PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Engagements - 15 October 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

As you have just said, Mr Speaker, today marks four years since the horrific murder of Sir David Amess. Sir David was much loved across the House, kind and generous, and I know it was a huge loss to many Members opposite. May he rest in peace.

As we remember Sir David and our friend Jo Cox, of course, I want to take this opportunity to condemn unequivocally the death threats made against the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). I know the whole House will welcome the justice that has been done. Whatever our disagreements, we are all parliamentarians, and I will not stand for violence or threats against our democracy.

Mr Speaker, on that point, may I update the House on the China spy case? I am deeply disappointed by the outcome. We wanted to see prosecutions. Mr Speaker, I know just how seriously, rightly, that you take these matters. National security will always be the first priority of this Government, and we will always defend against espionage. In recent weeks, baseless accusations have been put about by the party opposite. Let me set out the facts. The relevant period was when these offences took place. That was under the Conservative Government between the years of 2021 and 2023. That period was bookended by the integrated review of 2021—the beginning of the period—and the refresh of that review in 2023, setting out their policy. These statements of Government policy were very carefully worded to not describe China as an enemy. Instead—[Interruption.]

Mr Stuart, somebody who is on the Speaker’s panel, and who I have told once before, should know better. Do not question my judgment. I thought it was important that the Prime Minister tells the House first rather than somewhere else. Please, this is very important to me and to the House. I take it seriously, so I do not need any more side comments.

The review of ’21 and the refresh of ’23 were very carefully worded to not describe China as an enemy. Instead, they stated that they would “increase…national security protections” where China poses “a threat” and that the then Government would “engage…with China” to “leave room” open for “constructive and predictable relations”.

The deputy National Security Adviser, Matt Collins, set out the then Government’s position in a substantive witness statement in 2023, which was subsequently supplemented by two further short statements. The Cabinet Secretary assures me that the DNSA faithfully set out the policy of the then Tory Government. I know at first hand that the DNSA is a civil servant of the utmost integrity, and those Opposition Members who worked with him, I am sure, would agree with that assessment.

Under this Government, no Minister or special adviser played any role in the provision of evidence. I cannot say what the position was of the previous Government in relation to the involvement of Ministers or special advisers. If the Leader of the Opposition knows the answer to that question, and I suspect that she does, I invite her to update the House.

Last night, the Crown Prosecution Service clarified that, in its view, the decision whether to publish the witness statements of the DNSA is for the Government. I therefore carefully considered this question this morning, and after legal advice, I have decided to publish the witness statements. Given the information contained, we will conduct a short process, but I want to make it clear that I intend to publish the witness statements in full.

To be clear, had the Conservatives been quicker in updating our legislation—a review that started in 2015—these individuals could have been prosecuted and we would not be where we are now. I am happy to answer any questions on this.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

We want a country where young people are supported, where the quality of teaching is raised and where every skilled apprentice is valued and respected. We have set a new target of two thirds of young people to be in an apprenticeship or university. That will smash the glass ceiling and renew our country. We have supported this with a record £3 billion budget for more apprenticeships, more technical colleges and guaranteed training, apprenticeships or work for all 18 to 21-year-olds.

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Speaker, thank you for marking four years since the terrible murder of Sir David Amess. I know the whole House will want to join me in remembering our former colleague. He is very much still in our hearts and minds. The way he died reminds us that the security of Members and this Parliament is paramount, so it concerns us all that the case against two people spying on Members of this House has collapsed. It is simply unbelievable.

Exactly as I expected, the Prime Minister had to be dragged out at the top of PMQs to give a statement that answers no questions. [Laughter.] I don’t know what they are laughing at; we are talking about the security of this Parliament. He had to be dragged out only to repeat more obfuscation. It is simply unbelievable that he is trying to say that the last Government did not classify China as a threat, so I will refresh his memory.

In 2021, the previous Government’s integrated review described China as

“the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security.”

In 2024, the then Minister for Security said from the Dispatch Box that China poses a threat. But let us leave aside the Government. In November 2022, the director general of MI5 classified China as a threat in his remarks. How is it possible that the Government failed to provide the evidence that the CPS needed to prosecute?

The substantive evidence was provided in 2023 by the previous Government. That is when the witness statement was submitted. I am going to disclose it; Members will all be able to read it. The substantive evidence was written, disclosed and submitted in 2023, under the previous Government. I note that the Leader of the Opposition did not indicate whether Ministers were involved in that at the time.

The Leader of the Opposition questions what is in the refreshed reviews of 2021 and 2023. Let me be clear: the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, gave a speech at Mansion House one month after the arrests. It was called “Our position on China” and set out the Government’s policy. He said in that speech that summing up China as a “threat” in “one word” would be

“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise.”

He was Foreign Secretary at the time.

It was not just the right hon. Member for Braintree. The Leader of the Opposition was Business Secretary at the time. In September 2023—the relevant year—she said:

“We certainly should not be describing China as a foe”.

It is worth looking up the word “foe” in the dictionary. It does not end there. In September 2024, she said:

“I have shied away from calling China a threat”.

She is playing politics with national security.

The Prime Minister can read the beginning of a quote, but let me finish that quote. At the end of the quote that he just read out, I did describe China as a threat. But his whataboutery neglects the fact that the spies were charged under a Conservative Government and let off under Labour.

The Prime Minister has not answered any questions. On Monday, the Security Minister repeatedly told the House that Ministers did not take decisions and that it was the deputy National Security Adviser who had full freedom. Are the Government seriously saying that only one man—the deputy National Security Adviser—had anything to do with this failure? Is that Prime Minister seriously saying that the deputy did not discuss with the National Security Adviser, the Home Secretary or anyone in Downing Street? Is the Prime Minister seriously saying that?

Yes, and let me explain why. First, the case was charged under the last Government, according to the evidence submitted under that Government, who set out their policy position. What was on issue in the trial is not the position of the current Government, but the position of the last Government. They carefully avoided describing China as an enemy because that was their policy at the time. As far as the position under this Government is concerned, no Minister or special adviser was involved. I will double-check this—[Interruption.] This is important. After the charging decision, the prosecution were very careful about who would then see the witness evidence. I will double-check exactly what instruction was taken, but I can be absolutely clear that no Minister was involved, no special adviser was involved in this. I am as assured as I can be that the prosecution was saying that it would be the witnesses only who would be involved in short updates to the evidence that was submitted under the previous Government.

The end of the answer was different from the beginning of the answer. What on earth is the point of us having a lawyer rather than a leader as the Prime Minister if he cannot even get the law right on a matter of national security? He keeps going back to the CPS. The CPS has said that it was satisfied that it was right to charge in August 2024. The Sunday Times reported that Jonathan Powell, the Prime Minister’s National Security Adviser, convened a secret meeting to discuss the security consequences of the China spy trial. Did that meeting happen, or is The Sunday Times making it up?

The right hon. Lady is clearly not a lawyer or a leader. The problem for her is that I do actually understand the law, and I know what has to be proven. I have also looked at the evidence that was put in under the last Government in relation to this case. There was a meeting in September; that did not involve the National Security Adviser discussing the evidence in any way. One further point: the final statement in this case was submitted in August 2025. There was no further submission of evidence, one way or the other, after any discussion in September. This is a red herring—a completely scurrilous allegation made by the Leader of the Opposition.

The Prime Minister has now twice directly contradicted the words of his Security Minister. They cannot both be right. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee could not get any answers from the Security Minister. The CPS said that it was satisfied that the decision to charge the case in April 2024—not August—was correct on the basis of where the law stood at that time. This is a matter of fact, not a matter of what the previous Government had thought, or of the case not meeting a legal test—it did. Something must have changed when the charges were brought and when the case collapsed. The charges were brought under the Conservatives and collapsed under Labour. Will the Prime Minister tell us what changed, and what collapsed the case?

I have said that I will publish the witness statements in full. The whole House will then see exactly what was set out in 2023 in the substantive witness statements, and exactly what was set out in the two supplementary witness statements. The right hon. Lady will then realise that what she has just said is entirely baseless.

The CPS has said in the clearest terms that this prosecution was dropped because this Government did not provide the statements it expected. Why should we believe a man who at the last Prime Minister’s questions said that he had full confidence in the best friend of a convicted paedophile? Forgive us if we do not trust a word he says. This all stinks of a cover up. Given his statement earlier, will the Prime Minister publish today not just the Government witness statements, but also the meeting minutes, and all the correspondence that he had with the CPS?

Let me be clear: the only process I want to go through is in relation to some of the individuals in the statements to make sure that they know that this is coming up. I can assure the House that there is no substantive delay here.

I know this is of acute concern to a number of people. I will have the statements out in full. There is a bit of proper process that I need to go through—the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) will understand why that is necessary—and then they will be published in full. The right hon. Lady asks about minutes etc. There are the usual rules and process for Government. I remind her that the substantive issues in this case were discussed at meetings under the previous Government, so the Opposition are asking me to disclose the discussions that they had in relation to the witness statements in the first place.

Mr Speaker, you deserve better, and this House deserves better, than the evasive answers that we have had from the Prime Minister. Even the former Cabinet Secretary Lord Butler has accused the Government of being “economical with the truth” on this issue. The Prime Minister cannot tell us why Jonathan Powell had a secret meeting, when the Security Minister said he had no involvement the case. He cannot tell us why his Government did not provide evidence that China was a threat, and I suspect that the statements will not prove that either. He is blaming his civil servants, the media and the last Government. He cannot explain why he could not see this case through. He should have seen this case through.

Let me be clear about what has happened: a serious case involving national security has collapsed because this Government are too weak to stand up to China. If the Prime Minister cannot protect the Members of this House, what does that say about his ability to protect this country?

The case did not proceed because the policy of the past Government did not meet the test that was necessary. That is the long and the short of it. Far from evading, I have said that I will disclose the full witness statements, and set out exactly what was in them, and exactly what the subsequent statements say. The allegation that somehow they were changed—that the first and second statements are different—is completely and utterly unfounded. This is a pathetic spectacle. Instead of taking responsibility for the fact that they failed to update the law—the review into the legislation was in 2015—the Conservatives took eight years to change the law. Had they done that more quickly, this case would have proceeded. It was their failure, and they are just slinging mud. Meanwhile, we are getting on with renewing our country, planning reforms to get Britain building again, online hospitals for waiting lists, and new opportunities for young people. Labour is building a better future; the Conservatives cannot even come to terms with their past.

My hon. Friend will have heard at our conference from Pooja Kanda, who I have met a number of times. Her son Ronan was fatally stabbed. Iusb am proud that we have delivered Ronan’s law to tackle the sale of ninja swords; we have also banned zombie knives and strengthened controls for online knife sales. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work in setting up the city safety summits.

I call the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats.

May I associate myself and my party with the tributes to David Amess? On behalf of my party, may I also pay tribute to Ming Campbell, who is being laid to rest today? That is the reason why my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) cannot be here. I thank you, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister and other Members of this House for the very kind tributes paid yesterday.

We welcome the new level of transparency from the Prime Minister, and we will scrutinise the witness statements closely, but it is clear that there are still many questions to be answered, including questions from Hongkongers. Hongkongers in St Albans and across the UK settled in our communities after they fled repression at the hands of the Chinese state, but they now see a British Government who want to make it harder for them to settle here permanently, refuse to impose targeted sanctions on Chinese officials who put bounties on Hongkongers’ heads, refuse to rule out a Chinese super-embassy and are failing to tackle Chinese espionage. Hongkongers are starting to ask whether the Prime Minister is trading away their security and safety in our communities for a cosier relationship with Beijing. What is the Prime Minister’s answer to them?

The answer is no. We have given and will continue to give support to Hongkongers, who need and deserve that support. The hon. Lady will be assured that the Jimmy Lai case is raised regularly at every opportunity by my Ministers and by me.

I think Hongkongers will require a lot more reassurance and action from this Government. It is not just the Chinese Government who are a threat to our country. On Monday, the far-right, racist hate-preacher Tommy Robinson, who is on trial for allegedly refusing to comply with counter-terror police, claimed that his legal costs are being paid by Elon Musk. It is outrageous that a man who has so much control over what people read online every day could be funding someone who stokes far-right extremism on our streets. If it was Putin, the Government would surely act. Will the Prime Minister commission the security services to assess the threat that Elon Musk poses to our democracy, and to recommend measures that this House can take to stop that?

We look across the board at threats to our democracy, and must continue to do so. I will not comment on the particular case, given the state of legal proceedings.

I join my hon. Friend in marking the heroism and sacrifice of the 29th Infantry Brigade, which is an enduring example of the bravery of all our armed forces. I know that Defence Ministers would be happy to discuss commemorating their courage. Our debt to the armed forces underlies our commitment to veterans, which includes delivering homes for heroes and a new network of veteran support centres, backed with £50 million.

Ahead of his party conference, the Prime Minister told the BBC that he was not sure whether he would campaign in Caerphilly for the by-election on 23 October. This is an important by-election in Wales, but with just over a week to go, the Prime Minister has not shown his face there yet. What is the problem? Is it his party’s decision to close 10 libraries in the community? Is it cuts to disability support? Or is it perhaps the fact that even the council leader resigned from the Labour party and is calling on people to support Plaid Cymru?

The right hon. Lady leaves out of her count that we provided £21 billion—the largest ever settlement for Wales—and what did she do? She voted against it, if you can believe it. While we are on the question of money, I noticed that this week, the right hon. Lady accepted figures showing that independence would cost every Welsh person £7,000. Her party should be honest about the cost of their policies to the people of Wales.

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I know just how important that school is to parents and children in his constituency, and share his determination to fix the broken SEND system. That is why we have boosted investment in SEND to £12 billion, to put new facilities and tailored support in place for children who have long been failed. We want decisions to be taken swiftly, and I will ask the schools Minister to update my hon. Friend about that particular school.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that food security is national security. I believe that our reforms strike the right balance, enabling investment in the public services that rural communities rely on. I thank him for drawing my attention to that report; he is right to do so. What really matters is increasing the year-on-year profitability of our farmers, which is why the former president of the National Farmers Union is leading a review of farm profitability for us. We are also delivering a 25-year farming road map and boosting export opportunities through the EU and US trade deals. That is backed by the £11.8 billion in the Budget for farming.

On behalf of the House, I wish my hon. Friend the very best for his recovery. I know that this is a deeply personal campaign for him—a campaign that is also supported by our hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West. May I send my deepest sympathies, and pay tribute to, Zoe’s family, who are with us today? Their bravery is staggering, and I share their determination to improve cancer survival rates. That is why we are investing billions to see earlier diagnosis and faster treatment of cancer, and are developing a national cancer plan. Of course, we will get a meeting set up, and if the family are available and it is convenient —I do not know whether it is—I will ask the Health Minister to meet them later today, or, if that is not convenient, at the earliest possible opportunity, so that they can have that discussion.

We will certainly not be following the Leader of the Opposition. She unveiled what she called her “golden economic rule”, I think it was, which involves £47 billion of spending cuts—that is a fifth of the NHS budget—with not a shred of detail about where the money would come from. The Institute for Government said that it was based on “shaky foundations”. More unfunded tax cuts, and more austerity for public services: the Conservatives have not listened, and they have not learnt.

My hon. Friend has been a strong advocate for his constituents on this issue. The Health Secretary has met the families affected by these failures twice, I think, this year to hear their stories, and I want to make it clear that what happened to their loved ones is unacceptable. The Health Secretary is currently considering the best way forward so that families get the answers that they deserve. It is right that they receive any update first, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we will provide that update as soon as we are able to do so.

Just a few months ago we published our small business strategy, which was based on what small businesses said to us. I will make a copy available to the hon. Lady so that she can give one to each of her constituents before they respond to the survey.

My hon. Friend is right: the Conservative party let roads crumble after years of under-investment. We are building infrastructure that working people rely on, with £1 billion to repair bridges, tunnels and flyovers across the country and £92 billion in major road and rail upgrades. We are rebuilding Britain; the Conservatives cannot even spell it.

The hon. Gentleman will have heard my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) a moment ago; I say again that what happened to his constituents is unacceptable, and we will give the answer as soon as we can. In the meantime, the hon. Member asks what is happening. We are getting on with recruiting 6,700 additional NHS mental health staff, we are building 85 new dedicated mental health emergency departments, and we have boosted NHS spending on mental health by almost £700 million.

My hon. Friend captures the choice before us as a country: we can either give in to division or come together as a country and renew our country. This is National Hate Crime Awareness Week, and in the past fortnight we have seen the horrific terror atrocity in Manchester and a despicable arson attack on the mosque in Peacehaven. I want to be clear as Prime Minister: I am proud to lead and to serve this beautiful, tolerant and diverse country. An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us.

As the hon. Lady will know, we have protected business rates bills from inflation and extended relief at 40%, with new, permanent lower rates set and introduced for retail, hospitality and leisure. As part of our small business plan, we are providing £3 billion so that lenders can offer more loans to small businesses. We are, of course, introducing the most significant package on late payments—a real issue for small businesses—and reforms that are bigger than any in the last 25 years.

Labour is introducing an elections Bill to protect our democracy from foreign interference. But look at Reform. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and his deputy, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), worked alongside someone who took money to spread Putin’s propaganda. Whatever their denials, they have serious questions to answer about what they knew, but that is the choice: Kremlin cronies sowing division or Labour patriots working for national renewal.

The lines that we have heard from the Government in recent days have been a conflation of fabricated stories trying to set up straw men and knock down things that have not been said. The real question in this whole debate is whether or not the Director of Public Prosecutions charged legally and properly. If they did, then the Official Secrets Act is valid, and all this talk about the National Security Act 2023, which I introduced, is completely irrelevant. If they did not, why is he not charging his successor with abuse of power? Well, we know the reality, Mr Speaker. Although the Prime Minister has answered the question about evidence, the real question is: what political direction did this Government give to their officials before they went to give evidence?

Absolutely none—absolutely none. I will also tell the right hon. Gentleman this: I was the chief prosecutor for five years, and I can say that in those five years, which included three years under the coalition Government, when we were taking difficult decisions on MPs’ expenses, not once—not once—was I subjected to political pressure of any sort from anyone. That is the tradition in this country. It is a proud tradition, and it is one I uphold as Prime Minister, just as I upheld it when I was Director of Public Prosecutions.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the statement that the Security Minister made earlier this week and then again in answer to a question today, I have been misquoted—and the misquote, I think, is significant. It has been said that I, in a speech at Mansion House, said that describing China as a threat was

“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise.”

The quote was that describing China or our policy “in one word” was

“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise.”

In that speech, I went on to say of our policy:

“First, we will strengthen our national security protections wherever Beijing’s actions pose a threat to our people or our prosperity.”

I finished by saying:

“And when there are tensions with other objectives, we will always put our national security first.”

How can I get redress for this misquote, Mr Speaker?

The right hon. Gentleman has put it on the record, and it is there now for all to see. I will leave it at that.