postmistresses. Will the right hon. Lady recognise what I recognised when I was the Home Office Minister responsible for national cyber-security: when one concentrates data and makes it interconnected and interoperable, one also concentrates risk, and the risk is that people lives will be damaged and possibly even destroyed?

    Hansard source

  38. ParliamentSir Jeremy Wright

    Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

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

    Hansard source

  39. ParliamentSir Jeremy Hunt

    Topical Questions

    My constituent Steve Dally was charged £70,000 by Liberal Democrat-controlled Waverley borough council for the apparent crime of building a home extension. I met the Housing Minister earlier this year to talk about abuse of the community infrastructure levy. Could he update the House on his plans to stop it?

    Hansard source

  40. ParliamentSir Jeremy Hunt

    Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

    The Minister said categorically and very carefully that the National Security Adviser took no decisions as to the contents of the evidence provided to the CPS. Will he clarify for the House whether the NSA had any influence at all—direct or indirect, and whether about provision or omission—over the contents of that evidence, provided by his own deputy, which led to the collapse of the trial?

    Hansard source